MOT and insurance
Discussion
I know this has been done before but can anyone give a specific answer to this little conundrum please?
We have a trip to Portsmouth and thence to France coming up. The person who's driving (his car) got it MOTd today and it failed. That's easy to establish just by putting the reg number into a website, and I see that ANPR can do the same. I doubt he can get it fixed and retested before we leave. That sounds like we'd be a sitting duck.
What's in the insurance position? Some websites say his insurance is void, others not. And if it's void, do we risk being pulled over, he gets the car crushed for being uninsured and we walk home?
We have a trip to Portsmouth and thence to France coming up. The person who's driving (his car) got it MOTd today and it failed. That's easy to establish just by putting the reg number into a website, and I see that ANPR can do the same. I doubt he can get it fixed and retested before we leave. That sounds like we'd be a sitting duck.
What's in the insurance position? Some websites say his insurance is void, others not. And if it's void, do we risk being pulled over, he gets the car crushed for being uninsured and we walk home?
It's a bit of a cricket score I'm afraid - 3 majors and a dangerous. We leave on Saturday. I actually feel embarrassed posting this.
Advice
Front Registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (0.1 (b))
Advice
Rear Registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (0.1 (b))
Major
Nearside Headlamp not working on dipped beam (4.1.1 (a) (ii))
Advice
Offside Front Hydraulic leak, but not excessive power steering rack (8.4.1 (a) (i))
Major
Nearside Headlamp has a product on the light source so that the light output is severely reduced (4.1.4 (b))
Major
Offside Headlamp has a product on the lens so that the light output is severely reduced (4.1.4 (b))
Advice
Nearside Rear Anti-roll bar pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Advice
Offside Rear Anti-roll bar pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Dangerous
Offside Front Upper Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded to the extent that control of the vehicle is likely to be adversely affected strut tower (5.3.6 (a) (ii))
Advice
Front Registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (0.1 (b))
Advice
Rear Registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (0.1 (b))
Major
Nearside Headlamp not working on dipped beam (4.1.1 (a) (ii))
Advice
Offside Front Hydraulic leak, but not excessive power steering rack (8.4.1 (a) (i))
Major
Nearside Headlamp has a product on the light source so that the light output is severely reduced (4.1.4 (b))
Major
Offside Headlamp has a product on the lens so that the light output is severely reduced (4.1.4 (b))
Advice
Nearside Rear Anti-roll bar pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Advice
Offside Rear Anti-roll bar pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Dangerous
Offside Front Upper Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded to the extent that control of the vehicle is likely to be adversely affected strut tower (5.3.6 (a) (ii))
Simpo Two said:
It's a bit of a cricket score I'm afraid - 3 majors and a dangerous. We leave on Saturday. I actually feel embarrassed posting this.
Advice
Front Registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (0.1 (b))
Advice
Rear Registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (0.1 (b))
Major
Nearside Headlamp not working on dipped beam (4.1.1 (a) (ii))
Advice
Offside Front Hydraulic leak, but not excessive power steering rack (8.4.1 (a) (i))
Major
Nearside Headlamp has a product on the light source so that the light output is severely reduced (4.1.4 (b))
Major
Offside Headlamp has a product on the lens so that the light output is severely reduced (4.1.4 (b))
Advice
Nearside Rear Anti-roll bar pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Advice
Offside Rear Anti-roll bar pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Dangerous
Offside Front Upper Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded to the extent that control of the vehicle is likely to be adversely affected strut tower (5.3.6 (a) (ii))
You coud get that lot sorted by saturday if you get your finger out tomorrow surely? Welding good enough to pass an mot isnt hard, it might not be pretty or long lasting but would get you out a hole, mig welders on marketplace are usually cheap.Advice
Front Registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (0.1 (b))
Advice
Rear Registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (0.1 (b))
Major
Nearside Headlamp not working on dipped beam (4.1.1 (a) (ii))
Advice
Offside Front Hydraulic leak, but not excessive power steering rack (8.4.1 (a) (i))
Major
Nearside Headlamp has a product on the light source so that the light output is severely reduced (4.1.4 (b))
Major
Offside Headlamp has a product on the lens so that the light output is severely reduced (4.1.4 (b))
Advice
Nearside Rear Anti-roll bar pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Advice
Offside Rear Anti-roll bar pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Dangerous
Offside Front Upper Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded to the extent that control of the vehicle is likely to be adversely affected strut tower (5.3.6 (a) (ii))
In almost all cases an MOT has no bearing on insurance, in fact the majority of insurance companies won't make mention of an mot at all. This is because many cars don't require one (less than 3yrs, more than 40yrs, exempt, etc) and also because they are uncomfortable that the assumption is that an MOT is an indicator of roadworthiness.
