bike written off by insurer questions????

No. Doesn't work like that. An MOT certificate is a completely separate
issue to roadworthyness.

Which is why an invalid MOT doesn't attract points whereas an
unroadworthy vehicle almost always does.

 

It might say that... but unless you're taking the piss with the
condition, or it's blatantly been off the road for ages, I think you
will find that most decent insurers (1), will still pay out on
something without an MOT.

An old acquaintance smacked into another car last year... his MOT had
lapsed.

They still paid him, (and the third party he'd hit), out but the police
weren't quite as generous. ;-)

I'm not saying all companies would do this either, but just goes to
prove sometimes it's not always down to the written rule.

I think it helps if what's left of the vehicle in question looks
reasonably well cared for, and the MOT hasn't been out for months.

(1) They do exist, believe it or not.

 

SteveH says...

Steve, do you know who I am insured with?

--
Lozzo
Triumph Daytona 955i SE (Black with added black bits)
GSF600SW (broked)
'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord does not refer to
blasphemy during ejaculation' Tori 2006

 

No. Think of SORNed bikes.

 

Bollocks.

 

In communiqué
<1hp48hp.1xxt8qv1y7pshaN%>, The

Quite. It will certainly insured on the way to and from a pre-arranged
MoT test (by the shortest route naturally - hmmm). The Tart was ridden
to and from an MoT and an MSVA under Auntie Caroles cover with no
registration even.

The more general situation is unclear and may depend on the insurer
(except that even in the case of 'invalid' insurance a successful TP
claim against you would still have to be paid. Where is Kiran when you
need him?

--

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

 

.......is completely the wrong answer.

I doubt it will
--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

 

No. Think of SORNed bikes.[/QUOTE]

1. A SORNed bike may well have a valid MOT certificate.

2. The valuation aspect isn't quite what you advised Borg most
recently, of many others.

 

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:25:38 +0000,

Well, I wouldn't pay out.

 

We know different people, who have had different experiences.

They paid you top book, then. I'd call that a result.

Largely by reputation, but I remeber that ... RS Turbo, was it?

As I've said above (and now snipped) perhaps not 87% - but a lot less
than the owner might value it at. Any POS with a 12 month ticket is
worth at least 300 quid, just as a runaround for a year. An identical
POS without a ticket is worth fuckall.

What I'm saying to you is that insurers generally will look
unfavourably on a payout for a bike without an MOT cert. Currently,
plod will pull you for using a vehicle without a ticket, declare it
unroadworthy on that basis and thus uninsured - and take it away from
you and crush it. How much is a cube of metal and rubber worth?

The last time I looked at the "damaged repairable/stolen recovered"
adverts in MCN the bikes there looked a lot cheaper than comparable
straight ones.

Yes, dear.

In this case (and it is a sad case, being fucked by vandals) a lot
depends on the condition of the bike at the point of fuckage. If it
looks to be well maintained then the assessor is going to put in a
better report than if the tyres are bald, it's leaking oil and there's
rust all over it. If it was immaculate and the MOT has lapsed by a
few days, then you may be closer to the mark than me - let's wait and
see and have a pint on the outcome, hm?

 

That's like saying you wouldn't pay out on a tatty-looking stolen Vermeer
just because it wasn't up to museum standards. They'll pay less, but they
*will* pay.

Dave

 

Not necessarily so. This is the kind of thing an Independent Engineer's
Report is for.

Much as the Ins Cos would like it to be, they don't get off the hook
that easily. They get away with it because most folk don't fight it
enough.

The point is - In legal terms "roadworthy" means simply that and doesn't
mean "must have an MoT".

 

No, I don't.

However, it's not relevant here.

 

SteveH says...

Then you're not in a position to argue with my statement about *my*
insurance company's conditions.

In your opinion.


--
Lozzo
Triumph Daytona 955i SE (Black with added black bits)
GSF600SW (broked)
'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord does not refer to
blasphemy during ejaculation' Tori 2006

 

I think he may be right in a pedantic way. Doesn't the MoT state on it
words to the effect that it's only a statement of roadworthiness *at the
time of issue*.

So the MoT bears no relation to roadworthiness at any other time, just that
the vehicle is *road legal* for the period of the MoT, unless otherwise
decided by the plod-person who pulls you 45 minutes after the test, when
you've put the loud can back on, for example.....

I think you've just been sidetracked.

Dave

 

1. A SORNed bike may well have a valid MOT certificate.[/QUOTE]

Or not.

That was different. Borg had a non-running bike, that wasn't going
anywhere, and had a fecking great hole in the engine where the starter
motor was supposed to live.

Think of a nice bike, three years-minus-one-day old. Think of that bike
48 hours later, and you forgot to MoT it. Is it worth less? Doubt it.

 

Quite. The motorcycle ins market is very seasonal with many people
laying their bikes up over winter and the ins cos are very aware of
this. If the OP's bike was simply round the front of his house, but on
his own property and got vandalised, it's still covered by whatever ins
policy was on it - whether the MoT was current or not. [1] I'm assuming
he has a Comp policy on it - but TPFT would still cover it if it was set
alight by scrotes. Different story if he was out riding it and binned it
into a bus queue; he'd have a much tougher fight on his hands.


[1] Else we'd have the ridiculous situation of every vehicle being
prepared for a MoT suddenly being uninsured while the brakes were in
bits or the headlights were out.

 

Be fair, that was a shed. A very nice shed, but a non-starting shed,
nonetheless.

 

Not quite.

You'll probably get a ticket for no MOT. Bike should be examined for
defects of the unroadworthy type. None found = no problem, just the MOT
ticket. Defects found should be dealt with by (a) minor = either another
ticket, or a report for summons. (b) major = bike declared unroadworthy
with a list of what to get fixed (known as a PG9) in order to get it back
on the road and a report for summons. In other words for a simple no MOT
stop, with no other issues, you would not lose the bike.


Only after being caught again after (b) could the bike be considered to be
uninsured if it's on the road in contravention of a PG9, then you're
looking at it being taken away. This stop would cause you to get points
and fines etc for various offences, including dangerous driving (riding the
thing when you've been told it has dangerous defects), no MOT (again), no
insurance (cos the inscos will refuse to honour even 3rd party liability on
a PG9'd veh). Added to that would be the £105 removal fee, and the daily
storage fee at the pound. You'd have a couple of weeks to retrieve it
before the big crush.

HTH

 

As others say: bollocks.

I've just checked the wording in my Ebike policy. Key words & phrases are
highlighted with *

a) *used* in an unroadworthy condition

b) *where regulations require* must have a valid MOT

So, my interpretation is that if my bike was in my garage in pieces
undergoing some restoration, and therefore unroadworthy, then it would
still be covered under the fire & theft parts of the policy. Also, if I let
the MOT lapse the bike would be covered if parked on private land where
VOSA regulations do not apply.