Keeping NCBs valid
Discussion
I hope this is the right place to post this question.
I have a few NCBs that are due to expire soon as they have not been used for almost 2 years. I want to keep them valid and have another car which is SORN with no MOT or tax paid. Some companies do not state in their policies that I must insure a vehicle with a valid MOT or tax and some do state that the vehicle must be roadworthy. Without an MOT does the vehicle become unroadworthy? If I was to insure my car with no MOT or tax is there a chance the insurance company can give me trouble for it? e.g. cancelling my policy?
I intend to insure this car for a while just to keep my NCBs alive. So is there anything in the law that helps me avoid issues with the insurance company as I’m under no obligation by law to MOT or tax a SORN car? Thanks.
I have a few NCBs that are due to expire soon as they have not been used for almost 2 years. I want to keep them valid and have another car which is SORN with no MOT or tax paid. Some companies do not state in their policies that I must insure a vehicle with a valid MOT or tax and some do state that the vehicle must be roadworthy. Without an MOT does the vehicle become unroadworthy? If I was to insure my car with no MOT or tax is there a chance the insurance company can give me trouble for it? e.g. cancelling my policy?
I intend to insure this car for a while just to keep my NCBs alive. So is there anything in the law that helps me avoid issues with the insurance company as I’m under no obligation by law to MOT or tax a SORN car? Thanks.
Some thoughts...
How are you going to save multiple NCBs with one vehicle?
Are you sure that the cost of insurance is less than you'd lose with the NCB falling away?
Just insure it with someone who doesn't stipulate needing a valid MoT. Also check the wording here. The couple I have seen say something like it must have an MoT if the law requires it. If your car is not being used on the road, does it legally need an MoT? Especially if sorned.
Roadworthy means roadworthy, not whether it has an MoT or not. Although are you sure this is a stipulation of some policies? I haven't personally seen it, but I've not seen all the ins terms in the world
Bert
How are you going to save multiple NCBs with one vehicle?
Are you sure that the cost of insurance is less than you'd lose with the NCB falling away?
Just insure it with someone who doesn't stipulate needing a valid MoT. Also check the wording here. The couple I have seen say something like it must have an MoT if the law requires it. If your car is not being used on the road, does it legally need an MoT? Especially if sorned.
Roadworthy means roadworthy, not whether it has an MoT or not. Although are you sure this is a stipulation of some policies? I haven't personally seen it, but I've not seen all the ins terms in the world
Bert
Unless you have a very secure place or the car has no wheels on it , I'd have thought it would be a good thing to insure it! It is the other way round to try and stop illegal car use. If it is taxed, then it MUST be insured.
Insuring a car that is SORN or has no MoT is something I do frequently with older cars. You have to be able to buy insurance on a car with no MoT so that you can drive it to an MoT centre for a test. It is legal to do this.
As mentioned above though, you can only insure a car once. To insure it twice with separate policies is a no-no.
Check with your insurer too. Although it is usually a 2 yr expiry period, I was told on the phone by Direct Line that they will honour it for 3 years if it was earned or registered last with them.
You could also insure yourself on a vehicle that isn't yours as long as you declare this as such. I did this a few yrs ago to retain motorcycle NCD when I was without one.
Insuring a car that is SORN or has no MoT is something I do frequently with older cars. You have to be able to buy insurance on a car with no MoT so that you can drive it to an MoT centre for a test. It is legal to do this.
As mentioned above though, you can only insure a car once. To insure it twice with separate policies is a no-no.
Check with your insurer too. Although it is usually a 2 yr expiry period, I was told on the phone by Direct Line that they will honour it for 3 years if it was earned or registered last with them.
You could also insure yourself on a vehicle that isn't yours as long as you declare this as such. I did this a few yrs ago to retain motorcycle NCD when I was without one.
Would fire and theft only policies use and keep the NCB valid?
The lack of MOT would only come into question should there be a claim, which as you're only using it to keep the NCB, there won't be one anyway. And even if you did need to claim, it would be slim that they would check the MOT. No having an MOT doesn't void the policy. Roadworthy =/= MOT. It can be perfectly roadworthy without and MOT and have an MOT but not be roadworthy.
if and it's a very big if, the insurance company question the lack of MOT, you want to insure it for fire, theft and the trip to the MOT station when you see it fit to have it carried out.
Nothing can be over insured. The only problem is who's liability it is when there's a claim.
E.G My brother owns a car, I do not. I use my brother's car 50/50 with him. I am entitled to have a policy in my name insuring me on his car. He has a policy in his name insuring him on his car. Perfectly fine.
If there's a crash and i'm driving, it's on my policy. Him driving and it's on his.
I go out and park it on a street and it gets nicked. Who's policy pays? This is where it gets complicated. But to have the two policies running before it was nicked is perfectly fine.