So from an insurance perspective, it's a non issue, but having said that, would you want to make a significant journey with a car that has the potential to have the suspension collapse and can't be safely driven in the dark?
So from an insurance perspective, it's a non issue, but having said that, would you want to make a significant journey with a car that has the potential to have the suspension collapse and can't be safely driven in the dark?
ThunderSpook said:
Plus they shouldn’t have let you drive it home.
Very likely they didn't?Back when I had cars like that, the MOT place would normally have contacts to get the welding done.
Regarding insurance, it's likely to negate any breakdown insurance, and do you want to go abroad without that?
In the old days, somebody would have suggested torching it in France and either staying there or hitching home.
I am sorry but, why are you even considering such an extensive journey in a car with a failed MOT?
Whether it is actually legal or not just think how the condition of the car bears on the following:
Whether it would be safe to do the journey.
Whether you would be likely to be covered by breakdown cover?
Whether you would be likely to be pulled (UK or in France, which in case you don't know is a different country with different laws to us) and what the implications of that would be?
Just don't do it!
Whether it is actually legal or not just think how the condition of the car bears on the following:
Whether it would be safe to do the journey.
Whether you would be likely to be covered by breakdown cover?
Whether you would be likely to be pulled (UK or in France, which in case you don't know is a different country with different laws to us) and what the implications of that would be?
Just don't do it!
cashmax said:
SteveDubia said:
Also any remaining MOT is invalidated.
Pretty sure that this is wrong, lot's of MOT / Garage services make this statement as a scaremongering tactic. A worn tyre can simply be replaced and the car driven legally if the old mot still has time left.“Legally, driving a car with a dangerous defect invalidates any remaining MOT certificate days. This means that even if your previous MOT was still valid, it is immediately nullified the moment a dangerous defect is identified”
I was cyclical when they told us ( wife’s near side front run flat had a bulge on the inner wall).
As started, they shouldn’t even let you drive it away.
SteveDubia said:
cashmax said:
SteveDubia said:
Also any remaining MOT is invalidated.
Pretty sure that this is wrong, lot's of MOT / Garage services make this statement as a scaremongering tactic. A worn tyre can simply be replaced and the car driven legally if the old mot still has time left.“Legally, driving a car with a dangerous defect invalidates any remaining MOT certificate days. This means that even if your previous MOT was still valid, it is immediately nullified the moment a dangerous defect is identified”
I was cyclical when they told us ( wife’s near side front run flat had a bulge on the inner wall).
As started, they shouldn’t even let you drive it away.
For example, your car can fail for a dangerous defect, you trailer the car away, get it fixed and then drive it until the MOT expires or you get a new MOT. No offence committed.
Edited by MustangGT on Wednesday 7th May 10:48
Insurance companies may refuse cover where a vehicle has no MOT where one is required; any excuse to deny a claim. This may be wrong of them but when has that ever stopped them.
The Ombudsman has in the past overruled insurance companies that have refused claims where there was no MOT, typically where there was no evidence the vehicle was unroadworthy.
Your friend's chances of being caught or needing to claim insurance are slim, so it's less a question of legality than it is one of morals and intellect.
The Ombudsman has in the past overruled insurance companies that have refused claims where there was no MOT, typically where there was no evidence the vehicle was unroadworthy.
Your friend's chances of being caught or needing to claim insurance are slim, so it's less a question of legality than it is one of morals and intellect.
