MOT Qs

Being clueless about MOTs......

My bike is insured and taxed but required an MOT last october. However,
since october it has been garaged. Is it OK to just leave it in the garage
and MOT it when I bring it out (probably April sometime)?

And if I do that will the MOT run from that point for 12 months? It wouldn't
run for 12 months sinc ethe MOT was due would it?

Thanks

 

In uk.rec.motorcycles, elziko belched forth and ejected the following:

Yes.

 

Yes - but you may want to check your insurer will pay out if it's
nicked from your garage.

Yep.

--
Krusty.

http://www.muddystuff.co.uk
http://www.muddystuff.us
Off-road classifieds

'02 MV Senna '03 Tiger (FOYRNB) '96 Tiger '79 Fantic 250

 

Just drag it out when you want to and take it for a /pre-booked/ MOT.
When it passes, it will run for a full 12 months.

However, your question sparks a new one - if insurance is held to be
invalid for a vehicle without a current MOT ceertificate in a crash
claim situation, what might the scenario be if a non-MOTd vehicle is
stolen?

 

I expect that if the insurer bothers checking the MOT then they'd not pay
up. They wouldn't have to so why would they!? It better not get stolen then!

 

I suspect otherwise actually. Insurers may be very strict in their
interpretation, but the MOT is clearly totally irrelevant to a
theft-claim - as such, they'd struggle to argue the contract-term is
fair.

 

Ferger emerged from their own little world to say

IANAL but the T&Cs of my insurance state: "the vehicle must be *kept* or
used with a valid MOT if one is needed".

As the proposer agrees to these T&Cs by signing a contract it will be
valid. It's not an unreasonable clause and follows on from the general
roadworthiness clause.

They seem to be happy with SORN as they T&Cs say "you must also keep to all
legal regulations relating to your vehicle".

If there was a clause that stated, "your bike must be sprayed pink" then
perhaps that would be not fair or reasonable.

 

Sounds fine to me.

--
Krusty.

http://www.muddystuff.co.uk
http://www.muddystuff.us
Off-road classifieds

'02 MV Senna '03 Tiger (FOYRNB) '96 Tiger '79 Fantic 250

 

Krusty seems to be ahead of the game here. For once ;-)

 

perhaps a little off topic but Watchdog on BBC last night was reporting
insurance companys not paying on health insurance if all prev doctor notes
not reported
regardless if the condition that caused the claim is not connected to the
previous
condition that went unreported.
perhaps the same thing here ?
I'll ring Aunty Carole and ask her. back in a min...

 

Aunty Carole says yes, provided the bike was SORN off the road

 

<surprised>

If your bike is sitting in the garage, Taxed, not MOT'd, not SORN'd and
it gets nicked... the insurers don't have to pay out?

--

jeremy
'01 Triumph Sprint ST in green
_______________________________________
jeremy0505 at gmail.com

 

Rang her back to confirm, SORN is "not" a condition
(different operator went off to check with her supervisor)

 

Vass emerged from their own little world to say

It's not Auntie Carole you need to speak to. She is not going to be signing
any cheques. The underwriter of my policy is Royal Sun Alliance. It's their
T&Cs I've signed up to and their loss adjuster that I would be negotiating
with. The loss adjuster's job is to minimise his employer's liability
through any means possible.

As you've already had 2 different POVs from AC's staff I suggest you *read*
the T&Cs of your contract and abide by that.

 

I don't think the measure of validity (or fairness) is that the
contract has been accepted under those terms. In fact, I'm sure it
isn't. And the reason I disagree is because I've read of insurance
companies being forced to pay out in court, where they had argued that
a driver was in breach because of a small (but clear) breach, like a
minor mod that would not affect performance or handling. The thrust of
whatever I'm recalling is that insurers can't refuse to pay out if the
breach did not affect the likelihood of the claim, which, in this case,
it clearly wouldn't.

I'll see if I can dig something up when I'm free later today.

 

Ferger emerged from their own little world to say

I understand the point you are making. I'd rather not get into a dispute
with the underwriter that resulted in a legal challenge to their T&Cs. At
the very least this would take months and leave me without a bike for that
time.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the loss adjuster will assign a
bike a market value. A bike without a valid MOT will have a lower market
value so any payout could be reduced by several hundred quid.

 

True, but if you had, for instance, actually crashed your non-MOT'd
vehicle and rather than admitting this had thrown it off the nearest
bridge and were then claiming it had been stolen, they may become MUCH
more interested in investigating your claim should they find out the
MOT was invalid.

DUnno, but it's what I'd do if it was an insurer.

(which thankfully I'm not).

 

That isn't the point I was making The point is that I suspect that
insurers *will* pay out in this instance, because they're all aware
that there's precedent that says they have to.

Probably true, but doesn't really say a lot: The cost of getting a
bike into an MOTable state should be reflected in the market price for
a bike without an MOT. But there would be some argument to be had on
this front...

 

In uk.rec.motorcycles, Vass belched forth and ejected the following:

Get that in writing.

 

In uk.rec.motorcycles, Vass belched forth and ejected the following:

Get that in writing, too.