Limited Mileage Insurance requires annual MOT?

[egsj]

Hi. I've recently renewed my Morris Traveller insurance with limited mileage (comfortably more miles than I drive in a year) and have just had the thought: what if I have to make a claim at some point and PROVE that the mileage done was within my stated limit? Because an annual MOT is no longer required, I don't get one that often and therefore I wouldn't have that paperwork as proof. My insurers (Footman James) have never asked for / don't log my annual mileage total, so they're not keeping count. Of course, I can raise this query with them, but I'm just curious to hear the perspectives / experience of anyone reading this...

Jamesy

[svenedin]

Hi. I've recently renewed my Morris Traveller insurance with limited mileage (comfortably more miles than I drive in a year) and have just had the thought: what if I have to make a claim at some point and PROVE that the mileage done was within my stated limit? Because an annual MOT is no longer required, I don't get one that often and therefore I wouldn't have that paperwork as proof. My insurers (Footman James) have never asked for / don't log my annual mileage total, so they're not keeping count. Of course, I can raise this query with them, but I'm just curious to hear the perspectives / experience of anyone reading this...

Jamesy

My car is also insured with limited mileage. I have to tell my insurer the mileage recorded on the odometer at the start of the policy. I am not required to have an MOT but I get one anyway. My thoughts are: an MOT is peace of mind for me and should I ever be involved in an accident I can prove that my car was well maintained and had passed an MOT (of course having an MOT is not proof of roadworthiness at a later date but it does give an indication of the state of the car in general).

[egsj]

A useful response, thanks. I decided an MOT every couple of years or so should be sufficient for me (plus, of course, the all-important annual service). Am now hesitating about raising the query with my insurers as it will flag to them that my MOT is not an annual ritual. And they've never asked for my mileage. I feel like I've stumbled into a grey area I'd not thought of before -- and I'm wondering if maybe I should have plumped for unlimited mileage just to avoid this particular issue; that would certainly be a cheaper option than getting an MOT every single year, which I feel is more frequent than is necessary for the Traveller...

[svenedin]

A useful response, thanks. I decided an MOT every couple of years or so should be sufficient for me (plus, of course, the all-important annual service). Am now hesitating about raising the query with my insurers as it will flag to them that my MOT is not an annual ritual. And they've never asked for my mileage. I feel like I've stumbled into a grey area I'd not thought of before -- and I'm wondering if maybe I should have plumped for unlimited mileage just to avoid this particular issue; that would certainly be a cheaper option than getting an MOT every single year, which I feel is more frequent than is necessary for the Traveller...

I am with Adrian Flux and I can enter my odometer reading on my account on their website. Can you do similar?

Stephen

[Chief]

FJ's policy says the car has to be in road worthy condition, not that it needs an MOT, so if your car disintegrates into rust particles over a speed bump you're probably not covered anyway

In the past they would ask you to provide the mileage at your earliest convenience if you didn't have it to hand, though I did notice this year they didn't request it at all.

[egsj]

Nope, there's no place on the Footman James website for logging my car's mileage.

[Chief]

I've never used the website as when ever I do it always said I had to phone as the renewal couldn't be completed online.

[egsj]

Yes, the FJ website is not very good (yet) - just an access portal for documents, really. It's hard to know if their not asking for evidence of actual annual mileage when selling limited mileage policies is the result of procedural muddle on their part or intentional evasion so that they can catch you out on a technicality in the event of a claim ("There's no evidence that you've stuck to your declared limit, so the claim can't be upheld", etc). I'm not *that* paranoid, but the thought has crossed my mind... Many of us must be in the same grey area, I'd have thought...

[ManyMinors]

You've said that your car has an "all important annual service". Does the garage not record the mileage on the invoice? That would be some sort of evidence

[egsj]

Thanks for that thought. Much appreciated. My annual service is done by a now-largely-retired local Morris mechanic (the best of the best), and not by a local garage, so there's no formal invoice on headed notepaper, but maybe that could be sorted out. I'll pursue that idea... And maybe I'll take a photo of the odometer on the renewal day each year, with the date of a daily newspaper showing. It feels a bit amateur-ish to do that, but since FJ don't have a clear, explicitly stated way of handling the limited mileage verification issue now that annual MOTs are no longer required for classic cars, I feel I have to take my own steps to make sure I'm not caught out by this detail in the event of a claim...

[Grumpy21]

I posed a question some time ago on another forum.

If you decide not to have an MOT and are involved in an accident how do you establish that your car was roadworthy prior to the accident?

Many other the replies were based on conjecture but two were more factual and of interest.

The first was from a chap who's car had set fire and hadn't been MOT'd for several years. His insurance wouldn't accept his own servicing as evidence of roadworthiness due to the lack of independent verification, he eventually had to settle for 'market' value rather than agreed value and lost out on several thousands of pounds as a result. (MGB)

The second chap was involved in a significant collision where his passenger needed hospital treatment and his car was written off. (Triumph Stag I think). He too refused to MOT his car. The car was subject to minute inspection by the insurance assessor who concluded that there was structural corrosion at a rear suspension mounting point. Consequently the insurance refused to pay out for the car as it was deemed 'unroadworthy' but did pay out for the passengers hospital treatment. The car had been stationary at a T junction and the third party had run into him from behind.

