Do 'show plates' and mis-spaced plates invalidate insurance?

[Mr Taxpayer]

We've all seen them, a lot of us have them. What I wan to know is 'Do mis-spaced/altered number plates affect insurance cover and could this affect liability in the event of a claim?'

Changed fonts, mis-spaced letters, oddly placed bolts, metal show plates, etc all constitute an MOT failure and give probable cause for the Police to stop you.

It is a standard term of your motor insurance that you maintain you vehicle in a roadworthy condition. In inability to pass an MOT test would - to my mind - indicate that the vehilce is NOT in a roadworthy condition and thus the insurer does not have to indemnify you. Ergo, dodgy plate = not insured.

A factor in many claims is right of way, i.e. if you have right of way it's not your fault. Right of way means you are proceeding legally and with priority. So if you're speeding you are not proceeding legally and thus can't have right of way.

If you had a collision with a dodgy-plate bearing vehicle, it's not road-legal and thus can't have right of way.
Could you argue that the mis-spacing of the number plate so distracted you as to cause you to collide with said vehicle? In in such a circumstance who would be liable?

Any had any experience of this scenario?

And no I haven't just had this accident, nor has one of my friends, relatives or colleagues. It's purely a thought exercise. I used to work as an accident investigator and know that if insurers can find a just cause to avoid paying out then they will. Dodgy plates COULD give just such an excuse, but I'd like to know.

[supertouring]

Was once stopped by traffic police for a smaller front number plate and he claimed it invalidated my insurance because "it would not be identifiable on APNR".

Not sure how true this was but when I was stopped a second time for it some months later, nothing like this was mentioned.

[V8forweekends]

Mr Taxpayer said:

Do 'show plates' and mis-spaced plates invalidate insurance?.

Depends what you mean by invalidate, but on the whole despite the fact I loathe such plates and the passive-agressive inadequates who use them, I suspect there would be no effect on Insurance, even though they are strictly illegal and an undeclared modification.

Mr Taxpayer said:

Could you argue that the mis-spacing of the number plate so distracted you as to cause you to collide with said vehicle?

Not in this universe - although it might have some comedy value " I was vomiting when I saw the appalling taste of the plate, and because there was sick on the brake pedal, my foot slipped, etc."

Edited by V8forweekends on Tuesday 8th July 12:37

[Magic919]

No, they don't affect insurance or liability.

[ZOLLAR]

Mr Taxpayer said:

A factor in many claims is right of way, i.e. if you have right of way it's not your fault. Right of way means you are proceeding legally and with priority. So if you're speeding you are not proceeding legally and thus can't have right of way.

No it wouldn't invalidate the insurance.
Also the bit I've quoted, even if you're speeding you can still be the non fault party.
It can be difficult to prove speed in an accident and is only usually investigated if the losses are large, even then it's proportional blame.
There's nothing in your policy booklet to say you can't speed.

[rewc]

supertouring said:

Was once stopped by traffic police for a smaller front number plate and he claimed it invalidated my insurance because "it would not be identifiable on APNR".

Not sure how true this was but when I was stopped a second time for it some months later, nothing like this was mentioned.

Then why were you not charged with having no insurance? If having a smaller front number plate is so serious that it invalidates the insurance then why is the penalty so small?
Does having a vehicle that is not identifiable on APR invalidate insurance?

[jbsportstech]

Some insurers could of incorporated into their T&Cs because if you car is stolen then anpr is very helpful in tracking it. If your to cool for school and have a special plate for your special car and special needs then they might deem you to special to insurer.

[Mr Taxpayer]

supertouring said:

Was once stopped by traffic police for a smaller front number plate and he claimed it invalidated my insurance because "it would not be identifiable on APNR".

I can't see how "unidentifiable on ANPR" invalidates insurance. It's not an offence, after all, ANPR is only programmed to recognise UK number plates. If "unidentifiable" were an offence then every foreign car would be committing it. Unidentifiable, means if your car is flagged on the PNC as 'stolen', when it drives passed an ANPR equipped police, it won't read the plate and thus the occupants won't give chase.

And as another poster said, if it did invalidate your insurance you'd get a ticket for 'no insurance'.

[Mr Taxpayer]

ZOLLAR said:

There's nothing in your policy booklet to say you can't speed.

There's nothing in the booklet about trying to drive after playing 'drink-along-a-Dallas' either but try claiming when you've drunkenly parked your car round a lamp-post and see how far you get. Likewise they don't tell you not to go through red lights either. But it does say that you should keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition and operate in accordance witht the law.

[ZOLLAR]

Mr Taxpayer said:

ZOLLAR said:

There's nothing in your policy booklet to say you can't speed.

There's nothing in the booklet about trying to drive after playing 'drink-along-a-Dallas' either but try claiming when you've drunkenly parked your car round a lamp-post and see how far you get. Likewise they don't tell you not to go through red lights either. But it does say that you should keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition and operate in accordance witht the law.

There are conditions saying you won't be paid if you're under the influence of alcohol.

[Snowboy]

If you needed to make a claim it's very unlikely the dodgy plates would cause the insurer not to pay out.

On the other hand, if a prosecutor was trying a scatter gun approach they might try and argue the point.
I guess it would depend on whether it was a plate that was a bit small vs one that was misleading.

A cunning bolt to make G into C can cross the line between style and fraud - possibly.

[Mr Taxpayer]

ZOLLAR said:

Mr Taxpayer said:

ZOLLAR said:

There's nothing in your policy booklet to say you can't speed.

There's nothing in the booklet about trying to drive after playing 'drink-along-a-Dallas' either but try claiming when you've drunkenly parked your car round a lamp-post and see how far you get. Likewise they don't tell you not to go through red lights either. But it does say that you should keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition and operate in accordance witht the law.

There are conditions saying you won't be paid if you're under the influence of alcohol.

Point accepted.

But as V8forweekends said, they are strictly illegal and un-notified modification. So I'm wondering has anyone experience with raising this to an insurance company post-collision?

[ZOLLAR]

Mr Taxpayer said:

ZOLLAR said:

Mr Taxpayer said:

ZOLLAR said:

There's nothing in your policy booklet to say you can't speed.

There's nothing in the booklet about trying to drive after playing 'drink-along-a-Dallas' either but try claiming when you've drunkenly parked your car round a lamp-post and see how far you get. Likewise they don't tell you not to go through red lights either. But it does say that you should keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition and operate in accordance witht the law.

There are conditions saying you won't be paid if you're under the influence of alcohol.

Point accepted.

But as V8forweekends said, they are strictly illegal and un-notified modification. So I'm wondering has anyone experience with raising this to an insurance company post-collision?

In all my years of claims experience I have never heard of a repudiation for mis spaced letters, it can't cause the accident and it's incremental to the whole claim.
Contrary to belief insurers don't try and find any condition to repudiate on, it has to be relevant to the claim.

Edited by ZOLLAR on Tuesday 8th July 15:39

[V8forweekends]

jbsportstech said:

Some insurers could of(sic) incorporated into their T&Cs because if you car is stolen then anpr is very helpful in tracking it.

I am 99.99% that no insurer has done this.

jbsportstech said:

If your(sic) to cool for school and have a special plate for your special car and special needs then they might deem you to(sic) special to insurer.

Not sure what that actually means, but the fact remains, no-one's going to turn your claim down because of a pathetic chavplate.

[V8forweekends]

ZOLLAR said:

There are conditions saying you won't be paid if you're under the influence of alcohol.

This is true, but doesn't apply to all insurers.

[ZOLLAR]

V8forweekends said:

ZOLLAR said:

There are conditions saying you won't be paid if you're under the influence of alcohol.

This is true, but doesn't apply to all insurers.

Indeed, I usually state "varies per insurer" but was a bit short of for time.
They're certainly in the minority and I've yet to see one!

[Mr Taxpayer]

Ok, the feeling I'm getting is that an insurer currently wouldn't repudiate a claim on grounds of dodgy plates. So the next, and possibly more contentious question is 'Should they repudiate a claim if dodgy plates are fitted?'

Factors to consider:
a bolt can change a C to an E or G, 11 to U, E to F or C and vice versa, 17 to an O, etc;
It render the car an MOT fail and technically not roadworthy.
It's a strict liability offence.
It could constitute an un-notified modification.

Over to you...

[Magic919]

It remains a job for the Police. Hopefully they'll create jobs for Wardens that can ticket for this.

[Snowboy]

Mr Taxpayer said:

Ok, the feeling I'm getting is that an insurer currently wouldn't repudiate a claim on grounds of dodgy plates. So the next, and possibly more contentious question is 'Should they repudiate a claim if dodgy plates are fitted?'

Factors to consider:
a bolt can change a C to an E or G, 11 to U, E to F or C and vice versa, 17 to an O, etc;
It render the car an MOT fail and technically not roadworthy.
It's a strict liability offence.
It could constitute an un-notified modification.

Over to you...

Nothing should be allowed to cancel the third party element of the claim.

If the insurer wants to refuse to pay out to the driver or claim some costs back that's up to them.
My opinion is that it should depend on the intent of the drivers number plate and what they were doing.
Vanity plate - I don't care, pay out.
Doctored plate to hide identity while street racing - no pay.

Although, I'd hazard a guess that the criminal element that I'd rule against are probably only third party insured anyhow; assuming they are insured at all.

[ZOLLAR]

Mr Taxpayer said:

Ok, the feeling I'm getting is that an insurer currently wouldn't repudiate a claim on grounds of dodgy plates. So the next, and possibly more contentious question is 'Should they repudiate a claim if dodgy plates are fitted?'

Factors to consider:
a bolt can change a C to an E or G, 11 to U, E to F or C and vice versa, 17 to an O, etc;
It render the car an MOT fail and technically not roadworthy.
It's a strict liability offence.
It could constitute an un-notified modification.

Over to you...

If you have no MOT your claim is unlikely to be repudiated either.