Accident - MOT expired - advice please!

sarriep

We bought the tax on 4th December - didn't use the car 'til then this month - at which time the MOT was still valid.

cheekychappy

You were driving it to a pre booked MOT weren't you? So long as your MOT centre can confirm this you are not committing an offence. The law is a grety area if you bring it away with faults though.

Keith

cheekychappy wrote: »

You were driving it to a pre booked MOT weren't you? So long as your MOT centre can confirm this you are not committing an offence. The law is a grety area if you bring it away with faults though.

No they just had no MOT. It's a fixed penalty. The insurance issue is separate and is shown in the thread above.

marlot

Keith wrote: »

No they just had no MOT. It's a fixed penalty. The insurance issue is separate and is shown in the thread above.

I think cheekychappy meant it as a possible form of post event journey reconstruction!

JCP

It is worth checking your insurance documents properly.
I've just renewed my car insurance (Sheila's Wheels) and the policy explicitly states that the car must have a valid MOT for the insurance to be valid. Presumably different insurance companies are taking a different stance.

Rolandtheroadie

JCP wrote: »

It is worth checking your insurance documents properly.
I've just renewed my car insurance (Sheila's Wheels) and the policy explicitly states that the car must have a valid MOT for the insurance to be valid. Presumably different insurance companies are taking a different stance.

Read the thread linked by mrcrow.
They can say what they want, no MOT does not invalidate your insurance.

Quentin

scotsman4th wrote: »

Read the thread linked by mrcrow.
They can say what they want, no MOT does not invalidate your insurance.

Shame most people "hit" by this from the likes of sheilas wheels and others (rac and m+s are amongst others that put that clause in) won't read here and will just meekly accept they won't get paid JCP style.

iolanthe07

marlot wrote: »

I think cheekychappy meant it as a possible form of post event journey reconstruction!

This would be fraud; something taken very seriously these days and best avoided.

Gene_Hunt_2

iolanthe07 wrote: »

This would be fraud; something taken very seriously these days and best avoided.

Maybe even an atempt to pervert the course of justice as he suggested it.;)

Quentin

It's such a puny attempt it would fail at the first hurdle!

To get away with the "just taking it for a prebooked MOT as allowed officer" excuse cleverly thought up by cheekychappy unfortunately has the catch in his post ("prebooked").

Only arthur daley motors would be able to find this "prebooking" in their system!