Chas:
I’m on a roll so I’ll post something that your insurance Co’ doesn’t want you to know about.
Your car is fully legal, comprehensively insured & it’s parked outside your house while you’re inside asleep.
A stolen car is driven recklessly down your street & sideswipes yours & all your neighbours cars causing several £1000’s of damage but approx’ £1000’s worth to yours.
The stolen car has been abandoned at the bottom of the street & the “alleged” driver has fled the scene.
How do you get the damage to your car put right?
Knuckledraggerz especially, will have serious problems with the logic involved in this one.
You would claim off the stolen cars insurance policy.
DrivingMissDaisy:
You won’t be fined and if the CPS charge you a not guilty plea is the way to go although I’d speak to the copper involved and remind him you’re just the driver driving your GAFFERS truck and he’s responsible for the MOT NOT YOU!
You’re responsible for checking the MOT is valid on the walkaround checks.
This is something required by some companies as part of their vehicle checks regime. However, you still won’t see the original test certificate for the unit/rigid. You will have a little label stuck on the vehicle somewhere with the MOT expiry date showing. That’s not what we’re talking about here. Your little label is not a legally required document, the test certificate is and at the risk of repeating myself, you might ask to see the original but your boss is under no obligation to comply with your request, thereby relieving you of any responsibility for producing an MOT certificate for an employers vehicle. Unfortunately, not all plods are aware of this and occasionally will mistakenly charge an employee with failing to produce. The employee thinks he’s bang to rights and cops for a guilty plea and walks away with a fine none the wiser.
I’ve been there, I’ve done it and got the T-shirt!
That’s EXACTLY what we’re talking about here. If you’ve got a valid MOT sticker/disk on the vehicle, and VOSA pull you and say it’s no good behind the scenes, then YOU’VE acted in good faith, and won’t get done. The firm gets done, possibly for fraud/forgery to boot.
Part of the reason for doing things like “examine O licence disk/MOT disk/Tax Disk” on the walkaround checks is to cover one’s own arse! If the firm have put an up-to-date sticker (even for “Indications only”) on the vehicle, then the FIRM have assumed responsibility for the background underlying paperwork to be correct. A driver is not expected to do an office audit as part of their walkaround checks after all.
Chas:
I’m on a roll so I’ll post something that your insurance Co’ doesn’t want you to know about.
Your car is fully legal, comprehensively insured & it’s parked outside your house while you’re inside asleep.
A stolen car is driven recklessly down your street & sideswipes yours & all your neighbours cars causing several £1000’s of damage but approx’ £1000’s worth to yours.
The stolen car has been abandoned at the bottom of the street & the “alleged” driver has fled the scene.
How do you get the damage to your car put right?
Knuckledraggerz especially, will have serious problems with the logic involved in this one.
You would claim off the stolen cars insurance policy.
That, my Lord, if it pleases the court to indulge my use of the vernacular, is a load of old ■■■■■■■■.
Accidents involving damage to your vehicle: If you have comprehensive insurance for your vehicle:
We recommend that you make a claim for repair with your own insurer. You do not
have to do this, but the repair will be carried out quicker and will not be delayed by
any enquiries that we will have to make about the circumstances of the accident.
If you do not have comprehensive insurance for your vehicle:
We may be able to assist you. Please complete the claim form.
So I think it IS the MIB, though Chas assures us it isn’t!
Winseer: That, my Lord, if it pleases the court to indulge my use of the vernacular, is a load of old ■■■■■■■■.
Is it? Why?
Because if it were true, rich people would have an entire industry stealing cars from outside their houses just to make claims against Rich guy’s insurance.
Stealinga car and trashing it against your property would be more lucrative than stealing a high value car and selling it - that’s for sure.
As a further annoyance, there is a native sleeping in the kindling because there is up to three month waiting lists at some VOSA testing stations, even though every week there is a new ATF opening to great fanfare.
Winseer: That, my Lord, if it pleases the court to indulge my use of the vernacular, is a load of old ■■■■■■■■.
Is it? Why?
Because if it were true, rich people would have an entire industry stealing cars from outside their houses just to make claims against Rich guy’s insurance.
Stealinga car and trashing it against your property would be more lucrative than stealing a high value car and selling it - that’s for sure.
Thats just your opinion, what does the Road Traffic Act say about 3rd party liability & insurance cover?
As I said above, assuming a policy was in place on the stolen vehicle that’s where I would start.
When I lived back there I can’t ever remember driving any vehicle that was owned or leased by another person or company that had a copy of the MOT certificate in it ?
It is the resposibility of the owner to keep records of such things. The only thing down to the driver is checking the vehicle is safe for the road and is taxed.
I don’t see how any charges to the driver could stick ?
