Unable to insure a car which doesn't have an MOT?

Jez said:
His problem is getting someone to agree to sell him a policy, the legalities are clear :)
Click to expand...

How do they know it's not got an MOT? Did he tell them, or have they found it out by running a vehicle check?

If its the former, then just get insurance from anywhere online, simples.

If its the latter then it will be more of a pain. Bell did insure me after I spoke to 2 managers and assured them I would give them the MOT number the following day.
 
Thats exactly what we have told him, just buy a random policy from anywhere, it really doesnt matter.
 
I told them it didn't have an MOT unfortunately, so they are refusing to insure it. Basically the car was SORN'ed over the winter and the MOT expired. I was working on the assumption that it would be ok to Insure, MOT, Tax - in that order. I do actually have an MOT booked at 9am on the Saturday but without Insurance, can't drive there.

As above though, I'm looking for a new broker now. It's unfortunate as Greenlight gave me a good price and I was happy when I used them before. The whole system of getting cars back onto the road is an utter joke. Even planning things meticulously doesn't work when you get Insurers making up new rules.

Even more annoying is the fact that I can't Dayinsure it due to the Insurance category.
 
If you do it again, get an MOT done just before taking it off the road (assuming its in a condition that will pass).
 
[TW]Fox;24314641 said:
This is basically totally wrong.
Click to expand...

Good luck trying to get a decent payout if you write off a car with no MOT. Technically, it only has to be in roadworthy condition, but not having an MOT puts all the cards in their hands when deciding whether to pay out or not.

3rd party will of course be covered as in any other situation.
 
Orch said:
Good luck trying to get a decent payout if you write off a car with no MOT. Technically, it only has to be in roadworthy condition, but not having an MOT puts all the cards in their hands when deciding whether to pay out or not.

3rd party will of course be covered as in any other situation.
Click to expand...

My policy doesn't even mention the requirement for an MOT, it just mentions it has to be roadworthy and seeing as an MOT is not a certificate of road worthiness other than on the day it was tested...
 
Janesy B said:
My policy doesn't even mention the requirement for an MOT, it just mentions it has to be roadworthy and seeing as an MOT is not a certificate of road worthiness other than on the day it was tested...
Click to expand...

Indeed, hence my explanation.

One of the targets for an insurance companies engineer is to reduce their outlay as much as possible. They WILL ask for your MOT in the event of a claim. No MOT? Oh ok, lets look at this road worthyness in a bit more detail shall we? They could find something really small, but the fact you have no MOT doesn't give you a leg to stand on if you tried to argue it.

Even if they do decide it was indeed roadworthy, they will reduce the payout, as the car is valued less with no MOT.
 
Orch said:
Indeed, hence my explanation.

One of the targets for an insurance companies engineer is to reduce their outlay as much as possible. They WILL ask for your MOT in the event of a claim. No MOT? Oh ok, lets look at this road worthyness in a bit more detail shall we? They could find something really small, but the fact you have no MOT doesn't give you a leg to stand on if you tried to argue it.

Even if they do decide it was indeed roadworthy, they will reduce the payout, as the car is valued less with no MOT.
Click to expand...

So you've completely moved the goalposts then. Nobody disputes the fact that a car without an MOT is worth less - it is.

But you didnt say that, did you? You said:

A car with no MOT is not deemed roadworthy, so in the event of a claim an insurance company would decline to cover you. Your car shouldn't be on the road.

Trailer is technically the only legal option
Click to expand...

Thats rather different to what you are now saying. You also seemed to completely forget the legal obligations of an insurer under the Road Traffic Act.
 
You're right, after browsing through a few policy booklets it doesn't mention MOTs, only roadworthyness, I stand corrected on that and apologies for the incorrect information. However, the point I'm making is not having an MOT will have an effect if you need to claim. No one else seems to be making that point.

Also, re the road traffic act, I did say the 3rd party will be covered.
 
monkeys said:
--
If prebooked mot, you are insured to go directly to mot.
Click to expand...

You mean if you have a prebooked MOT, you still need insurance to drive it there. You will always need insurance, you may not need VEL or obviously an MOT certificate. Just as Skeeter said in post 12 really.
 
Bell/Admiral etc require the car to have an MOT AND be roadworthy. Had to look into this the other month...
 
Gaygle said:
Bell/Admiral etc require the car to have an MOT AND be roadworthy. Had to look into this the other month...
Click to expand...

Their definition of roadworthyness is for it to have a MOT, and they only ask about it if you tell them it doesn't have one, or suspend the insurance.

If you shout loud enough they might still insure you, as they did for me.
 
NickXX said:
I told them it didn't have an MOT unfortunately, so they are refusing to insure it. Basically the car was SORN'ed over the winter and the MOT expired. I was working on the assumption that it would be ok to Insure, MOT, Tax - in that order. I do actually have an MOT booked at 9am on the Saturday but without Insurance, can't drive there.

As above though, I'm looking for a new broker now. It's unfortunate as Greenlight gave me a good price and I was happy when I used them before. The whole system of getting cars back onto the road is an utter joke. Even planning things meticulously doesn't work when you get Insurers making up new rules.

Even more annoying is the fact that I can't Dayinsure it due to the Insurance category.
Click to expand...

Take out a policy with whoever will cover you, cancel it once you've MOT'd for a refund, then go back to Greenlight for the price/cover?
 
I actually got lucky with this. In my desperation to find a new Insurer who will match Greenlight's premium, I stumbled across Direct Line who will insure my M3 for £332 - over £300 cheaper than Greenlight, and £600 cheaper than Admiral!
 
NickXX said:
I actually got lucky with this. In my desperation to find a new Insurer who will match Greenlight's premium, I stumbled across Direct Line who will insure my M3 for £332 - over £300 cheaper than Greenlight, and £600 cheaper than Admiral!
Click to expand...

Direct Line insured your M3 for £332!

Thats a fantastic quote, you must be over 50 with 30years no claims discount and live in the best insurance postcode in britain :p

I find direct line give high quotes thesedays compared to a few years ago. Im over 40 with 8 years no claims discount and no points and the best quote I could get for a 320d off them was 600 pound.. Went with Esure for £350 instead ;)
 
Spartacus said:
Direct Line insured your M3 for £332!

Thats a fantastic quote, you must be over 50 with 30years no claims discount and live in the best insurance postcode in britain :p

I find direct line give high quotes thesedays compared to a few years ago. Im over 40 with 8 years no claims discount and no points and the best quote I could get for a 320d off them was 600 pound.. Went with Esure for £350 instead ;)
Click to expand...

It actually ended up at £326, less £75 quidco cashback. £251 to insure an M3 has got to be a record!

Direct Line historically gave me very high quotes, which was annoying as they were always cheap for my parents. This is the first time they've not been £200 more than the cheapest insurer.

Must be their way of saying sorry :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom