OT: buying a car on ebay with no road tax or MOT

Nit picking like that, is stupid and certainly doesn't make any useful contribution to the thread. We all know an MOT is not required for a car on private property. I think any one else who was following thread, and had read my previous posts, would take my comment in the context of my argument, and not in isolation. Mike.

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean the law can be accepted verbatum. Read my earlier post on the subject of precedent and how law are refined and defined by the courts. Mike.

Maybe not, but so far all thats been offered are unsupported opinions. Mike.

If it's verbatim it can be accepted verbatim. Precedent applies to interpretation.

Well if you're bored you can go & buy a copy of the road traffic act.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mike G" saying something like:

I have it from a knowledgeable traffic cop. The very man who, if it was illegal, would do you for it.

It may have been an oversight on the part of the drafters of the relevant piece of legislation, but maybe they weren't control freaks back in those days and decided to leave the choice of MoT station open to the customer.

Precisely, and if a court has decides that the law was not meant to allow a an un-MOT'd car to be driven an unlimited distance, and makes a ruling to that effect, it can be used as a precedent in any subsequent prosecutions. I'm not saying that has happened, but IMO it's likely to, if someone used it as a means of transporting a car without an MOT to their home town or place convenient to them, that may be hundreds of miles away. Passing many testing stations on the way. The law was obviously a concession to allow an owner to get an un-MOT'd car tested without going to the expense of having it transported to a testing station. It was never intended to be used to move un-MOT'd cars anywhere in the country. Mike.

You may very well be right. I'm not saying I know it to be otherwise. I just think if it came to the crunch, the courts would not accept it as being a reasonable or acceptable interpretation of the laws intent. It could be argued, that although the law does not specify the distance an un-MOT'd can be driven for a prebooked test, to drive it hundreds of miles, would be exceeding the intent of the law. Which presumably was created to allow un-MOT'd cars to be tested, without undue expense to their owners, and that driving it hundreds of miles, would constitute an abuse of the laws intent. I'm no lawyer but I can see an argument on those lines being considered a reasonable interpretation of how the law was intended to be applied. Mike.

If being driven to or from a prebooked MOT test, or for prebooked repairs to enable it to pass an MOT test, then yes.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Yes. Driving a car on the road with defective brakes is an offence. It matters not one iota whether you are on your way to or from a MOT, or on your way to or from the church fete, it is still an offence.

I am perfectly clear thank you.

Certain laws are open to interpretation, for example in self-defence you are allowed to use "reasonable force". Then it is up to the court to interpret what the meaning of reasonable is, as what is reasonable to one may not be to another. If the law is a simple statement that you can carry out a certain act then the court cannot interpret it to mean that you cannot, and the court cannot invent a clause that is not there, stating that you can only carry out that act for a certain distance.

Yes, but _which_ bit of law?

And remember that the original Act may have been amended. A law passed in 1980 might be amended in 1990, and the text of the amendment may just tell you to replace a word or phrase.

However the wording is a perfect defence, you have plainly not contravened the act.

HOw? It's very plainly written.

A test case would resolve the issue. As I've said though, those who think otherwise could very well be right. In the meantime, (not that I think I'll ever want to drive an un-MOT'd car any great distance) I'll continue to believe that one way or another, to do so could be risky from a legal POV. Mike.

To put this thread to rest, the Volvo sold for £51.99. I was not the lucky (?) buyer.

And the Skoda owners club too. I should know, I'm a member.

Yay. Used to have a Robin van. Brush painted matt black, with a single bucket seat, the steering wheel from a triumph spitfire (wedged on, and cranked down on the nut), and an ford escort 5 speed gearknob (to confuse the boy racers). Had planned for a set of Wider Viva wheels and tyres from the scrappy, but rolled it after getting it too far sideways on a wet corner.

What about during the first 3 years of it's life? It doesn't have a valid MOT then, and a surprising number fail their first MOT, sometimes for quite serious defects.