Driving a car with no tax/MOT

[mattydoh]

Evening all,

I have just bought an old VW Lupo to convert to a stage rally car - I need to transport it 40 miles from Bolton to Blackpool and while I can get someone to transport it via a trailer they can't do it until next weekend, since I'm off work next week I wouldn't mind it home a bit earlier to get started.

It hasn't turned a wheel for a couple of years but should be roadworthy (it was parked up in a garage and then left).

Am I correct in thinking I could legally drive it home if I arranged temporary insurance and pre-booked an MOT somewhere near home?

Or am I risking points and fines and should really leave it for the week?

[Steffan]

You are attempting to circumnavigate the legal requirements. Strictly speaking you could have a problem but if you pre book an MOT near you and then only return home from that MOT you are probably just about OK. The authorities would not like the intention if made aware of the reasons for the trip. In reality you are very unlikely to get pulled in a taxed and insured car, although the car may appear to be uninsured because the MID database takes time to update new insurance.

[Steffan]

As a footnote my real concern would be whether the car has stuck brakes, seized clutch etc. If everything works and you feel lucky then it is a possibility. But the safest way is the trailer!

[GC8]

mattydoh said:

Am I correct in thinking I could legally drive it home if I arranged temporary insurance and pre-booked an MOT somewhere near home?

Completely correct.

[Grenoble]

GC8 said:

mattydoh said:

Am I correct in thinking I could legally drive it home if I arranged temporary insurance and pre-booked an MOT somewhere near home?

Completely correct.

With the caveat that it still needs to be roadworthy...

[GC8]

Rather like saying that it must be insured, as both always apply.

[TPS]

Steffan said:

You are attempting to circumnavigate the legal requirements. Strictly speaking you could have a problem but if you pre book an MOT near you and then only return home from that MOT you are probably just about OK. The authorities would not like the intention if made aware of the reasons for the trip.

Go on then,explain why he could have a problem.

I will look forward to your answer.

[GC8]

Steffan said:

You are attempting to circumnavigate the legal requirements. Strictly speaking you could have a problem but if you pre book an MOT near you and then only return home from that MOT you are probably just about OK. The authorities would not like the intention if made aware of the reasons for the trip. In reality you are very unlikely to get pulled in a taxed and insured car, although the car may appear to be uninsured because the MID database takes time to update new insurance.

I was going to let this go, but you should know better and this quoted post is twaddle and nothing less.

[Who me ?]

Matty - might be worth asking ( VAG FORUM )if rear brakes on Lupo are same as on other small VAG cars ,with shoes riveted together at bottom. This can cause problems with sticking handbrake etc. Again if it's been sitting, have a very close look at the tyres, especially between the treads. i once had a nice ex motability car, only three years old with cracks between the treads and plenty of tread .

[Steffan]

GC8 said:

Steffan said:

You are attempting to circumnavigate the legal requirements. Strictly speaking you could have a problem but if you pre book an MOT near you and then only return home from that MOT you are probably just about OK. The authorities would not like the intention if made aware of the reasons for the trip. In reality you are very unlikely to get pulled in a taxed and insured car, although the car may appear to be uninsured because the MID database takes time to update new insurance.

I was going to let this go, but you should know better and this quoted post is twaddle and nothing less.

I understand that the police are not happy with long distance drives involving untested vehicles in connection with arranging and travelling to MOT stations. If the officers believe that this is a device used to enable a car to be driven over significant distances to enable that car to be collected or delivered to a new owner they can and may prosecute the offence. That is my understanding. Hence my caution.

There is also the question of whether in fact the insurance company would actually chose to cover a car not MOT'd if actually aware of the process and whether the vehicle will in fact be roadworthy.

I think this is risky, but that is up to the OP.

[Corpulent Tosser]

GC8 said:

mattydoh said:

Am I correct in thinking I could legally drive it home if I arranged temporary insurance and pre-booked an MOT somewhere near home?

Completely correct.

It it correct?
Surely it would have to be driven to the MOT station, not home.

[GC8]

I wondered about the OPs intent too, but I have driven many, many vehicles across the country to MOT testing stations near to home and I have frequently stopped at home overnight before continuing on in the morning.

I appreciate that this can irk some police officers who seek to define 'what the law really meant', but they are wasting their time. The law doesnt define a single journey, route or distance which gives a common sense leeway.

I have always made sure that I have chosen an MOT station beyond my home address in order to give me the option to stop, because whilst they may think that Im taking the piss, I wont actually take the piss.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Corpulent Tosser said:

GC8 said:

mattydoh said:

Am I correct in thinking I could legally drive it home if I arranged temporary insurance and pre-booked an MOT somewhere near home?

Completely correct.

It it correct?
Surely it would have to be driven to the MOT station, not home.

That's my understanding too. Unless he had to drive past his own house to get to the MOT station. Other than that, the moment he diverts his route away from the MOT station to his home, he's breaking the law.

[Steffan]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

GC8 said:

mattydoh said:

Am I correct in thinking I could legally drive it home if I arranged temporary insurance and pre-booked an MOT somewhere near home?

Completely correct.

It it correct?
Surely it would have to be driven to the MOT station, not home.

That's my understanding too. Unless he had to drive past his own house to get to the MOT station. Other than that, the moment he diverts his route away from the MOT station to his home, he's breaking the law.

That seems a pragmatic approach to me. I do wonder whether the insurance company would actually accept the risk if they were aware of the absence of a current MOT. I suspect probably not.

[Rollcage]

Steffan said:

That seems a pragmatic approach to me. I do wonder whether the insurance company would actually accept the risk if they were aware of the absence of a current MOT. I suspect probably not.

Lack of an MOT doesn't invalidate Road Risk insurance.

[caziques]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That's my understanding too. Unless he had to drive past his own house to get to the MOT station. Other than that, the moment he diverts his route away from the MOT station to his home, he's breaking the law.

So getting lost is now against the law? Invariably there are many routes between destinations, can't see anyone prosecuting for example if someone avoids a motorway or a steep hill.

[Stinkfoot]

Rollcage said:

Lack of an MOT doesn't invalidate Road Risk insurance.

I am right in saying that nothing can invalidate the basic road risk element on a policy. Of course the insurance company could pursue for cost in the event of a claim

[TPS]

Steffan said:

I understand that the police are not happy with long distance drives involving untested vehicles in connection with arranging and travelling to MOT stations. If the officers believe that this is a device used to enable a car to be driven over significant distances to enable that car to be collected or delivered to a new owner they can and may prosecute the offence. That is my understanding. Hence my caution.

There is also the question of whether in fact the insurance company would actually chose to cover a car not MOT'd if actually aware of the process and whether the vehicle will in fact be roadworthy.

I think this is risky, but that is up to the OP.

I have never heard of this before.
Can you provide evidence of this?

[TPS]

Steffan said:

That seems a pragmatic approach to me. I do wonder whether the insurance company would actually accept the risk if they were aware of the absence of a current MOT. I suspect probably not.

Why?

Does having an Mot mean the car is roadworthy all year round?

Could an mot'd car be unroadworthy at some point?
Could an un mot'd car be in a roadworthy condition?

[ferrariF50lover]

Based on this whole idea of being allowed to drive to a pre-booked MOT test, could one, perhaps:

Own an otherwise fully road legal motor, taxed, insured etc and driven by a licensed, sober driver. The only piece of the puzzle missing is that it's got no MOT certificate.

Pre-book an MOT test at a garage in the centre of my local town.

Drive the car to the MOT station, park up, do my shopping in town, go to a movie, have a spot of lunch etc.

Return to the car, drive home.

Book another test.

Repeat.

I know one would have to be bat-st crazy to do such a thing, but if one chose so to do, what's the situation?

Simon.