mot

[noggin_the_nog]

I have totally forgot to book my MOT...its six weeks over due...i have only noticed because we are off on holiday tomorrow and went to get car details...its a second hand car that came with car tax until the end of june and i thought the mot was due the same time...genuine mistake.....is there cameras on the motorway?

[woofgang]

Well but who is uk insurance index and what are they basing that statement on?

[trt]

Thanks nibble for explaining to the clever Joy-sticks and giving the wrong info to noggin!

[vulcan]

My insurance is due for renewal shortly and I recently received the paperwork from my Broker, a paragraph seems relevant.
"Many insures are now taking a tougher line(refusing to pay out) on claims where the policyholder has not taken reasonable steps to ensure their vehicle is roadworthy or properly secured.Examples are defective lights,or brakes, or the absence of MOT certificate."

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

From the DVLA website:
Why you need an MOT certificate
It is generally an offence to use on a public road, a vehicle of testable age that doesn’t have a current test certificate, except when:
taking it to a test station for an MOT test booked in advance
bringing it away from a test station after it has failed the MOT test, to a place of repair
taking it to a place, by previous arrangement, where problems that caused the vehicle to fail its MOT test, can be repaired
bringing it away from a place where the problems with the vehicle have been repaired
Even in the above circumstances you may still be prosecuted for driving an unroadworthy vehicle if it doesn’t comply with various regulations affecting its construction and use. Your car insurance may also be invalid.

http://www.direct.gov...ehicle/Mot/DG_4022108

[hc4361]

The effect of having no MOT on insurance is a moot point - many websites categorically state the insurance will be void; others make no mention of it.

This is the most responsible statement, in my opinion.

However, some policies state in the small print that an MOT must be in force. Only in instances where the vehicle has a fault which contributed to, or caused the accident, can the claim be rejected

http://www.parkers.co...your-insurance-valid/

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

When I worked in a repair garage, this is how it panned out as a rule..
If there was no MOT then they would wriggle out of as much as they could because if say you'd run up the back of someone, they would say they have no proff that your brakes were roadworthy. Most times this went 50/50 and you'd have to pay your excess and in some cases lose your no claims bonus.
It's very grey, but they're good at it. Also, you may not be valid for third party insurance so leaving aside the fact that you're willing to transport yourself and/or your family without an MOT, if they total you and hurt you, you may have very little provision.
I would rather you got an MOT thanks. I'd feel safer on the roads.

[flip_flop]

The UK Insurance Directory provides wrong information on both No MOT and Drink and Drugs - I'm of a mind to contact them and point out their mistakes....if I can be bothered.

The issue of insurance and no MOT is really very straightforward.

1 - Lack of an MOT cannot, by law, invalidate the Road Traffic Aspect of motor insurance and therefore damage to other property, cars and people will be covered.

2 - Unless the insurance contract specifically excludes own damage due to the lack of an MOT, which is very very unlikely (In a previous position I arranged stop loss re-insurance for a number of well known motor insurance companies and I've never seen such a condition), the insurer is contractually obliged to pay for the own damage claim.

[pdq1]

Sorry he was not stopped because of a camera. It seems a police car was following him keyed in his registration and from that were able to see he had no MOT.

[TWR]

1st, phone the garage & book the MOT, If it cannot be done till Mon, Wait, I have done the same as a lot has done, the MOT will take 1/2 an hour, I'm sure you can spare that rather than risk a fine.

[Hopkirk]

Woofgang, the 'cameras' you mention on motorway flovers are not pigeon house with round windows, but neither are they ANPR cameras.

Mostly they are Trafficmaster equipment for traffic flow information.

[New Judge]

Whoever “UK Insurance Index” are, they are incorrect.

The only offence which invalidates Road Traffic Act (i.e.Third Party) cover is driving whilst disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence. No other offence does so. This includes offences far more serious than No MoT, such as Dangerous Driving (maximum sentence 2 years custody) and causing death by dangerous driving (14 years).

There is also the more minor matter that CF mentions – that of driving to a pre-booked MoT test when the earlier one has expired.

As with driving under the influence of drink or drugs they MAY reduce or repudiate claims for damage to the insured’s own vehicle, but that is a different matter.


Insurers are no permitted to deny RTA cover for either of these reasons. Sorry, nibble, but you have been misled.

[New Judge]

Furthermore, the advice offered by Parkers (which I have only just read) contains a number of inaccuracies. They suggest, among many other things, that insurance can be made void by various offences such as overloading, modifying tyres, driving whilst wearing the wrong (or no) glasses. All of this is incorrect. Again RTA cover cannot be voided for these reasons. They also suggest that the maximum penalty for Careless Driving is £2,000. It is in fact £5,000. And lastly they suggest that a person driving a vehicle in connection with his employment can be convicted of No Insurance if his employer fails to insure the vehicle . This is also incorrect. The Road Traffic Act provides a specific statutory defence in this situation. Section 143 (3) of the RTA says:

A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—

(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,

(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and

(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

All in all, not very sound advice from Parkers.

[bikerscum69]

i had an accident in a car with no mot last year it wasnt my fault insurance went though i got paid 3 grand not a mention of the mot from the insurance on either side they never asked or checked if it had one. no mot does not mean you have no insurance

[ABerrant]

NJ - A bit of hair splitting here but the employee driver can be convicted where no insurance exists for the employer's vehicle; the statutory defence states that the employee must prove that they were not aware (nor had reason to believe) that insurance cover (or security) was not in force to avoid conviction. If such proof is lacking...

[fighter998]

i have a family member who works as a traffic officer and he confirms that the ANPR readers in traffic cars do have the facility to notify the officers that a vehicle has no current MOT. Also it can process every car that passes automatically, so not worth the risk even though it is a non endorsable offence, unless of course you have £60 to waste whenever you make a journey, as you can be ticketed numerous times in one day, until the vehicle is tested. The decision to issue to offence notice lies with the individual traffic officer.