Sorn and insurance?

[dizzyblonde]

I was pretty much in the same mind as you DT, why the hell would you bother to call your insurance company to tell them of a SORN

[NTECUK]

Mot is a sham if we are honest.

Moment Of Time .
You could borrow tyres a shock swop it back in a few hours.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by Geodude

So i guess im ok then, unless im reading the wrong part.

You've found the right part and interpreted it correctly. You are now better qualified than some insurance company people I know.

Originally Posted by Dicky Ticker

I will never understand the logic behind insurance company reasoning

Stop looking for it. That way lies madness.

Originally Posted by dizzyblonde

I really am less at risk crashing inside my own garage!

Oh I dunno. I've managed it a few times.

Originally Posted by Dicky Ticker

I can't get my head round why you need to have a current MOT.
SORN by definition is Statutory of Road Notification and if the vehicle is off the road it does not need to be MOT'd
Example,I buy a used bike with a months Mot/Tax but before using it and submitting it for a new MOT I decide to strip it down to every single nut and bolt and do a complete overhaul taking 6 months over the winter to do it-------it is not road worthy during this period but still has value so I want to keep it insured but according to what is being said this can't be the case or am I misinterpreting what is being said. During the rebuild it would not have a current MOT or Tax but it did have when I bought it and insured it for 12 months.

If the policy is worded like Geo's and states you need to have a current MOT it's followed up by "where legally required". If the bike's SORN then you don't need a current MOT so you're still OK - although the bike is likely to be considered lower value. If you have an accident on the road and don't have an MOT that's a different kettle of fish.

Don't worry too much about the roadworthiness thing. If you take a wheel off to get a new tyre the bike's not roadworthy but no-one's bothering about that.

If you ride the bike with a known defect, and that defect causes an accident, then the insurer can void the policy. If you're cutting about with no front brake calipers and you slam into a wall, don't expect a cheque from your insurers.

Otherwise the faults on the bike will be taken into account when arriving at a valuation. That's fair enough - a bike in poor condition or with no MOT is worth less than a fully legal minter if you were to try and sell it.

Originally Posted by The Financial Ombudsman

Most motor policies contain an express requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. If so, where there is good evidence that the loss or damage was caused (or substantially contributed to) because the vehicle was unroadworthy, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to reject the claim.
In other cases, the insurer might reduce the payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. If so, where there is good evidence that the vehicle would have failed an MOT test, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to take this into account in assessing its value.