Expired MOT When Still Driving

societys_child

molehills and mountains spring to mind . .

cyclonebri1

thenudeone wrote: »

If she brings a new one in as well as the old one, the counter clerk will usually record details of both; in fact I would specifically ask for that to be done.

A genuine and legitimate part of the decision about whether to prosecute is: has the [defect / fault / mistake / whatever] been remedied? That is exactly why the Police often allow driver to escape prosecution for more serious (endorsable) offences (like bald tyres) if they get the vehicle repaired with 14 days.

If the driver has already been issued with a fixed penalty, it's not so important, just pay it. If not, it may swing the balance in favour of no further action being taken.

I don't think so, :wall:, you are not going to get away with bald tyres simply by fitting new ones. By the nature of the offence, the car has been run for a good time on the road with bald tyres before it was stopped. And neither did they ought to get off with it..
A cracked rear light or a head light out, fair enough, but for endorsable offences like tyres you are going to get more than a slapped wrist.

Capyboppy

More of a concern now after seeing her today: I found out she has not exactly rushed to make an appointment. She is under the impression because she has 28 days to pay the fine, that also means 28 days to get the car MOT'd. Eeek! I have told her that she is playing with fire not getting it done quickly.

Wig

Wig wrote: »

Your research is incorrect they could not have impounded the car.

You're welcome

Just for clarification.

What they should do during business hours (if they are numpty police officers who think "no mot = no insurance") is phone the insurers and ask if they will be withdrawing cover.

If the insurers withdraw cover, then they can impound the car.
It would then be a case of recovering your losses from your insurers for them incorrectly withdrawing cover.

If it is outside business hours then I'm not sure what the numpty police would do, but if it were me I would insist they & I speak to the officer in command before impounding my car.
If they did impound it, it would be a civil case against the police force to recover your losses. Not something to look forward to, not as easy as going after the insurers.

In a nutshell:
If everyone does what they are suppposed to do they can't impound the car. If anyone is a numpty then they can -incorrectly- impound the car, there's not a lot you can do about it at the time, and you will have to fight for compensation.

Capyboppy

Are the insurance companies incorrect for withdrawing cover though Wig? I have seen loads of instances on the internet where they are adamant they are correct as they see it as "no mot, which is required so no insurance."

P.S. I love these sort of in depth scenerio's of 'what if":beer: Makes life that little bit more interesting:D

Wig

Well, we know from our insurance experts on this forum that in the event of a claim an insurer cannot withdraw cover for "no MOT".

However this is a slightly different scenario in that there is no claim. It is just the insurer being asked if they will decide to withdraw cover with immediate effect.

So I will hope our insurance experts come and answer this point for us.

Flyboy152

dacouch wrote: »

Insurance premiums are not affected by not having an MOT as this is not an endorsable offence (It does not go on your licence).

If the police had found problems with the car that were endorsable eg bald tyres and had issued a fixed penalty then it could affect the insurance

The policy applicant has a duty to declare any convictions, irrespective of whether they carry any endorsements.

cyclonebri1

Capyboppy wrote: »

More of a concern now after seeing her today: I found out she has not exactly rushed to make an appointment. She is under the impression because she has 28 days to pay the fine, that also means 28 days to get the car MOT'd. Eeek! I have told her that she is playing with fire not getting it done quickly.

And your comment earlier was " she wasn't stupid enough to drive." Sorry, but evidently she is. You can lead a horse(friend) to water but you can't make it drink. Oh dear.

thenudeone

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I don't think so, you are not going to get away with bald tyres simply by fitting new ones.

I agree; I was just using it as an example of a more serious offence where leniency is shown for a prompt correction of the original condition.

dacouch

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The policy applicant has a duty to declare any convictions, irrespective of whether they carry any endorsements.

I made no comment about not disclosing a conviction for not having an MOT. I stated Insurers do not load for it.

Policy Applicants only have to declare information that is specifically asked.