Daughter stopped for no mot

smashingyour...

spacey2012 wrote: »

Dis-proof please

But didn't you say police were illegally voiding policies, so which is correct?

Either no mot voids your policy or it doesn't.

smashingyour...

spacey2012 wrote: »

If she does not even know where the documents are, she would be far better advised parking the car up until they are found, collected together and checked.
If the VOSA site shows no MOT, then the car has no MOT.
Thinking and Thought are not the right approaches to driving.
All documents relating to the car need to be placed in a one folder in sleeves and kept very safe.

The police could have called the insurance and asked them to void it at roadside and seized the car, this is actually illegal (Case Law) but they still do it for some reason.

The chances of he VOSA showing no online MOT, the certificate been "lost" in this huge confusion regarding someone in America and the amnesia over taking it for an MOT are highly unlikely.
Unless the certificate is conjured up very quickly indeed it is time to pay the £60 penalty, call the insurance to inform them she has been driving a car without a valid MOT and see if they will still insure her.
Then if they will, book an MOT test and get the documents in order.

The Online age has lead people in to thinking that hard copies of documentation are not neccasary, some people do not even have hard copies of insurance bond certificates.
A most foolish position to be under.

Is this dis-proof?

Strider590

Why would the insurer use the term MOT? Why restrict themselves?

Far better to leave it open and say "roadworthy condition", which they can later define as almost anything.

"hey look we found a nail in your tyre, that's not road worthy, sorry your on your own" is as valid as "hey no MOT, it's not road worthy, sorry your on your own"

I don't know why we're getting so hung up on tiny details....... Stop being so f**king pedantic. We all know that insurance companies are dirty thieving scum and will worm they way out of paying up, if there's even the slightest chance, why even bother to debate it?

bod1467

spacey2012 wrote: »

Dis-proof please

Dis-proof is not possible. You cannot prove something doesn't exist - you can only prove something DOES exist.

YOU are the one saying the law/guidance has changed, so it is for YOU to prove your point.

Sabato

Strider590 wrote: »

Why would the insurer use the term MOT? Why restrict themselves?

Far better to leave it open and say "roadworthy condition", which they can later define as almost anything.

"hey look we found a nail in your tyre, that's not road worthy, sorry your on your own" is as valid as "hey no MOT, it's not road worthy, sorry your on your own"

I don't know why we're getting so hung up on tiny details....... Stop being so f**king pedantic. We all know that insurance companies are dirty thieving scum and will worm they way out of paying up, if there's even the slightest chance, why even bother to debate it?

I have to agree. You might be ok but I'd never want to be in a position where I have to put in a claim with no MOT. I don't think many insurance companies would look on it kindly if you didn't have one.

notanewuser

Sabato wrote: »

I have to agree. You might be ok but I'd never want to be in a position where I have to put in a claim with no MOT. I don't think many insurance companies would look on it kindly if you didn't have one.

I did. There was no problem at all.

suffolkb

Well, daughter has booked her car for a mot tomorrow at the place she reckons she went to in Jan. I`ll go with her to help sort it out. And take her home if it fails.
She says the cop stopped her as the car was flagged as no mot.

arcon5

If the insurance terms say the car should be roadworthy, then not having an MOT certificate shouldn't necessarily affect any claim as not having a certificate doesn't necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the vehicle.

An insurance company cannot refuse a third party claim based on this anyway. I suspect if a fault claim was being made though, they would use the fact there is no valid MOT to reduce the value of the vehicle when agreeing a payout.

The police could have called the insurance and asked them to void it at roadside and seized the car, this is actually illegal (Case Law) but they still do it for some reason.

So they can't seize it?

Idiophreak

suffolkb wrote: »

Well, daughter has booked her car for a mot tomorrow at the place she reckons she went to in Jan. I`ll go with her to help sort it out. And take her home if it fails.
She says the cop stopped her as the car was flagged as no mot.

...so I take it the garage had no record of her MOT either?

suffolkb

We will discover that tomorrow.