Jump to content

Extension of MOT test certificate validity


Recommended Posts

My Volvo V70 has been on SORN since 30th November and the MOT expired on 11th of this month. In an idle moment I just checked the DVLA website and found that the expiration date had been extended to 11th October. This is a nice bonus, I thought it was initially announced that only a three month's COVID-19 extension would be granted.

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Temporary exemption will enable vital services to continue, frontline workers to get to work, and people to get essential food and medicine.

cars, motorcycles and vans to be granted MoT exemption

this will allow people to carry on with essential travel

vehicles must be kept in roadworthy condition

Vehicle owners will be granted a 6-month exemption from MOT testing, enabling them to continue to travel to work where this absolutely cannot be done from home, or shop for necessities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very practical idea from the Government. 

MOT stations will be busy at the end of this period ! As will garages doing servicing and breakdowns,   meanwhile sitting tight waiting for busier times.

Conrad.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted that specific part of the Government’s temporary exemption, for vital services as outlined. 
Essential travel. Unlike historic vehicle exemption, it is specific, a temporary exemption for essential travel.

I only posted the above having read other forum topics, perhaps individuals needs to consider when driving their vehicles without an MOT under the temporary exemption is it essential. In the event of an accident what would the outcome be if it was considered as non essential  use?

Edited by Derek Hurford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite Derek. I have no intention of taking the Volvo off SORN and using it until non-essential motoring is again allowed. I was just welcoming the twenty quidsworth of the 6 months extension at my local testing station's current rates.

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim 

I had received a call and was informed that a member of his family had been informed that unless his journey was essential travelling, without an MOT under the temporary exemption they would not be covered. 
 

It was third hand but having seen other forums topics with individuals indicating they had taken their vehicle out, for pleasure and not just here. 
 

Having read the Government wording I thought I would post the above. No criticism was intended.

Edited by Derek Hurford
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Derek Hurford said:

I posted that specific part of the Government’s temporary exemption, for vital services as outlined. 
Essential travel. Unlike historic vehicle exemption, it is specific, a temporary exemption for essential travel.

I only posted the above having read other forum topics, perhaps individuals needs to consider when driving their vehicles without an MOT under the temporary exemption is it essential. In the event of an accident what would the outcome be if it was considered as non essential  use?

The government's statement about the MOT extension did cause some initial confusion, because some took it to mean it would only cover "essential" travel. However that wasn't what they meant.

Either you have a valid MOT certificate (basic or extended) for your car, or you don't. If you have one, you could not be guilty of the offence of driving without a valid test certificate.

It's also worth noting that, under the Road Traffic Act, not having an MOT cannot be a basis for a charge of driving without insurance. They are separate offences.

This is not legal advice.

Nigel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nigel

It seems there is still some confusion, I have subsequently spoken to two insurance providers both said that they could not comment on specific individual cases without the appropriate information. 

One said if you have a valid insurance, and a valid MOT in place, cover is provided in line with the terms and conditions of your individual policy.

The other said the  Government temporary MOT extension is for essential travel, we would not expect the insureds to take non essential trips. 

It is important to read the terms and conditions to your policy..

I found this on the Internet.

Does driving a vehicle without a valid MOT invalidate your insurance?

There isn’t a straightforward answer to this question, as all insurance companies are different and you should check your own policy’s terms and conditions, or speak with your insurance company if you want an answer that is specific to your vehicle.

Having said that, in nearly all cases, motor insurances companies will state that, as soon as your MOT expires, your insurance becomes invalid as they only want to insure roadworthy vehicles in order to keep claims to a minimum.

This causes two major problems. Firstly, it is illegal to drive without valid insurance so you are leaving yourself open to prosecution and a penalty of at least £300 and 6 penalty points. If the matter goes to court, you are liable for an unlimited fine, a possible ban from driving and your vehicle may be seized and even destroyed.

Secondly, the average insurance claim is £2,160 according to the Association of British Insurers. If you have an accident and you have no valid MOT, your insurance company may state that your insurance was invalidated as a result. You are then left liable for any costs as a result of that accident.

The bottom line is, why take a risk? Find out when your MOT is due then book your car in for its MOT.

Just some extra info, my wife’s car MOT was due and because We are self Isolating I phoned my usual MOT station,  he picked it up did the MOT and dropped it off. He even wiped it down with a sanitiser wipe and left a bottle of sanitising gel. 

As you say this was not a case of offering advise just an observation following the phone call. Which members might like or wish to satisfy themselves regarding this matter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Derek, you don't say where the article you posted comes from, but I've seen in the past all sorts of nonsense about car insurance and the law in the press. Insurance company staff also themselves spout quite a lot of b*lls on occasion, too. Not having an MOT certificate cannot be used of itself by an insurer as a reason to refuse a claim. The Financial Ombudsman has upheld this principle eg https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/121011/DRN4756234.pdf 

Also, there is a big difference between the contractual relationship between the insurer and insured, and thereby whether the insurer will pay out for the damage to your own car in an accident, and the insurer's obligations to a third party if you hit them and cause damage/injury. The law rightly gives a lot of protection to third parties by not allowing insurers to avoid cover except in very particular circumstances.

The Road Traffic Act requires you the driver to have in effect minimum (ie third party) insurance cover, or you are committing an offence. But the insurer can't just drop you in it on a whim, there are only certain circumstances in which they can void your cover and leave you open to a no-insurance prosecution.

Having said that, if you break your contract by driving outside the terms of the policy, and the insurer then incurs a loss (eg you hit a third party driver) then your insurer may attempt to recover their losses from you. I gather that can happen in drink driving cases, and probably some other circumstances eg you did not make some material declarations when you took out the policy.

Nigel

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I’d reply to your last post Nigel.

My original post was as a result of a telephone conversation. His relative being informed that under his policy with only an extended MOT he would not be covered for non essential travel. Then reading non essential vehicle use on the forum topics.

Therefore It was interesting reading the ombudsman decision in the particular case you referred to, where the claimant was struck by a third party, the ombudsman determined not having a  MOT was not a material fact in this case. 

She did remarks on not having a MOT could reduced the vehicle valuations and emphasising that driving a vehicle on the road without a valid MOT is an illegal act.  

I have subsequently taken the opportunity to visit the insurance and consumer insurance (disclosure and representation) acts and the Fca handbook something not done since retiring as an IFA in 2009/2010. As you say the absence of current MOT is not in itself a reason to decline a claim. 

 Which reminded me that one should not take things on face value. Even though you are entitled to rely on information provided by a regulated body, sometimes their interpretation of the rules may differ to those of the ombudsman. 

I note your last paragraph too, that there are circumstances where the ombudsman final decision may differ to that case referred to above. Perhaps that’s why the two providers would not wish to comment on a individual cases without the appropriate information, and maybe, not wishing to advocate taking your vehicle out for non essential use at this particular time. Which is probably not such a bad thing.

Edited by Derek Hurford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.