|
Man across the road has had his personal car seized following roadside check which revealed he had no MOT. He is kicking himself for overlooking it as his company has 4 taxed, insured and MOT'ed vans. He has been told to produce Ins cert and driving licence in order to get van released from storage compound. Now despite a long and exhaustive search, he can't find that licence. The police have confirmed that a check with DVLA reveals him to have a clean , current licence and they are happy with his ID . Yet still, they can not authorise the release of the vehicle with out seeing the licence in question. Why ?
|
|
I was pulled for that in Surrey. Sixty quid ticket, no points. The plod made it clear that it was technically illegal for me to drive anywhere but to a garage or for a pre-booked MoT test, but decently allowed me to go on my way. It was late on New Year's eve though...
|
|
A vehicle cannot be seized for being used without an MOT. Perhaps someone isn't telling the whole story...
|
|
Thats all the info I had.
|
He had better get a duplicate/replacement from DVLA PDQ - before the storage charges exceed the value of the vehicle. They will do it over the phone and one can pay by credit card.
|
|
£25 a day from Saturday I believe. Car is worth £2,000. How long does a duplicate take ?
|
How long does a duplicate take ?
Ask them
|
This is when asking questions on a forum takes longer than doing something about it.
Last time our son needed his licence replacing (misplaced) we phoned on Friday and it arrived on the following Tuesday morning. Cost was £19.
Why do some people ask how long this type of stuff takes on a forum when the DVLA can answer the question definatively? And send the licence.
|
|
Just curios. If I see him tomorrow he's bound to ask and I can give him some sort of idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Going to stick my neck out here and say that it's not in the spirit of the act to hold the car if Police are happy with the driving licence via DVLA database interrogation. If it's good enough at the roadside (which it is) then it's good enough in this situation. Ask for the Duty Inspector and make a complaint. I bet I know what the decision will be.
|
|
I will pass the info on tomorrow. He's not your normal scally but a bloke in his 40's who I believe has made a genuine mistake. He checked the MOT status today and it had run out last July. He immediately got out all the docs for his van fleet and every one was in order. He just can't explain how it's happened.
|
|
As already mentioned. A vehicle does not get seized solely for no MOT. It's a £60 non-endorsable offence.
|
|
Would his insurance be deemed ' invalid " if the vehicle covered had no MOT ?
|
Not as far as the Police are concerned. No MOT does not negate the policy.
Insurance may refuse to pay out for damage on a fully comp policy but are legally obliged to pay out for 3rd party claims.
|
|
In the circumstances easy to understand why thee MOT was overlooked however as Woodster states seizure of a vehicle is not an option for no MOT.
As for release, documents are produced at a Police Station, if in order a release note is signed which is then taken to the recovering agent. Dead simple. If the person has difficulty producing a document checks can be made and providing that everything is in order the release note can still be signed. Again dead simple Commonsense can prevail.
Edited by Fullchat on 06/02/2009 at 19:30
|
|
Could they be claiming it is not insured by virtue of the fact that the policy requires a valid MOT certificate? I think I remember a case like this on Roadwars.
Edited by Hamsafar on 06/02/2009 at 19:40
|
Can't say I've seen a certificate of insurance with that written on it, and I've seen a few!
|
|
Likewise. No MOT does not explain the seizure.
|
I'd put my 50p on either no tax and/or no insurance.
People do put some spin on their excuses when they fall foul of the law.
|
|
It's in the small print on my policy.
Edited by bathtub tom on 06/02/2009 at 23:40
|
|
So the seizure could take place on the grounds of no insurance even when the original problem was no MOT. How do you remove it to MOT it then in order to bring the insurance back in to play if you are no longer insured for it ?. looks like a catch 22 situation.
|
|
Perhaps he's parking his vans outside the inspector's house.
|
Read it again, no MOT will not invalidate your third party cover. Third party cover is the minimum legal requirement.
|
|
Most insurance policies have wording that for the policy to be valid,the vehicle must be maintained in a "legal and roadworthy" condition for the insurance to be valid.No MOT,then not legal,then not insured.
Edited by jc2 on 07/02/2009 at 09:13
|
jc2 - sorry, you are wrong.
Not having a valid MOT does NOT invalidate your THIRD PARTY cover.
Read the post further down from Dwight Van Driver:
"As stated no MOT does not invalidate third party Insurance which is prohibited at law. (S 148 (2) (b) RTA 1988)."
|
It's in the small print on my policy.
Which insurer.
MOT is mentioned in my policy, but only for the breakdown cover.
|
You may well be right, I'll have to go back and read it again.
I changed insurers at the last renewal and remember seeing it as I trawled through about forty pages of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet still they can not authorise the release of the vehicle with out seeing the licence in question. Why ?
Presumably because that's what the law requires. Why does the general public question these things when they themselves have given the government a mandate to make laws? Make your point to your MP.
|
Just wonder if the poster has had all the facts?
Power to seize in relation to no driving licence, Insurance or Excise Licence clamp and removal but not for no MOT. As stated no MOT does not invalidate third party Insurance which is prohibited at law. (S 148 (2) (b) RTA 1988).
Just wondering as mentioned Test Certificate expired some time that on stop/ inspection has revealed a defect that deemed necessary for an absolute prohibition of driving the vehicle has been issued (until rectified and test cert issued) undern S 69 RTA 1988.
Remember that quote which started off as:
"Send reinforcements we're going to France"
which at the end of the day became:
"Send three and fourpence we're going to the dance".
dvd
|
..."Send reinforcements we're going to France"....
Always told to me as: 'Send reinforcements, we're going to advance,' and: 'Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance.'
Just goes to show how things can get confsed in the telling, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
