Jump to content

  •  

Photo

Driving to MOT tests with no MOT and insurance and VED


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
12 replies to this topic

#1 Ninety-Eight

Ninety-Eight

    UKPOLICEONLINE New Member

  • Resident Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 31 March 2009 - 02:55 PM

OK, last time I asked about this was probably the late 1990s and I wondered how changes in enforcement (ANPR etc) and the like have changed things.

Say I have a car which has no MOT and I need to get an MOT done, I can drive to the MOT station without an MOT so long as I drive straight there and straight back and I have "a reasonable expectation that the car will pass the test".

So assuming my car has no defects, I am good to go?

There is much rumour and barrack room lawyer talk about how a car with no MOT is automaticvally invalidating its insurance. So if I drive my non-MOT'd car to the test centre with valid insurance but no MOT does my insurance become invalid? I had always thought this was not the case, although my insurance company may have small print which limits my cover to third party while doing so.

Also I obviously can't tax the car until it has an MOT is it still an offense to drive with no VED in the window too and from the MOT test?

So as I am driving to the test centre I drive though an ANPR camera or I attract the attention of a police patrol car who flags me down... The test is pre booked, the car has valid fully comp insurance (on paper at least), but there is no tax disc and the car has no current MOT... Where do I stand?

Also also, there is some conflicting advice about distances you can drive to a pre-booked MOT test...

I was always told "a reasonable distance" - ie when I picked up my brother's car to take if for a test I picked it up from his house but drove it to my local tast centre which was 30 miles or so. I was advised by the local police at the time that this was "reasonable". However others seem to have been told that "any distance so long as its pre booked" and also that there is a restriction preventing you going on the motorway as part of the trip to the MOT centre.

Can anyone offer guidance on this matter also?

Thanks in advance.

#2 blueb

blueb

    UKPOLICEONLINE Trooper

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 1,765 posts

Posted 31 March 2009 - 04:18 PM

As far as insurance is concerned, the easiest way to see if YOUR insurance covers you is to read YOUR policy. If it doesn't say you must have an mot, then it would seem logical that the absence of an MOT would notvoid the 3rd party cover.
IFor the VEL, if you use on the road it needs to be taxed. Get caught and the back tax/penalties start to come into effect.
Why notsimply get it trailered there. Why travel 30 miles to an mot centre where there are few placs in the majority of the country where a test centre is so far away. Sounds like a bucket full of hypertheticals or trying to justiofy to yourelf why its ok to go that far just to get it tested.
Applying common sense is usually the right answer.

#3 TheGrimReaper

TheGrimReaper

    UKPOLICEONLINE Veteran

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 1,252 posts

Posted 31 March 2009 - 04:24 PM

Here we go again, rumour, counter rumour, grey-areas, waffly legislation and general vague rules governing the law and its interpretation leads to more confusion - which usually leads to more stringent legislation further down the line (that is not aimed at you 98 btw).,

I hate it when you hear "my mate says......"

In simple terms. Yes you can drive your car to a PRE-BOOKED MOT. As it stands that is all that is required...there is no mention of specific distances nor as far as I am aware any mention of timing - I often drop my car off at the garage the night before the test so they can get an early start and I can have it back by lunchtime.

so if I book my car in for a test in London and decide to drive it from Edinburgh I have done nothing illegal - I can even start my journey on the previous day. Police at Leicester may not be too impressed but not a great deal they can do about it. HOWEVER, this will only wash if the car is roadworthy - and even having an unexpired MOT does not guarantee this.

As for road tax, i'm sure someone will enlighten us, but I think the offence is FAILING TO DISPLAY...now another grey area because you order online, do you wait till the disc turns up or are you safe to drive having had acknowledgemnt that you have paid your road tax. again, depends on who you ask as to what answer you will get. Chances are local beat bobby will nail you for failing to display yet m-way traffic plod with ANPR will not even notice as it will show up on system as being taxed....

