# No Mot = No Insurance



## Eric the Red (Sep 14, 2010)

Is the above title correct, if you have no mot ur ins is invalid

Thanks


----------



## james_19742000 (May 8, 2008)

I would guess if you drove it on the road, then yes, unless you were driving it to or from a booked test appointment or to or from your appointed garage to carry out the repairs for an MOT.

Or maybe have a look at your insurance T&C's or ring them up.


----------



## A210 AMG (Nov 8, 2008)

Pretty sure No MOT = car not deemed road worthy = No insurance.


As above if you were on your way to a booked MOT appointment and the date was very close to the MOT running out you may have a case...


----------



## dcj (Apr 17, 2009)

Surely your insurance still has to be valid to protect against theft or criminal damage.


----------



## jcrease (May 4, 2011)

Any excuse not to pay out.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

With some insurers, yes. 

It was always a policy condition that a car had to be kept in a roadworthy condition, but some now also state that the vehicle must have an mot. Highway is one insurer I know that has this condition, but there are others. 

It will be contained in the "general conditions" part of your policy booklet. Don't assume you can drive to a pre booked MOT insured if your mot had run out, check your policy first.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

jcrease said:


> Any excuse not to pay out.


Or perhaps it is there to protect other members of the public from dangerous car that are unroadworthy?

I hate this sort of attitude, insurers don't do these things just so they can't pay claims, they are regulated and not permitted to impose unfair contract conditions. If a policy condition applies, it is nearly always there for a valid reason.


----------



## A210 AMG (Nov 8, 2008)

As a Driver its your responsibility to make sure the car is road worthy.

Screenwash, tyres, brakes, windscreen, body etc etc etc

I'm pretty sure no mot and your policy would be void.


----------



## SimonBash (Jun 7, 2010)

Shiny said:


> Or perhaps it is there to protect other members of the public from dangerous car that are unroadworthy?
> 
> I hate this sort of attitude, insurers don't do these things just so they can't pay claims, they are regulated and not permitted to impose unfair contract conditions. If a policy condition applies, it is nearly always there for a valid reason.


Agree it is all too common an attitude, as everyone appears to be an insurance expert these days.

Guys if you don't read the policy before you buy how do you know it is suitable for you?

As Lloyd says regarding roadworthyness, if a claim occurs and the proximate cause is the unroadworthyness insurers will look to avoid the claim, for example bald tyres and the accident relates to losing control of the car.....no insurer will pay that claim.


----------



## Eric the Red (Sep 14, 2010)

Cheers guys, its not actually me, its a friend and shes not long passed her test and she told me tonight that it ran out 3 days ago, also she went to a test station and they told her it would be £50 and she would have sign a contract for 5yrs that it has to go back to them, anybody heard of this, i told her not to do it.


----------



## A210 AMG (Nov 8, 2008)

^ that sounds dodgy.

Has she been pulled by the police?

If the MOT is up and only she, you and this internet place knows about it then get her to book it in anywhere tomorrow and get the bus to work until she gets it done.

The MOT fee is around £50 on its own. Signing a lock in deal for 5 years....well iffy


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Just seems a way of tying her in, I wouldnt do it. 

She needs to check her insurance policy to see if there are any specific exclusions regarding the car not being insured if not motd. 

Even if it isn't excluded, there are potential problems. Say she had an accident due to her brakes not working, without an mot, her insurers could enforce the roadworthyness condition. 

A decent garage may be prepared to the vehicle on their own motor trade insurance (provided of course their own policies don't exclude vehicles without an mot, I seem to recall that Chaucer do and it was one of the reasons I wouldn't deal with them for motor trade insurance) and find one without a 5 year tie in clause!


----------



## andy monty (Dec 29, 2007)

Eric the Red said:


> also she went to a test station and they told her it would be £50 and she would have sign a contract for 5yrs that it has to go back to them, anybody heard of this, i told her not to do it.


what the 

Send her in the direction of a local trusted one (if you know of any)


----------



## jcrease (May 4, 2011)

Shiny said:


> With some insurers, yes.
> 
> It was always a policy condition that a car had to be kept in a roadworthy condition, but some now also state that the vehicle must have an mot. Highway is one insurer I know that has this condition, but there are others.
> 
> It will be contained in the "general conditions" part of your policy booklet. Don't assume you can drive to a pre booked MOT insured if your mot had run out, check your policy first.


If this is the case why is it legal to drive to a pre booked mot because technically you would have no insurance in an event of an accident.


