Driving to MOT Without Road Tax or Insurance!

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
21

global:

Conor:
There’s no law which says you have to wait until its due, you can MOT your car 365 days a year if you wanted. He’ll just lose whatever was left on the existing MOT.

conor, I do believe you can MOT your car before the old one ends and the new one will start from the expiry date of the old one. I stand to be corrected though!
global.

You can MOT a vehicle 28 days before the old MOT expires and the new one will run from the expiry date of the old MOT, outside of that 28 day window you will lose the time left on the old MOT.

22

I thought it was around about a month, thanks tachograph!
global.

23

tachograph:
You can MOT a vehicle 28 days before the old MOT expires and the new one will run from the expiry date of the old MOT, outside of that 28 day window you will lose the time left on the old MOT.

Once again Tachograph is correct.

(source - used to present 50 vehicles a year once upon a time).

Somebody will be along soon to say you must have a spare wheel on board with a legal tyre on it to pass the test. :unamused:

24

Driveroneuk:

tachograph:
Somebody will be along soon to say you must have a spare wheel on board with a legal tyre on it to pass the test. :unamused:

Oh, Oh, Please sir! Let me… :smiley:

Please correct me if this is wrong. But my understanding on this is that IF a spare is present, it must be legal. However there is no legal requirement to carry a spare wheel. So if your spare is bold, just don’t leave it in the car for the MOT. Yes/No?

25

Evil8Beezle:

Driveroneuk:
Somebody will be along soon to say you must have a spare wheel on board with a legal tyre on it to pass the test. :unamused:

Oh, Oh, Please sir! Let me… :smiley:

Please correct me if this is wrong. But my understanding on this is that IF a spare is present, it must be legal. However there is no legal requirement to carry a spare wheel. So if your spare is bold, just don’t leave it in the car for the MOT. Yes/No?

I believe that’s correct :slight_smile:

You don’t need to have a spare but if you do have one in the car I believe it must be legal, having said that my car passed the MOT this week with a split in the side-wall of the spare, I forgot to take it out of the car :blush:

So either I’m wrong and the spare tyre doesn’t need to be legal or they didn’t check, I suspect it’s the latter :wink:

26

Spare wheel would only be an advisory no need to bother removing it.

27

Own Account Driver:
Spare wheel would only be an advisory no need to bother removing it.

Even with an illegal tyre ?

28

Spare is not a testable item, just like reversing lights. It can be as bald as a coot. (though not much use carrying it as it would be illegal to put it on whilst on the public highway).

29

Driveroneuk:
Spare is not a testable item, just like reversing lights. It can be as bald as a coot. (though not much use carrying it as it would be illegal to put it on whilst on the public highway).

We live and learn, thanks :wink:

30

Here you go:

gov.uk/government/uploads/s … 071791.pdf

Page 4. 1st para.

31

Something that if fitted must work is an electric tow socket - although only applies to 13 pin not 7. I think a lot of 7 pin tow electrics have been unecessarily torn off due to fear of failing. :laughing:

32

tachograph:

Winseer:
How do you get to “buy” insurance on a vehicle that is both SORN and has no tax?

You phone the insurance company and say “I want a quote for insurance” :smiley:
Seriously, there’s no problem insuring a vehicle that’s not taxed, I’ve never insured a vehicle that’s sorned but I can’t see a problem doing that either.

Winseer:
A car is smashed up in a no-fault incident enough to cause it to be an insurance write-off, but driveable. The police say it’s OK to drive upto the MOT/insurance expiry. The insurance company insists on you continuing to pay the premiums (or firm keeps what’s already been paid) whilst the claim goes through. You presumably cannot re-insure a car that’s been already written off by THEM, but what happens with another insurer?

If a car is written off by the insurance company but still drivable you will be required to take it to a DVSA station for examination, it’s called a VIC (Vehicle Identity Check), the insurance will continue to be valid whilst you’re waiting for the VIC examination and assuming it’s road worthy you can continue to drive the vehicle, after that you’re free to insure the vehicle as normal.

There are about four grades of VIC ranging from A to D, the most serious A means you can’t drive the vehicle until after the VID, the least serious which would be a road worthy vehicle that’s been written off because the repairs would cost more than the vehicles value, means you can continue to drive the vehicle until the VIC.

I know this because it happened to me when another driver ran into the back of me while I was stationary, the insurance company wrote the vehicle off so I had to take the vehicle to a DVSA station and twenty minutes latter the job was done :wink:

Winseer:
What happens if a car is written off, and you can easily fix it…?

The insurance company will pay you the market value of the vehicle and after getting the VIC you can fix it yourself.

So, the bottom line is - a written off vehicle can still be driven, insured, taxed, MOTed without anything making this prohibitive, such as “increased insurance premiums” which one would think should not happen to the “victim” driver who’s vehicle has been hit, eg. by someone with no insurance, or someone with full insurance, but currently acting as getaway driver for a robbery, or any other criminal act DD/DR etc?

Does a stoved-in car automatically fail an MOT? Knocking dents out is expensive, continuing to drive it without doing more than superficial repairs is a lot cheaper, and still obtains a payout for “market value” of car, without actually having to surrender said car to the insurance company?

Looking at the old bangers I drive for instance, I would imagine that a stoved in backside will amount to “more damage costs than the value of the car to repair” easily. Ideally, I’d want to (a) repair it myself (b) get a payout without having to surrender the car (c) get uninsured losses without surrendering the car and (d) not lose my no claims bonus. Oh, did I say I want to keep everything, and lose nothing - it all being paid for by some third party who’s already been put 100% to blame by the police, even if not by the defending insurance company? :smiley:

33

tachograph:
There are about four grades of VIC ranging from A to D, the most serious A means you can’t drive the vehicle until after the VID, the least serious which would be a road worthy vehicle that’s been written off because the repairs would cost more than the vehicles value, means you can continue to drive the vehicle until the VIC.

There’s no grading system to the VIC test, but you seem to be referring insurance write off categories and slightly misinformed about the definitions.

Cat A and B cars will never see the road again due to the nature or extent of damage sustained.
In the case of cat A cars no parts are allowed to be sold (usually burned out /extreme damage etc)

Cat B cars are similar to cat A in regards to never being allowed on the road again but parts are allowed to be sold. Usually they have had a major damage from a collision, flood damage or partially burned out, sometimes
A lesser damaged car may be moved into this category if there has been a fatality, in respect for the family involved who may not want to see his/her car driving around.

Cat C cars are determined by the insurer to be beyond economical repair, depending on the value of the car the damage can range from a dented wing all the way to fairly hefty damage that may require the shell put on a jig to straighten it.

Cat D cars are cars that insurers decided not to repair but not damaged beyond economical repair, this may be due to poor parts availability/long wait for parts or due to hire car and other costs.
the damage is usually minor and often it’s cheaper and easier for insurers to give the market value of the car rather than give the customer a hire car for an extended period (especially if they demand a comparable hire car to their own).

However If the insurer is not involved (eg at fault 3rd party) a car cannot be written off and be repaired by anyone with no checks on the quality of the repair only the mot test, although cut and shuts are not as common as they used to be they still exist.

34

I was under the impression the category of write-off the insurance company assessed it as usually did inform whether they put a VIC marker on the vehicle or not?

35

So, if a car has already been written off by one’s own insurance company following 100% third party damage (hit and run) then a VIC should be requested.
Following this, does re-insuring the vehicle and getting a fresh MOT on it make it all uneconomically unviable after all?

DO insurers actually protect their rival insurers against overly high damages claims by writing vehicles off willy-nilly themselves?

I would have thought for example, that if I knew as an insurer I was going to get 100% of my claimed amounts paid by the other side, then I’d put in for everything and anything, including “new for old” replacement - if I could. :smiling_imp:

36

Own Account Driver:
I was under the impression the category of write-off the insurance company assessed it as usually did inform whether they put a VIC marker on the vehicle or not?

Yes it’s entirely up to the insurer what category write off the car falls under and if it falls under cat c it will require a vic check however cat d does not, also it may be a requirement if you buy a car with no v5.

The vehicle identity check is just that and nothing more.

37

Winseer:
So, if a car has already been written off by one’s own insurance company following 100% third party damage (hit and run) then a VIC should be requested.
Following this, does re-insuring the vehicle and getting a fresh MOT on it make it all uneconomically unviable after all?

DO insurers actually protect their rival insurers against overly high damages claims by writing vehicles off willy-nilly themselves?

I would have thought for example, that if I knew as an insurer I was going to get 100% of my claimed amounts paid by the other side, then I’d put in for everything and anything, including “new for old” replacement - if I could. :smiling_imp:

When assessing whether to write a car off or repair, an Insurer goes by best practice as ultimately if the accident was non fault they will be looking to recover their outlay from the other parties Insurers. As they have a duty to mitigate losses, if they’ve decided on a path of action which was not the most economic then they may not be able to recover their full outlay as the other party may may challenge them on this and then only agree to pay the amount they should have paid.

That’s the check in place to ensure the Insurers act reasonably when deciding whether to write off or repair, if you throw in the regulators requirement for TCF “Treating customers fairly” and also for Insurers to be beyond reproach there’s no incentive for them to inflate costs that a third party would pay

38

As I suggested above - it must get really ugly for a big damage claim started by one bod insured by the same company as the third party bod…

“Most economical way to proceed” would mean NOT dragging the case out over weeks and months, trying to establish “causality” and all that ■■■■■■■■.
Win or lose, there’s going to be the same company on the paying out side. If an expensive car is totalled, then trying to palm said car owner off with some residule payment just isn’t going to happen.

I wonder if there’s much history of car owners taking insurance companies to court - because of “inadequate payout” or “attempting to dodge obligations” etc etc? :confused: