As I suspected the removal of the MOT requirement might not be all good news...I have just had a copy of a letter from Footman James Insurance sent to me by a customer which reads as follows...
'We write to advise you that in the event of a claim you will not have to provide a copy of an MOT certificate for a vehicle that is MOT exempt.
The road worthiness of your vehicle will be determined by our engineers in the event of an accident'
As you can have an accident at any time and it is the 'Modus Operandi' of most companies to get out of paying if they can it would seem your bike is going to have to be 100%..100% of the time for you to make a successful claim.
The last time I had an accident claim they didn't examine the bike at all, presumably working on the assumption that as it was MOTd it was OK..
Bearing in mind there are now insurance companies that regard a sticker on a fairing as an 'unaurthorised modification' that affects your policy things could now get complicated with different companies applying different standards.
Also there is the question of who will inspect the vehicle, where it will be inspected and whether all deficiencies/ modifications will be taken into account, even if they are not relevant to the circumstances of the accident.
Is that Union Jack you tape to your pannier frames now a 'modification' which might affect the successful resolution of a claim?...buggered if I know.. ....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

More worrying to me is if that letter was the result of an enquiry on the subject, if we give the insurance companies hints that we expect higher premiums or stringent checks after claims then they will implement them if its going to increase their profits.
My mate (with the G3L) worked as a vehicle insurance assessor (20yrs ago) he always said that when they inspected, they could turn down a claim for vehicles with bald tyres ETC but had to be carefull because they were often assessing the vehicle some while after the accident & like an MOT its all about condition on the day.
Vehicles awaiting inspection can have wheels swapped, bits removed ETC
It doesn't appear to me to be much of a different policy in that letter than already exists, if the assessor spots something that makes the vehicle not roadworthy at the time of the accident they could reject the claim, but that's always been the case.

In reality they are looking at several vehicles a day & often only bother to look at the damage, the steering, brakes & tyres, remember that its likely they know even less about what comes into an MOT on early bikes than the average MOT inspector & they don't always even bother to inspect vehicles at all.

Just insured 3 bikes for road use with Carole Nash, 2 are pre 1960 & my premium was cheaper than last year so maybe they realised that now it rains everyday in not going to use them as much :-D

your right fred the amount i have been out this year i should ask for a refund

email (option): roger.beck@node6.com

There is alot of web forum talk around about this pre 1960 MOT exemption, but it has been around for quite a while for pre 60 over 3500 kgs vehicles not being used for commercial use. Most enthusiasts maintain their transport in a safe and possibly over attentive fashion, and at the end of the day, MOT excempt or not, it still must comply and be in roadworthy condition if being used on the highway....so, I dont see the problem.......?

I would say the potential problem is the nature of the 'engineers inspection' and the arbritary 'rules' applied by insurance companies as to what represents an unauthorised modification.
On the first point I am confident that I could inspect the majority of old bikes and find a 'fault'..for example wear in the fork links, misalignment of the wheels, incorrectly adjusted brakes, incorrect tyre pressures and tyre tread that has been run a bit too far etc...in fact all things you could fail an MOT on if the rules were strictly applied. It is the nature of an old bike that something always needs doing and in my experience I don't think it is true that old bikes are generally well put together or well maintained...
I have had enough of them through my workshop to realise that is not the case...and I've run my own bike with minor faults/wear, as I'm sure most people have.
It is also human nature to leave that repair or fitting that new tyre until it REALLY needs doing...often just before the MOT.
If the insurance companies engineers set out to find a fault and are stringent enough they will probably find one...though it is possible as Fred says that they won't be that stringent.
The second point regarding 'unauthorised modifications' is to my mind more worrying..The 'rules' concerning what you can and can't do are not laws, but arbritary judgements made by individual companies..The example in my previous posting of a company that regards the placement of a sticker on a fairing as such a modification is fact...but would you consider that was a modification?
Another example is the fitting of screens, mirrors or top boxes etc. Many might just consider that an accessory, not a modification, but it falls into the same category.
All of the above give grounds for an insurance company not to pay out and in the case of 'modifications' they are applying their own version of type approval.
Whilst a modification that affects the performance or handling of a bike might be something the companies could reasonably argue they should be informed about I don't really think that should apply to stickers and mirrors for example...but some companies do.
The fact is there is now a 'grey area' regarding what is acceptable..or rather a mismatch between what you might consider a modification and what your insurance company thinks...and that COULD have implications in the event of a claim if MOT exempt bikes are now to be routinely subjected to inspection.
As I mentioned previously the last time I had an accident the company didn't want to inspect my bike..but if they had what, if anything, would they have decided was unacceptable?....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Ian, did a little Google on the sticker thing ...The main culprit Is Bennett's, who last year said any more than 3 modifications they wont insure,
Here's the list..
Air filter changes Bar ends Badge changes Belly pans De restricted Blueprint Braided hoses Brake system modified Carbon fibre parts Carb change Different screen Chrome accessory Crash bars Chromed engine Crash bobbins
★ Decals or stickers ★
Dyno jet kit End cans Engine crash casings or engine casings Engine tuning Brake enhancement Exhaust Exhaust ( road legal upto £300) 4 into 1 exhausts Fairing removal Extended forks Bags/ panniers/ luggage Fork braces Fork springs Filter changes Specially built frame Grips Grippers Heated grips Handlebars Headlights/bulbs Indicators Induction kit Huggers Mirrors Special paintwork and murals Nitrous R&g protection Non standard seat Racing colours/ paintwork Power commander Radiator bars/ protection Sat Nav Reborn Scot oilers Sat cowl Seat replacement Wheels Single seat Sissy bars Steering changes e.g steering dampers Street fighters Tank pads Suspension changes Shock absorbers Tyres changed from standard.

I think they would have to prove the sticker contributed to the accident/incident before getting out of paying a claim, but effectively if the customer haden't told them about it they're not insured.

Ive never seen any reason to insure with them myself

As I said in a previous thread on the subject. My Morris Commercial has been MOT exempt for about 20 years and nothing changed. The only slight problem I have had, is not being able to tax it on line. Because the DVLA computer system doesn't seem to understand 'MOT Exempt' and refuses my request as no MOT is shown. So I have to make a trip to my local PO. I just assume that all my other vehicles will now come under the same category as my Morris. So unless DVLA alter their website. There will be more visits to the queue in the PO. for all of us. I'd rather that than pay £30-£50 for MOT's though, just to sometimes do a very few miles. Ron

PS. Ian. What about that Saudi bloke? Do you think his Jeep is insured

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Fred..That rather proves my point..half of the things on that list have no effect at all on the bikes performance or safety and you are even penalised for improving the brakes!.. I note extended forks are also on the list..There is NO evidence from studies to indicate that extending forks has any effect on accident statistics either. These are purely arbritary items chosen without reference to statistics..(or logic).
It is likely that other companies will follow this trend and this serves purely to illustrate how easy it would be to fall foul of the rules..
MOT exemption is obviously pretty straight forward if you don't have an accident and your vehicle is therefore never inspected but I'll bet a pound to a penny someone is going to lose out over a minor 'infringement' after an accident...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Ive always had a big problem with the fact its law we need insurance on the road but the state don't offer a basic guidline for basic requirements for companies to adhere to. ... Maybe there are some basic rules, ive not seen any documentation..
It wont be long before someone changing your oil & applying a sticker to show when it was done. Will get sued by an owner after it voided his insurance.
My veiw on insurance is they are all crooks, the last time I had an insurance company try to short change me, I went to their offices (not the broker) & made a nuisance of myself refusing to leave without settlement, after an hour someone appeared with a cheque just to get rid of me.
Ron, I think its ridiculous they gave us so much notice about the MOT change yet no instructions about later registered vehicles & no indication of sorting the online system they must surely be aware of those issues, maybe the new rules included longer Commons bar opening hours...

Insurance companies are making themselves the law in the land, no matter what the real law is, because we have to have insurance. They've got us over a barrel.

It is irrelevance about the MOT though. I had a bad accident 20 years ago where I went under a car on a bike. I was in hospital with broken bones and my bike was taken away and I never saw it again. It was an accident where the bike went down on a wet road, so I was to blame, the Police were determined to do me for something although everything was covered by insurance. After trying to put a breathalyser in my mouth while I'm semi-concious and spitting blood and teeth, which came up negative. I later received 6 summons through the post.

The bike was in perfect condition and MOD'd before the accident, and remembering it had gone under a car and bounced of a few other vehicles, but the summons were for;

Having a loose seat on a bike,
having no exhaust system,
no rear reflector,(I think the back end was smashed)
no horn
and 2 defective tyres (one had 2 pounds to much pressure and the other had tread under the limit, presumably from where I skidded)

The Police had given the bike to someone and said write down everything that's wrong with the bike. It's obvious it had an exhaust system before the accident and all the other things were as a result of the accident, and the bike was MOT'd but that didn't count for anything.

I couldn't see the bike to put up a defence, so I phoned the Police and got everything dropped except the bold spot on the tyre. With my injuries, I wasn't in a position to travel to the area where the accident was to fight it in court, so I took a £10 fine a 3 points for the tyre. That was the least of my worries at the time, but the Police just had to do someone for something.

So my point is, the MOT has never made a difference when there's an accident, you have to have one but your vehicle will still be checked for faults. The same will apply for MOT exempt vehicle.

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

i can see things like top boxes as they would cost the insurers money if damaged but puzzled why they would ban bar ends and engine protectors as this would save them money by saving the casings

email (option): roger.beck@node6.com