New MOT before current one expirers?

TooManyPoints

…you are picking up things and running with them beyond the context they were written in.

No not really. I was simply commenting on this:

 

Every policy I have ever had has stated the vehicle most be roadworthy AND have a valid MOT if required.

Your policies may have had that stipulation. But if an insurer tried to deny liability on the basis of no MoT they would have to show (1) that the vehicle was unroadworthy (2) that the defect contributed to the accident and (3) the defect would have been picked up during the MoT test. 

I don’t know why insurers make the MoT stipulation because, by itself, it is largely unenforceable. The test the insurers must apply is whether the vehicle is roadworthy. Only if it is not should they go on to determine whether the defect contributed to the accident. If they decide it did, then whether or not the car had a valid MoT is immaterial. Lack of one may emphasise the driver’s culpability, but since he is culpable whether he was aware of the defect or not, there isn’t much to prove.

If the car is roadworthy and has no defects then lack of MoT cannot invalidate the policy, regardless of whether or not the insurers list that as a policy condition. They might just as well say that it is a condition of the policy that the driver must wear a white shirt.

Goudy

Well it appears when you apply for insurance cover, some insurance companies won't cover vehicles without MOT's.

A lot of temp cover polices won't cover cars without MOTs. 
Some will allow you to drive to a pre booked MOT but if it fails the policy won't be valid.

I think it's a valid point to make as I presume a lot of people may take out these types of policies to test drive cars that might not be MOT'd or take an otherwise uninsured car to an MOT appointment.

See vehicle criteria here
Temporary Car Insurance | Short Term Car Cover
and again
What vehicles can we cover? | Cuvva Help Center

They aren't denying a claim, they are denying a policy.

prowla

Goudy said:

prowla said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

...

So for an example, you may get a Major Fault if two out of your three brake lights are not working and a Dangerous Fault if all brake lights aren't working.

Out on the road, the fault is it is in a Dangerous condition for both.
There is no difference between the two different MOT category fails in this situation.
...

Can you give a link to where in the law it says that, please?

Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 8 - Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition.

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits someone to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when—

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or

(b) the purpose for which it is used, or

(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or

(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.”

The criteria is objective by context. So for example, it might be considered less serious in daylight in a 20 mph zone but it might be considered more serious on a motorway at night in fog. Though the offence is still the offence.

As for what constitutes a vehicle in a dangerous condition we're at DVSA's doorstep, who just so happen are responsible for assessing the road worthiness of vehicles through MOT testing. I doubt there are many differences in standards of unroadworthiness and MOT, but if anyone would care to point to the them?

It's not unheard of for certain stops to include DVSA officers, particularly for HGV, Vans, Coaches and Buses, they are after all, the experts that set the standards.

Thanks - the criteria is somewhat subjective; arguably the act of driving a motor vehicle at all implicitly involves a danger of injury, so that definition doesn't stand up as an absolute.

In fact that document is pretty poorly written...

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute.

Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?

Car_54

prowla said:

Goudy said:

prowla said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

...

So for an example, you may get a Major Fault if two out of your three brake lights are not working and a Dangerous Fault if all brake lights aren't working.

Out on the road, the fault is it is in a Dangerous condition for both.
There is no difference between the two different MOT category fails in this situation.
...

Can you give a link to where in the law it says that, please?

Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 8 - Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition.

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits someone to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when—

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or

(b) the purpose for which it is used, or

(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or

(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.”

The criteria is objective by context. So for example, it might be considered less serious in daylight in a 20 mph zone but it might be considered more serious on a motorway at night in fog. Though the offence is still the offence.

As for what constitutes a vehicle in a dangerous condition we're at DVSA's doorstep, who just so happen are responsible for assessing the road worthiness of vehicles through MOT testing. I doubt there are many differences in standards of unroadworthiness and MOT, but if anyone would care to point to the them?

It's not unheard of for certain stops to include DVSA officers, particularly for HGV, Vans, Coaches and Buses, they are after all, the experts that set the standards.

..

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute.

Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?

No. A person using etc. a vehicle meeting those conditions IS guilty. The court's job is to determine the facts, i.e. whether the person in front of them is indeed such a person., 

As for women, '... in 1850,  Parliament passed an Act “for shortening the Language used in Acts of Parliament”. The Act said that masculine words in legislation are “deemed and taken to include females”.

Goudy

prowla said:

Goudy said:

prowla said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

...

So for an example, you may get a Major Fault if two out of your three brake lights are not working and a Dangerous Fault if all brake lights aren't working.

Out on the road, the fault is it is in a Dangerous condition for both.
There is no difference between the two different MOT category fails in this situation.
...

Can you give a link to where in the law it says that, please?

Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 8 - Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition.

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits someone to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when—

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or

(b) the purpose for which it is used, or

(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or

(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.”

The criteria is objective by context. So for example, it might be considered less serious in daylight in a 20 mph zone but it might be considered more serious on a motorway at night in fog. Though the offence is still the offence.

As for what constitutes a vehicle in a dangerous condition we're at DVSA's doorstep, who just so happen are responsible for assessing the road worthiness of vehicles through MOT testing. I doubt there are many differences in standards of unroadworthiness and MOT, but if anyone would care to point to the them?

It's not unheard of for certain stops to include DVSA officers, particularly for HGV, Vans, Coaches and Buses, they are after all, the experts that set the standards.

Thanks - as you say, the criteria is somewhat objective; arguably the act of driving a motor vehicle at all implicitly involves a danger of injury, so that definition doesn't stand up as an absolute.

In fact that document it pretty poorly written...

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute.

Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?

Yes, I spotted "he" myself.
I thought Mr Clumley Warner might have wrote it but it's actually from the Road Traffic Act 1991.

TooManyPoints

“They aren't denying a claim, they are denying a policy.”

That’s an entirely different matter. Insurers can, by and large, decide who and what they will cover. But once cover has been agreed they cannot impose unenforceable or unfair conditions.. 

“…..arguably the act of driving a motor vehicle at all implicitly involves a danger of injury, so that definition doesn't stand up as an absolute.”

But it’s not proposed as an absolute. It is conditional on (a) to (d) which determines that the condition of the vehicle or the way in which it is used must satisfy one of those conditions before the statute is applicable.

"In fact that document it pretty poorly written...

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute."

Most statutes say “ if [a person] does something he is guilty of an offence.” How else do you suggest they are worded? Something like “he might be guilty if he admits it or a court decides that he is”?

"Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?"

I imagine the person who drafted it was familiar with section 6 of the Interpretation Act:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/6

Where are you getting some of these ideas from?

prowla

Car_54 said:

prowla said:

Goudy said:

prowla said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

...

So for an example, you may get a Major Fault if two out of your three brake lights are not working and a Dangerous Fault if all brake lights aren't working.

Out on the road, the fault is it is in a Dangerous condition for both.
There is no difference between the two different MOT category fails in this situation.
...

Can you give a link to where in the law it says that, please?

Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 8 - Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition.

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits someone to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when—

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or

(b) the purpose for which it is used, or

(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or

(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.”

The criteria is objective by context. So for example, it might be considered less serious in daylight in a 20 mph zone but it might be considered more serious on a motorway at night in fog. Though the offence is still the offence.

As for what constitutes a vehicle in a dangerous condition we're at DVSA's doorstep, who just so happen are responsible for assessing the road worthiness of vehicles through MOT testing. I doubt there are many differences in standards of unroadworthiness and MOT, but if anyone would care to point to the them?

It's not unheard of for certain stops to include DVSA officers, particularly for HGV, Vans, Coaches and Buses, they are after all, the experts that set the standards.

..

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute.

Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?

No. A person using etc. a vehicle meeting those conditions IS guilty. The court's job is to determine the facts, i.e. whether the person in front of them is indeed such a person., 

As for women, '... in 1850,  Parliament passed an Act “for shortening the Language used in Acts of Parliament”. The Act said that masculine words in legislation are “deemed and taken to include females”.

According to the Government (https://www.copfs.gov.uk/resources/words-and-meanings/):

Guilty – A verdict that means it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime.

An issue with a lot of UK laws are that they are vague and open to interpretation, so that people reading them often make their own inferences and present those as fact.

Under UK law there is the 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty'; therefore a written rule in UK law cannot state that you are factually guilty.

Further, as pointed out, the wording is such that each and every time you drive a car comprises an infringement of those rules and so everyone is implicitly "guilty" then.

An example is: you are driving along normally and get a sudden puncture which causes you to veer off the road; that could happen to anybody at any time and therefore "the purpose for which it is used," "is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.".

As to the courts; their job is to determine whether it is that person and whether they are guilty of the alleged offence.

Car_54

prowla said:

Car_54 said:

prowla said:

Goudy said:

prowla said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

...

So for an example, you may get a Major Fault if two out of your three brake lights are not working and a Dangerous Fault if all brake lights aren't working.

Out on the road, the fault is it is in a Dangerous condition for both.
There is no difference between the two different MOT category fails in this situation.
...

Can you give a link to where in the law it says that, please?

Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 8 - Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition.

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits someone to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when—

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or

(b) the purpose for which it is used, or

(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or

(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.”

The criteria is objective by context. So for example, it might be considered less serious in daylight in a 20 mph zone but it might be considered more serious on a motorway at night in fog. Though the offence is still the offence.

As for what constitutes a vehicle in a dangerous condition we're at DVSA's doorstep, who just so happen are responsible for assessing the road worthiness of vehicles through MOT testing. I doubt there are many differences in standards of unroadworthiness and MOT, but if anyone would care to point to the them?

It's not unheard of for certain stops to include DVSA officers, particularly for HGV, Vans, Coaches and Buses, they are after all, the experts that set the standards.

..

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute.

Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?

No. A person using etc. a vehicle meeting those conditions IS guilty. The court's job is to determine the facts, i.e. whether the person in front of them is indeed such a person., 

As for women, '... in 1850,  Parliament passed an Act “for shortening the Language used in Acts of Parliament”. The Act said that masculine words in legislation are “deemed and taken to include females”.

According to the Government (https://www.copfs.gov.uk/resources/words-and-meanings/):

Guilty – A verdict that means it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime.

Under UK law there is the 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty'; therefore a written rule in UK law cannot state that you are factually guilty.

But the Law does not say that you, Mr Prowla, are guilty. It says that "a person" who uses a dangerous vehicle  is guilty of an offence.

The police or CPS must bring evidence to court that Mr Prowla is such a person. Until the court finds, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are such a person, you are presumed innocent.

That is a clear and important distinction.

prowla

Car_54 said:

prowla said:

Car_54 said:

prowla said:

Goudy said:

prowla said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

...

So for an example, you may get a Major Fault if two out of your three brake lights are not working and a Dangerous Fault if all brake lights aren't working.

Out on the road, the fault is it is in a Dangerous condition for both.
There is no difference between the two different MOT category fails in this situation.
...

Can you give a link to where in the law it says that, please?

Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 8 - Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition.

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits someone to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when—

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or

(b) the purpose for which it is used, or

(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or

(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.”

The criteria is objective by context. So for example, it might be considered less serious in daylight in a 20 mph zone but it might be considered more serious on a motorway at night in fog. Though the offence is still the offence.

As for what constitutes a vehicle in a dangerous condition we're at DVSA's doorstep, who just so happen are responsible for assessing the road worthiness of vehicles through MOT testing. I doubt there are many differences in standards of unroadworthiness and MOT, but if anyone would care to point to the them?

It's not unheard of for certain stops to include DVSA officers, particularly for HGV, Vans, Coaches and Buses, they are after all, the experts that set the standards.

..

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute.

Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?

No. A person using etc. a vehicle meeting those conditions IS guilty. The court's job is to determine the facts, i.e. whether the person in front of them is indeed such a person., 

As for women, '... in 1850,  Parliament passed an Act “for shortening the Language used in Acts of Parliament”. The Act said that masculine words in legislation are “deemed and taken to include females”.

According to the Government (https://www.copfs.gov.uk/resources/words-and-meanings/):

Guilty – A verdict that means it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime.

Under UK law there is the 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty'; therefore a written rule in UK law cannot state that you are factually guilty.

But the Law does not say that you, Mr Prowla, are guilty. It says that "a person" who uses a dangerous vehicle  is guilty of an offence.

The police or CPS must bring evidence to court that Mr Prowla is such a person. Until the court finds, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are such a person, you are presumed innocent.

That is a clear and important distinction.

Hmm - you're focusing on the "a person" whereas I'm focusing on the "is guilty".

My assertion is the "person" can only be "guilty" if so found to be via a court and/or makes an admission that they are.

Up to that point, they can indeed be the "person" driving the vehicle, in that condition, but they are not "guilty" in the eyes of the law.

Car_54

prowla said:

Car_54 said:

prowla said:

Car_54 said:

prowla said:

Goudy said:

prowla said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

...

So for an example, you may get a Major Fault if two out of your three brake lights are not working and a Dangerous Fault if all brake lights aren't working.

Out on the road, the fault is it is in a Dangerous condition for both.
There is no difference between the two different MOT category fails in this situation.
...

Can you give a link to where in the law it says that, please?

Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 8 - Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition.

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits someone to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when—

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or

(b) the purpose for which it is used, or

(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or

(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.”

The criteria is objective by context. So for example, it might be considered less serious in daylight in a 20 mph zone but it might be considered more serious on a motorway at night in fog. Though the offence is still the offence.

As for what constitutes a vehicle in a dangerous condition we're at DVSA's doorstep, who just so happen are responsible for assessing the road worthiness of vehicles through MOT testing. I doubt there are many differences in standards of unroadworthiness and MOT, but if anyone would care to point to the them?

It's not unheard of for certain stops to include DVSA officers, particularly for HGV, Vans, Coaches and Buses, they are after all, the experts that set the standards.

..

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute.

Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?

No. A person using etc. a vehicle meeting those conditions IS guilty. The court's job is to determine the facts, i.e. whether the person in front of them is indeed such a person., 

As for women, '... in 1850,  Parliament passed an Act “for shortening the Language used in Acts of Parliament”. The Act said that masculine words in legislation are “deemed and taken to include females”.

According to the Government (https://www.copfs.gov.uk/resources/words-and-meanings/):

Guilty – A verdict that means it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime.

Under UK law there is the 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty'; therefore a written rule in UK law cannot state that you are factually guilty.

But the Law does not say that you, Mr Prowla, are guilty. It says that "a person" who uses a dangerous vehicle  is guilty of an offence.

The police or CPS must bring evidence to court that Mr Prowla is such a person. Until the court finds, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are such a person, you are presumed innocent.

That is a clear and important distinction.

Hmm - you're focusing on the "a person" whereas I'm focusing on the "is guilty".

My assertion is the "person" can only be "guilty" if so found to be via a court and/or makes an admission that they are.

Up to that point, they can indeed be the "person" driving the vehicle, in that condition, but they are not "guilty" in the eyes of the law.

We seem to be going round in circles.

This Act (and countless others) is essentially saying that anyone who commits a certain act is guilty of an offence.

This does not conflict with the presumption of innocence. It is up to the authorities to prove that a particular individual has actually committed the offence in question.

To summarise, either

(1) Thousands of Acts of Parliament (successfully prosecuted on a daily basis) are fundamentally flawed and unworkable, and no-one has spotted it, before, or

(2) you're wrong!