EDIT: just re-read, if you mean OP insures the same car with 2 policies both in his name then that's a bit dodgy and probably not even worth it. The cost of insuring it for the year is probably more than the extra cost of having no NCB.
The lack of MOT would only come into question should there be a claim, which as you're only using it to keep the NCB, there won't be one anyway. And even if you did need to claim, it would be slim that they would check the MOT. No having an MOT doesn't void the policy. Roadworthy =/= MOT. It can be perfectly roadworthy without and MOT and have an MOT but not be roadworthy.
if and it's a very big if, the insurance company question the lack of MOT, you want to insure it for fire, theft and the trip to the MOT station when you see it fit to have it carried out.
ianwayne said:
As mentioned above though, you can only insure a car once. To insure it twice with separate policies is a no-no.
AFAIK, you can. You can insure a car as many times as wanted. You just cannot claim from more than one policy if there was ever a claim.Nothing can be over insured. The only problem is who's liability it is when there's a claim.
E.G My brother owns a car, I do not. I use my brother's car 50/50 with him. I am entitled to have a policy in my name insuring me on his car. He has a policy in his name insuring him on his car. Perfectly fine.
If there's a crash and i'm driving, it's on my policy. Him driving and it's on his.
I go out and park it on a street and it gets nicked. Who's policy pays? This is where it gets complicated. But to have the two policies running before it was nicked is perfectly fine.
EDIT: just re-read, if you mean OP insures the same car with 2 policies both in his name then that's a bit dodgy and probably not even worth it. The cost of insuring it for the year is probably more than the extra cost of having no NCB.
Edited by Kiribati268 on Thursday 30th May 00:53
Legally I think you are fine but I do also think you should run some quotes online with the NCB gone as new customer only rates and introductory rates (especially on the comparison sites where every insurer wants to be at the top of the list) can mean the money saved is little - if any at all.
ianwayne said:
As mentioned above though, you can only insure a car once. To insure it twice with separate policies is a no-no.
Not true. Do you cancel your car insurance every time it goes in for a service? If not it's insured twice, by you and by the garage who insure the car whilst in their custody, care or control. In many circumstances, 2 policies covering the same car is perfectly normal.
I can't see it being worth the effort, I've just bought a new motor, so changed the insurance policy, then decided to keep the old motor as a shed/tip car. I insured it with no NCB as that is on the other policy, and it was £20 more than my last renewal. It was more than that to pay for the protected NCB option on the ten year's NCB I had...
It's what I was told. Quote on another thread here:
"I was told (by an insurance company) that you can't have two policies on the same vehicle, this was with regard to a vehicle that I had insured for me but wanted to insure for my son, I had to cancel one policy before taking the other."
I agree that as long as you only claim on one if there's a claim, it's not an issue but insurance companies will advise you shouldn't because they want to avoid fraudulent multiple claims.
"I was told (by an insurance company) that you can't have two policies on the same vehicle, this was with regard to a vehicle that I had insured for me but wanted to insure for my son, I had to cancel one policy before taking the other."
I agree that as long as you only claim on one if there's a claim, it's not an issue but insurance companies will advise you shouldn't because they want to avoid fraudulent multiple claims.
steveo3002 said:
have you looked what ££ it knocks off?
i was in a similar spot myself and though about getting some cheap to insure banger to keep it up , the difference for me between 0 and 10 years was £80 so i let it slide , good chance you will spend more keeping it alive than the premiums
This. Perhaps the OP stands to make a greater saving from NCB, but I really think people get unduly obsessed with them. i was in a similar spot myself and though about getting some cheap to insure banger to keep it up , the difference for me between 0 and 10 years was £80 so i let it slide , good chance you will spend more keeping it alive than the premiums
BertBert said:
Some thoughts...
How are you going to save multiple NCBs with one vehicle?
Are you sure that the cost of insurance is less than you'd lose with the NCB falling away?
Just insure it with someone who doesn't stipulate needing a valid MoT. Also check the wording here. The couple I have seen say something like it must have an MoT if the law requires it. If your car is not being used on the road, does it legally need an MoT? Especially if sorned.
Roadworthy means roadworthy, not whether it has an MoT or not. Although are you sure this is a stipulation of some policies? I haven't personally seen it, but I've not seen all the ins terms in the world
Bert
You raise a very good point, all the policies that state MOT is needed also state if required by the law. There are two scenarios that I can think of straight away where MOT won’t be required, one of them being a car of historic value and the second being a SORN vehicle. Can anyone else confirm on this? How are you going to save multiple NCBs with one vehicle?
Are you sure that the cost of insurance is less than you'd lose with the NCB falling away?
Just insure it with someone who doesn't stipulate needing a valid MoT. Also check the wording here. The couple I have seen say something like it must have an MoT if the law requires it. If your car is not being used on the road, does it legally need an MoT? Especially if sorned.
