>>Ask them how they know your car is "unroadworthy" the absence of an MOT cert is not an indicator of this,
It is fairly simple and entirely common sense.
Some policies require an MOT certificate. Do you have one or not ?
All policies require your car to be roadworthy. How do you know whether or not yours is ?
If it has an MOT and is not showing any symptons of unroadworthyness, then that's usually reasonable enough. Clearly you are expected to have your car in good order and it would be difficult to maintain that you could not reasonably know that your brakes have failed. However, it could be unroadworthy if the chassis was rusted almost through. If it had an MOT, how could you be reasonably expected to know that ?
If it did not have an MOT, then you could hardly claim that you had taken reasonable steps to maintain it in a roadworthy condition, could you.
If you are stopped by the police you are legally insured whether or not your car is roadworthy - clearly you may be guilty of other offences. If you have an accident, your vehicle may or may not be covered, you may have to repay other damages if at fault, if it is unroadworthy. It may be unroadworthy in a material manner and in a way which you could not be reasonably expected to know. However, it is reasonable to suppose that your vehicle should have a valid MOT, especially if an MOT test would have picked up the fault with the vehicle. If it does not AND it is unroadworthy, then things will not go well.
The word "reasonable" is both one of the greatest values within english law and one of its greatest nightmares.
|
Quote from the policy issued by the underwiter that prompted my question in the first place.
---------------------------------
General Exceptions
Your policy does not cover the following:
(snip, racing, hire, unlicensed etc)
Used in an unsafe or unroadworthy condition or, where such regulations require, does not have a current M.O.T. certificate ( You may be asked to provide details to show that Your vehicle was regularly maintained and kept in a good condition.)
--------------
|
I suppose you *could* intepret the phrase "...where such regulations require, does not have a current M.O.T certificate..." in such a way that you *would"* be covered if driving to a pre-booked M.O.T test.
AFAIK you are allowed to to use your car without an M.O.T certificate if its roadworthy and you're driving to an M.O.T test station for a pre-booked appointment. Therefore surely one could take the position that, since the regulations allow use of the car in that situation, you *are* covered...
Just my thoughts...
Peter
|
I think what often causes the confusion when these sort questions crop up this that you need to understand what is meant by "being insured"
Yes, you are insured - in that you have the legal requirement of third party cover
No, you are not insured - in that if your car is involved in an accident your insurer may refuse to pay the first party (you)
|
It is not the absence of an MOT certificate but the question as to whether the car was roadworthy. The burden of proof rests with the insurance company to prove that the car was unroadworthy (eg bald tyres)
A problem would arise if the car was a write off in an accident on the way to the MOT garage (or a fire in your garage). In this case it would be imposible to prove whether the car would have passed the test and the value would be lower, perhaps by 25%, as a result
|
And if you have declared sorn on the vehicle and it is parked legally on your property off the road and it suffers damage (fire etc) why are you not covered regardless of whether it is roadworthy.
If its not on the road why does it need to be roadworthy to be insured?
It is still of value to you etc.
|
|
|
|
Underwriters can make it up as they go along, just as everyone else can ;-) As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the key is that the "regulations" do not require the car to have a current MOT cert when driving to a test centre by appointment, so the insurance cover is in place. The clause is poorly written (nothing new there).
Again, as mentioned elsewhere, RTA cover always applies if the policy is valid, but the insurer can sue the insured for any payout if the car is used in breach of contract.
Would make an interesting case to argue with the insurer, the clause contains gross inaccuracies so is perhaps unenforceable.
|
|
|
|
>>Ask them how they know your car is "unroadworthy" the absence of an MOT cert is not an indicator of this,
>It is fairly simple and entirely common sense.
>Some policies require an MOT certificate. Do you have one or not ?
My point was that they have *assumed* his car is unroadworthy, I asked him to ask them what crystal ball they got that information from. The presence or lack of an MOT cert bears no relation to the cars roadworthiness.
And I agree with someone above who said the term "where such regulations require" clearly (to me) is saying if you drive to a pre-booked MOT appt then you are covered. The clause about being "roadworthy" applies to all times whether you have an MOT cert or you don't have one (and are driving to a test).
|
[sigh]
I suggest that , as Martin123 originally commented and did, anybody with any doubts or anybody who is in a position where it matters should speak directly with their insurer and get the party line in writing.
Unless you truly believe that contacting an underwriter and asking where he got his crystal ball is likely to change your policy Ts&Cs.
|
[double sigh]
You can read the policy wording as well as I can, it says the car has to be roadworthy, and have an MOT cert where regulations require it.
The OP did ask his insurer, and did get a reply. I am simply telling him to point out to them that they are in no psition to determine that the car is "unroadworthy" and to therfore ask under what clause or condition they have decided he cannot drive to a pre booked MOT appt. In case you hadn't noticed I am telling the OP to contact (again) his insurer - for clarification........
|
|
Since the regulations state you don't need an MOT if you're driving your car to a pre-booked MOT test, I would have thought that your insurance covers you, given the wording of that clause.
|
[groan]
I'm not going to try again writing to them. Here is what I asked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A question about the clause below please re MOT.
