Law on travelling for repairs

Chris Whelan (Chris Whelan ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

I s'pose because you can't just skip a month as easily as you used to be able to, with SORN, so it's become a fairly good indicator of bigger issues. Somebody legit knows they've got to do it sooner or later, and it's easy enough to tax a car, so might as well just do it now. Short of cash? Shove it on the plastic.

Of course, that's all IF they've got insurance and MOT. So is somebody driving around in an untaxed car bothering with those?

If they've not got an MOT, is it because they know damn well that the car hasn't got a hope in hell of passing? If so, then there's a good chance that the poor maintenance will contribute to causing a collision, in which YOUR car might be damaged or YOU injured.

If they've not got insurance, is it because their driving record is so poor that they just couldn't get any if their lives depend on it? Do they, indeed, actually have a licence? Either is going to increase the likelihood of them causing a collision, in which YOUR car might be damaged or YOU injured.

Then there's the ever-present likelihood that the car just isn't registered. Which means that not only are the even more likely to be uninsured/unMOTed, but they just don't give a flying f*ck anyway, so if they do hit you, they're likely to do a runner.

In other words, no tax on their car keeps coming back to a higher risk that YOUR pocket being on the receiving end. At best.

How does Mr average Joe Public know whether a car is roadworthy or not before it is MOT'd? if the tyres were bald, or the brakes hardly worked, fair enough, but corroded brake lines, critical chassis corrosion? By definition, a percentage of cars being driven to an MOT testing station will be unroadworthy, but unless it is reasonably obvious, I doubt that it would negate the insurance policy, otherwise all cars would have to be MOT'd on site, or trailered to MOT stations. Mike.

Mike G ("Mike G" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

He gets it properly maintained by somebody with clue.

It wouldn't negate the insurance.

But it WOULD open the driver to being prosecuted for driving an unroadworthy vehicle.

Nothing whatsoever to do with going to an MOT. A vehicle may very well be unroadworthy the day after an MOT pass.

It is a fact that when my brother was caught by a speed camera a couple of days after his tax expired he got a fine for that as well as the speeding ticket.

davidjones ( snipped-for-privacy@myself.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Had he SORNed the car?

You and I know that that is not how it works in practice. If it were, the drivers of those vehicles would be committing an offence if they drove it from an MOT station to either repair themselves, or to get someone to repair it for them.

As I see it, the concession allowing a car to be driven to an MOT station for testing, or from there to a place of repair, allows for the fact that the car might not be roadworthy at those particular times. Mike.

If the person has the ability to repair the car then it would be reasonable to assume that they would realise that the car was unroadworthy in the first place

Mike G ("Mike G" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Only if it was unroadworthy. Same as they would have been if the car still had two months to run on the old MOT and they were just driving it to work.

Simple question - If you were stopped on your way to the test, in a car with (say) three bald tyres and a massive oil leak, do you think you would get away with it?

No. I do not know how long it takes now for the SORN fine to kick in, but this was a few years ago when it took a while. It was litterally

I covered that situation in my first reply. Mike.