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.
They generally will allow you to continue your journey, infact i have never heard of them seizing a vehicle for a trivial offence such as bald tyres but they can book your several times for the same tyres should they stop you again before you change the bald ones the ticket does not exempt you from further tickets
How bald was the tyres as I got stopped recently with two front tyres smoother than a baby’s ■■■■ on the inside and they said they was ok because there was plenty of tread elsewhere
Toddy2:
No MOT does not invalidate your insurance - FACT
FACT if you put - FACT at the end of something it makes it true. It states on my policy that if a MOT is required it must be in force.
Section 4: General conditions applying To All Sections of your policy
You must comply with the following conditions to have the full
protection of your policy. You should also ensure any other named
drivers comply with them. If you or the named drivers do not comply with
them we may cancel the policy as detailed below, refuse to deal with any
relevant claims, or reduce the amount of any relevant claim payments.
4.4. Maintaining your car
You must make sure your car is roadworthy including that it
has, if required, a valid MOT and complies with the relevant
legislation in any country where it is being driven. We reserve the
right to examine your car at any reasonable time.
And that is applicable to everyone insured through Swiftcover.
.- FACT FACT FACT
I put fact in three times and in big so that means its triple true with sherbert on the top so nah nah nee nah nah.
Bluey Circles:
The bit I’m struggling with is; copper sees a car on Garage Premises without MOT and swoops before car is driven onto the public road? it don’t make sense…
Road Traffic Act applies in any place where the public have unrestricted access so supermarket car park, petrol station forecourt…
Having even 4 completely knackered tyres on a vehicle even on a public accessible piece of private ground is not in itself illegal just like the car having no mot is not illegal, it’s the moment the car is driven or attempted to be driven on a public highway that it becomes an offence. But like has been pointed out before the OP must be a bit of a clown if he saw the unmarked car and somehow knew it to be the police and yet he still got in his car and drove away. It it had been me I wouldn’t have gone anywhere near it until he had gone if I knew the car was not fully legal. he invited the tug imo.
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…
I actually do believe this thread mate, I’m in no doubt, I base that on the fact that the OP has previously shown he is a cabbage!
A harmless cabbage, so for that reason I’m staying out of it and not putting the boot in!
The funny bit is that it’s own just dawned on him that his actions may influence his career…
Toddy2:
No MOT does not invalidate your insurance - FACT
FACT if you put - FACT at the end of something it makes it true. It states on my policy that if a MOT is required it must be in force.
Section 4: General conditions applying To All Sections of your policy
You must comply with the following conditions to have the full
protection of your policy. You should also ensure any other named
drivers comply with them. If you or the named drivers do not comply with
them we may cancel the policy as detailed below, refuse to deal with any
relevant claims, or reduce the amount of any relevant claim payments.
4.4. Maintaining your car
You must make sure your car is roadworthy including that it
has, if required, a valid MOT and complies with the relevant
legislation in any country where it is being driven. We reserve the
right to examine your car at any reasonable time.
And that is applicable to everyone insured through Swiftcover.
.- FACT FACT FACT
I put fact in three times and in big so that means its triple true with sherbert on the top so nah nah nee nah nah.
Ok, lets clarify this,
There are Insurers & Insurers,
Swift cover is actually the Budget/Crap arm of Axa
Axa are the 2nd largest Insurer in Europe & do not Invalidate Insurance with no MOT
Worst case scenario with Swift cover is that if you had a prang with no MOT, they could refuse to pay for your damage, but would still deal with the Third Party.
What tends to happen with the likes of Axa & Aviva (the biggest Insurer in Europe) is that they would deal with the claim, and in the case of a total loss, would reduce the offer of settlement a bit due to the lack of MOT.
I dealt with a claim last month with just this scenario - Fleet policy with NIG, Stolen Van, Paid out with a deduction of the MOT fee.
Toddy2:
No MOT does not invalidate your insurance - FACT
FACT if you put - FACT at the end of something it makes it true. It states on my policy that if a MOT is required it must be in force.
Section 4: General conditions applying To All Sections of your policy
You must comply with the following conditions to have the full
protection of your policy. You should also ensure any other named
drivers comply with them. If you or the named drivers do not comply with
them we may cancel the policy as detailed below, refuse to deal with any
relevant claims, or reduce the amount of any relevant claim payments.
4.4. Maintaining your car
You must make sure your car is roadworthy including that it
has, if required, a valid MOT and complies with the relevant
legislation in any country where it is being driven. We reserve the
right to examine your car at any reasonable time.
And that is applicable to everyone insured through Swiftcover.
.- FACT FACT FACT
I put fact in three times and in big so that means its triple true with sherbert on the top so nah nah nee nah nah.
So if you insure with them you presumably low loader your car to and from the MOT station?
Bluey Circles:
The bit I’m struggling with is; copper sees a car on Garage Premises without MOT and swoops before car is driven onto the public road? it don’t make sense…
Road Traffic Act applies in any place where the public have unrestricted access so supermarket car park, petrol station forecourt…
I used to maintain some vans that a supermarket chain used to use to collect trollies in their car park that never went out off their premises as they had their own petrol stations and they certainly were never MOTed or kept in a particularly road worthy condition. The legal implications had been looked into.
I’m pretty sure they have lost a few court cases for people driving in car parks on the phone.
Bluey Circles:
The bit I’m struggling with is; copper sees a car on Garage Premises without MOT and swoops before car is driven onto the public road? it don’t make sense…
Road Traffic Act applies in any place where the public have unrestricted access so supermarket car park, petrol station forecourt…
to take this further we would need to know what sort of “garage” I was presuming a workshop auto-repair type garage, in which case it would be extremely odd for the coppers to stop someone moving the car on the ‘garage premises’ after all it may have been at the garage to get an MOT or repaired for one. But I do concede other types of garages do exist
Not trying to be awkward here but am I the only one who takes his car to be MOT’d BEFORE the old one has expired? Therefore my car is never without MOT cover (or TAX or Insurance for that matter) so whatever the legal standing is I’m covered anyway, the MOT date of the new certificate doesn’t start until the old one expires so you don’t lose any MOT’d time doing it early and it can be done up to a month in advance iirc.
no MOT + no insurance■■? check the small writing in your policy, many are now putting something in the policy that you invalid your own insurance if you dont have it MOT,d…
if you do run out of MOT, you are allowed to take it to the garage for the MOT or repairs as long as the car isnt obviously dangerous and that the car is booked in with the garage, dont try with the off chance of taking it cos police or insurance will check…
my bro runs a salvage yard and deals with insurance stuff every hour every day, amazed how many vehicles come in cos of no MOT and been involved in accidents, majority loose the car as well as having no pay out and 3rd party damages taken out against them… and then this knocks on to when you do try and take your next policy out…
I put fact in three times and in big so that means its triple true with sherbert on the top so nah nah nee nah nah.
Just because an Insurance company puts it in their T&Cs doesn’t make it fact either! This has been ruled on by the insurance ombudsman/FSA (now FCA), insurance isn’t invalidated by a lack of MOT.
I put fact in three times and in big so that means its triple true with sherbert on the top so nah nah nee nah nah.
Just because an Insurance company puts it in their T&Cs doesn’t make it fact either! This has been ruled on by the insurance ombudsman/FSA (now FCA), insurance isn’t invalidated by a lack of MOT.
There seems to be confusion between relevant and irrelevant facts over validity of insurance if MOT expires. this reminds me of the urban myth about spare wheels needing to legal if carried, there have been lots of examples posted of why it could be true but none showing that it is, because it isn’t.
Some facts that my help you understand this are.
The only way for an insurance policy to become redundant is for it to run its corse, expire, or be terminated by the insurance company in writing with notice.
The minimum legal requirement for motor insurance is third party.
You can not contract out of law. So it doesn’t matter who writes what where, the law is third party, terminate in writing.
legislation is not going to require insurers to insure you in certain circumstances with out a driving licence and get away with pulling the plug for not having an MOT.
just spoke with my bro, today he has had a car returned to the owner, fairly badly damaged and a toss up wether to call it cat D or C, returned cos of owner having an accident and did not declare modifications of alloy wheels and a upgrade exhaust, insurance paid for 3rd party but not his vehicle, fully comp ins…
he is just a small player in the salvage game, but says the bigger companies get several of these a week… .
