Why does not having a valid Tax Disc invalidate insurance
Discussion
Is that strictly true? I'm a bit out of date but IIRC under the RTA they have to provide a minimum of third party cover under most circumstances. Your tax disc could have expired but if a local scrote nicks it and causes damage and injury to others then it is your policy that pays up. Perhaps the BiBs could clarify the situation.
Having said that they will try and wrangle out of other liabilities using any technicality known to man. They will also put a whole load of disclaimers in your insurance paperwork, many of which they would have a hard time defending if they are challenged correctly.
pp
Having said that they will try and wrangle out of other liabilities using any technicality known to man. They will also put a whole load of disclaimers in your insurance paperwork, many of which they would have a hard time defending if they are challenged correctly.
pp
flemke said:
So if you have not been able to renew your tax, which expired yesterday, and whilst your car was sitting in your garage this morning it was stolen, your insurance is invalid?
Doesn't seem likely.
Doesn't seem likely.
My brother recently had a car stolen off his drive and burnt out - the insurance company (safari animal kind of place) took 2 weeks to check with the dvla if his license was valid and the tax was valid before they would process the claim - WTF!!! So if he'd been banned and left his car on the driveway while taking the bus and it was nicked then they wouldn't pay?? Sounds like just the insurance companies being the low-life scum we all know they are.
I've seen a fair few of the Traffic Cops/Road Wars type programmes. I've seen a fair few people being done for not having taxed vehicles. None of them were automatically done for driving without insurance as well.
I've never heard of the notion of no tax meaning no insurance. Nonsense surely? It doesn't seem quite fair otherwise, especially since insurance costs so much more than tax for many people.
I've never heard of the notion of no tax meaning no insurance. Nonsense surely? It doesn't seem quite fair otherwise, especially since insurance costs so much more than tax for many people.
When you take out "Insurance" it is a contract. Read the terms and conditions in the policy document as that is "the contract". If it says "no tax or SORN then no claim" then that's what you get. If there is no mention of the tax disc then it is not relevant to the contractual right you have over the insurance company for payment.
So Safari animal may be right, or not, depending on what the policy says.
Always read the policy, not just the advertising.
So Safari animal may be right, or not, depending on what the policy says.
Always read the policy, not just the advertising.
Eliminator said:
When you take out "Insurance" it is a contract. Read the terms and conditions in the policy document as that is "the contract". If it says "no tax or SORN then no claim" then that's what you get. If there is no mention of the tax disc then it is not relevant to the contractual right you have over the insurance company for payment.
So Safari animal may be right, or not, depending on what the policy says.
Always read the policy, not just the advertising.
So Safari animal may be right, or not, depending on what the policy says.
Always read the policy, not just the advertising.
Not so. The insurance companies would like you to think that this is the case. The insurance co can write what they want to in the contract, however, it must ultimately be fare and reasonable. Insurance company terms have been successfully challenged through the inurance ombudsman and now the FSA. Have a look on the appropriate website for some case histories.
pp
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff