MOT & valid insurance

[rsut18]

Does having no mot cert make my tesco insurance invalid?

[sddsddean]

If you are driving around; yes. The only exception to this would be if you are driving to a prebooked MOT test. If the vehicle is parked off road, it would probably still be covered for fire and theft, but you would have to check.

[Buenchico]

sddsddean's answer is correct but I've seen plenty of cases, in the paper, where drivers have been charged with having no MoT for the vehicle they were driving but not charged with having no valid insurance at the same time. This suggests that, unless the vehicles is involved in an accident, the absence of valid insurance might be overlooked by the boys in blue (assuming, of course, that the driver actually has an insurance document).

Chris

PS: Now I've read this thread, I think I ought to look up the date on my MoT document. Now I come to think about it, I've got a horrid feeling . . . :-(

[ugly_bob]

just one more thing, not having the certificate doesn't invalidate your insurance, assuming you've only lost it and it hasn't run out.

[kempie]

Not having a valid MOT certificate (if required) is an offence. However, the lack of a valid MOT does not invalidate your insurance. Nor does not having a tax disc. This is a common misconception.

In British Law, the only driving offence that nullifies motor insurance is if the driver is disqualified from driving.

This is borne out by the fact that, as Chris mentions, there are numerous prosecutions for the lack of a valid MOT where the more serious offence of having no insurance would apply if the misconception were true.

Insurers cannot prejudice a policyholder for not having a valid MOT certificate, nor for not having a valid tax disc on their vehicle, at the time of an accident.

In the event of a claim they can make a deduction, but not if you can prove there was an oversight on your behalf, or that the vehicle was serviced regularly and would have passed an MOT.

[JudgeJ]

Thanks, kempie, for putting the point so eloquently. I keep on providing this same information in reply to numerous questions of this sort. I keep on being told I am wrong.

As you rightly say, the prosecuting authorities would not miss the opportunity to pursue the far more serious offence of driving uninsured if lack of an MoT invalidated one�s insurance. Anyone doubting this should visit their local magistrates� court when they are running a traffic court, and they will see that what we both suggest is true.

[rsut18]

Thanks guys. The answer is my insurance is still alid but they are going to reduce my lump sum offer due to no MOT. It would have been invalid if the accident had been caused by the car being unroadworthy due to lack of MOT. I am subject to a police fine and will inform you of how much when I know so I can reply to anyone else in my situation. I just genuinely didnt realise it had run out. Thanks for all your answers.

[JudgeJ]

Glad to hear it, rsut18. The fact that you will have your payout reduced is totally different to invalidating your insurance and I�m glad you have provided at least one example to confirm what kempie and I have said.

Your insurers provide Third Party cover under the Road Traffic Act. They would not be able to reduce payouts to third parties because of your failure to hold an MoT certificate. Furthermore, unless the policy wording provides for it I would suggest that they are not entitled to reduce the payout for damage to your own car for the same reason. I should check it out if I were you .

They may (again, depending upon the policy wording) be able to invalidate your insurance if you fail to maintain the vehicle in a roadworthy manner. However, the two are not necessarily related. Failure to hold a valid test certificate does not automatically mean that your vehicle is unroadworthy, any more than holding one means that it is.