NO MOT = NO INSURANCE you would not be very happy if somebody hit you and caused injury to you or your Family ,only to find the other vehicles owner had no Insurance.
You knew the car you was driving was an illegal vehicle and you should not have not have been driving it,but took the chance its an offence.
You get bald tyres over a period of time they dont just happen,considering you can call in most tyre places without an appointment theres no excuse.END OF
tommymanc:
With the information you have provided, your full of [zb]I know this is not truck related but I’m craping it now cos I think I’m getting 6 points and fines
Your looking at a ban if this is real… 3 points, per tyre, no MOT invailidates your insurenece, 6 points total of 12 = TT99 on your licence
Say good bye to your driving job for 4 years, after your ban.You have not MOT so you have no insurance, he would have had a traffic unit there ASAP or helt you up till one was available, as they are the only coppers with the power to seize cars.
I went to drive off and and he pulled in front and pulled me over in the garage (private property) he said you have no mot.
Doesn’t matter if its private or not, if the general public has access to it, eg Tesco car parks, the RTA etc etc still applies.
He then took pictures of the tyres on his phone but said I could drive it home but don’t crash.
If you crashed, and this copper “logged this stop” with his control, he’s just opened him up for a good roasting back at HQ.
EDIT, Did you ask to see any ID, did you take down his collar tag?
Sorry, but when did sect 165 of the road traffic act only become enforced by a road policing unit or traffic police officer? … they all have the power to invoke sect 165 if they wish, I personally would go back to the MOT garage and say it was booked in? however it was obviously a failure so the test did not proceed.
However ignorance is no excuse, and you should of checked the tyres prior to getting in the vehicle.
robroy:
And the Trucknet award for verbal rdc style diarrhoea goes to…Show me a copper that will let you go with 2 bald tyres ‘as long as you don’t have an accident’ and I will show you a guy impersonating a Police officer.
Absolute ■■■■■■■■.
I was talking to a traffic cop who said on his previous shift he had let a young lad in a Corsa go with two bald tyres on the rear axle. it was a dry warm day and the tyres would have afforded plenty of grip. he advised the young man that he had his address and would ‘cruise’ by at some point in the next few days and check the tyres - it’d better have new ones on.
I think he made a wise decision. Penalise the lad and he wouldn’t be able to afford new tyres. Scare him with the thought this big copper is cruising past his house at night and maybe he’d gain a bit of respect for the Police because of how he was treated.
He did say had it been inclement weather or a steered axle he’d have been taken off the road.
Of course - I don’t know how true this is, but I was in a room full of traffic cops and a few said “Good call”.
If you consult the Categorisation of Defects book from DVSA an HGV with bald tyres on a non-steered axle (less than 50% of the total number of tyres) will get a delayed PG9 and be allowed to drive away to be presented for test at a later date.
lolipop:
NO MOT = NO INSURANCE
Bull[zb] it’s perfectly legal to use a vehicle with no MOT if you’re on you’re way to an MOT appointment or to a garage that is going to make repairs for the work required to pass a MOT.
Yes, some offences may INVALIDATE your insurance but the insurance underwriter is still liable to pay out on your behalf to any third party.
The difference is that your insurance company will then be likely to pursue you for the full costs of any claim they’ve paid out against your policy.
I got caught out with one of the wife’s rubbers once (tyres not her femidom).
During a deeper inspection I saw the tyre in question was on the 1.6mm limit, if I’m honest just over.
Now the wife needs special 17" run flat jobbies (exactly like her femidoms) to keep her in action so bish bash bosh I called out tyres on the drive, done and dusted in the comfort of me own home.
Quite reasonable to boot.
Er in doors was well chuffed and let me try out her new rubber later that night.
Not a lot of traction if I’m honest but it was a very wet evening.
I’ve seen fully stocked fish po ds with less carp than this post [emoji57]
Sent from my X17 using Tapatalk
cav551:
Do some research into “secondary tread pattern”. I am not saying this is true with your tyres because I can’t see them nor do I know what they were like when new, but many new tyres have let’s 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 ‘sipes’ 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.
A lot of Police don’t seem to understand it is only the central 3/4 of the tread and any tread outside of that (i.e an inner or outer edge) can be worn away (Vehicles below 3.5t. And as you say, the law only applies to the ‘main’ tread and not sipes or secondary tread.
Unfortunately most Traffic Police don’t receive sufficient technical training and are guessing what the law says. I do DCPC training at our local Police headquarters and I am surprised how many have received hardly any training call to a DVSA officer they may know, this applies for Drivers Hours, Tachos etc as well. Of course some are very clued up (Angus) and sit at home on their days off reading the MOT manual 
I had an Audi A6 that destroyed front tyres on the inner edge in a relatively low mileage. It failed it’s MOT test for a front tyre, the MOT tester was wrong as it had sufficient tread on 3/4 central width and it was only the inside edge tread gone. I agreed with him it needed a new tyre but he had to issue a pass for it, and of course I did replace the tyre … much later!
Massing “n” from last post…
Sent from my X17 using Tapatalk
Captain Caveman 76:
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 solicitor’s 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: “If a vehicle is fitted with more than one defective tyre, you can be summonsed for each tyre which is illegal”
You’re 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.
Yeah, but then Harry couldn’t pass up an opportunity to act as if he is superior to the rest of the mob on here, typical bar-room lawyer.
Dipper_Dave:
I got caught out with one of the wife’s rubbers once (tyres not her femidom).
During a deeper inspection I saw the tyre in question was on the 1.6mm limit, if I’m honest just over.Now the wife needs special 17" run flat jobbies (exactly like her femidoms) to keep her in action so bish bash bosh I called out tyres on the drive, done and dusted in the comfort of me own home.
Quite reasonable to boot.Er in doors was well chuffed and let me try out her new rubber later that night.
Not a lot of traction if I’m honest but it was a very wet evening.
Double entende’ring of the highest order.
Some on here are saying no MOT does not mean no insurance,after googling it,its all according to Individual insurers and their Policy stipulations
Read your Policy small print,don`t take it as gospel your OK
lolipop:
Some on here are saying no MOT does not mean no insurance,after googling it,its all according to Individual insurers and their Policy stipulations
Read your Policy small print,don`t take it as gospel your OK
Regardless of it or not the insurer with pay out or not in the event of a claim should the vehicle not have a valid MOT or be UN-roadworthy This would not mean that the police would prosecute you for not having insurance , because you would have a valid Cert of insurance to produce if requested, or and it would be on the MID
(Which is accessed/searched by the police ANPR) So if there is valid insurance in force the police will have no evidence of a crime of no insurance to even pursue (assuming they are involved) Hence having no MOT does not mean you also get nicked for no insurance, You only need valid insurance and a MOT (if the vehicle requires one) to buy road tax , And in years gone by I have been stopped at the roadside had producers and been done for no MOT, a small fine no points
never a whiff of your insurance may be invalid ,
Does no MOT invalidate insurance?
It is a common misconception that driving around without a valid MOT will automatically invalidate car insurance. The majority of car insurance providers make no mention of an MOT and stipulate in the terms and conditions of the contract that the vehicle must be in a roadworthy condition. An MOT is no guarantee that your vehicle is in a roadworthy condition other than the moment you leave the MOT station with your new certificate. Also, those intentionally driving without a valid MOT would have no reason to purchase car insurance if it was automatically invalid.
There is more that backs this up on a Police forum ,
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 up…
Nice to someone else that has the intelligence to know its not all true. 
The OP must be a bit special to see a copper, yet still get into a car with bald tyres and no MOT and drive off.
If it were me, and it never would be as I actually maintain my cars, I’d have waited at least until the copper had Foxtrot oscar’d before attempting to drive away.
Toddy2:
The-Snowman:
carryfast-yeti:
having no MOT dosen’t necessarily mean the car isn’t 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. You’d 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
+1. My wife had a prang this year. MoT out of date by 4 or 5 days. They paid out no problam at all.
109LWB:
The OP must be a bit special to see a copper, yet still get into a car with bald tyres and no MOT and drive off.
More like hes a bit special to think we believe an unmarked police car was laying in wait for such a no mark crime as no mot
not anywhere close to the amount of wooshes on evils last thread though… 
Other than the OP is faaaaarrrrked
There’s nothing to see here …move along
So If you have no mot, you have no insurance either? A neighbour of mine is driving around in a 1998 vw golf with uk plates and the mot ran out a year ago. Estonia police doesn’t care though
You are going to have to renew the tyres anyway, but I suggest that you get the tyre company to record the serial numbers of the casings removed along with the make and type of casing and their position on the vehicle. If plod had been doing his job properly he would have recorded the serial numbers himself, but he probably didn’t, the chances of being able to read them from his pictures are only so-so. The tyre company should be able to advise you about the depth of tread for each groove on a new identical tyre even if they can’t do so at once. If asked they will more than likely be able to record on the invoice that there was no evidence of the casings having been changed recently. Then if they also advise that the tyres are in fact legal you have a case to defend in court. You will however need to keep the old casings as evidence. Having got that far you then need an expert witness to swear that the tyres are legal. If plod tries to make out that these are different tyres then he needs to provide evidence that the serial numbers do not tally.