Insurance....caution on this...read the small print is first advice. Insurers will do whatever they can to get off their liability. and if the "rumour" about invalid insurance on way to MOT becomes more prevalent then it opens up a real can of worms. Again a grey area that needs a definitive answer. ie as far as the LAW is concerned a car without a current MOT, being driven to a PRE-BOOKED MOT is deemed to have an MOT until test shows otherwise. Once a car fails an MOT it should be made law that it stays put until fixed or goes on a tow-truck for repair. Just may force folk to take better care of their vehicles...and would stop the current situation where a car can fail an MOT and then be driven back home so matey next door can fix it on the cheap.


I do now, and always have, detested rules and regulations that are written in such a poor way as they become effectively (or non-effectively ) worthless. and new rules and methods come into force without due consideration for knock-on effects.

#4 Traffic Rat

Traffic Rat

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 1,218 posts

Posted 31 March 2009 - 08:08 PM

TGR is correct, but with No VEL, dependant on the circs and when the VEL ran out, there is good chance that it will actually get seized, by DVLA staff or Police at the roadside, dependant on you the being able to pay the release fee/surety of around £260 and then getting the car taxed after the MOt is issued and getting the surety back

#5 TheGrimReaper

TheGrimReaper

    UKPOLICEONLINE Veteran

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 1,252 posts

Posted 01 April 2009 - 12:14 PM

TGR is correct, but with No VEL, dependant on the circs and when the VEL ran out, there is good chance that it will actually get seized, by DVLA staff or Police at the roadside, dependant on you the being able to pay the release fee/surety of around £260 and then getting the car taxed after the MOt is issued and getting the surety back



TR, this in someway reinforces my thoughts about wishy-washy legislation and rules. Do you know where it is laid down what the circumstances are and time criteria?

It would be much simpler if it was stated that "In order to drive to a PRE-BOOKED MOT the vehicle MUST have a current VEL. If it does not have a valid VEL or does not have valid insurance IT MUST NOT BE DRIVEN ON A PUBLIC ROAD and alternate means of getting to the MOT test centre MUST be arranged.

If only it was so simple. It would save a lot of rumours.

Going on to what BlueB said

"Why not simply get it trailered there. Why travel 30 miles to an mot centre where there are few places........"

Yes this is a common sense approach but as it stands it is not the law, however once "suggestions" like this proliferate it becomes the norm and eventually the accepted and agreed, albeit unnecessary, method.

I noticed the other day that there was an article about the use of flashing your headlights and what it means. There is talk of changing the HWC to reflect what has become common practice in that it is now understood to mean "I have seen you and am giving way to you to let you pull out" rather than what the HWC says now

"110
Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users

111
Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.


"


and also:

103
Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians (see 'Signals to other road users'), of your intended actions. You should always

-give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time
-use them to advise other road users before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off
cancel them after use
-make sure your signals will not confuse others. If, for instance, you want to stop after a side road, do not signal until you are passing the road. If you signal earlier it may give the impression that you intend to turn into the road. Your brake lights will warn traffic behind you that you are slowing down
-use an arm signal to emphasise or reinforce your signal if necessary. Remember that signalling does not give you priority.


So i'm now riding along, I see a car that may pull out on me, do I flash my lights to warn him of my presence and he stays put (Knowing the HWC)? Do I flash my lights to warn him of my presence and HE misinterprets that to mean he can pull out? or do I do nothing apart from prepare to take evasive action as he has NOT seen me at all?

Personally, I take evasive action earlier, wait for him to pull out then rip his wing-mirrors and head off at the next set of lights and drop the remains of his mobile fun into the hole in his neck :whistle2:

Use of hazard lights.....hypothetical situation:

50mph limit, I see an obstruction ahead and traffic slowing to a standstill, I start to brake and also put my hazards on to warn traffic behind.

Did I do wrong?
Could I do the same on a 60mph road?
Could I do the same on 70mph dual carriageway?
Could I do the same on a motorway?



