Car no MOT, who's to blame?

vicky_kidder

Hi.

My car failed its MOT and currently has no MOT (was waiting for it to go into garage to get work done today) and so therefore I haven't driven it since thursday.

My boyfriend picked me up on saturday and brought me home on sunday. When I got up today to take my car to the garage I got in and noticed that the car has been left in gear. THis is something I neveer do and something my dad always does.

He has borrowed my car before which has always been OK as he is insured as he normally asks me if he can. But this time he didn't (which I'm equally annoyed about) presumably because he knew it wasn't MOT'd and I would have said no.

I was just wondering, if something had have happened when he was driving, (e.g. crash, stopped by police) who would have gotten into trouble; me or my dad?

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

The driver, especially if you declare it as 'taken without owner's consent'.

m.colak

The simple answer is that your dad would have been to blame for the accident if it had occurred plus he would have had the full weight of the law against him. If a car has neither MOT or TAX then you insurance is invalid unless (Big unless) the car is within a week of failing its MOT and then you have visible proof that the car has been recently tested. As for driving a car without tax/mot (and therefore without insurance) you are only under a period of grace and therefore the car should only be driven from the mechanics or MOT garage home for storage (No unnecessary trips). Him pleeding ignorance would not be believed by the police as he would have had to attain your consent before driving and therefore would have been told by yourself that the car had failed its MOT.

Riq

Defintiely your dad since you gave no consent. Effectively stolen.

LandyAndy

Depends whether you said he'd taken it with your consent.

If yes, both of you, if no, him.

anewman

On a practical note, parking in gear and applying the handbrake lightly helps save the handbrake from wear and tear.

vicky_kidder

Thanks for all your speedy replies! Just rang my dad now and he insists he didn't drive it - said he went to drive in it and then remembered I had said it wasn't MOT'd and got back out again.

It is still taxed though, M.colak, I'm not that bad, haha.

Thanks again to all your replies! :-)

steveo3002

anewman wrote: »

On a practical note, parking in gear and applying the handbrake lightly helps save the handbrake from wear and tear.

more like it saves it rolling away if the handbrake fails or is poor ...ask a vectra driver lol

not a bad thing to get into doing really

BillScarab

Driving without an MOT does not necessarily invalidate your insurance. I once had an accident in a car with no MOT as I had completely forgotten it was due. The insurance company still paid for the damage. I just had to get it MOT'd as soon as possible.

Driving without MOT is not something I'd recommend however as this was a few years ago and things may be stricter now.

PasturesNew

It is a driver's responsibility to ensure a car is roadworthy.
This would even apply if you'd just hired a car from a car hire firm. So for any vehicle.

m.colak

vicky_kidder wrote: »

Thanks for all your speedy replies! Just rang my dad now and he insists he didn't drive it - said he went to drive in it and then remembered I had said it wasn't MOT'd and got back out again.

It is still taxed though, M.colak, I'm not that bad, haha.

Thanks again to all your replies! :-)

Sorry i wasn't implying that you have taxed the car i was just stating that if you neither have an MOT OR TAX then your insurance is invalid as the insurance only covers a road worthy vehicle. If you don't have TAX then you don't have valid authority to utilise the roads (hence car can be crushed). Imagine you crashed into another car and your car isn't classed as road worthy hmmmm i wonder whom the first finger of blame will be pointed at. There has always been an area of grey with insurance companies and police about giving days of grace however the law doesn't have any grey in it and you will be fould guilty if you have any accident with any of these things missing. However on a seperate rant you only still get a maximum of 3 years for running someone over (including causing death) even if you don't have a license, tax, mot or insurance. I think something should be done about that immediately.