Crosswords1 min ago
Car Insurance Claim Road Tax Expired
A relative of mine has had a accident in her car.
She forgot to renew the road tax which had expired 1 week before the accident.
I know that car insurance is void if the car is not taxed but should that matter with the short time between tax expiry and the accident?
She forgot to renew the road tax which had expired 1 week before the accident.
I know that car insurance is void if the car is not taxed but should that matter with the short time between tax expiry and the accident?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by catsrcool. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I am unaware of a condition on my car policy that the car has to have a current tax. In fact, since you can't tax a car unless it has insurance, you would find yourself in a catch 22 situation. Insurance policies state that the car must be roadworthy but even an expired MoT needn't invalidate the insurance, as some MoT failures don't make the vehicle unroadworthy.
I think she has nothing to worry about from an insurance point of view.
I think she has nothing to worry about from an insurance point of view.
https:/
It depends on the insurance company, read the small print of the policy
It depends on the insurance company, read the small print of the policy
car insurance is NOT void if you have no tax/MOT, that is a common myth, in fact very few things automatically void car insurance, if that were the case every motoring offence would be accompanied by a no insurance prosecution, nonsense. Now, that said, the insurance company can use it as a stick to beat you with by reducing payout etc but on the plus side you'll not be prosecuted for no insurance.
"I know that car insurance is void if the car is not taxed"
That is incorrect and Tora is quite right. This has been aired on here before. Apart from domestic law there is an EU directive which makes it impossible for insurers to invalidate third party cover for almost any reason and having no MoT most certainly is not among the few exceptions. The Express article is misleading if not completely incorrect (I haven't fully read it). I've got to go out now but I'll find the directive later and post it up.
That is incorrect and Tora is quite right. This has been aired on here before. Apart from domestic law there is an EU directive which makes it impossible for insurers to invalidate third party cover for almost any reason and having no MoT most certainly is not among the few exceptions. The Express article is misleading if not completely incorrect (I haven't fully read it). I've got to go out now but I'll find the directive later and post it up.
But if there is damage only to the relatives car and property then the insurance company can refuse to pay out.
It is only on 3rd party claims that the insurance must be paid out, and then the insurance company can try to recover costs from their client.
NJ, what is the situation if the uninsured is hit by another vehicle and tries to claim from THEIR insurance company? Can they refuse to pay out because the third party had no MOT?
It is only on 3rd party claims that the insurance must be paid out, and then the insurance company can try to recover costs from their client.
NJ, what is the situation if the uninsured is hit by another vehicle and tries to claim from THEIR insurance company? Can they refuse to pay out because the third party had no MOT?
hc4361 you make a good point. New Judge and I have discussed this before and it's important to make the distinction between invalid insurance (in the sense you can't be prosecuted for no insurance if the vehicle's unroadworthy for example) and the situation in which the insurer is entitled not only to pay out for own damage but also to recover any sums paid to third parties. The latter would be pretty invalid in my book. It doesn't happen often, but I know of one insurer that does sometimes pursue its own policyholders for sums paid to third parties.
Re the third party point, I'm not sure if the insurer could refuse to pay out full stop but I imagine would try to reduce the claim on the grounds of the reduced 'value' of the uninsured vehicle due to the absence of an MoT, just as it would with a vehicle that was insured.
Re the third party point, I'm not sure if the insurer could refuse to pay out full stop but I imagine would try to reduce the claim on the grounds of the reduced 'value' of the uninsured vehicle due to the absence of an MoT, just as it would with a vehicle that was insured.
This insurance company states that not having road tax will invalidate your insurance.
https:/
Para 6
https:/
Para 6
Direct Line:
If you drive without a valid MOT, your car insurance is invalid
https:/
If you drive without a valid MOT, your car insurance is invalid
https:/
The police say:
" However, not having an MOT may have implications for the validity of your insurance..."
https:/
" However, not having an MOT may have implications for the validity of your insurance..."
https:/
bhg -
"If your vehicle doesn't have a current MOT certificate you can only drive it to or from a pre-arranged MOT or to or from a pre-arranged appointment to have defects remedied that were discovered on a previous test. You can also drive your vehicle on a road without road tax in these circumstances too but your vehicle must be insured."
https:/
"If your vehicle doesn't have a current MOT certificate you can only drive it to or from a pre-arranged MOT or to or from a pre-arranged appointment to have defects remedied that were discovered on a previous test. You can also drive your vehicle on a road without road tax in these circumstances too but your vehicle must be insured."
https:/
