Insurance with no MOT??
Discussion
A question for the PH legal types
One of my flatmates (no -not me
) is in a bit of a dilema. Someone rear ended his car several months ago,they admitted liability straight away, his car was declared a right-off and he thought that was that. Last week the insurance co sent him a letter saying they will be paying him the agreed amount for the car if only he could just send his V5 and MOT. Here's the problem whilst looking for his MOT he realised it had expired by 1 month or so at the date of the accident.
Does this mean his insurance was invalid?
Should he come clean and tell them it slipped his mind, if he does so are they likely/obligated to pass his details on to the police to investigate for no insurance?
He's pretty worried about this so any help/ advice is greatly appreciated
One of my flatmates (no -not me
) is in a bit of a dilema. Someone rear ended his car several months ago,they admitted liability straight away, his car was declared a right-off and he thought that was that. Last week the insurance co sent him a letter saying they will be paying him the agreed amount for the car if only he could just send his V5 and MOT. Here's the problem whilst looking for his MOT he realised it had expired by 1 month or so at the date of the accident. Does this mean his insurance was invalid?
Should he come clean and tell them it slipped his mind, if he does so are they likely/obligated to pass his details on to the police to investigate for no insurance?
He's pretty worried about this so any help/ advice is greatly appreciated
Insurance is a civil contract and the MoT has no bearing on the cover provided.
If it could be shown that the vehicle involved was clearly unroadworthy at the time, and by that I don't mean a brake light bulb blown, I mean something which could have been shown to have rendered the vehicle as not fit to have been driven to or from the MoT station, that might be a different matter. The insurance company would need to identify this and it's not for your friend to prove it was roadworthy. Your friend must send the V5 as requested and ignore the MoT request. If they query it and delay payment, write and tell them that payment is due and that if further delayed a charge for interest calculated daily at 3% over Barclay's base rate will be due as well. If you wish, send the expired MoT as it is irrelevant anyway.
If it could be shown that the vehicle involved was clearly unroadworthy at the time, and by that I don't mean a brake light bulb blown, I mean something which could have been shown to have rendered the vehicle as not fit to have been driven to or from the MoT station, that might be a different matter. The insurance company would need to identify this and it's not for your friend to prove it was roadworthy. Your friend must send the V5 as requested and ignore the MoT request. If they query it and delay payment, write and tell them that payment is due and that if further delayed a charge for interest calculated daily at 3% over Barclay's base rate will be due as well. If you wish, send the expired MoT as it is irrelevant anyway.
I thought that if a car had no MOT the insurance was invalid in the case of an accident or theft, especially if it was kept on the road and not SORNED off ?
Suppose if you drive a car with no MOT and write off a car or say kill anyone, I'm sure the POlice would be havcing a word with you and possibly the insurance company would wash there hands off it.
Suppose if you drive a car with no MOT and write off a car or say kill anyone, I'm sure the POlice would be havcing a word with you and possibly the insurance company would wash there hands off it.
Again, the insurance is a civil contract made by two parties. The requirement for the vehicle to have a current MoT is not a part of this contract, neither is there a need for a valid RFL.
This is a common misconception.
For an insurer to refuse to pay out would require the insurer to PROVE that the vehicle caused a claimed loss due to known negligence on the part of the insured by using/allowing to be used, a vehicle with a known major fault, that fault being the proven cause of that accident. This could apply even if the vehicle had a valid MoT, as the MoT only confirms roadworthiness at the time and date of the test. For example, if your brakes partially failed and, whilst driving with it like that you crashed because you could not stop, you could well not be insured if the insurer could prove your foreknowledge of the fault. The validity or otherwise of an MoT Certificate is immaterial to this. You would, however, always be covered for 3rd part losses in any case.
Contrary to popular belief, insurers don't always try to avoid paying out, but they will be 'difficult' if they find you have not disclosed all relevant facts beforehand. If your vehicle is modified and you fail to declare it they have the right to pay only 3rd party claims and could, if they wished, then pursue you for their losses. However, they still have to pay the 3rd party out first.
If there is a clause in the insurance contract it is likely to be along the lines that the insured shall ensure that the vehicle is roadworthy at all times, and roadworthiness during the period of insurance has nothing to do with the holding of an MoT certificate. You could have 4 completely bald tyes, but still have a valid MoT. The vehicle would be unroadworthy, but the MoT would be fine.
This is a common misconception.
For an insurer to refuse to pay out would require the insurer to PROVE that the vehicle caused a claimed loss due to known negligence on the part of the insured by using/allowing to be used, a vehicle with a known major fault, that fault being the proven cause of that accident. This could apply even if the vehicle had a valid MoT, as the MoT only confirms roadworthiness at the time and date of the test. For example, if your brakes partially failed and, whilst driving with it like that you crashed because you could not stop, you could well not be insured if the insurer could prove your foreknowledge of the fault. The validity or otherwise of an MoT Certificate is immaterial to this. You would, however, always be covered for 3rd part losses in any case.
Contrary to popular belief, insurers don't always try to avoid paying out, but they will be 'difficult' if they find you have not disclosed all relevant facts beforehand. If your vehicle is modified and you fail to declare it they have the right to pay only 3rd party claims and could, if they wished, then pursue you for their losses. However, they still have to pay the 3rd party out first.
If there is a clause in the insurance contract it is likely to be along the lines that the insured shall ensure that the vehicle is roadworthy at all times, and roadworthiness during the period of insurance has nothing to do with the holding of an MoT certificate. You could have 4 completely bald tyes, but still have a valid MoT. The vehicle would be unroadworthy, but the MoT would be fine.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff