View Full Version : How to get a car with no tax or MOT to a garage?


Miss_S_83
07-02-2010, 20:16
Hi

My car is out of MOT and tax (declared off road since last year), I have just passed my test and need to get it to a garage for an MOT and probable repairs, then back to my grandma's drive where it currently lives, until I insure and tax it. How can I do this legally?

truman
07-02-2010, 20:19
If you're going for an MOT I think it's OK to drive straight to the garage (so long as the test is pre-booked) but you must have insurance....

depoix
07-02-2010, 20:21
as truman says ..........

Miss_S_83
07-02-2010, 20:26
oh bobbar no insurance either will cost a bomb to insure it even monthly after ive paid the deposit. arrgh! are you allowed to tow or would it have to be on a transporter otherwise?

truman
07-02-2010, 20:32
oh bobbar no insurance either will cost a bomb to insure it even monthly after ive paid the deposit. arrgh! are you allowed to tow or would it have to be on a transporter otherwise?

I think it will have to be insured (somehow) to be towed...so you'll need a trailer..

Forumosaurus
07-02-2010, 20:41
There are plenty of garages that will come and fetch it, tow it like.

I don't have any numbers but the mother had to do this, it's no problem for them.

Good luck.

Or get the AA to take you, which they will but will be a joining fee ect.

davyboy
07-02-2010, 20:43
This from the DVLA website:


Driving an untaxed vehicle to an MOT test

You can drive your vehicle to and from a pre-arranged test at an MOT test station as long as you have adequate insurance cover in place for the use of that vehicle.

This is also for vehicles being driven to and from a pre-arranged test at a Vehicle Inspection Check (VIC) test station, an approved weight testing station and reduced pollution test.

Forumosaurus
07-02-2010, 20:46
This from the DVLA website:


Driving an untaxed vehicle to an MOT test

You can drive your vehicle to and from a pre-arranged test at an MOT test station as long as you have adequate insurance cover in place for the use of that vehicle.

This is also for vehicles being driven to and from a pre-arranged test at a Vehicle Inspection Check (VIC) test station, an approved weight testing station and reduced pollution test.

It's the lack of tax and insurance that's the problem

The Miller
07-02-2010, 20:50
It's the lack of tax and insurance that's the problem

No just lack of insurance, read the post you quoted.

truman
07-02-2010, 20:54
It's the lack of tax and insurance that's the problem

Don't need tax to do this otherwise it'd be a catch22 situation...

capstan
07-02-2010, 20:58
I've always wondered why it's ok to drive to a TEST centre,with no MOT in a car that could be a death trap.Surely no MOT should mean you can't drive it under any circumstances.If it needs to go somewhere it should be put on a Transporter.

HeadingNorth
07-02-2010, 21:11
I've always wondered why it's ok to drive to a TEST centre,with no MOT in a car that could be a death trap.


It does still have to be insured. I think it's just a compromise; the cost of making everybody use a transporter to get the MoT centre would outweigh the benefits. Or at least, the perceived benefits; if any one person is killed by an MoT-less car being driven to a test centre, the family of that person will never be persuaded by such an argument. Raw numbers are fine for looking at things objectively, but they don't cut much weight with the directly involved.

Eater Sundae
07-02-2010, 21:22
If you can't get garage to fetch it, the other option is to take out a 1 day insurance - there are companies which specialise in this.

carltoncdx
07-02-2010, 21:32
Used these a few times with no probs....quick and cheap.
http://www.dayinsure.com/

jon smith
07-02-2010, 21:47
why dont u just insure it for a few days. shouldnt cost u to much
https://www.tempcover.com/

max
07-02-2010, 21:49
oh bobbar no insurance either will cost a bomb to insure it even monthly after ive paid the deposit. arrgh! are you allowed to tow or would it have to be on a transporter otherwise?

If you can't afford the insurance why do you want to have it pass an MOT. Without the insurance you won't be able to drive it anyway so what's the point? :huh:

Miss_S_83
07-02-2010, 21:53
If you can't afford the insurance why do you want to have it pass an MOT. Without the insurance you won't be able to drive it anyway so what's the point? :huh:

No I can't afford insurance NOW as in this week but it needs an MOT (and possible repairs) ASAP, then when I get paid needs insurance and tax.

HeadingNorth
07-02-2010, 21:54
Why not keep aside the money you've currently got to pay for the MOT, and take it in when you can afford to also buy the insurance?

...it does seem a bit pointless getting an MOT, the first few weeks of which will be completely wasted because you can't afford insurance.

truman
07-02-2010, 21:56
Why not keep aside the money you've currently got to pay for the MOT, and take it in when you can afford to also buy the insurance?

