Re: No MOT Required
Posted by MadMike on April 11, 2018, 5:49 pm, in reply to "Re: No MOT Required"
Chris we are both right and if you insist wrong. I was simplifying the dating in order to make the point about the fact that insurance companies are not in a position to determine that you must have an MOT even if the law says you do not. Yes I am well aware of the current position regarding the manufacturing date and in this case it is your turn to be wrong. Even with the pre1960 exempt bikes they have to have their taxation class changed to Historic to be exempt from the MOT requirement. Now fortunately most will have been done to get the free of charge RFL, but not all of them. It is possible to have a machine on the DVLA database which is classified as Untaxed. This is SORN exempt and has to be changed to Historic to get the freebies.
Your final sentence is very pertinent indeed. I see so often people alleging that the insurance companies will go to some lengths to avoid paying out a claim. That is certainly not the case in my experience in both cars and bike insurance. Yes they may use a loss adjuster to ensure that they are not being fleeced by unscrupulous repairers and drivers/riders, and that is actually in the interests of the insured as consistent over paying will only put up premiums.
A declaration of un-roadworthiness will certainly result in prosecution, and this would be a decision taken by the police for sound reasons, and not the insurance companies. If a prosecution is upheld with a guilty verdict then the insurers would seek reimbursement of any costs that they have incurred and as insured parties would we expect any less?
Other opinions may be available but this one is always correct.
Thank you for your support...