In the US however, it’s a different story ! … every vehicle must have copies of all documents in it. Failure to produce any document when asked results in a ticket.
Melchett:
As I said above, assuming a policy was in place on the stolen vehicle that’s where I would start.
Looks like you are right. This is what one solicitors website says:
If the driver responsible for the road traffic accident has stolen the vehicle involved in the accident and is identified by the Police then any insurance policy taken out by the owner of the vehicle may compensate innocent victims of injury. This decision will be down to the discretion of the insurance company involved. If they are not willing to deal with it or if there is no insurance policy in force for the vehicle at all, the only course of action would be to make a claim through the MIB.
Seems to be down to goodwill of insurance company.
Chas:
There are myths about myths about myths & this one is a myth.
There are lots of little legalities that your insurance Co’ doesn’t want you to know about & it is extremely difficult to get to the truth.
Chas:
I’m on a roll so I’ll post something that your insurance Co’ doesn’t want you to know about.
Your car is fully legal, comprehensively insured & it’s parked outside your house while you’re inside asleep.
A stolen car is driven recklessly down your street & sideswipes yours & all your neighbours cars causing several £1000’s of damage but approx’ £1000’s worth to yours.
The stolen car has been abandoned at the bottom of the street & the “alleged” driver has fled the scene.
How do you get the damage to your car put right?
DrivingMissDaisy:
You won’t be fined and if the CPS charge you a not guilty plea is the way to go although I’d speak to the copper involved and remind him you’re just the driver driving your GAFFERS truck and he’s responsible for the MOT NOT YOU!
You’re responsible for checking the MOT is valid on the walkaround checks.
This is something required by some companies as part of their vehicle checks regime. However, you still won’t see the original test certificate for the unit/rigid. You will have a little label stuck on the vehicle somewhere with the MOT expiry date showing. That’s not what we’re talking about here. Your little label is not a legally required document, the test certificate is and at the risk of repeating myself, you might ask to see the original but your boss is under no obligation to comply with your request, thereby relieving you of any responsibility for producing an MOT certificate for an employers vehicle. Unfortunately, not all plods are aware of this and occasionally will mistakenly charge an employee with failing to produce. The employee thinks he’s bang to rights and cops for a guilty plea and walks away with a fine none the wiser.
I’ve been there, I’ve done it and got the T-shirt!
That’s EXACTLY what we’re talking about here. If you’ve got a valid MOT sticker/disk on the vehicle, and VOSA pull you and say it’s no good behind the scenes, then YOU’VE acted in good faith, and won’t get done. The firm gets done, possibly for fraud/forgery to boot.
Part of the reason for doing things like “examine O licence disk/MOT disk/Tax Disk” on the walkaround checks is to cover one’s own arse! If the firm have put an up-to-date sticker (even for “Indications only”) on the vehicle, then the FIRM have assumed responsibility for the background underlying paperwork to be correct. A driver is not expected to do an office audit as part of their walkaround checks after all.
So what do you do when the firm you’re working for doesn’t use such a system? You’re not in the Post Office now laddie…
I only wish to point out that there is a defence to driving without an MOT. The OP hasn’t given enough info for the definitive answer.
You have my attention, what ‘defence’ is that then? As I am assuming you are no referring to the two I mentioned earlier, I.e. going to/from test or imported vehicle.
Are you sure you are not confusing a ‘defence’ with mitigation?
iDriver:
You have my attention, what ‘defence’ is that then? As I am assuming you are no referring to the two I mentioned earlier, I.e. going to/from test or imported vehicle.
Are you sure you are not confusing a ‘defence’ with mitigation?
A transport manager has been disqualified after the south Wales waste management firm he worked for was fined for operating a vehicle without an MOT.
Following an October public inquiry in Cardiff, traffic commissioner (TC) for Wales Nick Jones disqualified Kevin Davies from acting as a transport manager and ordered that he must pass a new transport manager CPC examination before the disqualification order can be cancelled or varied.
The inquiry was told that Davies had been employed as transport manager at Agresol — a waste management business operating from Whitland, Swansea and Carmarthen. A vehicle operated by the business was stopped by a Vosa officer in November 2011, and records revealed the annual test had expired on 30 September.
In February the firm was prosecuted for using the vehicle with no MOT and fined £400 at Swansea Magistrates’ Court. A subsequent investigation by Vosa revealed shortcomings in the operator’s maintenance regime, including vehicles that were not being given routine safety inspections on time.
Agresol had also picked up a prohibition notice for serious defects on one of its vehicles.
Following the investigation, the company wrote to the TC to confirm that Davies had been dismissed from his post as transport manager.
