It is a big leap in logic, Wayne, to describe a car with no valid car tax as unroadworthy. My dictionary defines the word roadworthy as �fit for use or travel�. I would argue that lack of the correct documentation does not affect its roadworthiness. Even a lack of an MoT test certificate does not render a vehicle unroadworthy. The vehicle may well be in perfectly good mechanical condition (and hence fit for use or travel) but you should not use it because it has not been tested as prescribed by the law.
However, this argument is unnecessary. If we take the Diamond policy conditions provided by Ethel as �typical� the insurers do not seek to void the insurance in the event of a vehicle being unroadworthy. As I pointed out yesterday, their conditions (page 21, para. 3) clearly state that if they consider that the condition of the vehicle contributed towards an accident they will still provide cover, but at Road Traffic Act levels only. It is hard to imagine how the lack of a tax disc could make such a contribution. But even taking the definition at its worst and accepting that lack of tax makes the vehicle unroadworthy, cover is still not invalidated.
If they could, iInsurers would leap at the chance to avoid payment for claims involving untaxed cars, and would clearly spell this out in their policy conditions without hiding behind terms such as �roadworthiness� where interpretation was an issue. Also, as I said yesterday, if your contention is correct, prosecutions for lack of tax would always be accompanied by a prosecution for no insurance. These two things just do not happen. For those reasons, and for the reasons outlined above, I maintain that I am correct.