Answers on a postcard please to.....

Miss Ivy Lykes
The Cockwell Inn
Tillet
Herts

:thumbsup:

#6 Ninety-Eight

Ninety-Eight

    UKPOLICEONLINE New Member

  • Resident Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 01 April 2009 - 02:55 PM

As far as insurance is concerned, the easiest way to see if YOUR insurance covers you is to read YOUR policy. If it doesn't say you must have an mot, then it would seem logical that the absence of an MOT would notvoid the 3rd party cover.
IFor the VEL, if you use on the road it needs to be taxed. Get caught and the back tax/penalties start to come into effect.
Why notsimply get it trailered there. Why travel 30 miles to an mot centre where there are few placs in the majority of the country where a test centre is so far away. Sounds like a bucket full of hypertheticals or trying to justiofy to yourelf why its ok to go that far just to get it tested.
Applying common sense is usually the right answer.


OK, I guess the insurance co is the best person to speak about this if there is no blanket rule.

Road tax - hmmm, fair enough I guess.

Why not get it trailered? - because of the cost really. I don't own a car with a tow bar, and even if I did I would have to check the towing weight was sufficient to tow a car on a suitable trailer as well, wghichI would have to rent. I think I'd rather get busted for no tax than for an overloaded trailer. Paying a car transport firm would cost me too much. I know what they charge 'cos I've used a few by now.

In the case where I brought my brother's car back up 30 miles the reason I did so was because I could use the local test centre I use for all my tests and who I trust. Plus if the car had failed its MOT I could have repaired it and easily got it retested locally rather than having to commute 30 miles back and forth between my house and my parent's place where my brother had laft the car when he emigrated.

In the recent (in fact current) case the MOT centre is 6 miles from my house, maybe 7. There are closer test centres but as I said this is the test centre I have been using for years. I know the guys there and trust both the honesty of their testing and the quality of their repair work should I decide not to repair it myself, I have a credit account and I get a discount. There are plenty of sharks out there in the garage business...

I think the reason that the law permits you to drive away from a failed MOT is that otherwise garages could use a lot of uscrupulous tactics to hold your car to ransom for over priced and unnecessary repairs. There's nothing wrong with getting your car repaired cheap so long as its done right. I know from personal experiance (which ended up inolving VOSA) that using a main dealer does not mean a proper test is done or that repairs are safe. Certainly I'd not want to see a situation where people were being arm twisted into the £80 per hour rates to do simple fixes like changing a tail light bulb or whatever...

However with the whole business of driving away in a failed MOT car this opens up a fresh can of worms... If the car failed the MOT then there is a fair chance it is in some way unroadworthy (having a valid MOT does not in itself make a car roadworthy due to the limitations of the test, having failed the test does not necessarily make the car dangerous) but I would guess that 99.9% of road users are not in a position to make a judgement if driving an MOT failed car would risk them being done for some other offense, although ones like bald tyres should be obvious enough....

Would ANPR or a patrol officer even know Mr X's car had failed its MOT if it still has 2 - 3 weeks to run on the old ticket?

As for the VED circumstances and when it ran out, I once bought a car which was last taxed 16 years previously when its owner had laid it up in a garage. I'd have hated to get caught for the back tax on that if I was pulled over on the way for the MOT!

Hmmm... someone else pointed me to some words off a directgov web site which suggest no VEL is OK for going to and from an MOT also...

Edited by Ninety-Eight, 01 April 2009 - 07:38 PM.


#7 explodJP

explodJP

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 1,150 posts

Posted 01 April 2009 - 10:30 PM

The road traffic act allows you to drive direct to a prebooked mot and also to drive home .As mentioned in previous posts no menbtion of distance The home trip needs to be in roadworthy vehicle , i.e. if it got failed for item that made it unroadworthy eg bald tyres, defective brakes , rather than headlight not working in daytime then you cannot use on road . Re insurance , in small print usually requires that you maintain vehicle in roadworthy condition , so going there you would be OK but in situation given above you would not have valid insurance to go home .
The general idea re VEL was that on getting mot you would then tax vehicle to cover you for the date that you were on road going to mot test station . Tecnically you do commit the offence of failure to display, but I cannot ever remember any officer proceeding on that as usually it was not having that was the reason , which was the offence that was charged .

