Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • TheEnergyThread
    • By TheEnergyThread 8th Sep 17, 10:56 PM
    • 23Posts
    • 10Thanks
    TheEnergyThread
    Question about insurance
    • #1
    • 8th Sep 17, 10:56 PM
    Question about insurance 8th Sep 17 at 10:56 PM
    I am currently deciding what to do, I have a car that’s MOT runs out in January & my insurance runs out in February. Now I want to know if I can continue to pay insurance for that month but not drive the car due to no MOT until my insurance runs out then sell the car without MOT. Could I do this or would my insurance go VOID the moment I have no MOT?
Page 3
    • TheEnergyThread
    • By TheEnergyThread 9th Sep 17, 12:03 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    TheEnergyThread
    Yeah my car would still be insured just no MOT because I don’t want the car anymore & don’t wanna spend anymore money on it. Ofcourse you cannot drive it without any MOT but It runs out 11 months into my insurance and I want my NCB without it going void or cancelling due to having no MOT? I’m on about keeping it idle on the road with Road tax no MOT until my insurance runs out.
    • TheEnergyThread
    • By TheEnergyThread 9th Sep 17, 12:08 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    TheEnergyThread
    [/URL]
    So when is a vehicle not a motor vehicle?
    When it runs out of petrol?
    When the battery is flat?
    When a con rod is broken?
    When the engine is taken out?
    When it was never intended for use on the roads in the first place?
    by jack_pott;73101216 In this Act......."motor vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads..."[/I

    Also regarding this I do not intend to use or adapt the vehicle for driving purpose once MOT has run out.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 9th Sep 17, 12:39 PM
    • 2,407 Posts
    • 1,566 Thanks
    Car 54
    Apologies, should say the DVA
    Originally posted by glentoran99
    OK, so the advice you were given (even if correct) does not apply in Great Britain.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 9th Sep 17, 12:41 PM
    • 2,407 Posts
    • 1,566 Thanks
    Car 54
    "In this Act......."motor vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads..."

    So when is a vehicle not a motor vehicle?
    When it runs out of petrol?
    When the battery is flat?
    When a con rod is broken?
    When the engine is taken out?
    When it was never intended for use on the roads in the first place?
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    How does any of this help the OP?

    His car is clearly a motor vehicle, and nothing he now does to it will change that fact.
    • TheEnergyThread
    • By TheEnergyThread 9th Sep 17, 1:18 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    TheEnergyThread
    Quick way to resolve this I will get in contact with the insurance company Monday & just ask whether or not my policy would continue if I sorn the vehicle and keep it off road until it runs out. If not I’ll have to MOT it and sell it instead of scrap it. But thankyou anyway
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 9th Sep 17, 1:39 PM
    • 4,259 Posts
    • 5,472 Thanks
    jack_pott
    How does any of this help the OP?
    Originally posted by Car 54
    They're just thoughts that were prompted by your remark about it still being a car even if "totally immobilised and could only be moved by being dragged away".

    What if he takes the battery out/disconnects the prop shaft/removes the wheels/whatever? Where is the line in law between a car and not a car.
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 9th Sep 17, 1:40 PM
    • 4,259 Posts
    • 5,472 Thanks
    jack_pott
    I want my NCB without it going void
    Originally posted by TheEnergyThread
    That's why I was trying to insure mine.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Sep 17, 1:46 PM
    • 33,291 Posts
    • 17,220 Thanks
    Quentin
    Quick way to resolve this I will get in contact with the insurance company Monday & just ask whether or not my policy would continue if I sorn the vehicle and keep it off road until it runs out. If not I’ll have to MOT it and sell it instead of scrap it. But thankyou anyway
    Originally posted by TheEnergyThread
    You don't need to tell your insurer if you sorn the car!
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 9th Sep 17, 2:03 PM
    • 2,407 Posts
    • 1,566 Thanks
    Car 54
    They're just thoughts that were prompted by your remark about it still being a car even if "totally immobilised and could only be moved by being dragged away".

    What if he takes the battery out/disconnects the prop shaft/removes the wheels/whatever? Where is the line in law between a car and not a car.
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    The definition is "a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads".

    The OP's vehicle was originally intended for use on roads, otherwise he would not have bought it, and it could not have been taxed etc.

    Removing parts does not change that fact.

    BTW the relevant act for MOT matters is the Road Traffic Act 1988, not the Road Traffic Regulation Act, although the definitions are the same.
    • onomatopoeia99
    • By onomatopoeia99 9th Sep 17, 2:17 PM
    • 3,538 Posts
    • 7,769 Thanks
    onomatopoeia99
    Your insurance will continue, you might want to take it to an MOT for example, which needs insurance but the journey there and back is exempt from the requirements for road tax or an MOT.
    INTP, nerd, libertarian and scifi geek.
    Home is where my books are.
    • Aretnap
    • By Aretnap 9th Sep 17, 2:17 PM
    • 2,822 Posts
    • 2,320 Thanks
    Aretnap
    Apologies, should say the DVA
    Originally posted by glentoran99
    Ah well, Northern Ireland is a whole other country. We don't have a DVA in Great Britain. The equivalent would be the DVSA - not the DVLA.

    English court decisions are not binding on Northern Irish courts (though they usually follow them where the underlying law is the same), so it's *possible* that the NI courts might have taken a different interpretation of "using". It's even possible that the underling legislation is different - NI road traffic law is based on GB law but is not always identical. Or it's possible that the NI courts haven't specifically considered the question, and that the bloke at the DVA was guessing.

    In any event the situation in NI isn't directly relevant to that in England and Wales, where it's been settled law for decades that a vehicle which is parked on the street is being used and required MOT and insurance.
    • Aretnap
    • By Aretnap 9th Sep 17, 2:25 PM
    • 2,822 Posts
    • 2,320 Thanks
    Aretnap
    They're just thoughts that were prompted by your remark about it still being a car even if "totally immobilised and could only be moved by being dragged away".

    What if he takes the battery out/disconnects the prop shaft/removes the wheels/whatever? Where is the line in law between a car and not a car.
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    That would be a question for a court to decide based on the specific facts of the case - you're not going to find a list of every possible modification you might make to a car with a ruling on whether or not it's still a car. It would come down to the ordinary meaning of the words, broadly interpreted.

    In ordinary language a car which has run out of petrol is still a car, as is a car which has broken down, a car with a flat (or disconnected) battery, or a car which you've jacked up while you change a wheel. (Pumbien v Vines involved a car with deflated tyres, seized brakes and no oil in the gearbox, which could not have been moved without significant repairs). If you'd dismantled it to the point where no reasonable person would still call it a car then you might be able to leave the constituent parts on the road without the need for an MOT - but then you could probably be done for littering instead.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 9th Sep 17, 3:32 PM
    • 2,407 Posts
    • 1,566 Thanks
    Car 54
    That would be a question for a court to decide based on the specific facts of the case - you're not going to find a list of every possible modification you might make to a car with a ruling on whether or not it's still a car. It would come down to the ordinary meaning of the words, broadly interpreted.

    In ordinary language a car which has run out of petrol is still a car, as is a car which has broken down, a car with a flat (or disconnected) battery, or a car which you've jacked up while you change a wheel. (Pumbien v Vines involved a car with deflated tyres, seized brakes and no oil in the gearbox, which could not have been moved without significant repairs). If you'd dismantled it to the point where no reasonable person would still call it a car then you might be able to leave the constituent parts on the road without the need for an MOT - but then you could probably be done for littering instead.
    Originally posted by Aretnap
    Or more likely wilful obstruction of the highway.
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 9th Sep 17, 3:42 PM
    • 4,259 Posts
    • 5,472 Thanks
    jack_pott
    If you'd dismantled it to the point where no reasonable person would still call it a car then you might be able to leave the constituent parts on the road without the need for an MOT - but then you could probably be done for littering instead.
    Originally posted by Aretnap
    Which brings me back to the question: would a reasonable person call this a car? My guess is that nobody will want to answer the question until you build one, and then there will be people queuing up to tell you it's illegal.
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 9th Sep 17, 3:55 PM
    • 4,259 Posts
    • 5,472 Thanks
    jack_pott
    The OP's vehicle was originally intended for use on roads
    Originally posted by Car 54
    But this was originally intended for use on roads too.

    If the definition is "motorised and intended for the roads" then you could commute to work on a lawnmower without tax & MOT.
    If the definition is "motorised or intended for the roads" then you need tax & MOT for a bicycle.
    Last edited by jack_pott; 09-09-2017 at 4:11 PM.
    • TheEnergyThread
    • By TheEnergyThread 9th Sep 17, 4:12 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    TheEnergyThread
    At the end of the day a parked car on a road there shouldn’t be an issue fair enough it has no MOT that only effects the driving aspect of the car, with or without MOT if I park it in the same spot it is still going to have the same restrictions & anyway why shouldn’t I be able to park it in a public place? I pay the road tax for the vehicle, i paid it up front & it is still going to be valid when the MOT runs out? Surely I have this right to leave it idle on a public road as a tax payer?
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 9th Sep 17, 4:40 PM
    • 1,444 Posts
    • 971 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    At the end of the day a parked car on a road there shouldn’t be an issue fair enough it has no MOT that only effects the driving aspect of the car, with or without MOT if I park it in the same spot it is still going to have the same restrictions & anyway why shouldn’t I be able to park it in a public place? I pay the road tax for the vehicle, i paid it up front & it is still going to be valid when the MOT runs out? Surely I have this right to leave it idle on a public road as a tax payer?
    Originally posted by TheEnergyThread

    Yes but they have a right to fine you for the use of a vehicle (whether or not you drive it or not) and you will have no defence. Will you be caught? Depends. Have you pi55ed off any neighbours recently? Or do you have busybody neighbours?
    • TheEnergyThread
    • By TheEnergyThread 9th Sep 17, 4:52 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    TheEnergyThread
    Yes but they have a right to fine you for the use of a vehicle (whether or not you drive it or not) and you will have no defence. Will you be caught? Depends. Have you pi55ed off any neighbours recently? Or do you have busybody neighbours?
    Originally posted by Mercdriver
    No but I have a recordering tracker device that I have in the vehicle, which I can use as evidence if I do get a fine to show that I have not driven the vehicle after all it seems useless to me to have an MOT if you are just using the car for storage for example.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 9th Sep 17, 4:58 PM
    • 604 Posts
    • 311 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    No but I have a recordering tracker device that I have in the vehicle, which I can use as evidence if I do get a fine to show that I have not driven the vehicle after all it seems useless to me to have an MOT if you are just using the car for storage for example.
    Originally posted by TheEnergyThread
    You'd be guilty and have no defence whether it moves or not.
    • Aretnap
    • By Aretnap 9th Sep 17, 5:03 PM
    • 2,822 Posts
    • 2,320 Thanks
    Aretnap
    No but I have a recordering tracker device that I have in the vehicle, which I can use as evidence if I do get a fine to show that I have not driven the vehicle
    Originally posted by TheEnergyThread
    And your evidence will make no difference whatsoever - it doesn't matter whether you have driven it or not.

    after all it seems useless to me to have an MOT if you are just using the car for storage for example.
    Well, the law requires you to have an MOT if you keep your car parked on the road. If you think it's a silly law then fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. That won't stop you being fined for breaking it though.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

15Posts Today

4,362Users online

Martin's Twitter