Edited by skyebear on Wednesday 7th May 09:39
Simpo Two said:
I know this has been done before but can anyone give a specific answer to this little conundrum please?
We have a trip to Portsmouth and thence to France coming up. The person who's driving (his car) got it MOTd today and it failed. That's easy to establish just by putting the reg number into a website, and I see that ANPR can do the same. I doubt he can get it fixed and retested before we leave. That sounds like we'd be a sitting duck.
What's in the insurance position? Some websites say his insurance is void, others not. And if it's void, do we risk being pulled over, he gets the car crushed for being uninsured and we walk home?
This has got to be a windup, especially given the detail of the failures listed later. We have a trip to Portsmouth and thence to France coming up. The person who's driving (his car) got it MOTd today and it failed. That's easy to establish just by putting the reg number into a website, and I see that ANPR can do the same. I doubt he can get it fixed and retested before we leave. That sounds like we'd be a sitting duck.
What's in the insurance position? Some websites say his insurance is void, others not. And if it's void, do we risk being pulled over, he gets the car crushed for being uninsured and we walk home?
SteveDubia said:
Have a search around.
“Legally, driving a car with a dangerous defect invalidates any remaining MOT certificate days. This means that even if your previous MOT was still valid, it is immediately nullified the moment a dangerous defect is identified”
Google is hardly your friend when it comes to these sort of matters. Depending how you phrase the same question, the following answers are returned: :“Legally, driving a car with a dangerous defect invalidates any remaining MOT certificate days. This means that even if your previous MOT was still valid, it is immediately nullified the moment a dangerous defect is identified”
1. Yes, a dangerous MOT failure voids the existing MOT certificate.
2. No, a dangerous MOT failure does not immediately invalidate your existing MOT certificate.
See MustangGT's response for the correct answer.
Thanks everyone for the rational albeit slightly varied answers!
I'm actually extremely annoyed that he's let his car get this bad, and would consider driving us to France in it. But we've been friends for 30+ years and we're not gong to fall out over it.
Results from the internet are contradictory - for example when I put the reg into mib.org.uk it comes up as Not Insured. But he did it and it came up with Insured (he sent me a screenshot). Either way, I have made it clear to him - and he's accepted - that this is time for full disclosure and he's going to call his insurers to be 100% sure. Getting pulled over by Plod and is NOT a risk to take. I won't get a fine or points but we'd lose the holiday.
On the mechanical side, I agree it's not ideal, but we don't need to drive after dark and the roads are good. I've asked him to check the breakdown cover; it may be that if the car is still insured then the cover is valid.
If the car isn't insured in light of the MOT fail and details, my car only has two seats so that's not an option; however the third member of the party may be persuaded to donate theirs to the cause (which would mean changing the ferry bookings and everything else). Last stop is a hire car.
I have at least managed to persuade him to take this seriously, such that I think I've saved the holiday.
ETA: He's just phoned me; he's decided to bin all the risks and he's hired a car at his own expense!
I'm actually extremely annoyed that he's let his car get this bad, and would consider driving us to France in it. But we've been friends for 30+ years and we're not gong to fall out over it.
Results from the internet are contradictory - for example when I put the reg into mib.org.uk it comes up as Not Insured. But he did it and it came up with Insured (he sent me a screenshot). Either way, I have made it clear to him - and he's accepted - that this is time for full disclosure and he's going to call his insurers to be 100% sure. Getting pulled over by Plod and is NOT a risk to take. I won't get a fine or points but we'd lose the holiday.
On the mechanical side, I agree it's not ideal, but we don't need to drive after dark and the roads are good. I've asked him to check the breakdown cover; it may be that if the car is still insured then the cover is valid.
If the car isn't insured in light of the MOT fail and details, my car only has two seats so that's not an option; however the third member of the party may be persuaded to donate theirs to the cause (which would mean changing the ferry bookings and everything else). Last stop is a hire car.
I have at least managed to persuade him to take this seriously, such that I think I've saved the holiday.
ETA: He's just phoned me; he's decided to bin all the risks and he's hired a car at his own expense!
Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 7th May 09:57
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff