SJW's

[conny]

Hmm. Why doesn't that surprise me?

I'm a regular visitor to Liverpool. I go there twice a year to visit my hubcaps.

Although I lived and worked in Liverpool it never happened to me.
The guy that it happened to lived in Cheshire, (regarded as quite middle/upper class), which is where the incident took place, but his base was the Liverpool workshop.

 

[conny]

Hmmmmm.
https://www.gov.uk/sorn-statutory-off-road-notification
Plus, if you don't insure it (assuming it is not SORN'd), they can fine you and clamp the vehicle??
When it's on private land? Surely not?

More and more a Police State.

No, you do not need to insure it if it's SORNed and on private land. They will not clamp it, sieze it or crush it.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

 

[crystal ball]

She sounds delightful

We dread getting the UK trip email, any way after this years visit she said the flight was too much for her and this will be the last

 

[ellal]

No, you do not need to insure it if it's SORNed and on private land. They will not clamp it, sieze it or crush it.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

That's what we've been saying

 

[ellal]

An MOT is not required for insurance purposes but many (most/all?) providers will drop from fully comp to third party cover only in this case.

Having checked it out after a previous post...

"Without a current MOT, your car insurance would become invalid. Not having a valid MOT certificate is illegal under Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988"

 

[foxhole]

Having checked it out after a previous post...

"Without a current MOT, your car insurance would become invalid. Not having a valid MOT certificate is illegal under Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988"

Unless pre 1960 .

 

[ironsidebod]

Having checked it out after a previous post...

"Without a current MOT, your car insurance would become invalid. Not having a valid MOT certificate is illegal under Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988"

lol that's ******. Nothing you do regards breaking the law can remove your third party cover provided you have a valid policy in place. If you commit an offence such as drink driving that causes your policy to be void, your insurer under the RTA will pay out their third party liabilities. They will not cover yours. Worst case they will sue you for the pay out, but none of that will result in your being charged for driving without insurance.

FWIW I have a car in the garage at the moment which is SORN and fully insured with an agreed value...My insurer states that if the MOT lapses the cover falls back to third party only. If the mot lapses I can legitimately drive to have it mot'd without tax and be fully insured as long as it is booked in the MOT centre with the registration recorded.

Don't regurgitate the crap from the internet about what cancels your insurance. Almost all of it out there is horse crap.

 

[ellal]

FWIW I have a car in the garage at the moment which is SORN and fully insured with an agreed value...My insurer states that if the MOT lapses the cover falls back to third party only.

FFS, that's what's been stated - if it has a valid SORN and if it has been declared to the insurance company!

Guide for dummies

If the mot lapses I can legitimately drive to have it mot'd without tax and be fully insured as long as it is booked in the MOT centre with the registration recorded.

Guide for dummies 2

About half way down, and the bit about driving to an MOT applies whether SORN or not...

Don't regurgitate the crap from the internet about what cancels your insurance. Almost all of it out there is horse crap.

Your posts certainly enhance the 'horse crap' theory...

Because you haven't properly read what you are criticising!

 

[ellal]

Unless pre 1960 .

But only if not 'changed' (20/05/18)...

'Changes' include chassis, alteration of suspension or steering, and engine changes, kit cars, 'Q' plated cars etc etc

Link

It's quite bizarre that if MOT exempt, you still need to 'keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition'.

But what/who is the arbiter of that?

I bet any insurance company would argue the toss should any significant incident occur!

 

[ironsidebod]

FFS, that's what's been stated - if it has a valid SORN and if it has been declared to the insurance company!

Guide for dummies



Guide for dummies 2

About half way down, and the bit about driving to an MOT applies whether SORN or not...


Your posts certainly enhance the 'horse crap' theory...

Because you haven't properly read what you are criticising!

You stated that having no MOT invalidates your insurance. It does not. You are wrong. Read the RTA, it makes it quite clear that the provision of third party cover cannot be removed if a valid policy is in force regardless of any other offence being committed. No MOT isn't even an endorsable offence.

I'm not going to argue all day with you, you appear to have waaaay more time than any mere mortal to put in to arguing the toss on here.

 

[ellal]

I'm not going to argue all day with you, you appear to have waaaay more time than any mere mortal to put in to arguing the toss on here.

Hey, if you want to slink off having had the relevant rules pointed out to you is your right...

However any assumptions made as to why you choose to do this will of course be up the individual

 

[Brigade77]

It's quite bizarre that if MOT exempt, you still need to 'keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition'.

But what/who is the arbiter of that?

I bet any insurance company would argue the toss should any significant incident occur!

You would be surprised at just how many vehicles are out on the road that are not subject to an annual MOT test & if it's on the road it can be argued that it's 'roadworthy'.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

Hey, if you want to slink off having had the relevant rules pointed out to you is your right...

However any assumptions made as to why you choose to do this will of course be up the individual

I'd reckon everyone knows why he walked away from you.

 

[ellal]

I'd reckon everyone knows why he walked away from you.

I guess some people don't like having erroneous/partially incorrect comments pointed out

 

[ellal]

You would be surprised at just how many vehicles are out on the road that are not subject to an annual MOT test & if it's on the road it can be argued that it's 'roadworthy'.

But as I said, in an incident who would declare that a vehicle is 'roadworthy' or not?

Leaving it to what is basically 'self certification' is a rather bizarre way of doing things when most other areas of motoring rules and regs seem to be regularly tightened up...