Harry Monk:
Again that is an advertisement, and again it is wrong. Driving a car with an expired MOT does not invalidate insurance. Even being eight times over the drink drive limit does not invalidate insurance.
Just makes it very bloody expensive come renewal time 
Donāt feed the troll.
Harry Monk:
The-Snowman:
robroy:
Show me a copper that will let you go with 2 bald tyres āas long as you donāt have an accidentā and I will show you a guy impersonating a Police officer.
Absolute ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā .Yep. Not only that, he let him drive with no MOT as well? Which means no insurance? Dont think so.
octagoninsurance.com/guide/t ā¦ insurance/Again that is an advertisement, and again it is wrong. Driving a car with an expired MOT does not invalidate insurance.
Are you sure?
Id have thought the standard response from the insurance would be they insured the car based on it being deemed roadworthy and since the roadworthy test (MOT) has lapsed, the car is not deemed to be in the satisfactory condition it was when they insured it.
Is a condition of continued insurance not on condition of proving road worthiness?
the nodding donkey:
Donāt feed the troll.
+1.
having no MOT dosenāt necessarily mean the car isnāt roadworthy? just that the MOT has run out
carryfast-yeti:
having no MOT dosenāt necessarily mean the car isnāt roadworthy? just that the MOT has run out
Well technically having an mot only means the car was roadworthy when it was tested. Something could break on it on the way home (suspension strut for example) meaning its now not roadworthy but in the eyes of the law, it is. Youād fail an mot for a broken exhaust but its not illegal to drive with one.
If the mot has run out then we all know in the event of a claim the insurance company will pounce on it like a lion on an injured gazelle to get out of paying. Maybe not invalidated insurance but not a lot of good to me if the clown with no mot runs into the back of me and his insurance refuses to pay out so its as good as invalidated in my eyes
The-Snowman:
carryfast-yeti:
having no MOT dosenāt necessarily mean the car isnāt roadworthy? just that the MOT has run outWell technically having an mot only means the car was roadworthy when it was tested. Something could break on it on the way home (suspension strut for example) meaning its now not roadworthy but in the eyes of the law, it is. Youād fail an mot for a broken exhaust but its not illegal to drive with one.
If the mot has run out then we all know in the event of a claim the insurance company will pounce on it like a lion on an injured gazelle to get out of paying. Maybe not invalidated insurance but not a lot of good to me if the clown with no mot runs into the back of me and his insurance refuses to pay out so its as good as invalidated in my eyes
No MOT does not invalidate your insurance - FACT
Toddy2:
The-Snowman:
carryfast-yeti:
having no MOT dosenāt necessarily mean the car isnāt roadworthy? just that the MOT has run outWell technically having an mot only means the car was roadworthy when it was tested. Something could break on it on the way home (suspension strut for example) meaning its now not roadworthy but in the eyes of the law, it is. Youād fail an mot for a broken exhaust but its not illegal to drive with one.
If the mot has run out then we all know in the event of a claim the insurance company will pounce on it like a lion on an injured gazelle to get out of paying. Maybe not invalidated insurance but not a lot of good to me if the clown with no mot runs into the back of me and his insurance refuses to pay out so its as good as invalidated in my eyesNo MOT does not invalidate your insurance - FACT
But you dont think its possible they will use it as an excuse not to pay out?
The-Snowman:
bald bloke:
But why did the copper let you on your way in the car knowing it was not legal ?Probably because the stories not real and is made upā¦
The bit Iām struggling with is; copper sees a car on Garage Premises without MOT and swoops before car is driven onto the public road? it donāt make senseā¦
they still will pay out to the 3rd party but will recover costs from the policyholder.
qwakers:
they still will pay out to the 3rd party but will recover costs from the policyholder.
Is that not just for drink and drug driving ? it is now specifically mentioned on some/many policies.
