Why is it not a MOT requirement to have vehicle tax?

Car_54

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81908806#Comment_81908806

What makes you think it is perfectly legal?

"If a person uses, or keeps, a vehicle which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence." [Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, Section 29(1)]

To avoid that, it is not enough to "just" keep it off the road. You also need SORN.

B0bbyEwing

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81908700#Comment_81908700

Unfortunately it's almost always moving vehicles I spot & they're simply not interested. There's almost always a tell tale sign though.

Riding my back end, hanging on my shoulder, weaving in & out of traffic, stupidly spaced private plates trying desperately to spell something that it's not spelling, illegally tinted front windows, being on the phone while driving etc.

One or more of them & it's - I bet they're missing something. Do a reg check & often it'll be one of tax, MOT or insurance (or multiple).

I come across people with Irish accents where I work who usually have the full house if you catch my drift. I even know where they're working. Pass the info on & once again the police aren't interested.

I've submitted video footage showing clear plate stamps with time & date etc of drivers with no MOT driving totally dangerously & coming within a millimetre of causing an accident. Official police response..... "not enough evidence".

I've given up reporting now.

Someone at some point will end up dead via an illegal driver & the throwaway "we need to do more" line will be rolled out once more & then we'll proceed to go back to doing nothing at all.

Mildly_Miffed

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81908855#Comment_81908855

SORNed is still untaxed. It's just not unlicenced.

It's perfectly legal to drive it to and from the MOT while SORNed, too.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81908364#Comment_81908364

Driving without VED and MOT will not invalidate the insurance.

Driving without VED is totally irrelevant to insurance

Driving without an MOT will mean the vehicle is worth less so more likely to be written off and for a lower settlement

Driving a vehicle thats not in a roadworthy condition can invalidate your insurance but having or not having a MOT doesnt prove one way or the other if a car is roadworthy. An MOT only shows it was roadworthy at that point in time but it could have been involved in a major RTA the following day and the driver still driving around with it despite damaged steering rack, broken suspension arm etc.

Personally, the obvious thing to do would be to mirror what they have done with insurance. Insurance has two offences, one for having a car that isnt SORNed and doesnt have insurance and the other for driving a car that doesnt have insurance. They could introduce the same idea with MOT and have a new requirement that a vehicle has to be MOTed or has to be SORNed and they can remotely deal with the issue because they dont have to prove its on a public highway.

jimjames

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81908810#Comment_81908810

I read it that they're saying the MOT is a few £ not VED and are agreeing that you shouldn't have to.

B0bbyEwing

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81908957#Comment_81908957

So you drive around with no tax & no MOT, you drive in to another car & your insurance, now fully aware of the 2 things you're lacking (for arguments sake) will still cover you no problem.

Even though you shouldn't have been on the road?

Edit to state - let's forget the driving to a MOT centre for this question. Let's not pretend that the vast majority of people that do this are going direct to an MOT centre. Some will, most won't be.

Car_54

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81910159#Comment_81910159

The FS Ombudsman has ruled that the lack of tax or MOT is not a valid reason to refuse a claim, unless such lack contributed in some way to the accident.

B0bbyEwing

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81910200#Comment_81910200

So if it was found say your brake pads or tyres were below the requirement & this contributed to you not stopping then you wouldn't be covered.

But your headlight beam was off, which would be a fail, and you were driving around in daylight - then you'd still be covered as the lights wouldn't come in to play.

Kind of thing?

Car_54

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81910265#Comment_81910265

Having the car in a dangerous condition could well be a valid reason to refuse cover.

As regards the MOT, a valid certificate does not prove that a car is safe, only that it was safe on the day it was tested.

On the other hand, lack of a cert does not prove the car is unsafe. It only proves it has not been tested!

Aretnap

So you drive around with no tax & no MOT, you drive in to another car & your insurance, now fully aware of the 2 things you're lacking (for arguments sake) will still cover you no problem.

Even though you shouldn't have been on the road?

Yes.

The basic rule is that if you breach the terms of your insurance policy (eg by not complying with the term that says you have to have a valid MOT) then the insurer can only refuse to pay a claim if the breach somehow contributed to the claim.

So if your home insurance had a clause that says you had to lock your doors when the house was unoccupied, your insurer could decline a claim for a burglary which happened when you left your house unlocked. However they couldn't decline, say, a subsidence claim just because they found it that you didn't always lock your front door when you went out. Because, of course they couldn't.

Or if your car policy said that your car had to be roadworthy and you had no working headlights, your insurer could decline a claim for an accident that you caused by driving into something in the dark. However they would still have to cover you for an accident that happened in daylight.

In the case of an MOT or tax, there are no circumstances in which the lack of a piece of paper can cause an accident, so there are no circumstances where an insurer could decline a claim purely because you had no tax or MOT, whatever the terms of your policy said. They might be able to decline a claim if your car has a defect which would have been picked up by an MOT, and that defect had caused the accident (or been a significant contributing factor). It would be down to the insure to prove that had happened.

"Shouldn't have been on the road" is a red herring. A car with a broken numberplate bulb or a dubiously spaced numberplate shouldn't be on the road - but those things don't invalidate your insurance either.