Non MOT vehicle parked outside my house

DaveF327

Like most others have said, the lack of MOT is not an offence as long as the vehicle isn't being driven on a public road. Parked without an MOT is fine. How it got there is a matter for plod who must witness the offence being committed by the driver.

I can see that you're aggrieved by three things:

• The van could have parked a couple of feet further back or forwards, leaving room for one more car to park
• The van is in front of your house (but you do not mention whether it actually blocks a driveway or is adjacent to a dropped kerb)
• The vehicle is a !!!!!!! great VAN. I sympathise with you there as parked vehicles that obstruct my view of the road and generally p!ss me off the most invariably tend to be a hulking great VAN. Usually white and filthy with knackered light clusters. Oh, and always parking RIGHT on the bloody corner where you can't see a thing when emerging.

Unfortunately, none of the above are against the law. Daring to contact the police will probably earn you a stiff ear bashing from the call handler for calling them about a non-emergency.


If the van is obstructing your egress from a driveway, you can ask the local constable to enforce the Highways Act.


If the van is parked adjacent to a dropped kerb, you can contact the parking contractor for your local council (NCP or similar). If you tell them it's in your way, they'll probably ignore you. Tell them that someone has contravened section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2006 and that they'll earn a +1 on their ticket target from issuing a FPN, and you'll probably find that one of their uniforms will be round before the phone goes back on the hook.

POPPYOSCAR

Why would you report it? Because it is parked outside your house?
It obviously has not been abandoned as it has been removed and returned.

Paradigm

marvin wrote: »

further Sussex police say if you stop at say a shop on the way you are not using the exemption in the way it is intended and would be deemed as using the car and if caught would be prosecuted.

I would suggest that Sussex Police get up to speed on case law instead of posting bollox!!!

On the facts of this case, it is ridiculous if a driver could not stop to obtain petrol on the way. it would fly in the face of common sense if some short stop cannot be made by the driver, for whatever purpose, providing he is on his way to the test station.

Lord Justice Henry: said "I am surprised at a time of financial stringency that public money was spent in the pursuit of this appeal."

http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/richards.htm

RS2000.

marvin wrote: »

And where does it say that?

It says an unreasonable distance, further Sussex police say if you stop at say a shop on the way you are not using the exemption in the way it is intended and would be deemed as using the car and if caught would be prosecuted.

I am not here to try and persuade you, you are wrong, that is for you to decide. It is illegal to drive without am MOT that is not in doubt I hope.

As I said OP email or tweet plod the details and forget it, the computer system knows it has no MOT if they pass an ANPR they will get caught anyway.

Invalidation of the insurance policy for no MOT is in the T&C of the policy it is on mine I suggest you check it on yours.

Says it where?

Iceweasel

This thread had deteriorated in a points scoring contest.

My insurance T&Cs says that an MOT is necessary where the law requires it.

The law does not require it on the way to or from a Testing Station.

What Sussex police think is neither here nor there.

They may decide to charge someone but whether to proceed to court is not up to them.

Whether a prosecution is successful or not is up to the courts.

Stopping for a toilet break or a meal en route is not inappropriate.

I've driven back from Spain with a car that had been in Spain for over a year and thus from Dover to a booked appointment in Aberdeenshire.

No prtoblem and I would do it again.

Illegal?

AdrianC

I'm slightly intrigued as to how one van is taking up three parking spaces.

dacouch

marvin wrote: »

And where does it say that?

It says an unreasonable distance, further Sussex police say if you stop at say a shop on the way you are not using the exemption in the way it is intended and would be deemed as using the car and if caught would be prosecuted.

I am not here to try and persuade you, you are wrong, that is for you to decide. It is illegal to drive without am MOT that is not in doubt I hope.

As I said OP email or tweet plod the details and forget it, the computer system knows it has no MOT if they pass an ANPR they will get caught anyway.

Invalidation of the insurance policy for no MOT is in the T&C of the policy it is on mine I suggest you check it on yours.

Your Policy can say what it wants about the car must have a valid MOT or Tax.

The facts of the matter are that these policy requirements are entirely unenforcable.

The Insurance regulator (FCA) & also the Ombudsman are very clear that lack of an MOT and / or Tax are not enforcable if contained in a policy wording

Paradigm

Iceweasel wrote: »

This thread had deteriorated in a points scoring contest.

It hasn't & never will if people stick to posting facts instead of "ill informed opinion"

Quentin

marvin wrote: »

Invalidation of the insurance policy for no MOT is in the T&C of the policy it is on mine I suggest you check it on yours.

Then you have an unscrupulous insurer trying it on.


That condition is unenforceable, but gullibles will meekly accept it should they have the misfortune to get a claim rejected on these grounds.


Whatever your policy says were you to challenge the condition the FOS would side with you, and your insurer would not be allowed to invalidate your policy simply because you had no MOT!

jaydeeuk1

The only difference no mot may make with insurance is if you wrap your car around a tree, you may not get full market value for it, which is fairymuff IMO.