----------



## jcrease (May 4, 2011)

Shiny said:


> Or perhaps it is there to protect other members of the public from dangerous car that are unroadworthy?
> 
> I hate this sort of attitude, insurers don't do these things just so they can't pay claims, they are regulated and not permitted to impose unfair contract conditions. If a policy condition applies, it is nearly always there for a valid reason.


I did not mean using a dangerous car on the road but a car kept in a garage but for some reason has not been mot. For example I sometimes use a bike so may not mot the car for a couple months and keep it in the garage. When I have taken it for mot has passed first time. Just cause an mot has lapsed does not mean its dangerous.Would the insurer pay out if my garage was broken into and the car got stolen with no mot?


----------



## VIPER (May 30, 2007)

How is anyone supposed to insure a car on a SORN that they might be rebuilding/restoring etc. Until it's completed it obviously can't have an MOT, but will still want to be insured for theft/damage and so on. Are only specialist 'laid up cover' policies valid for that then?



Shiny said:


> Or perhaps it is there to protect other members of the public from dangerous car that are unroadworthy?
> 
> I hate this sort of attitude, insurers don't do these things just so they can't pay claims, they are regulated and not permitted to impose unfair contract conditions. If a policy condition applies, it is nearly always there for a valid reason.


With all due respect Lloyd, I can see your natural response to that being of this nature, as it's an affront to the industry you work in. However, you have to also accept that so many people have been on the wrong end of insurance policies and claims that have seen them out of pocket, through seemingly no fault of their own. I don't think even you could argue a case that the T&Cs of many insurance policies are so intricate and deliberately over worded and complicated, that the everyday man/woman in the street, doesn't _actually_ know every eventuality to which they are covered. Consequently, many will encounter a situation that sees them initiate a claim, only to find out they won't be seeing a penny recompence when they were previously of the mind that they were covered.

So, as I say, I empathise with being 'tarred with the same brush', and wanting to counter that, I really do and you're well within your rights to do so of course. But historically, for so many of us, there's justification for adopting such a view of the insurance industry as a whole.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Just to clarify, some Insurers have an MOT requirement in their policy wordings, some do not.

Those that do not will still have the condition that the vehicle must be roadworthy. If you have an accident on the way to a pre-booked MOT and the vehicle is roadworthy, then there shouldn't be a problem. However, if for example the accident was due to brake failure, without an MOT in place, you are on very sticky ground, as (putting aside the MOT is only good for the day it is tested etc) it will be much easier to determine a vehicle as roadworthy if it has brake failure AND there is no MOT in force. Hopefully i have explained that right?

Insurers can't differentiate between a well kept garage queen and dangerous vehicle, it would be impossible to do so. So the ruling is set as a standard. 

As for paying out for the theft of a laid up vehicle without an MOT, that will depend on if there is an exclusion in the policy, as mentioned, some have them, some don't.

There are more specific policies available for laid up cars that only cover Fire & Theft cover.

Another problem is conflicts on the Motor Insurance Database. This now records insurance, tax and MOT status, so if one is missing, i guess it causes problems with the database. This may be why some insurers have introduced the MOT exclusion, but i suspect it is more to do with there being less chance of them insuring an unworthy car if they only provide cover with an MOT in force.

It is also ties in with the fact that you must have an MOT in force to use a vehicle on the road (other than the pre booked appointments etc). In which case it would be wrong of insurers to endorse the driving without an MOT by not excluding from their policies.

Sorry jcrease if i over reacted with my response, i was posting from my phone and i tend to be more straight to the point as it is bad enough typing with my fat fingers! Of course people are entitled their opinion. To put it more delicately, there is often an unjust negativity to the insurance industry (yes, sometimes it is justified!) where the first reaction is "typical of insurers... / conning barstewards etc" pretty much no matter what the subject being discussed. Sometimes it would be better if the reasoning behind a decision was considered (things are usually in place for a reason, not just to get out of paying claims!) and, if after consideration no reasoning is found, then have a moan about insurers. 

I try to give an impartial view, i am a Broker and not an Insurer, so as such represent both the customer and the Insurer, but obviously the customers best interest is utmost.


----------



## jcrease (May 4, 2011)

My fault should have put my thoughts down in a more constructive manner.


----------



## hoikey (Mar 9, 2011)

I would have thought that with the outrageous premiums a lot of companies charge, things like this would be included as standard.


----------



## bradjsmith88 (Mar 24, 2010)

Shiny is correct... partly....

