earthman

I've not bothered to call them to be honest, I'm pretty sure that they would just deny any knowledge of them being bad etc, it would only result in me having to cancel/lose the money I've already paid to take out another more expensive policy no doubt. I just wanted to know if Markerstudy were at least a bonafide, government registered company as such,......surely certain criteria must be met or can any fly by night/dodgy person set up a motoring insurance company?? I'll keep checking askmid website, to see that my vehicle is coming up as 'insured' at least, that's my main concern at the mo.

I have seen negative comments on just about every insurance company in the past, generally folk only comment when they have had a 'bad' experience as such so I'd say that you can't go entirely by customer feedback alone. The site/comments I found is still of concern though. The broker is one of the big ones, I'm a mature/experienced driver with full no claims etc so it's nothing to do with a risk factor aspect on my part, I just phoned them after seeing their original renewal price, after having a quick look on-line, it were way too much,....you are so right about no value in being loyal. This broker has changed who I'm with before, I've not thought much about it to be honest,.....these brokers are suppose to be 'experts' so how are we suppose to know any better?

Considering that it's a legal requirement to take out vehicle insurance before one can use a motorised vehicle in the UK, is there a way of 'checking out' any insurance company beforehand? Is there a database or a government run organisation that oversees/checks their practices basically? My insurance broker who I have used for many years has just signed me up to a company that I've never heard, Markerstudy. Now I've seen all the one star/shocking reviews on the site below, I'm a bit concerned to be honest, comments like them all of a sudden cancelling folks policies etc don't sound good. https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.markerstudy.com

I really dunno, it does sound a bit odd to me but if the law makers deem that touching the screen of a mounted mobile phone is illegal than why should a mounted Sat Nav be different??

There's a piece in the Daily Mirror today saying that you'd be breaking the law even if you touch the screen on a mobile whilst using the mapping app, even when it's connected to a hands free kit for calls.....So what about touching the screen of a dedicated Sat Nav unit, does that law apply to those too??

From the first of March (tomorrow) I hear that the penalty/fine has changed for this offence. Can someone in 'Traffic' just clarify a point I heard on the BBC's One Show? The reporter said the phrase "driving or whilst the engine is running" so am I right in saying that a motorist could get done for this even whilst parked up at the side of the road, if the engine happens to be running? Maybe this has always been the case?? I always thought that if you were pulled over/stationary at the time, it were safe to hold/use a mobile phone regardless of whether or not the engine were running.

It goes on to say:- Many thanks for posting this, so I'd not be done for not having an MOT if the examiner failed it because of slight play in a wheel bearing for example,.....if I had to use the vehicle for another 4 weeks, until the part come in, I'd still be risking being done for a vehicle not being in a road worthy condition or what ever the correct term is,....that's not a great thought either but I understand. I'd always assumed that the whole point of being able to take a vehicle for a test an whole month early were so that one could find out which parts may need replacing, being able to drive it back home, to the parts shop and back to another garage or my own drive to fix it. I certainly wouldn't look at it that way if the part happened to be a brake related/urgent critical safety one though, that would be far too dangerous. I have been the 'family's mechanic' for years now so I am 'on top' of maintenance/such items generally,.....you just never know for sure if an MOT inspect may spot something that I've missed or have a different opinion on how much play may be felt in a bearing or bush for example.

I wouldn't be surprised if it does happen, just another way to take money off folk basically, the majority of which maybe only slightly over the limit due to speedo inaccuracies. Oh well, what are they going to do in the future when all vehicles on the roads drive themselves, controlled via GPS/satellites, no need for any form of speed camera then,....probably cut the number of traffic cops on the roads too.

Lol, OK,.....and I probably badly worded the second part too. So you are saying that one could still get nicked for that blowing exhaust on their way home from the MOT station??

This is the answer to which part of the question??

So lets say that there's a quarter of an inch circular hole that has rusted through the rear box of an exhaust system, would one be prosecuted for just that or for having no MOT as well even though there's 4 weeks left on the 'old' one,..... but the failure of the test that the vehicle has just been through over rides that. If you are literately driving back home from that MOT station when you are stopped, you definitely can't get done for either??

For not having a current MOT I guess, despite still having a month on the current one,.....or should I say 'old' one because the test that you've just had overwrites it as stated by Boss.

Think about this for a min. The system to allow you to take the vehicle in a month early without loosing any of the old MOT is to give you time to get the car fixed whilst it is still covered by the old MOT. Thus proving that a new fail does not cancel on older pass. Again you could still be prosecuted for the vehicle condition. Just been looking this up on the .gov site. It seems that the guidance has been changed so that the advice I gave is now incorrect. No point taking it in early now then. Or take it in but get a pre MOT done not an on the system one. Yeah, that's how I understood it for years, like I've said, I've always taken my vehicles early, knowing that if the mot man does fail it for an item that I've missed, I can still use the vehicle for a few weeks to get to work etc and have time to order parts/do the work myself.

This question reminds me of the chap in this video, he seems to take things too far in my opinion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_2e-VPdzoQ a

Ah yes,....good point.