Roymondo:
limeyphil:
Can you share a link to that? There’s quite a few people that have been hauled before the courts for no insurance due to having no MOT.Can YOU share a link to any case where that has happened?
This thread has thrown a different light on things.
It’s been common practice in my area to be given 6-8 points and a fine for no insurance when driving without an MOT. 
This has been happening for as far back as i can remember.
limeyphil:
alphonsohall:
limeyphil:
alphonsohall:
Roymondo:
limeyphil:
I had similar a long time ago. With there being no MOT i was summonsed for having no insurance.
But in my case, I simply forgot that it had ran out.
I got it tested the day after i got a tug and it passed. I contacted my insurance company and they said they would have covered me as the car was clearly in good order, They put it in writing for me and i just showed the letter at court.
That was the end of that.The insurance company had no choice - they cannot invalidate your 3rd party liability insurance on the grounds that you have no MoT certificate.
+1
Failure to hold a valid MOT is an offence under Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and can result in a fine of up to £1000. The offence of driving without an MOT does not carry penalty points although most policies of insurance will become invalid without an MOT being in place, which could lead to an offence of driving without insurance which carries between 6 and 8 penalty points.
In the event of a claim, the 3rd party element of your car insurance will remain valid (by law) if the car is not MOT’d, though own damage claims would be invalidated
Can you share a link to that? There’s quite a few people that have been hauled before the courts for no insurance due to having no MOT.
The point is that the car must be roadworthy as far as insurance is concerned, check out this link …there is also a reference in the link where the insurance company must pay out to 3rd parties regardless of the insureds mot status.
drivingtesttips.biz/no-mot-i … rance.html
(Quote below is taken from the above link)
The most important aspect of car insurance is to restore the third party (innocent party involved in an accident) and their property back to a state previous to the accident. Therefore the lack of a valid MOT cannot be automatically associated with invalid car insurance and must remain two separate offences in their own right.
Roymondo:
limeyphil:
Can you share a link to that? There’s quite a few people that have been hauled before the courts for no insurance due to having no MOT.Can YOU share a link to any case where that has happened?
Slimeyphil never ever talks facts, always utter nonsense with bad spelling.
trubster:
Pay the £100 fine as it is non-endorsable, then send the garage a bill for the £100If they admitted it was there fault and agreed to pay it, dont bother arguing with them as they will just pass it on to the Magistrates who will fine even more.
i would send the £100 bill to the garage , and request a payment for hardship and distress caused
Section 148 (2)(b) Road Traffic Act 1988:
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/148
If there is a policy in force, an insurer cannot refuse to deal with third party claims simply because of the lack of a valid MOT certificate. Ergo, a vehicle without MOT is still insured, and a charge of no insurance must fail. This does not mean, of course, that the police, CPS or Magistrates would necessarily understand, but an appeal on conviction should be successful.
alphonsohall:
In the event of a claim, the 3rd party element of your car insurance will remain valid (by law) if the car is not MOT’d, though own damage claims would be invalidated
That would depend on the circumstances of the accident/claim, no MOT does not automatically mean that own damage claims would be rejected.
- roadworthiness
Most motor policies contain a specific requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. When deciding whether it was reasonable for an insurer to reject a consumer’s claim, we will look for evidence that the loss or damage was mostly likely caused — or was significantly contributed to — because the vehicle was not roadworthy.
An insurer can also reduce a payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. In these cases, we will look for evidence that the condition of the condition of the vehicle — or parts of it — were poor to decide whether this deduction is fair.If the vehicle did not have a current MOT certificate, we will consider how likely it was that the vehicle would have passed an MOT test. If we decide — on the balance of probabilities — that the vehicle would have failed the test, we are likely to say that a deduction of up to 10% is reasonable.
Taken from financial-ombudsman.org.uk/p … ation.html
In the event of a claim, the 3rd party element of your car insurance will remain valid (by law) if the car is not MOT’d, though own damage claims would be invalidated
That was my typo… I meant to put ‘might’ be invalidated.
summerley82:
Roymondo:
limeyphil:
Can you share a link to that? There’s quite a few people that have been hauled before the courts for no insurance due to having no MOT.Can YOU share a link to any case where that has happened?
Slimeyphil never ever talks facts, always utter nonsense with bad spelling.
Thanks for your useless reply. This thread has been an eye opener for me. It has always been common practice in my area to get a summons for no insurance when driving a car that has no MOT.
limeyphil:
Thanks for your useless reply. This thread has been an eye opener for me. It has always been common practice in my area to get a summons for no insurance when driving a car that has no MOT.
I don’t know how or why that should happen, there is no basis for a summons.
Believe it or not there are some who think that not having a valid tax disc voids insurance
Melchett:
limeyphil:
Thanks for your useless reply. This thread has been an eye opener for me. It has always been common practice in my area to get a summons for no insurance when driving a car that has no MOT.I don’t know how or why that should happen, there is no basis for a summons.
Believe it or not there are some who think that not having a valid tax disc voids insurance
I’ve heard that one. Although I’ve never understood why someone would think a tax disc would have any relevance to insurance.
£100 fixed penalty, robbing barstewards used to be a £60.00 fine @ the shop keepers court , if the garage had forgotten to log it back on the system after they had repaired and retested the car ,in order to issue a new MOT then that should be sufficient in court if they are willing to swear on oath, they would probably have to go to court , it’s a wonder that they still are still required to issue a printed MOT cert, as it’s all on a computer data base these days
tommy t:
£100 fixed penalty, robbing barstewards used to be a £60.00 fine @ the shop keepers court , if the garage had forgotten to log it back on the system after they had repaired and retested the car ,in order to issue a new MOT then that should be sufficient in court if they are willing to swear on oath, they would probably have to go to court , it’s a wonder that they still are still required to issue a printed MOT cert, as it’s all on a computer data base these days
they haven’t issued them for the last 2 yrs to my knowledge 
green456:
tommy t:
£100 fixed penalty, robbing barstewards used to be a £60.00 fine @ the shop keepers court , if the garage had forgotten to log it back on the system after they had repaired and retested the car ,in order to issue a new MOT then that should be sufficient in court if they are willing to swear on oath, they would probably have to go to court , it’s a wonder that they still are still required to issue a printed MOT cert, as it’s all on a computer data base these daysthey haven’t issued them for the last 2 yrs to my knowledge
Not true… You are still currently issued with a paper copy of the mot, along with an advisory sheet, as well as it being logged on the system
tommy t:
£100 fixed penalty, robbing barstewards used to be a £60.00 fine @ the shop keepers court , if the garage had forgotten to log it back on the system after they had repaired and retested the car ,in order to issue a new MOT then that should be sufficient in court if they are willing to swear on oath, they would probably have to go to court , it’s a wonder that they still are still required to issue a printed MOT cert, as it’s all on a computer data base these days
As already mentioned, it’s the sole responsibility of the driver to ensure his car is legal, having no mot (for 3 months) is an absolute offence ie…there is no legal excuse, therefore, the courts would not be even remotely interested into the circumstances as to why the OP didnt have a current mot.
green456:
tommy t:
£100 fixed penalty, robbing barstewards used to be a £60.00 fine @ the shop keepers court , if the garage had forgotten to log it back on the system after they had repaired and retested the car ,in order to issue a new MOT then that should be sufficient in court if they are willing to swear on oath, they would probably have to go to court , it’s a wonder that they still are still required to issue a printed MOT cert, as it’s all on a computer data base these daysthey haven’t issued them for the last 2 yrs to my knowledge
Then why do the printed documents I was given in December last year and the year before clearly state “MOT Test Certificate” across the top?
Roymondo:
green456:
tommy t:
£100 fixed penalty, robbing barstewards used to be a £60.00 fine @ the shop keepers court , if the garage had forgotten to log it back on the system after they had repaired and retested the car ,in order to issue a new MOT then that should be sufficient in court if they are willing to swear on oath, they would probably have to go to court , it’s a wonder that they still are still required to issue a printed MOT cert, as it’s all on a computer data base these daysthey haven’t issued them for the last 2 yrs to my knowledge
Then why do the printed documents I was given in December last year and the year before clearly state “MOT Test Certificate” across the top?
because its a invoice, if a gas engineer serviced your boiler it would say boiler serviced
you do not receive a certificate and have not done for 2 years
you receive a invoice
green456:
Roymondo:
green456:
tommy t:
£100 fixed penalty, robbing barstewards used to be a £60.00 fine @ the shop keepers court , if the garage had forgotten to log it back on the system after they had repaired and retested the car ,in order to issue a new MOT then that should be sufficient in court if they are willing to swear on oath, they would probably have to go to court , it’s a wonder that they still are still required to issue a printed MOT cert, as it’s all on a computer data base these daysthey haven’t issued them for the last 2 yrs to my knowledge
Then why do the printed documents I was given in December last year and the year before clearly state “MOT Test Certificate” across the top?
because its a invoice, if a gas engineer serviced your boiler it would say boiler serviced
you do not receive a certificate and have not done for 2 years
you receive a invoice
“About this document
This document is a receipt style certificate telling you that an MOT Test pass result has been recorded…”
(From gov.uk/getting-an-mot/after-the-test)
"2. If your vehicle passes the test
You’ll get an MOT certificate and your test record will be entered onto the secure central MOT database if your vehicle passes the test."
and
"6. Replacing a lost or damaged MOT certificate
You can get a duplicate MOT certificate from any MOT testing station if you have lost or damaged the original.
You’ll need to give the vehicle registration number and either the original MOT test number, or V5C document reference number - this is on the V5C registration certificate.
The maximum fee for a duplicate certificate is £10, or half the full MOT test fee, whichever is lowest."
These certificates make no mention of any sums of money paid, so they are not invoices (I do have invoices, but they are separate documents - and they have “Invoice” printed on them in large, friendly letters).
Oh - and S47(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 clearly states “A person who uses on a road at any time, or causes or permits to be so used, a motor vehicle to which this section applies, and as respects which no test certificate has been issued within the appropriate period before that time, is guilty of an offence.” So if they did stop issuing certificates, it would be unlawful to drive a car that was more than three years old…
green456:
Roymondo:
green456:
tommy t:
£100 fixed penalty, robbing barstewards used to be a £60.00 fine @ the shop keepers court , if the garage had forgotten to log it back on the system after they had repaired and retested the car ,in order to issue a new MOT then that should be sufficient in court if they are willing to swear on oath, they would probably have to go to court , it’s a wonder that they still are still required to issue a printed MOT cert, as it’s all on a computer data base these daysthey haven’t issued them for the last 2 yrs to my knowledge
Then why do the printed documents I was given in December last year and the year before clearly state “MOT Test Certificate” across the top?
because its a invoice, if a gas engineer serviced your boiler it would say boiler serviced
you do not receive a certificate and have not done for 2 years
you receive a invoice
You are still given an MOT certificate, it is not an invoice… I had my vehicle MOT’d in September, 2013 and I was given an actual mot certificate along with an ‘advisory’ list of items that need attending to before the next mot.
So… how do you get away with driving to the MOT centre for a test, the vehicle has not got a valid mot but it is pre booked. Perfectly legal but everyone is saying it invalidates insurance.