Driving with out TAX to an MOT?

[Rory J]

From a legal standpoint, is it ok to drive to a prearranged MOT with a car that is declared as SORN?
I think its not possible to tax the car without an MOT.

For the first time, I have parked up my M3 in the garage for the winter. The MOT ran out on 5th Jan and tax runs out the end of this month.
I will probably bring the car back out about March / April and MOT it then but just wanted to check what other people have done in this situation.

Thanks.

[Bigends]

Yes its fine to drive a SORN car to or from a pre-booked MOT

[Puddenchucker]

Yes, you can drive to a pre-booked MOT without road-tax (VED) but the vehicle must be insured.
(Usual caveat about the vehicle must be "safe/roadworthy". e.g. no bald tyres etc)

[a.lex]

To and from, but don't be tempted to drive anywhere else "on the way"...

[Rory J]

Thanks everyone for confirming what I thought. MOT station is only a few miles away so I will be heading straight there.

[renorti]

it,s a risk. It is legal but catch a policeman on a bad day they would seize the car {usual excuse in this case would be untaxed for over 1 month and driven on sorn}you would either pay fine/release of car etc or day in court 50/50 chance winning.Personally Trailer it back and for or use car transporter.

[Bigends]

renorti said:

it,s a risk. It is legal but catch a policeman on a bad day they would seize the car {usual excuse in this case would be untaxed for over 1 month and driven on sorn}you would either pay fine/release of car etc or day in court 50/50 chance winning.Personally Trailer it back and for or use car transporter.

If the OP has proof of a pre arranged test and theyre en-route - Police would have no grounds to seize the car - this is quite clear on the Gov.uk website

[Red Devil]

Bigends said:

renorti said:

it,s a risk. It is legal but catch a policeman on a bad day they would seize the car {usual excuse in this case would be untaxed for over 1 month and driven on sorn}you would either pay fine/release of car etc or day in court 50/50 chance winning.Personally Trailer it back and for or use car transporter.

If the OP has proof of a pre arranged test and theyre en-route - Police would have no grounds to seize the car - this is quite clear on the Gov.uk website

Agreed. I really don't know why people post such utter tosh.

Rather than rely on the gov.uk site, which can be somewhat flaky, it's always preferable to check the relevant legislation.
Exempt vehicle: VERA 1994 Schedule 2 Section 22 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/sched...

The details of the testing station plus a contact number and name for verification is all that is needed.
If the officer were to refuse to make such a simple check I suspect a no tea and biscuits conversation with an inspector might ensue.
Also seizure could result in a claim for wrongful interference with property as happened in Pryor v GMP.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
That was to do with insurance but the underlying principle in the same.

Another urban myth is that it has to be the nearest test centre. The legislation makes no such stipulation.
For the avoidance of doubt the OP's question was about tax (VED) not roadworthiness. C&U Regs still apply.

[Neonblau]

renorti said:

it,s a risk. It is legal but catch a policeman on a bad day they would seize the car {usual excuse in this case would be untaxed for over 1 month and driven on sorn}you would either pay fine/release of car etc or day in court 50/50 chance winning.Personally Trailer it back and for or use car transporter.

OP - ignore this rubbish. Completely wrong and full of made up stuff.

[pincher]

Good timing this - got to pick up my (well, my dad’s) car from the place where it has had some work done this week and get it MOT’d tomorrow but it’s currently SORN’d. Repair place is about 15 miles from MOT station (was trailered up there on Monday), so if I get pulled over, I’ll let you know how I get on!

[Rory J]

Neonblau said:

OP - ignore this rubbish. Completely wrong and full of made up stuff.

It did sound a bit made up lol. I'm going to go with the advice from bigends and red devil as they both sound like they know what they are talking about and can back it with government legislation. Thanks guys!

[Aretnap]

Red Devil said:

Another urban myth is that it has to be the nearest test centre. The legislation makes no such stipulation.

Yet another urban myth is that you have to drive to the test centre by the most direct route possible, without even thinking about stopping on the way. In fact incidental stops can be fine, as can a short detour (eg to buy petrol), so long as the purpose of the journey is still to get to the test centre. Secretary of State for Transport v Richards.

[ModernAndy]

Aretnap said:

Red Devil said:

Another urban myth is that it has to be the nearest test centre. The legislation makes no such stipulation.

Yet another urban myth is that you have to drive to the test centre by the most direct route possible, without even thinking about stopping on the way. In fact incidental stops can be fine, as can a short detour (eg to buy petrol), so long as the purpose of the journey is still to get to the test centre. Secretary of State for Transport v Richards.

That's good. I had to do a 4 mile detour to get to a fuel station for one of the cars last year after it had the MOT fails sorted by a garage just half a mile away from the MOT centre and did wonder where I stood (the car absolutely did need fuel in it. There wasn't enough in the tank for the MOT guys to even leave it idling for 10 minutes and then to drive it for fuel after.)

[catso]

I imported a motorbike from Italy, after doing the NOVA (HMRC) paperwork I needed to get an MOT before I could be issued with a UK registration.

I could ride it to, and back from (couldn't tax directly after MOT as still needed registration) the MOT station despite it having never been taxed here and not even having a UK no. plate, needed insurance and that was issued on the frame (VIN) no.

[littleredrooster]

Neonblau said:

renorti said:

it,s a risk. It is legal but catch a policeman on a bad day they would seize the car {usual excuse in this case would be untaxed for over 1 month and driven on sorn}you would either pay fine/release of car etc or day in court 50/50 chance winning.Personally Trailer it back and for or use car transporter.

OP - ignore this rubbish. Completely wrong and full of made up stuff.

Indeed. I find it best to keep my mouth shut (and my fingers away from the keyboard) when I know absolutely and utterly feck-all about the subject under discussion.

[a.lex]

Aretnap said:

Red Devil said:

Another urban myth is that it has to be the nearest test centre. The legislation makes no such stipulation.

Yet another urban myth is that you have to drive to the test centre by the most direct route possible, without even thinking about stopping on the way. In fact incidental stops can be fine, as can a short detour (eg to buy petrol), so long as the purpose of the journey is still to get to the test centre. Secretary of State for Transport v Richards.

That's a great rule to follow...provided you are happy to throw yourself upon the mercy of the court (and appeal if you lose), like Richards did. Because that is all this oft-cited but poorly understood case (appears*) to tell us. The appeal turned on the particular facts and circumstances, and the High Court simply declined to overrule the Crown Court's findings, as they were not wholly unreasonable. This is, unfortunately, far from establishing a general rule, although it is certainly helpful to establish, at least, that there is no "must not stop at all" requirement.

• I've only ever seen the Jerrard summary of the case, so I don't know how accurately it has been reported. It is noteworthy that we have no idea what the Crown Court's reasoning was, just that the High Court was not "satisfied that no court could reasonably have come to the conclusion that it did".

[Red Devil]

a.lex said:

• I've only ever seen the Jerrard summary of the case, so I don't know how accurately it has been reported. It is noteworthy that we have no idea what the Crown Court's reasoning was, just that the High Court was not "satisfied that no court could reasonably have come to the conclusion that it did".

You appear to have overlooked a salient sentence though (in bold below) which suggests what the Crown Court's reasoning probably was.

The Court accepted the submission that it is a question of fact and degree in each case for the court to determine whether the exemption is satisfied. But the court said, it is only if this court is satisfied that no court could reasonably have come to the conclusion that it did that it can interfere. On the facts of this case, it is ridiculous if a driver could not stop to obtain petrol on the way. it would fly in the face of common sense if some short stop cannot be made by the driver, for whatever purpose, providing he is on his way to the test station.

Lord Justice Henry: said "I am surprised at a time of financial stringency that public money was spent in the pursuit of this appeal."

As reported by rjerrard the Crown Court overturned the decision of the justices. By no means the first time that a magistrates court has wrongly interpreted the law.
It was the Crown (SoS) which wasn't happy with the successful appeal and took it to the High Court as a case stated.

I can't find it reported anywhere else either. Be that as it may, the impression I get is that the author has seen a transcript and the account presented is accurate enough to be taken a face value.

Similar losses by TPTB have occurred over other contentious issues.
NoIP reaching the addressee outside the statutory 14 day period - Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside
Seizure for no insurance - Pryor v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

[a.lex]

Red Devil said:

You appear to have overlooked a salient sentence though (in bold below) which suggests what the Crown Court's reasoning probably was.

I haven't overlooked it. But I have discounted it, based on the imperfect source of information about the decision. I don't have access to any official reports at the moment, but I would like to read what the Crown Court's reasoning was--the High Court's full discussion might also be useful in that regard.

Back to the larger point, which is that the statute can be enforced by the police as written, so it will be down to the accused in each case to convince the court(s) that the exemption applies. Personally, I would not want to take unnecessary risks with the exemption.