No MOT and insurance

[didds]

Ive seen it said here (and believe it) that having no MOT does not invalidate 3rd party insurance as protection of others is seen as important.

Does anybody have a reference for that, preferably "official"? Pub debate has raised this query

didds

[gryffron]

Road Traffic Act 1988 section 148. 2b
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... ection/148.

Insurance may not be negated by... "condition of the vehicle".

Gryff

[bungeejumper]

That doesn't mean that the insurance company won't come after you for recompense if your crappy brakes should result in a crash. (I'm using "you" in a general sense, obviously. )

Just that it's required to pay out to the third party without delay. It'll then send the boys round at its leisure to sequester your crown jewels.

BJ

[Lootman]

That doesn't mean that the insurance company won't come after you for recompense if your crappy brakes should result in a crash. (I'm using "you" in a general sense, obviously. )

Just that it's required to pay out to the third party without delay. It'll then send the boys round at its leisure to sequester your crown jewels.

Surely if the law says that the insurer has to maintain cover then they can't "send the boys round". Either you have insurance or you don't, and if the law says that cover cannot be denied for this reason, then the insurer is liable for such claims and not the driver.

In any event a MOT is a pretty unreliable guide to whether a vehicle is safe and roadworthy. Better than nothing, perhaps, but it only checks a few basic things and is no guarantee that a mechanical failure won't happen even if the vehicle passed yesterday. It's a glorified emissions test these days.

[swill453]

Surely if the law says that the insurer has to maintain cover then they can't "send the boys round". Either you have insurance or you don't, and if the law says that cover cannot be denied for this reason, then the insurer is liable for such claims and not the driver.

It may be that the terms of the policy allows them to claim back from the driver.

Mine doesn't explicitly say that about lack of MOT, but it does for drink driving:

If an accident happens whilst you or any person entitled to drive under Section 3 of your current Certificate of Motor Insurance is driving your vehicle and:
- is found to be over the legal limit for alcohol or drugs
- is driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or otherwise
- fails to provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason
No cover under the policy will be provided and instead, liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by Road Traffic Law. In those circumstances, we will recover from you or the driver, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or under a Judgement, of any claim arising from the accident.

Scott.

[Lootman]

Surely if the law says that the insurer has to maintain cover then they can't "send the boys round". Either you have insurance or you don't, and if the law says that cover cannot be denied for this reason, then the insurer is liable for such claims and not the driver.

It may be that the terms of the policy allows them to claim back from the driver.

Mine doesn't explicitly say that about lack of MOT, but it does for drink driving:

Yes, I'd expect an insurer to be able to get out of paying a claim on behalf of a drunk driver, although it's rather rough on the third party who presumably has to sue the drunk driver, who may have no means to pay. Surely laws like the MOT mandate exist to protect innocent third parties and not guilty drivers.

Even if your policy says that you are liable if your vehicle has no MOT, there is a question of whether that clause is enforceable if the law says otherwise. And again, the insurer might not be able to collect anyway if the driver has no means, but at least the third party gets paid.

[swill453]

Yes, I'd expect an insurer to be able to get out of paying a claim on behalf of a drunk driver, although it's rather rough on the third party who presumably has to sue the drunk driver, who may have no means to pay. Surely laws like the MOT mandate exist to protect innocent third parties and not guilty drivers.

The bit I quoted says the insurance company will pay out to the third party ("meeting the obligations as required by Road Traffic Law"). It's just that they then come after the policyholder to get their money back (yes, "send the boys round" )

Could prove a tad life-changing* if they've trashed a vintage Ferrari, or killed/maimed someone.

* - of course getting done for drink driving is life-changing anyway.

Sorry to have veered this away from MOTs.

Scott.

[Lootman]

Could prove a tad life-changing* if they've trashed a vintage Ferrari, or killed/maimed someone.

The liability could potentially be six or seven figures, in which case the driver would probably declare bankruptcy, leaving the insurance company holding the bag anyway.

[swill453]

The liability could potentially be six or seven figures, in which case the driver would probably declare bankruptcy, leaving the insurance company holding the bag anyway.

A typical homeowner declaring bankruptcy is definitely going through a life-changing event.

Scott.

[bungeejumper]

That doesn't mean that the insurance company won't come after you for recompense if your crappy brakes should result in a crash.

OK, maybe I should clarify that a little bit. Many drivers might be innocently driving around on bad brakes (wear, seized caliper, lopsided adjustment) until the routine annual MOT came along to apprise them of their situation. I was talking about a situation where the driver had crappy brakes and had failed to get the MOT done. Perhaps not coincidentally. Hanging's too good for those people, and so is bankruptcy.