My vehicle is currently laid up due to the weather and the MOT expired this
week. It is currently taxed.
Would I be covered travelling to an MOT station? I know it is legal to drive
without an MOT and tax disk for the purpose of a test, but the wording of
your policy would indicate I wouldn't be covered by insurance.
regards
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And the answer again
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your email.
The underwriter has advised me that unfortunately you will not be
insured to drive to the MOT centre.
The only way around it would be to get them to pick your vehicle up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As the underwriter is the one who writes the policy rather than some broker who
interprets it then thats as far as II can go really.
|
Martin123,
Your insurer has not given you a satisfactory reply, they have given you no specific reason. You would be better off if you quoted to them your policy wording then say that the car is as roadworthy today as it was before the MOT expired, and any car on any day can be either roadworthy or not, an MOT cert does not make a car roadworthy. the lack of an MOT cert does not make a car unroadworthy if being driven to a pre booked test.
Tell them it is your opinion that your car is roadworthy.
Then mention the regulations which do not require you to have an MOT cert to drive to a pre booked MOT test.
IMO these two things combined mean you will be insured. and as they have disagreed ask them to clearly state their reasons why they have come to that conclusion. As I said their reply to you was not satisfactory and the least you can do is write to them again and tell them so.
Upto you what you do next, but you should atleast try to help yourself out of this.
And then even after that, I would still drive to the MOT centre and if it turned into a claim I would appeal their refusal to the insurance ombudsman.
|
>>IMO these two things combined mean you will be insured
Oh well, that's alright then. As long as someone who follows your advice can sue you for representing uneducated, simplistic yet pompous comment, ill-founded opinion and irrelevant statement as expert opinion.
The biggest problem with motor insurance in this countries is the 25 million experts who use it.
|
I thought you said your previous post was going to be your last attempt.
Instead of being so rude why don't you discuss where you think I am wrong. I don't say such rude things to you when you spout your opinion as though it were fact. Because I realise that it is only your opinion. Not to mention that I agree with what you have said and nothing I said (AFAIK) contradicts what you have said.
|
|
My last attempt....
The information given to Martin123 was either simplistic or wrong. Unless you have received a registerd letter givng you 7 days notice of cancellation to your last known address then you are covered IRRESPECTIVE of the state of your vehicle - if by that you mean legally covered.
Any additional insurance [e.g. accidental damage] will depend on the state of your vehicle, the relevance of that state to any incidence, and your adherence or lack of to your policy Ts&Cs.
The fact that your vehicle is not roadworthy does not per se negate your claim. That relevance of that fault tp the incident, the reasonableness of being aware of that fault, and the reasonableness of any actions you have or have not taken to avoid such faults are all relevant. Any breach of Ts&Cs must also be material and the insurer will need to show that had they known of that factor they would have treated the risk differently. i.e. you are supposed to give them your correct address. If you did not, but the address you should have given would have been treated exactly the same way, then that is not a breach that would enable them to avoid a claim, although they might be able to jsutify an additional premium retrosepctively.
Thus, there is an awful lot more to it than a bunch of armchair definitions and manipulations of what are, in any case, generic Ts&Cs in a world which is goverened by individual and specific Ts&Cs and the specific set of rules called the RTA.
Now, theorise all you will, but read your own poliocy, do not rely on what anybody tells you in a pub, chat room or bus whoever it is with (even me), always consult with your own insurer [not your broker, not some call desk person] and if it is important, get it in writing.
|
It sounds as if the mistake was in asking in the first place. If you had in all innocence read the clause, interpreted it to mean you only needed an MOT where there was a legal obligation to have one, and then drove very carefully, all would have been well. You would have been insured in the legal sense of covering third parties.
But now you have asked, you are bound by the answer.
|
... But now you have asked, you are bound by the answer
cliff pope - what makes you say that?
martin:
i.mo. martin made the mistake of putting the words in to the underwriter's mouth by stating in his question "... the wording of your policy would indicate I wouldn't be covered by insurance. .."
martin - this time do not assume anything, but ask them again to explain exactly how and why your car is not covered and ask them to name the underwriter who gave the opinion in the first reply. if necessary, suggest that they seek opinion of legal counsel before making other unfounded quick responses. ( i speak from experience of having got one these "expert underwriters" to eat humble pie ).
|
cliff pope - what makes you say that?
Because in the event (admittedly unlikely) of an accident and a claim, you would have put yourself clearly in the wrong by ignoring specific advice.
A coleague once made the mistake of trying to get specific advice from his insurance company as to what "using the car for business" meant. He was told that it included taking work home in his briefcase. What, even a single piece of paper? Yes, was the reply. A single piece of paper from work constituted use of the car on business. Better not to have asked, and then they couldn't say no.
|
>Because in the event (admittedly unlikely) of an accident and a claim, you would have put yourself clearly in the >wrong by ignoring specific advice.
Only if that advice was correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