Roadworthy means roadworthy, not whether it has an MoT or not. Although are you sure this is a stipulation of some policies? I haven't personally seen it, but I've not seen all the ins terms in the world
Bert
Kiribati268 said:
Would fire and theft only policies use and keep the NCB valid?
The lack of MOT would only come into question should there be a claim, which as you're only using it to keep the NCB, there won't be one anyway. And even if you did need to claim, it would be slim that they would check the MOT. No having an MOT doesn't void the policy. Roadworthy =/= MOT. It can be perfectly roadworthy without and MOT and have an MOT but not be roadworthy.
if and it's a very big if, the insurance company question the lack of MOT, you want to insure it for fire, theft and the trip to the MOT station when you see it fit to have it carried out.
Nothing can be over insured. The only problem is who's liability it is when there's a claim.
E.G My brother owns a car, I do not. I use my brother's car 50/50 with him. I am entitled to have a policy in my name insuring me on his car. He has a policy in his name insuring him on his car. Perfectly fine.
If there's a crash and i'm driving, it's on my policy. Him driving and it's on his.
I go out and park it on a street and it gets nicked. Who's policy pays? This is where it gets complicated. But to have the two policies running before it was nicked is perfectly fine.
EDIT: just re-read, if you mean OP insures the same car with 2 policies both in his name then that's a bit dodgy and probably not even worth it. The cost of insuring it for the year is probably more than the extra cost of having no NCB.
This could be a valid excuse too, in case they ask I can say I have not had the time to take it for an MOT and then cancel it after a few weeks. The lack of MOT would only come into question should there be a claim, which as you're only using it to keep the NCB, there won't be one anyway. And even if you did need to claim, it would be slim that they would check the MOT. No having an MOT doesn't void the policy. Roadworthy =/= MOT. It can be perfectly roadworthy without and MOT and have an MOT but not be roadworthy.
if and it's a very big if, the insurance company question the lack of MOT, you want to insure it for fire, theft and the trip to the MOT station when you see it fit to have it carried out.
ianwayne said:
As mentioned above though, you can only insure a car once. To insure it twice with separate policies is a no-no.
AFAIK, you can. You can insure a car as many times as wanted. You just cannot claim from more than one policy if there was ever a claim.Nothing can be over insured. The only problem is who's liability it is when there's a claim.
E.G My brother owns a car, I do not. I use my brother's car 50/50 with him. I am entitled to have a policy in my name insuring me on his car. He has a policy in his name insuring him on his car. Perfectly fine.
If there's a crash and i'm driving, it's on my policy. Him driving and it's on his.
I go out and park it on a street and it gets nicked. Who's policy pays? This is where it gets complicated. But to have the two policies running before it was nicked is perfectly fine.
EDIT: just re-read, if you mean OP insures the same car with 2 policies both in his name then that's a bit dodgy and probably not even worth it. The cost of insuring it for the year is probably more than the extra cost of having no NCB.
Edited by Kiribati268 on Thursday 30th May 00:53
The NCBs do knock off a fair bit off my premium so I think it’s worth keeping them.
321boost said:
You raise a very good point, all the policies that state MOT is needed also state if required by the law. There are two scenarios that I can think of straight away where MOT won’t be required, one of them being a car of historic value and the second being a SORN vehicle. Can anyone else confirm on this?
A car on which you never intend to make a claim does not need to be MOT'd eitherAfter all you won't be using it without an MOT will you, so no risk of a 3rd Party claim. And even if it got damaged or stolen while laid up you wouldn't claim as you would er, lose your no claim bonus
Wooda80 said:
A car on which you never intend to make a claim does not need to be MOT'd either
After all you won't be using it without an MOT will you, so no risk of a 3rd Party claim. And even if it got damaged or stolen while laid up you wouldn't claim as you would er, lose your no claim bonus
I think it’s whether you’re lucky or not. It is common to have a policy validated (e.g asking for proof of licence and address) during a claim but I have seen people randomly being asked to provide these documents even without a claim. So I think it’s a possibility of being asked for the MOT certificate randomly in which case I need a good excuse that can’t be argued against. After all you won't be using it without an MOT will you, so no risk of a 3rd Party claim. And even if it got damaged or stolen while laid up you wouldn't claim as you would er, lose your no claim bonus
321boost said:
You raise a very good point, all the policies that state MOT is needed also state if required by the law. There are two scenarios that I can think of straight away where MOT won’t be required, one of them being a car of historic value and the second being a SORN vehicle. Can anyone else confirm on this?
Here's another... when a car is less than 3 years old.But if you look at the general case when an MoT is required... there is not a law to ensure continuous MoT'd-ness like there is with insurance. You cannot drive on the road without an MoT (unless 3 years old, classic, going to an Mot etc). But that's it. The law does not require you to have an MoT on a car that sits in the garage for example. If you get a random send me your MoT request (which I don't actually think is a thing, but let's say it is), you simply say I don't have one as I haven't taken the car on the road since the inception of the policy.
Bert
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff