Imogen
- Thread starter rovert57
- Start date
What does your policy wording say?
A vehicle without an MOT is worth less than one with one.
What you might be able to do is to tell your insurer that your bike is off the road (literally and physically) for an extended period, let’s say December thro’ March. That is four months out of 12, a third of a year. Your insurer might agree to remove the road risk element (ie take away the Third Party Liability section of the policy) and maybe reduce the cover to Fire and Theft only. As a consequence, the insurer might reduce your annual premium.
There again, if you only pay peanuts, it might not be worth the phone call and the possible rip-off amendment fee “For something that takes a second” that bods moan about. Give them a call, it’s still free to ask and you can waste their time (for much more than a second) whilst you ask. If you then decide not to go through with it, so be it. You’ll have also have told them your bike no longer has an MOT and is untaxed for the four month period, so your conscience (such as it is) will be clear there, too. There’s maybe money to be saved.... “Kerching”, as they say.
Regardless of your insurance, remember that if you don't bother with a new MOT, you'll have to stop the tax as well, which means you'll have to declare SORN.
Likewise if the MOT is valid but you decide to stop the tax.
Personally, I'd just keep everything current for a short term layoff.
Likewise if the MOT is valid but you decide to stop the tax.
Personally, I'd just keep everything current for a short term layoff.
King Cymbeline's daughter.
Have you been watching too many re-runs of Ibiza Weekender?
BTW, driving/riding without an MOT is a heinous crime - you are on your own, uninsured. Having a bike on sorn, without an MOT is only likely to affect the value, should there be a fire or theft.
To nick an apposite epithet from Wapping, is that something you think you know or something you know you know?
Really? You have to cancel your tax if your MOT runs out? Well I never!
Was it really - I thought that was a Donald Rumsfeld...ism.
Driving/riding a vehicle over 3 years old without an MOT is a Criminal Offence under Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Doing so will leave you facing a fine, as well as being uninsured, unless you are on your way to an MOT appointment or returning from an MOT after failure, provided the tester has declared the vehicle safe (see current MOT regs for the shades of grey relating to failures).
Just read your Policy wording if you don't want to hear it from me. Other clause bikers like to ignore - modifications, maintenance in a roadworthy condition, loading Max LW. Now we all tend to renew on-line, the actual policy wordings are getting left unchecked, even ignored.
Just off at a tangent, slightly - is it me, or is there a shortage of automotive bulbs in the UK at present. Luckily I just picked up a clown in lane 2 on a dual carriageway section of the A5, as I was about to overtake , bearing down on me at c80mph in the dark (7pm, unlit) with no headlights whatsoever - once past he did have a full compliment of rear lights much to my amazement, but otherwise was relying on the lights of others. We seem to be seeing around 10% of vehicles around here being driven with obvious major lighting defects.
It is also:
A. A criminal offence to drive drunk, but that does not invalidate insurance
B. It is an offence to drive a vehicle with a defect (say a bald tyre or no lights) but which still has a current MOT. That does not invalidate insurance.
Are you suggesting that the vehicle not showing any front lights was uninsured as it came towards you? Would that change if the vehicle had an MOT? Would it change if the driver was over the legal drink-drive limit, showing no front lights but the vehicle had an MOT?
C. It is an offence to exceed the posted speed limit. That does not invalidate insurance.
Are you suggesting that the owners of bikes on this site, who remove an undersized number plate in order to pass an MOT but then take it off again 10 minutes later (ie would not pass an MOT) are driving uninsured?
Not having a current MOT does not invalidate insurance. It is very hard to invalidate Motor insurance, the most common causes being:
i. Non payment of the premium
ii. Fraud
iii. Non-disclosure of a material fact or facts
Why don’t the police prosecute someone with no MOT for the additional (supposed) offence of driving uninsured by virtue of no MOT?
A. A criminal offence to drive drunk, but that does not invalidate insurance
B. It is an offence to drive a vehicle with a defect (say a bald tyre or no lights) but which still has a current MOT. That does not invalidate insurance.
Are you suggesting that the vehicle not showing any front lights was uninsured as it came towards you? Would that change if the vehicle had an MOT? Would it change if the driver was over the legal drink-drive limit, showing no front lights but the vehicle had an MOT?
C. It is an offence to exceed the posted speed limit. That does not invalidate insurance.
Are you suggesting that the owners of bikes on this site, who remove an undersized number plate in order to pass an MOT but then take it off again 10 minutes later (ie would not pass an MOT) are driving uninsured?
Not having a current MOT does not invalidate insurance. It is very hard to invalidate Motor insurance, the most common causes being:
i. Non payment of the premium
ii. Fraud
iii. Non-disclosure of a material fact or facts
Why don’t the police prosecute someone with no MOT for the additional (supposed) offence of driving uninsured by virtue of no MOT?
Let's just disagree Wappers; you may get lucky & have your insurers cover the 3rd party risk in the event of an accident, but I bet you wouldn't volunteer to test the theory.
Your recounting various other traffic offences is of course utterly irrelevant, but you knew that.
Police Prosecutions - I'm not sure where you get the idea that they wouldn't prosecute, in the event of an accident. Otherwise ANPR would see them prosecute the primary offence.
My comment about lights was tangential, as I said, & was simply about the number of vehicles being driven with lighting defects - perhaps that's for another thread.
Your recounting various other traffic offences is of course utterly irrelevant, but you knew that.
Police Prosecutions - I'm not sure where you get the idea that they wouldn't prosecute, in the event of an accident. Otherwise ANPR would see them prosecute the primary offence.
My comment about lights was tangential, as I said, & was simply about the number of vehicles being driven with lighting defects - perhaps that's for another thread.
Deleted account 221212001
Registered user
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2018
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 4
Possibly incorrect, your insurance company would potentially honour any third party claims however as for you attempting to claim from your insurance company for example for a new car because it had been written off due to your intoxication I would suggest you wouldn’t get a penny. Your insurance company didn’t insure you to get pissed and then drive.
The only compulsory part of Motor insurance, is the third party element. You are not driving uninsured, nor is your insurance invalid, if you are drunk. Your chances of causing damage or injury to third parties had been increased, yes but so has driving with defective windscreen wipers or no brake pads. To then remove the part that is required by law, just does not happen.
How many prosecutions, post accident, for driving uninsured for having no insurance - by virtue of having no current MOT - have there been?
How many have there been, even without an accident, the absence of an MOT being discovered in say a simple spot check?
I have to admire the pedantry today
So, the facts - here is my Policy wording : -
3. Having an MOT certificate
There must be a valid Department for Transport test
certificate (MOT) in force for the motorcycle if one is
needed by law. In the absence of a valid Department
for Transport test certificate (MOT) when one is needed
by law all cover under sections A and B of this insurance
is cancelled and of no effect.
That leaves just section C, 'Liability to other People' as the only risk where cover remains. However there are numerous general exception clauses relating to ensuring the bike is roadworthy, properly maintained & conformity to manufacturers specification, which create potential obstacles. Personally, I have fully comp insurance & all the trimmings to ensure every aspect is covered - no MOT means a major chunk of liability is excluded.
So I understand your argument Wapping & accept that you have a valid point, if a tad academic in this context. I have no idea of the Police stats, nor am I particularly interested, but I do know there are plenty of prosecutions for the absence of an MOT, mostly from Camera/ANPR around here as plod are thin on the ground in our rural patch.
Poor OP, we have digressed enough. Bike off the road without MOT could affect the machine's value & could, in certain circumstances, lead to a claim being rejected. Does he need to advise his insurers? - that's down to interpretation of the policy wording, so needs checking out. If in any doubt pick the phone up & ask.
So, the facts - here is my Policy wording : -
3. Having an MOT certificate
There must be a valid Department for Transport test
certificate (MOT) in force for the motorcycle if one is
needed by law. In the absence of a valid Department
for Transport test certificate (MOT) when one is needed
by law all cover under sections A and B of this insurance
is cancelled and of no effect.
That leaves just section C, 'Liability to other People' as the only risk where cover remains. However there are numerous general exception clauses relating to ensuring the bike is roadworthy, properly maintained & conformity to manufacturers specification, which create potential obstacles. Personally, I have fully comp insurance & all the trimmings to ensure every aspect is covered - no MOT means a major chunk of liability is excluded.
So I understand your argument Wapping & accept that you have a valid point, if a tad academic in this context. I have no idea of the Police stats, nor am I particularly interested, but I do know there are plenty of prosecutions for the absence of an MOT, mostly from Camera/ANPR around here as plod are thin on the ground in our rural patch.
Poor OP, we have digressed enough. Bike off the road without MOT could affect the machine's value & could, in certain circumstances, lead to a claim being rejected. Does he need to advise his insurers? - that's down to interpretation of the policy wording, so needs checking out. If in any doubt pick the phone up & ask.
So, we have learned that:
A. There are prosecutions for having no MOT
B. There are no known prosecutions for having no insurance, as a consequence of having no MOT
C. That the Third Party Liability section (the only compulsory part, without which you face prosecution) remains inforce and the policy is not cancelled if there is no current MOT in force
D. That a vehicle without an MOT is worth less that one with
E. A vehicle must have a current MOT (or not require one) and insurance in place in order to obtain a road fund licence
F. Some (not all) Motor policies require an MOT to be in place in order for some parts of the policy to be fully operative, though the policy itself is in force and not cancelled should an MOT not be in place. Read the policy in order to ascertain what yours says
Whatever, it’s best - and not least the law - to have an MOT if you need one. If nothing else it will take your mind off the dodgy (illegal) exhaust, the (illegal) mini number plate, the wrongly adjusted (illegal) lights, the (illegal) ignoring of the post speed limits and a host of other things that are best ignored.
What we have not learned is what the OP is going to do, if anything.
A. There are prosecutions for having no MOT
B. There are no known prosecutions for having no insurance, as a consequence of having no MOT
C. That the Third Party Liability section (the only compulsory part, without which you face prosecution) remains inforce and the policy is not cancelled if there is no current MOT in force
D. That a vehicle without an MOT is worth less that one with
E. A vehicle must have a current MOT (or not require one) and insurance in place in order to obtain a road fund licence
F. Some (not all) Motor policies require an MOT to be in place in order for some parts of the policy to be fully operative, though the policy itself is in force and not cancelled should an MOT not be in place. Read the policy in order to ascertain what yours says
Whatever, it’s best - and not least the law - to have an MOT if you need one. If nothing else it will take your mind off the dodgy (illegal) exhaust, the (illegal) mini number plate, the wrongly adjusted (illegal) lights, the (illegal) ignoring of the post speed limits and a host of other things that are best ignored.
What we have not learned is what the OP is going to do, if anything.
Similar threads