The following is on directgov web site:
Driving an untaxed vehicle to an MOT test
You can drive your vehicle to and from a pre-arranged test at an MOT test station provided you have adequate insurance cover in place for the use of that vehicle.

#8 TheGrimReaper

TheGrimReaper

    UKPOLICEONLINE Veteran

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 1,252 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 09:31 AM

The following is on directgov web site:
Driving an untaxed vehicle to an MOT test
You can drive your vehicle to and from a pre-arranged test at an MOT test station provided you have adequate insurance cover in place for the use of that vehicle.



but that is the nub of this catch-22 situation; as it is now getting "rumoured" that by not having a valid MOT you are not insured.

It is a case of one depatrtment saying one thing and insurers saying another. = grey area = confusion = hassle.

#9 Arryace

Arryace

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • 152 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 09:58 PM

1, VED is not required to drive a vehicle to a pre-booked MOT test
2,your vehicle can be un-roadworthy before it has failed an MOT test, ignorance is no defence

#10 TheGrimReaper

TheGrimReaper

    UKPOLICEONLINE Veteran

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 1,252 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 10:10 PM

but with No VEL, dependant on the circs and when the VEL ran out, there is good chance that it will actually get seized, by DVLA staff or Police at the roadside, dependant on you the being able to pay the release fee/surety of around £260 and then getting the car taxed after the MOt is issued and getting the surety back


1, VED is not required to drive a vehicle to a pre-booked MOT test


Anyone care to re-roll the dice in this game as I believe we are back at square one again :mellow:

#11 Arryace

Arryace

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • 152 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:41 AM

who needs to roll a dice <_<

i have recently had a letter asking me to take a car for a VIC it states on the letter the car does not need to be tax'd or mot'd it simply needs to be roadworthy.

it surprises me that serving officers state otherwise :whistle2:

#12 Ninety-Eight

Ninety-Eight

    UKPOLICEONLINE New Member

  • Resident Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 07:42 AM

The road traffic act allows you to drive direct to a prebooked mot and also to drive home .As mentioned in previous posts no menbtion of distance The home trip needs to be in roadworthy vehicle , i.e. if it got failed for item that made it unroadworthy eg bald tyres, defective brakes , rather than headlight not working in daytime then you cannot use on road . Re insurance , in small print usually requires that you maintain vehicle in roadworthy condition , so going there you would be OK but in situation given above you would not have valid insurance to go home .


that makes perfect sense and is more or less what I had believed to be the case (although I thought there may be a distance limit). Thanks!

Edited by Ninety-Eight, 03 April 2009 - 07:43 AM.


#13 Arryace

Arryace

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • 152 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:51 PM

The home trip needs to be in roadworthy vehicle

NO the vehicle needs to be roadworthy, full stop. as per you example if it fails for a bald tyre this would mean you drove the vehicle to the test in an unroadworthy condition as i said previously ignorance is not a defence

as for a limit in distance just because there is no limit specified does not mean you a guaranteed to be free from prosecution, what is reasonable can only be decided by a judge.

there is case law somewhere (cant remember the names involved) where a driver stopped for petrol on the way to his pre-booked test and was reported by the BIB it was decided that it was reasonable for a driver to stop on his way to the test.

aha found it :clapping:
Secretary of State for Transport V. Richards ( 1998 ) JP 682 Queen's Bench Division:

"On the facts of this case, it is ridiculous if a driver could not stop to obtain petrol on the way. It would fly in the face of common sense if some short stop cannot be made by the driver, for whatever purpose, providing he is on his way to the test station."

Edited by Arryace, 03 April 2009 - 05:00 PM.