As he says he works at a broker, I work at an insurer.

For an insurer to enforce a policy exclusion it must be material to a loss. i.e. the lack of MOT must be relevant to the accident/vehicle being stolen.

Some insurers will take a flyer putting the wording in and trying to repudiate (throw out) your claim, but complain, take your case to the financial ombudsman and I can bet money your claim would be honoured. 

Unfortunately the industry suffers from the stigma of trying to throw out claims, which is one reason the Ombudsman is in place, but some insurers are trying to correct this. 

With regards to the MID, this does not hold MOT/tax details, only insurer and policy details.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

I'm sure i read somewhere that the MID now ties in with DVLA data bases (or there are plans for it to) to make the CIE process almost automated? You can probably confirm this for us.

Markerstudy (for example) have a specific policy condition that states "Your motor policy does not cover any accident, injury, loss, damage or liability when any vehicle covered by this motor policy is ..... in an unsafe or un-roadworthy condition or, where such regulations require, does not have a current MOT certificate." 

At best, i can see them honouring a TP payment under the RTA, but i'm not convinced the Ombudsman would necessarily rule in the policyholder's favour as far as a Theft/AD claims are concerned as it is a clear exclusion under the general policy conditions (along with the airside exclusion, driving without a valid licence etc).


----------



## SimonBash (Jun 7, 2010)

SimonBash said:


> Agree it is all too common an attitude, as everyone appears to be an insurance expert these days.
> 
> Guys if you don't read the policy before you buy how do you know it is suitable for you?
> 
> *As Lloyd says regarding roadworthyness, if a claim occurs and the proximate cause is the unroadworthyness insurers will look to avoid the claim, for example bald tyres and the accident relates to losing control of the car.....no insurer will pay that claim*.





bradjsmith88 said:


> Shiny is correct... partly....
> 
> As he says he works at a broker, I work at an insurer.
> 
> ...


My thoughts exactly, and personal experience that a client of mine had.

Thankfully the insurer agreed to pay on a ex gratia basis.


----------



## SimonBash (Jun 7, 2010)

VIPER said:


> How is anyone supposed to insure a car on a SORN that they might be rebuilding/restoring etc. Until it's completed it obviously can't have an MOT, but will still want to be insured for theft/damage and so on. Are only specialist 'laid up cover' policies valid for that then?
> 
> With all due respect Lloyd, I can see your natural response to that being of this nature, as it's an affront to the industry you work in. However, you have to also accept that so many people have been on the wrong end of insurance policies and claims that have seen them out of pocket, through seemingly no fault of their own. I don't think even you could argue a case that the T&Cs of many insurance policies are so intricate and deliberately over worded and complicated, that the everyday man/woman in the street, doesn't _actually_ know every eventuality to which they are covered. Consequently, many will encounter a situation that sees them initiate a claim, only to find out they won't be seeing a penny recompence when they were previously of the mind that they were covered.
> 
> So, as I say, I empathise with being 'tarred with the same brush', and wanting to counter that, I really do and you're well within your rights to do so of course. But historically, for so many of us, there's justification for adopting such a view of the insurance industry as a whole.


I have to say having helped friends and others try and resolve these difficult claims that 9 times out of 10 the 'issue' is created by the person taking out the policy no giving full and/or 100% honest answers.

Most insurance policies are now in plain English to avoid this stereotypical comment regarding policy terms and conditions. The problem is that the vast majority of people buying insurance do not read them. Therefore how would they know the scope, level and limitations of the policy they have decided to buy?

I believe that most people concern themselves with the price, excess, level of cover, maybe the insurance company (if they have heard of them etc).....and that is about it.

Lloyd posts a lot of very good insurance advice on here for *FREE*, I have seen and continue to see a much lower standard of advice being given to clients who are being charged substantial amounts of money for it.

Oh and by the way, I have seen a very recent theft claim that was not covered as the driver left his key on top of the wheel.......as normal the insurer sent out a claims investigator, the policyholder was honest and told them that their driver had probably left the key on the wheel (when the car was parked up overnight) even though he had been repremanded for doing so before. As the client was so honest the insurer decided to pay the claim even though they could very easily have avoided it.

Bashing :lol: insurance companies and the like is always popular though isn't it.......:wall:


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

I'm more than happy to start charging..