The TC also curtailed the O-licence held by Agresol from 10 to six vehicles, an secured commitments from the firm that in future, routine safety inspections would be completed at the agreed time.
iDriver:
You have my attention, what ‘defence’ is that then? As I am assuming you are no referring to the two I mentioned earlier, I.e. going to/from test or imported vehicle.
Are you sure you are not confusing a ‘defence’ with mitigation?
You are correct and if you scroll back you will see that’s also what I said. There ARE two statutory defences neither apply in the original circ’s. There is however compelling mitigation and as such the Magistrates are likely to dismiss any case against the driver. Not because he has a defence because he doesn’t, but because of the strong mitigation.
iDriver:
You are correct and if you scroll back you will see that’s also what I said. There ARE two statutory defences neither apply in the original circ’s. There is however compelling mitigation and as such the Magistrates are likely to dismiss any case against the driver. Not because he has a defence because he doesn’t, but because of the strong mitigation.
This is the OP :
Hi
Need some advice! Got pulled by vosa in devon on Tuesday, was a major crack down- vosa, trading standards, immigration, health and safety, police were all there! Everything was fine as far as my paperwork was concerned and no visible defects on lorry! However as they looked at records they found MOT was out of date- the company were sure this wasnt the case turns out it is! Police issued me with a producer but obviously there will be nothing to produce! Obviously I will be fined- How much? Any idea about points on my licence?!
From the info in the OP, an offence has been committed ie. the vehicle has no MOT, BUT the offence has NOT been committed by the driver. If it ever came to the driver being prosecuted for this offence (unlikely but possible) then even an average Solicitor would have the charge ‘excused’ in court.
P.S. This is why we have courts, to examine the facts so the law can be applied correctly.
iDriver:
You are correct and if you scroll back you will see that’s also what I said. There ARE two statutory defences neither apply in the original circ’s. There is however compelling mitigation and as such the Magistrates are likely to dismiss any case against the driver. Not because he has a defence because he doesn’t, but because of the strong mitigation.
This is the OP :
Hi
Need some advice! Got pulled by vosa in devon on Tuesday, was a major crack down- vosa, trading standards, immigration, health and safety, police were all there! Everything was fine as far as my paperwork was concerned and no visible defects on lorry! However as they looked at records they found MOT was out of date- the company were sure this wasnt the case turns out it is! Police issued me with a producer but obviously there will be nothing to produce! Obviously I will be fined- How much? Any idea about points on my licence?!
From the info in the OP, an offence has been committed ie. the vehicle has no MOT, BUT the offence has NOT been committed by the driver. If it ever came to the driver being prosecuted for this offence (unlikely but possible) then even an average Solicitor would have the charge ‘excused’ in court.
P.S. This is why we have courts, to examine the facts so the law can be applied correctly.
iDriver:
From the info in the OP, an offence has been committed ie. the vehicle has no MOT, BUT the offence has NOT been committed by the driver. If it ever came to the driver being prosecuted for this offence (unlikely but possible) then even an average Solicitor would have the charge ‘excused’ in court.
P.S. This is why we have courts, to examine the facts so the law can be applied correctly.
Sorry Chas but you are wrong when you say the driver has not committed it and your above answer confirms that. Otherwise why could/would CPS charge in the first place? They are fully aware of the statutory defences and wouldn’t waste their time or the court time when there is a prima facia defence.
We do however agree on one point and that is the point that the court would in most cases dismiss the case against the driver, but NOT because he has a defence because as a google search of the legislation and my earlier posts will both confirm, he can not avail himself of either of the 2 statutory defences. Instead the court would if they chose dismiss because of the mitigation, I.e. the driver did not know it had no mot and could not have been reasonably expected to know. That is mitigation in this case not a statutory defence.
iDriver:
Sorry Chas but you are wrong when you say the driver has not committed it and your above answer confirms that. Otherwise why could/would CPS charge in the first place? They are fully aware of the statutory defences and wouldn’t waste their time or the court time when there is a prima facia defence.
We do however agree on one point and that is the point that the court would in most cases dismiss the case against the driver, but NOT because he has a defence because as a google search of the legislation and my earlier posts will both confirm, he can not avail himself of either of the 2 statutory defences. Instead the court would if they chose dismiss because of the mitigation, I.e. the driver did not know it had no mot and could not have been reasonably expected to know. That is mitigation in this case not a statutory defence.
No I’m not.
In the OP the driver has been given a producer & is asking here how much they will be fined?
We don’t have all the information required to give a definitive answer, but if we assume the OP is worried about being fined for driving an LGV without an MOT in place, then we can safely say that there IS a defence.
Perhaps DrivingMissDaisy is blatantly lying about their personal experience?
To be pedantic, the OP could very well be asking how much the fine is for simply not producing !
