Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MOT Exempt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Why would anyone want a MOT unless they are placing the car for sale? If people want the safety side covered then its much better to ask a mechanic to give the car a MOT style go over and report any issues. If you subject your car to a MOT and it fails then you likely aren't insured to drive it except to get a retest, you'd need to check the insurance small print very closely.

    Comment


      #32
      If you subject your car to a MOT and it fails then you likely aren't insured to drive it except to get a retest, you'd need to check the insurance small print very closely.

      Not so, [At least, not on my HAgerty Policy]....the small print requires the insured vehicle to be roadworthy..at all times. Not having a valid MoT certificate..or failing an MoT itself is irrelevant.
      But, if in the event of a claim against the policyholder, the insurer will look to see if the insured vehicle was roadworthy at the time of the incident.
      Not all failure points on an MoT test make the vehicle unroadworthy as such.
      ​​​​​​​

      Comment


        #33
        That goes for all policies Alastair. Has to be roadworthy. But you are right. The MOT disciplines - failure of one discipline does not mean it isn't roadworthy and also it needs to be spotted.

        Corrosion of a component or body part of the vehicle is quite subjective, even MOT tester to MOT tester. My Mondeo, last year, was given the last rights. We'll pass it this time but it only just slides through with that flaky chassis rail. I looked at it and thought it was more solid than the tester was making out. But given the repair cost, I would have just scrapped it this year. Only a 500 banger and not worth spending at least that to get it repaired.

        Thought I would take it again down to the test this year to see if it was worth placing through or going to car heaven. Sailed through this year, no issues!

        I think that dealing with insurance companies is a right PITA most of the time. Where they have one over on you is normally where they have to fork out. Normally, something isn't right when they have to place their hand in the pocket.

        Call me cynical, but a vehicle that has not seen an MOT in 10 years, what is likely (in the end) is that there will be a hand in the pocket and they pay out. What will happen on route up to the hand in the pocket is a bundle of grief, where the little office erk who knows nothing about motors and only understands documented proof, wants to see evidence of the condition of the motor.

        Hopefully, it will be plain sailing but history with insurance companies seems to run before them as to what hoops we need you to go through, sir, before we pay out.
        Last edited by Daz-RSK; 23-10-2020, 04:52 PM.

        Comment


          #34
          I noted that insurance companies require the vehicle to be roadworthy at all times. Actually not literally strictly possible because at some time or other the vehicle will be under maintenance with say a safety critical system like the brakes stripped down. What happens if my car is damaged or destroyed at such a time, maybe a garage fire, is it not insured? As drivers we are responsible for the roadworthiness of every vehicle we are driving on the road. Even if we take the company hack out and say the brakes fail we as the driver are legally responsible, not the vehicle owner. How this would pan out in law may actually be up for discussion but the driver could, in a nasty situation, be facing serious charges. The vehicle having an MoT may not carry much weight as the MoT garages/stations are protected by the conditions of the test. I really don't think with an MoT exempt vehicle that having a current MoT will carry much influence. I think a current valuation certificate will be better.
          Allan

          Comment


            #35
            How this would pan out in law may actually be up for discussion but the driver could, in a nasty situation, be facing serious charges. The vehicle having an MoT may not carry much weight as the MoT garages/stations are protected by the conditions of the test. I really don't think with an MoT exempt vehicle that having a current MoT will carry much influence. I think a current valuation certificate will be better.
            Much will depend on what additional cover the insurance policy provides?

            Insurance cover [certainly in regard to 3rd parties] primarily refers to the 'public highway'. [Which also will include, ''roads to which the public have access''..like, Tesco's car park, for example? Private land, yet the Road Traffic Acts still apply. Created a lot of issues decades ago when that came out, for Motor sporting Clubs holding events like autotests in hotel car parks...]

            The roadworthiness clauses apply to the public highway. Which brings out an issue should a vehicle be undergoing repair or maintenance, out on the road?

            The reduction of cover [possibly due to being unroadworthy?] will apply to one's liability to 3rd parties. This will apply to company vehicles as well. The driver may find themselves liable? I think in practice, this will come down to, an insurer paying out their 3rd party liability...then recovering their costs from the Registered Keeper, and / or vehicle driver?

            Trouble is, ordinary road users rarely see the nitty gritty occur, due to their passing everything onto the shoulders of insurers.
            But, in times past,I have had some 'very nice' claims against other parties..the drivers, and the Registered keepers, for 'uninsured losses'.......claimed via a very useful solicitor. In this respect, the other parties insurers acts as a kind of agent for their policyholders.

            Even if they are the same insurer as mine!!

            Cover for fire risks, or theft, are an additional cover which will have it's own small print too....

            The absence or not, of a current MoT certificate is an issue for the State ..not insurers.

            I would hasten to add, insurers are more likely to bilk over undeclared modifications, than a lack of roadworthiness? [IMHO] Those nice oversize tyres on 4wd vehicles, for example? Or the raised suspension? Roll over bars or roll cages, anyone? Insurers don't like them but more importantly, insurers don't like surprises. They like to know all the pertinent facts before settling on the degrees of liability..ie arguments? They're not happy when they find their policyholders have just pulled the rug out from under them?

            Comment


              #36
              Yes, all fair points, Allan / Alastair. By the way, I am not trying to prod and annoy. I find your views very interesting and stuff that I have not thought of.

              The intriguing thing is that the Capri folk see this the other way - needs to have an MOT and they wheel the 45 yr old down to the station for the annual.

              I don't have to worry for another 5 years, which is when one of mine reaches the milestone. I'll come to a decision at that time what I do.

              Comment


                #37
                Just my penn'orth...

                I stopped MOT'ing my classics when the regs changed, but continued to take them down to my local garage for an unofficial test simply because I believe a second pair of eyes is a good idea. I know what I'm doing with all of them - Mustang, Mini, Land Rover, etc. all bought as rusted-out wrecks on which I did everything except paint. I then thought that if I'm going to pay anyway I might as well have an official piece of paper, so went back to proper MOT tests. This was partly brought about by wanting to change the plate on one of the historics, to be told by DVLA that it wasn't possible to take a plate off with out taking the car for a 'voluntary' MOT.
                I do believe another person checking is a good idea. Despite servicing each car each year, my friendly tester picked up a split CV joint gaiter on the Cooper S, despite them all being new 4 years earlier (modern rubber components are complete rubbish). I would never have found that - how often do you climb under your car with the steering on full lock, then again on the opposite lock?

                That said, this year all bets have been off...

                Comment

                Working...
                X