Biggest common misinformation on the net?

DampCat said:
The conext is iffy. Having NEVER had an MOT could do, depending on the the nature of the claim. Technically an MOT is only valid on the day it's issued so the rest of the year you "dont have an MOT".
Click to expand...

eh? really? has this been tested in court? it's interesting given that i've just bought a new car and for the first 3 years i'm not reqired to get an MoT, just get it serviced (which is in the terms of the finance agreement). i could i suppose drive round with a non-road worthy car that's less than 3 years old and not be done for it!?
 
nin9abadga said:
eh? really? has this been tested in court? it's interesting given that i've just bought a new car and for the first 3 years i'm not reqired to get an MoT, just get it serviced (which is in the terms of the finance agreement). i could i suppose drive round with a non-road worthy car that's less than 3 years old and not be done for it!?
Click to expand...

It's true, an MOT is only valid on the day.
 
nin9abadga said:
eh? really? has this been tested in court? it's interesting given that i've just bought a new car and for the first 3 years i'm not reqired to get an MoT, just get it serviced (which is in the terms of the finance agreement). i could i suppose drive round with a non-road worthy car that's less than 3 years old and not be done for it!?
Click to expand...

The small print is that it's the policyholder's responsibility to ensure the vehicle is in a safe and roadworthy condition, via a valid MOT no more than 12 months old or other recognised means. So from an insurance view, you're probably fine.

I dont really know the legality of wether you have to have an MOT on a new car or not, i just know the insurance clauses.
 
DampCat said:
The small print is that it's the policyholder's responsibility to ensure the vehicle is in a safe and roadworthy condition, via a valid MOT no more than 12 months old or other recognised means. So from an insurance view, you're probably fine.
Click to expand...

Well done, you've just confirmed the thread title :p
 
DampCat said:
If you're saying i'm wrong, i'm not. I'm sitting at work, for an insurer, reading from the policy book.

Sorry mate.
Click to expand...

And this is the view from another insurer
Kris said:
... no MOT in itself wont void the policy.

One of the terms & conditions of most motor policies is that thwe car must be maintained in a safe & roadworthy condition. The absence of a valid MOT certificate isnt therefore an indicator that the car is not safe /roadworthy. In the same way just because a car has a valid MOT doenst mean that it is safe & roadworthy, all it means is that on the date & the time the tester saw the car it met a set of criteria specified in the the MOT test.
Click to expand...

How would you insure a car that had been off the road for over a year?
 
RE: the glass thing, i looked it up becasuse i actually had no idea:

Wiki said:
Glass is generally treated as an amorphous solid rather than a liquid, though both views can be justified.[19] However, the notion that glass flows to an appreciable extent over extended periods of time is not supported by empirical research or theoretical analysis (see viscosity of amorphous materials). From a more commonsense point of view, glass should be considered a solid since it is rigid according to everyday experience.[20]

Some people believe glass is a liquid due to its lack of a first-order phase transition [19][21] where certain thermodynamic variables such as volume, entropy and enthalpy are continuous through the glass transition temperature. However, the glass transition temperature may be described as analogous to a second-order phase transition where the intensive thermodynamic variables such as the thermal expansivity and heat capacity are discontinuous. Despite this, thermodynamic phase transition theory does not entirely hold for glass, and hence the glass transition cannot be classed as a genuine thermodynamic phase transition.[4]

Although the atomic structure of glass shares characteristics of the structure in a supercooled liquid, glass is generally classed as solid below its glass transition temperature.[22] There is also the problem that a supercooled liquid is still a liquid and not a solid but it is below the freezing point of the material and will crystallize almost instantly if a crystal is added as a core. The change in heat capacity at a glass transition and a melting transition of comparable materials are typically of the same order of magnitude indicating that the change in active degrees of freedom is comparable as well. Both in a glass and in a crystal it is mostly only the vibrational degrees of freedom that remain active, whereas rotational and translational motion becomes impossible explaining why glasses and crystalline materials are hard.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I dont remember learning that at school :P
 
SB118 said:
And this is the view from another insurer


How would you insure a car that had been off the road for over a year?
Click to expand...

I did NOT say it will void a policy. i said it can be taken into consideration, given the scenario of a claim.

Straight from the underwriting "handbook":

So please, dont try and twist what i've said, especially when you're effectively telling me i dont know my job.
 
DampCat said:
I did NOT say it will void a policy. i said it can be taken into consideration, given the scenario of a claim.

Straight from the underwriting "handbook":
If a car, as a result of an investigation, is deemed to have been in an unroadworthy condition prior to a claim, fault or otherwise, that could have been avoided given sufficient attention to the condition of the vehicle, then a Valid MOT certificate should be assertained. If a valid MOT certificate can not be produced, this must be taken in to consideration when evaluating the proceedings of the claim.

So please, dont try and twist what i've said, especially when you're effectively telling me i dont know my job.
Click to expand...

Not teaching you to suck eggs at all, but from that wording "If a car, as a result of an investigation, is deemed to have been in an unroadworthy condition prior to a claim" it would appear (to me!) that if the car was roadworthy, they handbook doesn't seem to want an MOT?

Which basically means we're both saying the same thing, using different language?
 
That **** [rhymes with hit]

and **** [rhymes with duck]

Are both acronyms. And that Thomas Crapper invented the toilet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom