MOT / Tax Query

[tifo]

Originally Posted by Intruder08

When you say you moved it, did you drive it without insurance? That does sound illegal.

I've always treated insurance as something that a person has whilst driving, but it seems that it has morphed into something that a car requires. An example being that the car insurance needs to be shown to obtain a tax disc.

Not driving, reversed from driveway into road for collection. Got clamped half an hour later, 1 metre from private road (what are the chances?).

As for insurance, that's what the DVLA guys told me. They even asked have you MOT and insurance and i asked why, i don't drive it as it's broken down.

Even if you have insurance with no tax disc, it becomes invalid. So you can still get done.

[Chesterexpress]

Originally Posted by tifo

Even if you have insurance with no tax disc, it becomes invalid.

Nonsense.....

[tifo]

Originally Posted by Chesterexpress

Nonsense.....

Read your insurance docs. There will be something there stating this.

Is the DVLA wrong then to issue statements like this to people who's cars they clamp?

[Chesterexpress]

Just because a vehicle does not have a current tax disc, this does not invalidate the insurance. After all you are allowed to drive an insured vehicle without VED to a pre-booked MOT. Lets stick to facts and not myths.

[tifo]

Originally Posted by Chesterexpress

Just because a vehicle does not have a current tax disc, this does not invalidate the insurance. After all you are allowed to drive an insured vehicle without VED to a pre-booked MOT. Lets stick to facts and not myths.

Different thing. That is ONLY a pre-booked appointment for MOT or for repairs required for an MOT.

Parked car requires MOT and insurance certificate.

Pumbien v Vines (1995) June 14 Queen's Bench Divisional Court.

"A motor car parked on a road was being used on the road for the purposes of sections 47 and 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 even if it was totally immobilised and could only be moved by being dragged away, and, therefore, required both a valid MOT certificate and an insurance policy".

The Court so held in dismissing an appeal by way of case stated by Andee Pumbien against his conviction of offences of using a motor vehicle on a road without either a valid test certificate or insurance policy contrary to sections 47(1) and 143(1) of the 1988 act.

[Chesterexpress]

Originally Posted by tifo

Different thing. That is ONLY a pre-booked appointment for MOT or for repairs required for an MOT.

Parked car requires MOT and insurance certificate.

Pumbien v Vines (1995) June 14 Queen's Bench Divisional Court.

"A motor car parked on a road was being used on the road for the purposes of sections 47 and 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 even if it was totally immobilised and could only be moved by being dragged away, and, therefore, required both a valid MOT certificate and an insurance policy".

The Court so held in dismissing an appeal by way of case stated by Andee Pumbien against his conviction of offences of using a motor vehicle on a road without either a valid test certificate or insurance policy contrary to sections 47(1) and 143(1) of the 1988 act.

What on earth has any of that got to do with your statement that insurance is invalid if a vehicle has no current VED?

[MikeBigg]

Car insurance has always (or at least as long as I can remember) needed insurance in order to get a tax disc.

Also, there are 3rd party risks involved in keeping cars on the road even when not being driven and these risks need to be insured.

One of the loop holes that has always existed with the tax disk system being used to indicate that a car has both MOT and insurance is that they only need to be valid on day of issue of the tax disk. Both may run out within days yet the TAX disk would still indicate that all was in order.

I have alwyas thought that MOT disks would be a good idea (and insurance disks, but that has difficulties).

Of course this is changing with the insurance and MOT data being available on line.

Of the 3 (tax, mot and insurance) I have always thought the tax was the least important as it has least benefit to third aprties should an accident occur.

[gwc1000]

Originally Posted by MikeBigg

Of the 3 (tax, mot and insurance) I have always thought the tax was the least important as it has least benefit to third aprties should an accident occur.

I agree, however, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers the RFL as the most important.

[Intruder08]

Originally Posted by MikeBigg

Car insurance has always (or at least as long as I can remember) needed insurance in order to get a tax disc.

Yes, you're probably right, but the emphasis seems to have changed. I consider insurance should cover a person behind the wheel, no matter how many cars they have or who owns the vehicle. I have classic bike insurance and it does allow me to ride anything that doesn't belong to me... but it still requires that the bikes I have are registered with them, and thus with the police, as insured objects.

Also, there are 3rd party risks involved in keeping cars on the road even when not being driven and these risks need to be insured.

I give up - what can a car do to a third party that a trailer or caravan couldn't do? I'd say insurance would be more useful if you wanted to insure for theft/damage.

[MikeBigg]

Originally Posted by Intruder08

I give up - what can a car do to a third party that a trailer or caravan couldn't do? I'd say insurance would be more useful if you wanted to insure for theft/damage.

Hehe - as an example, albeit a rare occurance, someone I knew had a car catch fire in the middle of the night whilst parked on the road outside his house. The car had not been driven for some weeks and there was no-one around to accuse of arson.

The fire damaged the road surface and the car parked in front. I don't know if the council claimed on his insurance for the repairs to the road (I think they should've), but the guy who owned the car in front did.

Mike