Oops - MOT ran out Oct 2010!
Oops - MOT ran out Oct 2010!
Author
Discussion

GreatGranny

Original Poster:

9,519 posts

242 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
Went out yesterday with the wife and kids to Skeggy. Yes I know but its the nearest coast and the kids wanted to go to the seaside.

We parked in the wifes Alhambra and I got out to find a PCSO parking next to me and getting out of his car. He was in uniform but in his own car.

"Sir, do you realise your MOT ran out in october 2010?"

"I followed you into Skegness after you passed me doing over 60"

"Your overtake wasn't dangerous but I checked your details anyway and found you had no MOT"

To say I was shocked was an understatement. We moved house last October and I obviously just forgot to test it.

Being a PCSO he has no powers to write me a ticket but he was very polite, I was very apologetic and said I would get it done today. Manged to fit it in at 2pm in my normal garage.

If it was a Polics Officer could he have siezed the car or is that with no tax/insurance?

Has anyone else done this and completely forgotten their MOT?

Wife wasn't impressed, kids found it hilarious!

HellDiver

5,708 posts

198 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
My folks ran their car for nearly a year with no MOT - they bought a Fiesta from a local Ford dealership, it turned out to be rotten due to a factory fault. 6 months of farting about with Ford they eventually got a replacement car, which was the one that had it's MOT forgotten about. Only when it was due tax was the mistake discovered.

jamesson

3,438 posts

237 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
No seizure for no MOT. Normally a £60 fixed penalty notice (no points on your licence), but can be a fine of up to £1000 in court (rare though).

mnkiboy

4,409 posts

182 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
GreatGranny said:
We parked in the wifes Alhambra
GreatGranny said:
Wife wasn't impressed, kids found it hilarious!
Funny how it's always the man's fault!

Pints

18,448 posts

210 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
hora said:
fk!!!! It means your car might not have been insured in a crash?
yikes

Well in that case the OP should make doubly sure he doesn't crash. smile

off_again

13,917 posts

250 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
hora said:
fk!!!! It means your car might not have been insured in a crash?
Shoot me down if I am wrong, but wouldnt they pay out to another party, but wouldnt pay out for you, given that you have broken their T's and C's? So basically third party only?

GreatGranny

Original Poster:

9,519 posts

242 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
hora said:
fk!!!! It means your car might not have been insured in a crash?
I think thats right, not sure though.

Pretty scary thought that I could have been liable for huge costs if I had caused an accident at any time or my wife as its her car and she drives it most of the time.

Being tested at 2pm, I know there are a few issues that I had planned to sort before the MOT! lets hope its not too bad. I'm expecting drop links to neede replacing but thats a cheapish thing and front pads are low.

mrmr96

13,736 posts

220 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
hora said:
fk!!!! It means your car might not have been insured in a crash?
myth.

GreatGranny

Original Poster:

9,519 posts

242 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
off_again said:
Shoot me down if I am wrong, but wouldnt they pay out to another party, but wouldnt pay out for you, given that you have broken their T's and C's? So basically third party only?
Ok that good to know....I suppose. Just would have had to fork out for repairs to mine or a new car altogether.

jagracer

8,248 posts

252 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
mrmr96 said:
hora said:
fk!!!! It means your car might not have been insured in a crash?
myth.
Tongue cheek humour I suspect hope

MoonMonkey

2,266 posts

229 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
Yeah, but a valid MOT does not mean the car is roadworthy so chances are that in the event of a total loss claim the ins co just wouldn't pay out full market value. AFAIK anyway.

boredofmyoldname

22,655 posts

215 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
When we got SWMBOs Ka from her aunt it had just been serviced, she assumed it had a full MOT and I didn't bother checking, until the tax was due and the car had been without an MOT for 4 months. Passed with no advisories though whistle

otolith

62,237 posts

220 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
hora said:
Could the insurance company point to the T&C's under the section 'the car must be roadworthy'?
No, they are constrained by the wording of the Road Traffic Act which lists certain criteria which an insurer cannot use to wriggle out of a third party claim, including the condition of the vehicle.

RTA said:
Avoidance of certain exceptions to policies or securities.

148.—(1) Where a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict—

(a) the insurance of the persons insured by the policy, or

(b) the operation of the security,

(as the case may be) by reference to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, be of no effect.

(2) Those matters are—

(a) the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,

(b) the condition of the vehicle,

(c) the number of persons that the vehicle carries,

(d) the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,

(e) the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,

(f) the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,

(g) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or

(h) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the [1971 c. 10.] Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971.

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) above requires an insurer or the giver of a security to pay any sum in respect of the liability of any person otherwise than in or towards the discharge of that liability.

(4) Any sum paid by an insurer or the giver of a security in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy or security by virtue only of subsection (1) above is recoverable by the insurer or giver of the security from that person.

(5) A condition in a policy or security issued or given for the purposes of this Part of this Act providing—

(a) that no liability shall arise under the policy or security, or

(b) that any liability so arising shall cease,

in the event of some specified thing being done or omitted to be done after the happening of the event giving rise to a claim under the policy or security, shall be of no effect in connection with such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act.

(6) Nothing in subsection (5) above shall be taken to render void any provision in a policy or security requiring the person insured or secured to pay to the insurer or the giver of the security any sums which the latter may have become liable to pay under the policy or security and which have been applied to the satisfaction of the claims of third parties.

(7) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, a person issuing a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act shall be liable to indemnify the persons or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of those persons or classes of persons.

cml

726 posts

278 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
Happened to be when I was stopped for speeding, got the dates muddled with my previous car (weak I know). Got it done the next working day and nothing happened.

Don't think the police were very interested.

Although I did get a hammering for the speeding !


GreatGranny

Original Poster:

9,519 posts

242 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
cml said:
Happened to be when I was stopped for speeding, got the dates muddled with my previous car (weak I know). Got it done the next working day and nothing happened.

Don't think the police were very interested.

Although I did get a hammering for the speeding !
He did say I had been speeding when he followed me after I had overtaken him.

Can't have been too bad as I had both SWMBO and M in L in the car at the time!

I wasn't being reckless but it was a wide straight road and the traffic was doing 45-50mph. I overtook about 5 cars in 2/3 manourvres...... officer.

XDA

2,153 posts

201 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
The PCSO said you were speeding? I'm assuming the speedo in the PCSO's car is calibrated then...

I find it funny that he warned you about speeding and your (lack of) MOT, yet he doesn't have the power to do anything about it! hehe

JonnyFive

29,675 posts

205 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
We get this often.. Oh my MOT ran out so and so months ago.

Luckily if the MOT is done here people get a reminder in the post, you'd be surprised how many people rely on it so much.

Chicane-UK

3,861 posts

201 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
Must admit I've come close to missing the MOT on several occasions.. I've just happened to pop open the receipts folder, and then nearly have a heart attack when I realise it's due to expire in a few weeks time! Just wish they'd send renewal letters like the DVLA do when they want money from you!

redstu

2,287 posts

255 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
MOT stickers should replace the tax disc in your window , then there is no excuse.

otolith

62,237 posts

220 months

Monday 28th February 2011
quotequote all
The expiry date is in the DVLA database, how hard would it be to allow people to subscribe to an email reminder?