Pre 60, no MOT, insurance?

[john2443]

I've heard rumours about insurers arguing about payouts when the car is pre 60 and not MOTd - does anyone know anything factual?

Do insurers say anything in the small print about not paying out if it's not MOTd or do any say they will pay even if not MOTd - it sounds like we probably need to get an MOT even though it isn't required which is a bit odd!

[crankedup]

Never heard of this, I would have thought that if insurers take on to insure a car they would need to add the clause regarding MOT as a major issue on the application form. Also if a Company doubts the integrity of a car then they would have an inspection carried out by an engineer prior to taking the claim further.
Just my thoughts.

[Allan L]

With respect, starting threads about rumours is what gives forums a bad name.

It is, and always was, the responsibility of the driver that the car be maintained in roadworthy condition and the introduction of the MoT test did not change that, so the situation where the test is not required also does not change that.
Any insurer that could show that the car was not roadworthy at the time of the incident for which a claim was made and that the unroadworthiness was relevant would be entitled to reject that claim - and why not?

[tapkaJohnD]

I don't have a pre-60 car, but if I did would always get an MoT.
Havaing a dispassionate professional cast their critical eye over it is invaluable in spotting faults, real or potential, as long as you trust the MoT man.
And the cost is trivial compared to maintenance.

John