Car Insurance Claim Road Tax Expired

[catsrcool]

A relative of mine has had a accident in her car.
She forgot to renew the road tax which had expired 1 week before the accident.
I know that car insurance is void if the car is not taxed but should that matter with the short time between tax expiry and the accident?

[bhg481]

Another interesting situation - if your car is on your drive, with an expired MoT, and someone steals it, is your insurance company entitled to refuse to compensate you on the grounds that you have no Mot hence your insurance is invalid? I think not.

[ToraToraTora]

hc: "NJ, what is the situation if the uninsured is hit by another vehicle and tries to claim from THEIR insurance company? Can they refuse to pay out because the third party had no MOT? " - the claim attempt would be valid regardless of whether the claimant is actually insured, the insurer's process on the other hand may well make them to use the fact to try and not pay out. However an uninsured non fault claimant would still have the statute at his disposal and if that was brought to bear on the insured driver they would in effect have to pay out the uninsured driver as the third party. In reality the uninsured driver would probably not bother because of prosecution etc.

[hc4361]

If the car with no MOT is parked on the owner's drive (or any private land) then no law is being broken and the insurance is still valid for theft and fire.

[bhg481]

But you aid lack of MoT would invalidate the insurance.

[hc4361]

TTT, imagine this scenario. Mike is driving with insurance but no MOT is hit by a lorry - the lorry driver's fault.
Mike suffers catastrophic life changing injuries and will need care for the rest of his life. He should be entitled to a six figure sum at least.
Q1 The car was in very good roadworthy condition at the time of the accident. Will the lorry driver's insurance pay up?
Q2 The car was in very poor condition at the time of the accident with illegally worn brakes and faulty steering. Will the lorry driver's insurance pay up?

[ToraToraTora]

bhg, we established above that lack of MOT does not invalidate insurance. It would however effect what they offer.

[hc4361]

Okay, bhg. Your car insurance is invalid if you are driving on a PUBLIC road without an MOT UNLESS you are driving to a pre-arranged MOT OR to a garage to get the remedial work carried out. This is a legal exception so the insurance is valid.

[hc4361]

TTT, Direct Line says that driving without an MOT WILL invalidate their insurance policy (with the exception of driving for an MOT test) and Ask the Police says the same.

[ToraToraTora]

Yes to both, he would be the damaged third party. In a case like that the insurance co would no doubt wriggle but in the end Mike would force them to court and a judge would decide the payout, which may be effected by the negative factors you describe if they can be shown to be a contributory factor but in the end mike is a valid third party claimant. Later the lorry drivers insurers my well choose to take separate action against the driver and/or his firm to recover what they had to pay out but that is a separate consideration.

[ToraToraTora]

hc49 10:49: that's their admin rules, they mean they'll (try to) not pay out. The acid test of true voiding/invalidating is if the driver would be prosecuted for no insurance, they would not.

[bhg481]

hc - the Direct Line link you listed states specifically "If you drive without a valid MOT, your car insurance is invalid". That means, if you insure your car through Direct Line and the MoT expires you CANNOT drive it to a test. Lots of loose language from both insurance brokers and the police.
I stand by my views as the first responder to this post.

[bhg481]

sorry - 4th responder to this post.

[hc4361]

bhg, so you think that Ask the Police is deliberately lying or they are simply wrong?

[bhg481]

I think TTT sums up the situation at 10:55. If you car has failed its MoT on a cracked number plate it can hardly be defined as unroadworthy as an argument for invalidating the insurance.

[bhg481]

hc - sorry, the police are correct; it's the brokers that are not fully explaining the situation.

[Deskdiary]

As far as third party liabilities are concerned, the Direct Line website is wrong - it is positively misleading. What they are suggesting is contrary to the Road Traffic Act, and therefore if they attempted to refuse to indemnify one of their customers against a claim made by a third party due to no MOT they would be breaking the law.

[Deskdiary]

To clarify....

If a Direct Line customer had no MOT and drove into somebody else, and they refused to indemnify their customer due to not having an MOT, Direct Line would be breaking the law.

[Arrods]

Exactly desk diary - S.148 RTA 1988.

[New Judge]

Good heavens! I can’t believe that a simple question can cause so much grief. I also cannot believe some of the statements made by insurance organisations (and the police). In particular some of the utter drivel mentioned in the “Park Insurance” article beggars belief: e.g. “Did you know that having something hanging from your rear view mirror can invalidate your insurance?”

In the original question it was stated “I know that car insurance is void if the car is not taxed” and the debate widened to discuss MoT. The plain fact is that the contents of the Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 148 (Avoidance of certain exceptions to policies or securities) Makes clear that insurers cannot repudiate liability for a number of listed reasons, among which is (S148 (20 (b)) “The condition of the vehicle”. If an insurer tried to void a policy because no MoT was in force it is almost certain that a court would rely on this section to rule that the insurer could not avoid liability. The EU Directive to which I referred earlier actually goes further than S148 and places even more restrictions on insurers. Article 13 of this Directive has a paragraph on “exclusion clauses” and there are other paragraphs buried within the directive which cover the topic:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0103&from=EN

Plainly and simply there are only a very small number of circumstances where insurers can deny Third Party liability of make void motor insurance policies. Having no tax is not one of them; having no MoT is not one of them, having something dangling from your rear view mirror is not one of them, using a phone whilst driving is not one of them; speeding is not one of them. Whatever insurers or their agents say in their online blurb is immaterial; they cannot impose conditions which are contrary to the law. The police are the last organisation people should consult for legal advice so their publications should be viewed with similar caution.

Insurers may seek to reduce or refuse payments for insured losses which are not part of compulsory cover but even then they would have to show (in a civil court) that their exception clause was reasonable. I would suggest that having no Tax does not alter their risk or the likelihood of an accident and they would probably lose. But I repeat, they cannot invalidate or reduce payments for Third Party claims on the basis that the vehicle had no tax or MoT.

[ToraToraTora]

judge, I share your frustration, motoring mythology is very virulent and persistent. These issues come up all the time on here and the answers are always the same yet they persist.