BJ

[gryffron]

Yes, I'd expect an insurer to be able to get out of paying a claim on behalf of a drunk driver, although it's rather rough on the third party who presumably has to sue the drunk driver, who may have no means to pay.

Nope. That's 2a. "physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle". So the insurer still has to pay - initially.

As posters have already commented, there's nothing to prevent the insurer subsequently trying to claim the payment back from the driver - if the contract states this. But in the first instance, the insurer must still pay the victim.

Gryff

[sg31]

I used to be an insurance underwriter back in the 70s and 80s. I always read motor insurance policies before buying the cover.

Back in those days you could be reasonably sure the policy covered certain things whoever the issuer was, there were some that had extra cover but the basic policies were almost identical. This changed between 2000 and 2010, some exclusions restrictions appeared in some policies such as no cover for vehicles with no MOT, no cover if the driver was over the limit for drinking, there were others which slip my mind at the moment. When I queried these the companies stances were basically why should they provide cover if someone was breaking the law and they seemed surprised I thought they should.

It's important to note that the companies can't exclude RTA cover for personal injuries but they can refuse to pay all other sections of the policy, they may also potentially recover RTA payments from the insured after first settling the claim themselves. (this may have changed since my day)

The policy restrictions seemed to happen around the same time as the proliferation of comparison sites, maybe there is a connection, maybe not.

[Lootman]

between 2000 and 2010, some exclusions restrictions appeared in some policies such as no cover for vehicles with no MOT, no cover if the driver was over the limit for drinking, there were others which slip my mind at the moment. When I queried these the companies stances were basically why should they provide cover if someone was breaking the law and they seemed surprised I thought they should.

Surely though what the law says trumps what the policy says. Meaning that a clause in the policy may not be enforceable even though the driver agreed to it. Not all small print is valid.

My contact experience is more with residential leases but the principle is the same. There were quite a few clauses in the residential leases that I wrote which were contrary to codified tenants' rights. Had I attempted to enforce those clauses, say by trying to evict the tenant or assess an extra fee or fine, I probably would have failed. Of course, the tenant didn't always know that so the clauses may have been effective anyway in deterring certain behaviours. So these policy clauses may be there to frighten drivers into driving sober and testing their vehicles on time, despite being overridden by statute.

Insurers can write these exclusions, waivers or anything they want into their policies, but it doesn't necessarily mean they won't still have to pay out at least some types of claims. The laws around this exist to protect third parties and not to boost insurers' profits!

As you say, their remedy is then to sue the driver for those amounts. But I'd be willing to bet there is a non-zero correlation between drivers who drink and/or fail to get their vehicle tested, and being judgement-proof.

[sg31]

between 2000 and 2010, some exclusions restrictions appeared in some policies such as no cover for vehicles with no MOT, no cover if the driver was over the limit for drinking, there were others which slip my mind at the moment. When I queried these the companies stances were basically why should they provide cover if someone was breaking the law and they seemed surprised I thought they should.

Surely though what the law says trumps what the policy says. Meaning that a clause in the policy may not be enforceable even though the driver agreed to it. Not all small print is valid.

My contact experience is more with residential leases but the principle is the same. There were quite a few clauses in the residential leases that I wrote which were contrary to codified tenants' rights. Had I attempted to enforce those clauses, say by trying to evict the tenant or assess an extra fee or fine, I probably would have failed. Of course, the tenant didn't always know that so the clauses may have been effective anyway in deterring certain behaviours. So these policy clauses may be there to frighten drivers into driving sober and testing their vehicles on time, despite being overridden by statute.

Insurers can write these exclusions, waivers or anything they want into their policies, but it doesn't necessarily mean they won't still have to pay out at least some types of claims. The laws around this exist to protect third parties and not to boost insurers' profits!

As you say, their remedy is then to sue the driver for those amounts. But I'd be willing to bet there is a non-zero correlation between drivers who drink and/or fail to get their vehicle tested, and being judgement-proof.

The only part of the policy the RTA is concerned with is the minimum cover required by the act, in lay mans terms this is third party cover. The insurer can't use exclusions to avoid claims under this cover. They can set whatever terms they like for the rest of the policy to avoid claims and the RTA wouldn't have any effect. There's nothing to stop them avoiding a claim for damage to your own vehicle if you had been drinking or the car hadn't got a MOT providing the policy wording allowed them to do so.

In the event of a claim under the RTA section of cover the insurer can subsequently recover any money paid from the insured if they have for instance obtained the cover by deception. The insurer must deal with the third party claim first before proceeding against the policyholder.

Think of it this way, the RTA is only intended to protect the innocent third party not the insured.