Non MOT vehicle parked outside my house

Alter_ego

lazer wrote: »

Also a van will have a psv not an mot

Total nonsense!

RS2000.

Quentin wrote: »

What law says that legally parked vehicles have to belong to someone in your area?


What would you like to happen to all the company owned vehicles parked in your area?


They don't tow away and crush legally parked/taxed and insured vehicles just because the adjacent resident wrongly thinks they own the road outside!

Unless it's a taxi or ambulance then it ain't legally parked.

Norman_Castle

lazer wrote: »

Also a van will have a psv not an mot

A psv is a public service vehicle!.

onomatopoeia99

You need an MOT to use (this includes "park") a vehicle on the road, except where exempt.. Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 explains what vehicles are exempt.

Not having an MOT, or not meeting some standard of roadworthiness does not invalidate the third party part of the insurance (which is what the law requires you to have), no matter what the policy document might say. A consumer contract of insurance cannot trump the Road Traffic Act., indeed the legislation specifically states that any clause attempting to do so is invalid. One should not rely on this though, as you may find yourself bankrupted by the insurer (not by the third party, whose costs the insurer will meet in full) in the event of a claim.

Herzlos

AdrianC wrote: »

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

By parking in the center one and overhanging on both ends. Easy to do if you're a LWB van

Quentin wrote: »

An MOT doesn't mean a vehicle is roadworthy (if that's the point you are making)

But then no MOT also doesn't mean it's roadworthy. It's more likely that if it's MOT has been neglected for 6 months that it's less likely to be road worthy than one with 6 months left. Because if you looked after the vehicle why would you avoid getting it MOT'd?

Quentin

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Not having an MOT, or not meeting some standard of roadworthiness does not invalidate the third party part of the insurance (which is what the law requires you to have), no matter what the policy document might say.... One should not rely on this though, as you may find yourself bankrupted by the insurer (not by the third party, whose costs the insurer will meet in full) in the event of a claim. ..

Not having an MOT does not invalidate ANY part of the insurance, no matter what the policy document might say.


Any insurer with this condition is just trying it on to get out of paying a claim (and they know they are!)


And they would not be able to bankrupt you by turning their sights on you after paying out to a third party - any condition regarding the vehicle having to have an MOT is unenforceable

jay1181

Maybe this is a silly question but what age is the van as it may not need an mot (under 3 years) or it may be exempt for some reason eg has been modified in the past so that no mot is due. (recovery van ex high lift vans)

just a thought

jay1181

Types of vehicles that do not need a mot

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/333128/V112_150514.pdf

andygb

jay1181 wrote: »

Maybe this is a silly question but what age is the van as it may not need an mot (under 3 years) or it may be exempt for some reason eg has been modified in the past so that no mot is due. (recovery van ex high lift vans)

just a thought

It has been moved a couple of times since I last posted. It is 13 years old and is a large van - same size as a stretched transit - so can take up 3 spaces,
Someone from outside our area is parking it there from dawn until night - very weird because we are in a rural location.

andygb

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

He says that quite a lot elsewhere on the forum.

Oh good, a newbie UKIP voter trolls me on the motoring forum - bring it on:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

"Anyway why would they care what you thought anyway, you and your frothing ilk are a total irrelevance to UKIP. "