Biggest common misinformation on the net?

SB118 said:
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?
Click to expand...

That was taken specifically from a claim scenario, not as an overall policy clause. Since i'm saying you need the MOT if you have a claim, that's all i felt the need to quote.

You don't need to produce an MOT certificate when you incept a policy, no. However, if you did have a claim, and you dont have an MOT (and your car is over 3 years old) then it's highly likely that's going to be taken in to consideration (in our department, it's a 100% void policy.) and may well result in a nulled claim.

As for insuring a car that's been offraod for a year... well the first thing i'd do is get an MOT :/ since it's illegal not to have one and all that. Yes, my car is over 3 years old.

So basically what i'm saying is, yes.. you DO have to have an MOT if your car is over 3 years old because its a legal requirement and that you SHOULD have an MOT because you may well lose out in the event of a claim. and that's never fun.
 
DampCat said:
As for insuring a car that's been offraod for a year... well the first thing i'd do is get an MOT :/ since it's illegal not to have one and all that. Yes, my car is over 3 years old.

So basically what i'm saying is, yes.. you have to have an MOT if your car is over 3 years old because A) its a legal requirement and B) you may well lose out in the event of a claim. and that's never fun.
Click to expand...

I never knew you had to have an MOT on a car that isn't on the road.

Must admit, yours is the first insurance company/underwriter that uses the "roadworthy but no MOT" to get out of a policy payout.
 
SB118 said:
I never knew you had to have an MOT on a car that isn't on the road.

Must admit, yours is the first insurance company/underwriter that uses the "roadworthy but no MOT" to get out of a policy payout.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

You're the first person i've been reduced to using a rolleyes at. Why would i insure a car that's offroad? obviously i was referring to if i was bringing the car on road.

But you're being pathetic, so i'm taking my leave. Obviously you're an underwriter yourself and my knowledge couldn't ever be right.

Edit:

Also you're twisting my words again. I didn't say you don't have to have an MOT. I said you dont have to produce an MOT certificate when you incept. It's assumed that you already have one. I've never had to produce a certificate and i dont know anybody else that has. So obviously you're just bored and are picking apart my grammar, rather than actually using any knowledge to prove that by some complete impossibility, i'm actually wrong.

This conversation is over.
 
DampCat said:
Why would i insure a car that's offroad? obviously i was referring to if i was bringing the car on road.

But you're being pathetic, so i'm taking my leave. Obviously you're an underwriter yourself so my knowledge couldn't ever be right.
Click to expand...

I was refering to a car that is off the road, the first post i made about is said that, maybe i could have made it clearer.

If you spent a lot of money building a project car in your garage/lockup, would you insure it against theft/vandalism?

I'm not being pathetic, your own handbook spells out that the MOT is only required if the car is believed to be unroadworthy. In one post you say that no MOT is a 100% void, but in another you say that "... it can be taken into consideration, given the scenario of a claim."

Seems that the insurance business is full of contradictions. This isn't a dig at you, you're not the one that sets out the policy wording (are you?)
 
it was around long before the internet but what about:
' the average person only uses 10% of their brain'

absolute crap - everybody uses 100% of their brain otherwise it wouldn't be there.
 
DampCat said:
That was taken specifically from a claim scenario, not as an overall policy clause. Since i'm saying you need the MOT if you have a claim, that's all i felt the need to quote.
Click to expand...

This is false and misleading and if your insurer actually did this they would probably lose any subsequent hearing with the ombudsmen unless they can demonstrate the claim was a direct result of the condition of the car which would have been picked up had the car a valid MOT.

Remember, all an MOT certificate shows is that the car was roadworthy ON THAT DAY which of course could have been 364 days ago..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom