No MOT = No insurance fallacy

[Paul Dishman]

On PH we’ve discussed the commonly held fallacy that not having a MOT invalidates insurance.

I’m having an argument on FB about this and could do with an official link to prove my point

Can anyone kindly point me towards such a link?

[joropug]

It will be in your policy documents, not any official link.

Something like "Vehicle must be legal and roadworthy"

[CharlesElliott]

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/12101...

EDIT: I don't think it is a fallacy. I'm sure there are circumstances where no valid MOT could invalidate a claim. The fallacy might be that having no MOT automatically invalidates your policy. It also needs to take into account whether it is the 1st party or 3rd party claim (or both) that is impacted.

Edited by CharlesElliott on Tuesday 2nd November 10:55

[jondude]

I always thought it was more no MOT or a car with an MOT that is then found to be unroadworthy (bald tyres, for example) could mean your own cover for damages risks lowering, but the insurers will meet the third party cover.

If they feel the bald tyres were a direct influence on the accident, you risk a much lower payout for own damage.

I would imagine the heavier the potential payout, the more the insurers will consider the lack of MOT or not well kept car despite MOT.

Having a MOT will certainly not guarantee cover is respected but sure, it is one extra box ticked. I think it still says (on the actual paper given) it is a worthless document once you leave the MOT station?

[DaveCWK]

Just ask them to tell you how it's possible & normal to insure a SORN'd car & drive it to an MOT, if the Insurance requires a valid MOT

[mmm-five]

DaveCWK said:

Just ask them to tell you how it's possible & normal to insure a SORN'd car & drive it to an MOT, if the Insurance requires a valid MOT

Because, as you well know, there is a specific exemption for driving to arranged MOTs

[megaphone]

Some providers' policies state a car must have a valid MOT. Tesco Insurance do.

"The car must be kept in good working order, including having a valid MOT if required,"

Page 9

https://www.tescobank.com/assets/tesco-car-insuran...

[rgf100]

Quick Google:
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/ICOBS/8/1...
ICOBS 8.1.2B

On my reading:
Your car is not MOTed. Another car drives into it while yours is stationary - they cannot reject the claim.

Your car is not MOTed. You come off on a corner and it's found there's a steering fault an MOT would have picked up - they can reject the claim.

This seems relevant, although it's a slightly different provision.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/12101...

What the insurance documents say isn't that important, if the ombudsman says it's unreasonable.

[catman]

My understanding is that even if it's in your policy that the car must have a valid mot, it's not enforceable and the Ombudsman has ruled that in previous cases.

[Griffith4ever]

catman said:

My understanding is that even if it's in your policy that the car must have a valid mot, it's not enforceable and the Ombudsman has ruled that in previous cases.

Indeed - an MOT is not proof that a car is roadworthy. It's proof it passed an MOT inspection on one specific day.

[Aretnap]

rgf100 said:

Quick Google:
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/ICOBS/8/1...
ICOBS 8.1.2B

On my reading:
Your car is not MOTed. Another car drives into it while yours is stationary - they cannot reject the claim.

Your car is not MOTed. You come off on a corner and it's found there's a steering fault an MOT would have picked up - they can reject the claim.

This seems relevant, although it's a slightly different provision.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/12101...

What the insurance documents say isn't that important, if the ombudsman says it's unreasonable.

That's correct. The principle was formally incorporated into the law by the Insurance Act 2015, though it had been part of industry regulations (ICBOS) previously.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4/sectio...

[NGee]

mmm-five said:

DaveCWK said:

Just ask them to tell you how it's possible & normal to insure a SORN'd car & drive it to an MOT, if the Insurance requires a valid MOT

Because, as you well know, there is a specific exemption for driving to arranged MOTs

No there is not.
The exemption is for VED not insurance. You must have insurance to drive to an MOT test.

[MustangGT]

mmm-five said:

DaveCWK said:

Just ask them to tell you how it's possible & normal to insure a SORN'd car & drive it to an MOT, if the Insurance requires a valid MOT

Because, as you well know, there is a specific exemption for driving to arranged MOTs

The exemption is for road tax, not insurance.

[SS2.]

megaphone said:

Some providers' policies state a car must have a valid MOT. Tesco Insurance do.

"The car must be kept in good working order, including having a valid MOT if required,"

Page 9

https://www.tescobank.com/assets/tesco-car-insuran...

Some providers state that the insured vehicle must also be taxed.

But, likewise no MOT, they wouldn't be able to void the insurance because of a lack of VED.

[Paul Dishman]

Great, thanks all for your help

[TTmonkey]

Insurance will always still payout third party claims against it, but you might struggle to get your own losses covered if you wilfully drive knowing your MOT has lapsed.

[SS2.]

TTmonkey said:

Insurance will always still payout third party claims against it, but you might struggle to get your own losses covered if you wilfully drive knowing your MOT has lapsed.

Do you have a source for that ?

[TTmonkey]

SS2. said:

TTmonkey said:

Insurance will always still payout third party claims against it, but you might struggle to get your own losses covered if you wilfully drive knowing your MOT has lapsed.

Do you have a source for that ?

It’s down to the terms and conditions of individual policies. If the police do you for driving without an MOT, if it invalidates your policy with regard to your specific terms and conditions, it could also lead to prosecution for lack of insurance. Depends how much they want to throw into the mix.

If your policy states it MUST have a valid MOT then that’s the rule from that insurer.

Google it, there are lots of articles covering these scenarios. No one article states a position that can vote relied upon.

[Lily the Pink]

mmm-five said:

DaveCWK said:

Just ask them to tell you how it's possible & normal to insure a SORN'd car & drive it to an MOT, if the Insurance requires a valid MOT

Because, as you well know, there is a specific exemption for driving to arranged MOTs

indeed. You're missing the point. If I have a car which has no MoT, does the insurance policy cover driving it to a pre-arranged MoT ?

[Dogwatch]

SS2. said:

TTmonkey said:

Insurance will always still payout third party claims against it, but you might struggle to get your own losses covered if you wilfully drive knowing your MOT has lapsed.

Do you have a source for that ?

I doubt if you'd find it in writing anywhere but I'd certainly agree with the general idea. Accidently missing an MoT is one thing but any suggestion of deliberate forgetfulness - perhaps aided by poor general condition - would certainly not produce a quick settlement.