I think your insurance may be invalid if the MOT is not current, if unfortunate enough to have an accident then I'm sure the insurers would attempt to avoid paying out. If the insurance is indeed invalid presumably the police can hit you for driving without insurance cover also ??
Use, cause or permit a vehicle to be used on a road without a test certificate is an offence under Section 47, RTA 1988.
Penalty: Fine of up to £2,500 (if the vehicle has 8 or more seats), £1,000 (otherwise). No disqualification, endorsement or points can be awarded.
Re no MOT invalidating Insurance; Because of section 148 RTA 1988
as to condition of the vehicle, Insurance Companies cannot invalidate a certificate issued as far as making it a criminal offence i.e. to use without Insurance (S145). This does not not however prevent them from taking action to recover certain costs under the civil law. Remember the case of the bald tyre? The driver was not charged with using without Insurance. The third party was paid out but the sum was recovered from the driver by the Insurance Company at County Court.
I had inadvertantly not renewed my MOT and was involved in a rear end shunt with a woman driver who said she had been blinded by the sun, damage to my Golf GTi was £4,500. The Police attended and I could not produce a valid MOT. The Police took no further action and said that whilst you are reminded about RFL's being due MOT's are not, this of course is no excuse and I counted myself lucky.
I am given to understand that in the fullness of time Police will have access via to PNC to the MoT database. i.e. if a car does not have a current MoT it will be tagged onto the PNC data - very much in the way that Insurance details are loogged onto PNC.
That is the plan and also I think if you get a fail then that will be logged into the computer so you can't just nip somewhere a bit "easier" to get a ticket....the second MOT station will see that you've just been failed elsewhere and possibly what on.
Of course even if the whole insurance dodge is completely eliminated we would be wholly naive to think the insurance companies will then lower the premiums. (cos after all, we're not subsidising uninsured twerps)
I know there is something soothing about the perpetual belief that motor insurance is a rip. It is expensive but loses money at the rate of 3 years for every one where profit is made.
This four year (roughly) cycle happens because at the point where premium rates reach a sustainable level, new insurers flood the market which forces premiums below that level - thus guaranteeing business written at a loss. Gradually (because the claims take a while to catch up) insurers pull out, rates go up and back we go again.
Most insurers write motor to get customers to sell other stuff to.
The reasons for high premiums is simple - too many accidents & thefts, uninsured drivers, and the "is this an insurance job?" attitude to repair costs PLUS the newer USA litigation culture that means massive compensation for injuries.
Every time you see big awards just think - more money for m'learned friends and jeeze I'm paying for that!
Are you sure, how do they get this information? Do the insurance cos send it directly to DVLA? I can think of no other other way the info can be collected. (Insurance cos admit to sharing info with other cos to minimise fraud, but I have never seen a statement that they forward details to DVLA).
If this is the case the police could (should?) pull every uninsured car every time a PNC check is done. If they do not pull it and allow driver to continue on his way aren't they (the police) guilty of something? Particularly if the vehicle is subsequently involved in an accident.
Insurance details have been on the PNC for some months now.
"If this is the case the police could (should?) pull every uninsured car every time a PNC check is done. If they do not pull it and allow driver to continue on his way aren't they (the police) guilty of something? Particularly if the vehicle is subsequently involved in an accident."
What Police...? Haven't you noticed trafiic patrols have been replaced by scameras!
The insurer would have to prove there was something about your car which made it unroadworthy. Simply not having an MOT is not sufficient for the to pursue you.
Interestingly, having an MOT is not sufficient to stop them either. They can still come after you if your car was unroadworthy, irrespective of the existence of a current MOT certificate or not.
If you mean "backdated" as in showing as valid from before the date you took it in for a test. Then that is illegal. The punishment for no MOT is as nothing compared to an illegal MOT, both for you and the issuer.
I would have thought that Data Protection Act would allow the police to know if your car had an MOT but would not allow a 2nd MOT station to be able to find out if your car had failed a test elsewhere. (See earlier post on this)
Just a thought AS but is not this information on an object (vehicle) as opposed to an individual? Further, as I understand it (but have not researched )the DP Act has exclusion clauses as to who information can be released to i.e.enforcement agencies /subsideries etc.
The Motor Insurance Database (MID) has been running for nearly 12 months now it currently holds details of 25m motorists on the database operated by Experian (!). 75% of information is being provided by the Insurance Industry within 14 days to MID thus making the Database almost up to date. An interesting aside is that in at the moment Police cannot supply details to third parties (Data Protection) but by Jan. 2003 S29(3) of the Act will allow Police to share information with "other parties" without the consent of the driver ....MoT is to go on the same system by 2004. Data Protection is being weakened as new legistlation comes on stream Don't even ask me about Section 115
of Crime and Disorder 1998 especially if you happen to be a Concil Tenant that would really shock you if you knew some of the practices that are allowed under this bit of law....