...it does seem a bit pointless getting an MOT, the first few weeks of which will be completely wasted because you can't afford insurance.

On the other side it seems silly getting insurance on a car that you can't use 'cos you're waiting for repairs to be done to get it through the MOT?...6 and two 3's really..

Miss_S_83
07-02-2010, 22:01
It's not going to be a few weeks. Look, I really don't want yet more arguements on this forum over silly things, I WILL be getting insurance etc hopefully in 2wks when I have money as the deposit is fairly hefty given I am a new driver then plus £60ish tax, I just want it repaired and MOTed ASAP and I need to get it all done and off my Grandma's drive as soon as I have insurance/tax. Is that OK for everyone?

truman
07-02-2010, 22:05
It's not going to be a few weeks. Look, I really don't want yet more arguements on this forum over silly things, I WILL be getting insurance etc hopefully in 2wks when I have money as the deposit is fairly hefty given I am a new driver then plus £60ish tax, I just want it repaired and MOTed ASAP and I need to get it all done and off my Grandma's drive as soon as I have insurance/tax. Is that OK for everyone?

Fine for me,I told you in post 2 what was needed.. :)

Miss_S_83
07-02-2010, 22:12
Not you deary.... not you ;)

Thanks for all replies, I guess it's temporary insurance or whatever it is. A guy has PMed me about picking it up & MOTing it for £40 so may go down that route if I don't sell it x

depoix
07-02-2010, 22:20
oh bobbar no insurance either will cost a bomb to insure it even monthly after ive paid the deposit. arrgh! are you allowed to tow or would it have to be on a transporter otherwise?your going to have to get insured eventually for the car ,why not pick a company that lets you pay monthly and then you are covered with the first payment,all you need is the cover note and the appointment at the m o t centre

L3GAN
07-02-2010, 22:30
Hi your PM box is Full,

Oh it's just been cleared! You Have A PM

Miss_S_83
12-02-2010, 11:18
If anyone wants to purchase this there's an ad in the classifieds for £200 ono- had a few complete timewasters and it's not nice since the car isn't at our house and we have to trail kids there to meet people to view etc so anyone that doesn't plan on showing up or doesn't want it once viewed that is fine just please say so. Thanks :)

DragonofAna
12-02-2010, 11:56
Car insurance is a pain in the rear. Its all perfectly clear and perfectly stupid. Many insurance companies have a clause that states that if the car is not covered by an MOT certificate then the insurance is not liable - which means that if you have an accident on the way to the garage then you are not covered by your insurance. At least that is how it looks to me.
Other thing is - if you already own a car and have it fully comp, and then purchase another car and want to get it through the MOT before changing over insurance to the new car (and the old one being used for parts or scrap), you are still not covered to drive the new one to the MOT station. You do not want to scrap the insurance on the old car just in case the new one needs so many repairs it will be off road for weeks.
Finally - every insurance I have had states that I am covered to drive someone elses car with their permission as long as their car is insured for them.
I understand that you also do not want to take out an insurance policy if you are just getting a car through an MOT in order to sell it, but like I said - no MOT can make an insurance policy invalid so catch 23.

Car insurance, MOT and Tax rules can be so confusing for those new to it. It can be confusing to me and I'm not new to it so ...

Taximark
12-02-2010, 12:22
Not you deary.... not you ;)

Thanks for all replies, I guess it's temporary insurance or whatever it is. A guy has PMed me about picking it up & MOTing it for £40 so may go down that route if I don't sell it x

Think she was referring to HeadingNorth :hihi:

av1adm
20-08-2010, 12:14
I Offer Vehicle Recovery and Transportation in and around Sheffield. If pickup and drop off is within Sheffiield then i only charge £25 ask for a quote for long distance

Andy 07778302730

spindrift
20-08-2010, 13:57
You can get short term cover, starts at a tenner a day.

foxy lady
20-08-2010, 14:03
I've always wondered why it's ok to drive to a TEST centre,with no MOT in a car that could be a death trap.Surely no MOT should mean you can't drive it under any circumstances.If it needs to go somewhere it should be put on a Transporter.

It is one of those urban myths that you can drive an untaxed car to an MOT station even if the certificate is expired.

The problem arises with the terms on most insurance policies requiring that the vehicle is maintained in accordance with the RTA. This of course requires a current MOT test certificate. So if you are on your way to the test centre and have an accident the insurance company have plenty of wriggle room to suggest that the terms of the policy were being violated and giving them a perfect loophole to avoid paying out. At which point the police will come a knocking.

sccsux
20-08-2010, 14:24
It is one of those urban myths that you can drive an untaxed car to an MOT station even if the certificate is expired.

No it's not.

It's true (under the RTA) providing the MOT is prebooked.

foxy lady
20-08-2010, 14:49
No it's not.

It's true (under the RTA) providing the MOT is prebooked.

check your insurance policy. I note that you editted out the relavent bit of my post in order to quote out of context


QUOTE...

The problem arises with the terms on most insurance policies requiring that the vehicle is maintained in accordance with the RTA. This of course requires a current MOT test certificate. So if you are on your way to the test centre and have an accident the insurance company have plenty of wriggle room to suggest that the terms of the policy were being violated and giving them a perfect loophole to avoid paying out. At which point the police will come a knocking.

Obelix
20-08-2010, 14:58
Maintenance in accordance with the RTA does not require an MOT certificate. While the insurers require your vehicle to be roadworthy, once it's on risk they cannot wriggle out of third party liabilites very easily.

Liabilities to their own insured however are a different matter.

foxy lady
20-08-2010, 15:17
Maintenance in accordance with the RTA does not require an MOT certificate. While the insurers require your vehicle to be roadworthy, once it's on risk they cannot wriggle out of third party liabilites very easily.

Liabilities to their own insured however are a different matter.


Quote from DVLA's website.

Driving Untaxed Vehicle to MOT Test
Can I Drive an Untaxed Vehicle to an MOT Test?

The short answer is yes but there are rules. You can drive your vehicle to and from a pre-arranged test at an MOT test station if you have insurance cover in place for the use of that vehicle.
This also applies to vehicles being driven to and from a prearranged test at a Vehicle Inspection Check (VIC) test station, an approved weight testing station and reduced pollution test.

Quote from my insurance policy.

exemptions.

Claims where at the time of the road traffic accident the driver of your car did not hold a valid driving licence, your car was not in a roadworthy condition or there was no valid MOT certificate.


To compound the lack of MOT some people will actually drive the vehicle back from an MOT station after the vehicle has been pronounced unroadworthy by having a FAIL certificate issued.

The issue of third party liability is an interesting side issue. If you were classed as an uninsured driver, the other parties would be paid out under their own insurance. It would then be up to the companies involved to decide if it was worth pursuing you for the losses.

Obelix
20-08-2010, 15:24
Then you need to find a more responsible insurance company because that policy will not stand in court.

A failed MOT also does not necessarily mean the vehicle is not roadworthy.

sccsux
20-08-2010, 15:31
Quote from DVLA's website.

Driving Untaxed Vehicle to MOT Test
Can I Drive an Untaxed Vehicle to an MOT Test?

The short answer is yes but there are rules. You can drive your vehicle to and from a pre-arranged test at an MOT test station if you have insurance cover in place for the use of that vehicle.

No one was saying no insurance was needed, in fact (if you read all the posts) you'd realise that one of the first posts contains the requirement for insurance. You stated:

It is one of those urban myths that you can drive an untaxed car to an MOT station even if the certificate is expired.

When your post says the opposite.

foxy lady
20-08-2010, 15:46
No one was saying no insurance was needed, in fact (if you read all the posts) you'd realise that one of the first posts contains the requirement for insurance. You stated:



When your post says the opposite.

Perhaps if you didn't spend so much time trying to edit what others have posted to try to fit it in to your incorrect reading of the situation you would be in a position to actually add something to this thread.

What I posted was a statement from the DVLA saying you could drive a car to an MOT station providing it had insurance cover.

and a statement for the insurance company saying in order to have cover the car must be covered with a current MOT certificate.


KINDLY DO NOT EDIT MY POSTS IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUOTE THEM.

sccsux
20-08-2010, 16:00
What I posted was a statement from the DVLA saying you could drive a car to an MOT station providing it had insurance cover.

Which is what everyone else has said:confused:

sccsux
20-08-2010, 16:00
KINDLY DO NOT EDIT MY POSTS IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUOTE THEM.

I quote any salient points.

foxy lady
20-08-2010, 17:20
I miss-quoted all your salient points.

Very true. You did

sccsux
20-08-2010, 17:34
Very true. You did

At least I have the decency to leave your words as they were written. Maybe I should utilise your own tactic against yourself:

I am an idiot

Indeed your are:thumbsup::hihi:.

HeadingNorth
20-08-2010, 17:42
KINDLY DO NOT EDIT MY POSTS IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUOTE THEM.


It's normal forum etiquette to quote only that part of a post to which you are responding. Asking him not to do so is frankly bizarre.

barpen
20-08-2010, 20:47
For what it is worth I found this on the Directgov website..

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/DG_4022108

Quote. It is generally an offence to use on a public road, a vehicle of testable age that doesn’t have a current test certificate, except when:

* taking it to a test station for an MOT test booked in advance
* bringing it away from a test station after it has failed the MOT test, to a place of repair
* taking it to a place, by previous arrangement, where problems that caused the vehicle to fail its MOT test, can be repaired
* bringing it away from a place where the problems with the vehicle have been repaired

Even in the above circumstances you may still be prosecuted for driving an unroadworthy vehicle if it doesn’t comply with various regulations affecting its construction and use. Your car insurance may also be invalid.

I hope this helps and will stop the bickering.

foxy lady
21-08-2010, 00:57
For what it is worth I found this on the Directgov website..

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/DG_4022108

Quote. It is generally an offence to use on a public road, a vehicle of testable age that doesn’t have a current test certificate, except when:

* taking it to a test station for an MOT test booked in advance
* bringing it away from a test station after it has failed the MOT test, to a place of repair
* taking it to a place, by previous arrangement, where problems that caused the vehicle to fail its MOT test, can be repaired
* bringing it away from a place where the problems with the vehicle have been repaired

Even in the above circumstances you may still be prosecuted for driving an unroadworthy vehicle if it doesn’t comply with various regulations affecting its construction and use. Your car insurance may also be invalid.

I hope this helps and will stop the bickering.

It certainly answers the question and puts into perspective who is an idiot and who isn't.

foxy lady
21-08-2010, 00:59
At least I have the decency to leave your words as they were written. Maybe I should utilise your own tactic against yourself:



Indeed your are:thumbsup::hihi:.

I think your bluff has been called and you will not be bothering Mensa:hihi::hihi::hihi:

Obelix
21-08-2010, 01:18
OK.

Far be it from me to get involved in a tit for tat battle on the internet.

My bench doesn't have any instances of any case at all where an insurer has tried to vacate their liability to pay out, even in the numerous cases where people have been held 100% liable, and have had no MOT, unroadworthy vehicles etc.

I will say to the Foxylady you are plain and simply wrong. That is a considered legal opinion.

The relevant Act is the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended. Sec 148 clearly states,

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_11#pt6-pb1-l1g143

(1) Where a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict—

(a) the insurance of the persons insured by the policy, or

(b) the operation of the security,

(as the case may be) by reference to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, be of no effect.

(2) Those matters are—

(a) the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,

(b) the condition of the vehicle,

(c) the number of persons that the vehicle carries,

(d) the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,

(e) the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,

(f) the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,

(g) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or

(h) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the [1971 c. 10.] Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971.


I draw your attention to section B. The physical condition of the vehicle is specifically excluded as a cause that can render the policy inoperable.

Note that this relates to the narrow definition of the policy that is required by law - ie liability against third party claims. An insurer is perfectly at liberty to refuse to pay out on a comprehensive policy if your vehicle was not roadworthy, if you were drunk, etc. However, insurers are specifically restricted such that they cannot escape their thirds party liabilities as long as they have accepted a premium, issued a policy.

That's the law. That's how it is interpreted.

barpen
01-09-2010, 15:28
OK.

Far be it from me to get involved in a tit for tat battle on the internet.

My bench doesn't have any instances of any case at all where an insurer has tried to vacate their liability to pay out, even in the numerous cases where people have been held 100% liable, and have had no MOT, unroadworthy vehicles etc.

I will say to the Foxylady you are plain and simply wrong. That is a considered legal opinion.

The relevant Act is the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended. Sec 148 clearly states,

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_11#pt6-pb1-l1g143

(1) Where a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict—

(a) the insurance of the persons insured by the policy, or

(b) the operation of the security,

(as the case may be) by reference to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, be of no effect.

(2) Those matters are—

(a) the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,

(b) the condition of the vehicle,

(c) the number of persons that the vehicle carries,

(d) the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,

(e) the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,

(f) the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,

(g) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or

(h) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the [1971 c. 10.] Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971.


I draw your attention to section B. The physical condition of the vehicle is specifically excluded as a cause that can render the policy inoperable.

Note that this relates to the narrow definition of the policy that is required by law - ie liability against third party claims. An insurer is perfectly at liberty to refuse to pay out on a comprehensive policy if your vehicle was not roadworthy, if you were drunk, etc. However, insurers are specifically restricted such that they cannot escape their thirds party liabilities as long as they have accepted a premium, issued a policy.

That's the law. That's how it is interpreted.


I think that you will find that you have missed a few fairly salient points with that generalisation.

The police have number plate recognition cameras and will stop any vehicle flagged as having no current MOT certificate. They will prosecute if significant defects are found, particularly if a test station has just pointed them out to an owner.
An insurance company can use lack of valid MOT or known defects to invalidate a policy. This will allow them not to pay out for damage caused to the insured vehicle.
Regarding section 148. It is true that an insurance company cannot use these excuses to avoid its third party liabilities, but the breach of contract allows them to sue the driver in order to try to recoup those loses.