I would suspect (but not a 100% certain) that you will be fully covered without an MOT just in the same way you are covered if you were speeding or missed a red light.
simcor:
dieseldog999:
for having no mot its a 60 quid fineā¦used t be 50ā¦no biggy,no points.Nope not MOT means no insurance and therefore also no tax, so yes six points easily if it is true.
total and utter pish my good manā¦it does not mean no insuranceā¦if you have baldy tyres and whack someone then the ins co can try to say it was contributary to the accident etc,but no mot is no mot and a 60 quid fine normally unless its a murder enquiry for something else.no points for no mot.no insurance is the biggy with 6 or 8 points and a good fineā¦ when your cars got a month left on the mot,then tax it for a year and at worst its 60 quid if you get caught,then bin the car if you like,always cheaper than sending hundreds trying to scrape a passā¦thats the norm for those on a budgetā¦ 
and psā¦junt in case of emergencys,having no number plate on the trailer is a non endorsable 60 quid fineā¦no pointsā¦compared to how many points and how much fine for belting through 5 cameras when your late for the boatā¦ā ā
simcor:
dieseldog999:
for having no mot its a 60 quid fineā¦used t be 50ā¦no biggy,no points.Nope not MOT means no insurance and therefore also no tax, so yes six points easily if it is true.
No M.O.T is a fine only NO points, ( the MOT test means very little, as far as the general condition of the vehicle goes)and only if you were involved in an accident would or could the insurance company try and dodge paying out , But if you have valid insurance and TAX you still have it and cannot be prosecuted for not having them because you have no MOT been there and been done for it in the past
A bit like the RDC BS i have heard similar crap if someone had no valid tax on the car, and if in the event of an accident (when we had tax discs) the 3rd party would be shooting themselves in the foot if they grassed you to the insurance co , because if they do refuse to pay out they would likely end up paying for out for repairs to the their car as a result
Harry Monk:
Captain Caveman 76:
richardsilver.co.uk/motoring-offences/tyres/"Punishments for defective tyres can be severe. For all tyre offences, the court has to impose three penalty points. It can also impose these points for every defective tyre.
So for example, four bald tyres on the same vehicle could place you at risk of 12 points and a possible totting up ban. This means you could be disqualified from driving"
That is a solicitorās advertisement and it is misleading and wrong.
Section 28(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988:
Where a person is convicted (whether on the same occasion or not) of two or more offences committed on the same occasion and involving obligatory endorsement, the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed on a conviction of one of them (so that if the convictions are on different occasions the number of penalty points to be attributed to the offences on the later occasion or occasions shall be restricted accordingly).
You conveniently ignored the link to the AA which states: āIf a vehicle is fitted with more than one defective tyre, you can be summonsed for each tyre which is illegalā
Youāre talking about someone who,as an example, is being charged with dangerous driving AND driving without due care. Only the most serious charge would be pursued.
Iām finding parts of this story hard to believe.
Christ, some crap posted on this thread. Surprised some people ever go out in their car.
Radar19:
Iām finding parts of this story hard to believe.
Did it start with the first post 
Evil8Beezle:
Radar19:
Iām finding parts of this story hard to believe.Did it start with the first post?
More than likely ā¦
Do some research into āsecondary tread patternā. I am not saying this is true with your tyres because I canāt see them nor do I know what they were like when new, but many new tyres have letās say 8mm tread in the middle grooves but only five mm on the outermost one each side - which are usually running across the tyre rather than around it. These 5mm grooves sometimes called āsipesā are secondary tread and not part of the legal pattern. I have had many conversations about this with MOT testers and more recently, with a former VoSA test station manager who now after retirement, tests every day. Many plod it seems are uneducated.
Bluey Circles:
qwakers:
they still will pay out to the 3rd party but will recover costs from the policyholder.Is that not just for drink and drug driving ? it is now specifically mentioned on some/many policies.
I would suspect (but not a 100% certain) that you will be fully covered without an MOT just in the same way you are covered if you were speeding or missed a red light.
insurance is a contract. if you breach the terms of that contract in any way and have a accident the ins co will pursue you for costs.
