Taxed, insured, no MOT

Car_54

jimjames said:

Aretnap said:

TooManyPoints said:

No, he can't park on the road without a valid MOT, unless he has an MOT booked and will be driving the car only to that appt

There are three terms used in connection with vehicles and road traffic law: "keeping", "using" and "driving". None are defined in legislation and if an allegation is contested it is up to a court to determine whether a law has been broken.

The legislation covering MoT test requirements for cars (Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act) makes it an offence to "use" a motor vehicle without a valid test certificate. Clearly "using" requires more activity that merely "keeping" but less than "driving". I cannot imagine a court deciding that the vehicle described in this question is being "used" and that could explain why the police are reluctant to become involved with enforcement on vehicles with no valid MoT that are simply parked.

 I don't see how this case is any different.

This case is quite different because the car has both insurance and tax. 

The whole point of the appeal in the case quoted was to establish whether a parked car is being "used".

The judgement seems to establish that it is, and therefore an MOT offence is being committed in the OP's example. . Not that it helps him to get rid of the offending vehicle.

elsien

This has just appeared next to it.  Visotots parking permit, different neighbour, non-uk numberplate.
Any thoughts as it’s clearly not roadworthy. 

user1977

How long does the visitor's permit last for?

Aretnap

jimjames said:

Aretnap said:

TooManyPoints said:

No, he can't park on the road without a valid MOT, unless he has an MOT booked and will be driving the car only to that appt

There are three terms used in connection with vehicles and road traffic law: "keeping", "using" and "driving". None are defined in legislation and if an allegation is contested it is up to a court to determine whether a law has been broken.

The legislation covering MoT test requirements for cars (Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act) makes it an offence to "use" a motor vehicle without a valid test certificate. Clearly "using" requires more activity that merely "keeping" but less than "driving". I cannot imagine a court deciding that the vehicle described in this question is being "used" and that could explain why the police are reluctant to become involved with enforcement on vehicles with no valid MoT that are simply parked.

 I don't see how this case is any different.

This case is quite different because the car has both insurance and tax. 

It isn't very different though. The guy was convicted of two separate offences - using a car without an MOT and using it without insurance. If it was the lack of insurance that was crucial, he'd have been convicted of no insurance but not of no MOT.

Reading the judgment it does read as if from a policy point of view the judges were more concerned about uninsured vehicles than ones without an MOT. But they also made the point that the two couldn't really be separated. A car is either being "used" or it isn't. It can't be being "used" enough to require insurance but not enough to require an MOT. So they upheld both convictions. Therefore it's an offence to leave a car parked in the road with no MOT, regardless of whether it's insured (or taxed).

elsien

user1977 said:

How long does the visitor's permit last for?

Until the permits get renewed in March. Then they just get another one.