In all honesty, this is just my way of contributing to the forum community. People who know about IT have helped me when i have a problem with my pc, pro's have helped me with product advice, and there is also someone to help out with advice from experience in their chosen field. For my sins, i have spent what feels like many lifetimes in the insurance industry as a high street Broker, so i am happy to help out where i can. :thumb:


----------



## bradjsmith88 (Mar 24, 2010)

Shiny said:


> I'm sure i read somewhere that the MID now ties in with DVLA data bases (or there are plans for it to) to make the CIE process almost automated? You can probably confirm this for us.
> 
> Markerstudy (for example) have a specific policy condition that states "Your motor policy does not cover any accident, injury, loss, damage or liability when any vehicle covered by this motor policy is ..... in an unsafe or un-roadworthy condition or, where such regulations require, does not have a current MOT certificate."
> 
> At best, i can see them honouring a TP payment under the RTA, but i'm not convinced the Ombudsman would necessarily rule in the policyholder's favour as far as a Theft/AD claims are concerned as it is a clear exclusion under the general policy conditions (along with the airside exclusion, driving without a valid licence etc).


The CIE is a bit of a farce. It kicked in middle of last year if i remember correctly? 1 month after it started the the government announced they had signed a contract that began in November for a company to start comparing the MID and Tax databases. So inbetween...?

With regards to the Markerstudy clause, yes they are common, the company I work for had them, but the onus is on the insurer to show it is relevant. Like bald tyres on a dry road, more or less grip? To get an idea of ombudsman way of thinking take a read through their website, the keys in car releases are quite enlightening on their thought process.

As I said some insurers will still have a go, throw out the claim hoping the insured doesn't go to the ombudsman and they save some cash.

With regards to at best RTA for TP claim... RTA insurer status is not optional! Its an agreement between insurers. Then there is A75 under that before it falls to MIB. Yes it might mean an unsatisfied judgement but it is in the insurers interest to not bother and settle to reduce costs.

P.S. With regards to clauses not being clear, the ombudsman has a big thing that unusual exclusions must be brought to the customers attention at time of sale. So there is an argument there, however you must remember insurance is a contract. If you knowingly ignore the contents of the contract you acknowledge you are not aware of the content and may fall foul of it!


----------



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

In a similar note, would a SORN car with no MOT still remain insured? 

Only reason I ask is that my Megane is also SORN but will pobably not be MOT'd until after the MOT has run out. I assume with it being SORN the insurer would deem it not being driven on the road so it would still be covered?


----------



## Rob_Quads (Jul 17, 2006)

Shiny said:


> I'm sure i read somewhere that the MID now ties in with DVLA data bases (or there are plans for it to) to make the CIE process almost automated? You can probably confirm this for us.


I think this is something I read about at work that we are working on this new system to link to MID in with the DVLA stuff...



> The new system, works by comparing the Motor Insurance Database with DVLA's vehicle database and is the foundation of the new Continuous Insurance Enforcement initiative, a collaboration between DVLA, DfT, and MIB to reduce the number of vehicles being driven on UK roads without insurance


----------



## SimonBash (Jun 7, 2010)

Alex_225 said:


> In a similar note, would a SORN car with no MOT still remain insured?
> 
> Only reason I ask is that my Megane is also SORN but will pobably not be MOT'd until after the MOT has run out. I assume with it being SORN the insurer would deem it not being driven on the road so it would still be covered?


Have you advised your insurer that the car is SORN? They may be agreeable to reducing cover to Laid-Up Fire & Theft (no cover for it being driven).

Best thing is to speak to your insurers as they all tend to have a different attitude to this situation.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

Shiny said:


> Even if it isn't excluded, there are potential problems. Say she had an accident due to her brakes not working, without an mot, her insurers could enforce the roadworthyness condition.


I would have thought the state of the MOT would not come into it. Your car was not in a roadworthy condition ragardless if it had an MOT or not. An MOT is, of course no guarantee of road worthyness.



jcrease said:


> If this is the case why is it legal to drive to a pre booked mot because technically you would have no insurance in an event of an accident.


It's legal to drive to an MOT station without an MOT; it's NOT legal to drive there without insurance, it's your responsibility to ensure you are covered.



hoikey said:


> I would have thought that with the outrageous premiums a lot of companies charge, things like this would be included as standard.


Well start your own insurance company, charge less and include this in the terms if the prices are outrageous.....you'll soon be an extremely rich man by your estimates! :thumb:

As with anything 'insurance' read your documents and don't listen to hearsay on the internet! Standing up in court with a screen print of DW will not hold any water :lol:


----------