I always MOT my cars

[egsj]

Thanks, Grumpy 21. That's food for thought - and for wider reasons than the limited mileage one. It's not that I'm an MOT refusenik. I just decided to drop down to getting this done every couple of years to save a bit of money as the car's in very good nick and is only used occasionally. But you've given me something to think about there...

Jamesy

[Chief]

Would be interesting to know which companies those Grumpy21 mentioned were... but it might count as naming and shaming.

[Owlsman]

As I retired insurance company manager and subsequently broker, I can, hopefully, comment with a bit of authority. In short, if in doubt, give your insurer as much info as you can.....even if they don't ask for it! A simple email stating your speedo reading, when renewing your policy, is then recorded for posterity, or at least as long as you are likely to need it for!

Although I'm not now with the same insurer, a couple of years ago I had to replace a faulty speedo with a 'used unit', which obviously had a different mileage. It was actually about 10k less than the one I took out. I sent a photo of the dashboard with the 'new' speedo in it and a covering email to my insurer and requested an acknowledgement which I received in a day or two. Job done and no possible cause for dispute in the event of an accident.

Lest there is suspicion that I'm suggesting that all insurers are looking for any excuse not to pay out, I must say that is definitely not the case! Having said that, insurers are not daft and if they suspect that someone is trying to pull a fast one they will drill down until they get to the truth. Classic examples are having youngsters declared as 'very occasional' drivers when said youngster prangs the car whilst in the same city they just happen to be at university in.......and there are about 3 or 4 cars in the household. Hmmm?
Similarly, a low, limited classic car mileage declaration looks a tad suspicious when, say, the driver is still in employment, with a family at home and has no access to any other vehicle.

I say again - if in any doubt, just tell your insurer anyway. It's easy enough to do these days, electronically (email, WhatsApp, text etc.) and then you've got an easily retrievable record, if it ever becomes necessary.

[jagnut66]

Would be interesting to know which companies those Grumpy21 mentioned were... but it might count as naming and shaming.

Agreed value should mean just that, otherwise what's the point in having it.
If it is conditional with some companies then they should openly stipulate those conditions in writing and highlight them, before taking your money.
It would be worth Grumpy21 naming those two insurers, so that people on this forum who use them can ask the question of them, before finding out the hard way.
So I think the 'naming and shaming' point is mute in this case, people have a need to know.
Of course if (heaven forbid) someone's car is stolen and not recovered then the insurers would have a very hard job finding an excuse to avoid paying out.
You would think anyway...............
Best wishes,
Mike.

[Grumpy21]

Would be interesting to know which companies those Grumpy21 mentioned were... but it might count as naming and shaming.

forgive the thread drift but when I started that thread a couple of years ago I specifically requested respondents NOT to name insurers to stay within the 'rules' of the forum being used.

In each case I'm not sure any 'shame' could be attributed.

The topic ran for several pages but most respondents simply gave opinions and suggestions, the two I cited claimed to have first hand negative experiences. Equally there were a couple of responses where no assessor had been involved and insurance paid out but all these were minor (no pun intended) claims. Windscreen and small bumps if I remember correctly.

[egsj]

Owlsman, thanks for your helpful perspective and the email suggestion. Yes, I'll do just that. Hopefully in due course my insurers will have a clearer process in place and there'll be a way of logging my annual mileage figure on their system at renewal time. Meanwhile, I'll be proactive in the info I provide...

All best,
Jamesy

[Chief]

if they suspect that someone is trying to pull a fast one they will drill down until they get to the truth

Well ! Drilling a car to bits just so they can say it had pre-existing damage and not pay out

So I think the 'naming and shaming' point is mute in this case, people have a need to know.

In each case I'm not sure any 'shame' could be attributed.

Well, more a turn of phrase when I say name and shame. Though that said, the current Forum Rules (Terms of Use) as far as I could see no longer mention anything about not criticising companies publically - am I getting muddled between the rules of this and my other cars club forum I wonder.

[jagnut66]

I think it would be safe to name the insurance companies involved on here.
It would only become a problem if someone then vented any frustrations they have with them by slagging them off in a reply on this forum.

So perhaps name them for the benefit of members, so they can check out how they might be affected by contacting them individually.

Meanwhile have one of the Moderators close / lock this post, so there can be no comments about the companies posted on here.
Best wishes,
Mike.

[MorrisJohn]

Would be good to know who those insurers are. I agree with the point above, what’s the point in agreed value if they can just wriggle out of it?

I don’t have my car MOT’d annually either, primarily because there isn’t a single MOT test centre within a reasonable distance of me that I’d trust with a car of this age. The nearest garage I trust enough to let near it is thirty miles away and it isn’t a test centre.

I’m confident it would pass an annual test but I don’t trust the garages. The garage I use for my modern car, which I do trust, said they wouldn’t touch my Minor as the young mechanics wouldn’t have a clue about them.

But like most owners I do know the car’s condition well and it gets what it needs.