Towing car with No Tax or MOT
Discussion
IaHa said:
Legally it needs to be on a trailer.
You are technically 'using' the vehicle if you are towing it, and as such it must have insurance, VEL and MOT.
...at what point can the towed vehicle be considered a trailer? If it carries a reg no of the towing vehicle, how is it different to a caravan?
Just curious.
2 Smokin Barrels said:
IaHa said:
Legally it needs to be on a trailer.
You are technically 'using' the vehicle if you are towing it, and as such it must have insurance, VEL and MOT.
...at what point can the towed vehicle be considered a trailer? If it carries a reg no of the towing vehicle, how is it different to a caravan?
Just curious.
When the vehicle ceases to be a motor vehicle. Milstead v Sexton 1964
These case law examples might help define how far you may have to go to remove ‘motor’ from ‘motor vehicle’
Case law of Thomas v Hooper 1986 said:
T bought a Morris van which had been abandoned for one hundred and twenty pounds. Its steering was locked, one of its wheels would not turn, the brakes were seized and the engine required a lot of work to make it fit to start. T lashed the van to another vehicle with a chain and started to drag it along a road towards a friends house. No work had been done to try and repair the vehicle or unlock the steering. Whilst the vehicle was being dragged T was stopped by the police and reported for using the Morris without insurance or test certificate. He was convicted.
T appealed on the grounds that he was not 'using' the vehicle but merely dragging it.
HELD
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
Since the Crown Court had not made any finding that the wheels of the Morris had even turned round, and the Morris was in effect an inanimate hunk of metal with none of the normal vehicular controls operative, T was in no sense 'using' it and the only reason that he could be in the vehicle was to act as a warning if anything went wrong.
Notes
The reporting officers had not given enough evidence to prove that either the wheels were going round or that any of the controls were operative. If this had been the case then the decision may have been different. In cases where there is dispute as to whether a vehicle is still a motor vehicle, it is felt that such evidence would be most properly obtained by a thorough examination carried out by an authorised police vehicle examiner.
Case law of Plumbien v Vines 1995 said:
P purchased a car in full working order. He parked it on the road outside his house and didn't drive it again. Over a period of seven months the test certificate expired, the insurance was cancelled, the tyres went flat, the back brakes seized and all the oil leaked out of the gearbox.
He was subsequently summonsed for 'using' a vehicle on a road without a test certificate or insurance and was convicted at Magistrates Court. He appealed on the grounds that a vehicle immobilised to that extent ceased to be 'used' for the purpose of the legislation.
HELD
Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld.
Provided the vehicle is a motor vehicle for the purposes of section 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road), the owner has the use of it. The fact that the wheels would not rotate does not prevent it being a motor vehicle, otherwise an individual would only have to deliberately lock up his brakes to avoid his responsibilities. The same principle applied to the other defects with the vehicle, all of which were relatively easy to rectify.
This is the latest in a long line of cases which determine whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle for the purposes of 'use' on a road. Each case has to be judged on the nature of the vehicle defects. Generally, a vehicle ceases to be a motor vehicle if it has decayed (or been damaged/dismantled) to such an extent that only extensive restoration would re- create a working mechanically propelled vehicle. For example, a missing engine which is repairable or replaceable is not, on its' own, sufficient for a vehicle to cease to be mechanically propelled.
>> Edited by IaHa on Tuesday 13th September 06:31
My argument is that as I am using a “A” frame the vehicle does not have, or require a driver and is therefore a draw-bar trailer. I cover the number plates to stop the camera scammers. What is the position if a dolly is used, i.e. front wheels is off the ground.
I have seen both methods used by council licensed scrap vehicle recovery chaps
I have seen both methods used by council licensed scrap vehicle recovery chaps
IaHa said:
[quote=Case law of Thomas v Hooper 1986]
T bought a Morris van which had been abandoned for one hundred and twenty pounds.
someone abandoned a car and paid 120 pounds for the priviledge? surely the poiunt of abandoning cars is that it's free
No wonder our law is in ruins if this is the state of the english used
daveatcopleigh said:
My argument is that as I am using a “A” frame the vehicle does not have, or require a driver and is therefore a draw-bar trailer. I cover the number plates to stop the camera scammers. What is the position if a dolly is used, i.e. front wheels is off the ground.
I have seen both methods used by council licensed scrap vehicle recovery chaps
Precisely. A-Frames and Dollies are both intended for recovery of broken down vehicles only.
It is argued that the combination of A-frame or Dolly plus motor vehicle becomes a trailer, hence not a motor vehicle.
But....
It then comes under trailer con and use regs and must, if MAM over 750kgs, have a braking system. Additionally con & use regs dictate that any brakes fitted to a trailer must be operational.
Sounds too hard to do to make that legal.
trackcar said:
[quote=Case law of Thomas v Hooper 1986]
T bought a Morris van which had been abandoned for one hundred and twenty pounds.
someone abandoned a car and paid 120 pounds for the priviledge? surely the poiunt of abandoning cars is that it's free
No wonder our law is in ruins if this is the state of the english used
Yep it should say "T bought a Morris van for one hundred and twenty pounds, which had been abandoned."
see? He found £120 then used it to buy a Morris van.
IaHa said:
IaHa said:
Legally it needs to be on a trailer.
You are technically 'using' the vehicle if you are towing it, and as such it must have insurance, VEL and MOT.
...at what point can the towed vehicle be considered a trailer? If it carries a reg no of the towing vehicle, how is it different to a caravan?
Just curious.
When the vehicle ceases to be a motor vehicle. Milstead v Sexton 1964
These case law examples might help define how far you may have to go to remove ‘motor’ from ‘motor vehicle’
Case law of Thomas v Hooper 1986 said:
T bought a Morris van which had been abandoned for one hundred and twenty pounds. Its steering was locked, one of its wheels would not turn, the brakes were seized and the engine required a lot of work to make it fit to start. T lashed the van to another vehicle with a chain and started to drag it along a road towards a friends house. No work had been done to try and repair the vehicle or unlock the steering. Whilst the vehicle was being dragged T was stopped by the police and reported for using the Morris without insurance or test certificate. He was convicted.
T appealed on the grounds that he was not 'using' the vehicle but merely dragging it.
HELD
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
Since the Crown Court had not made any finding that the wheels of the Morris had even turned round, and the Morris was in effect an inanimate hunk of metal with none of the normal vehicular controls operative, T was in no sense 'using' it and the only reason that he could be in the vehicle was to act as a warning if anything went wrong.
Notes
The reporting officers had not given enough evidence to prove that either the wheels were going round or that any of the controls were operative. If this had been the case then the decision may have been different. In cases where there is dispute as to whether a vehicle is still a motor vehicle, it is felt that such evidence would be most properly obtained by a thorough examination carried out by an authorised police vehicle examiner.
Case law of Plumbien v Vines 1995 said:
P purchased a car in full working order. He parked it on the road outside his house and didn't drive it again. Over a period of seven months the test certificate expired, the insurance was cancelled, the tyres went flat, the back brakes seized and all the oil leaked out of the gearbox.
He was subsequently summonsed for 'using' a vehicle on a road without a test certificate or insurance and was convicted at Magistrates Court. He appealed on the grounds that a vehicle immobilised to that extent ceased to be 'used' for the purpose of the legislation.
HELD
Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld.
Provided the vehicle is a motor vehicle for the purposes of section 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road), the owner has the use of it. The fact that the wheels would not rotate does not prevent it being a motor vehicle, otherwise an individual would only have to deliberately lock up his brakes to avoid his responsibilities. The same principle applied to the other defects with the vehicle, all of which were relatively easy to rectify.
This is the latest in a long line of cases which determine whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle for the purposes of 'use' on a road. Each case has to be judged on the nature of the vehicle defects. Generally, a vehicle ceases to be a motor vehicle if it has decayed (or been damaged/dismantled) to such an extent that only extensive restoration would re- create a working mechanically propelled vehicle. For example, a missing engine which is repairable or replaceable is not, on its' own, sufficient for a vehicle to cease to be mechanically propelled.
>> Edited by IaHa on Tuesday 13th September 06:31
Could you be a little more specific please?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff