C5 in for MOT tomorrow

[Stickyfinger]

err....so did I

[superloopy]

[emoji106]

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

[BenC5HDi]

Doesn't mention anything about my car being roadworthy on my Direct Line policy....

How would one insure a car that was off the road?

It's an offence to use a vehicle with a dangerous fault, whether it has an MOT or not .. I. E. If you're using a car with six months MOT left that's dangerous, it's still an offence..

A car that's just failed an MOT isn't necessarily dangerous or unroadworthy. This is what the legal position hinges on. Your car isn't dangerous or unroadworthy if it failed on an airbag light on, or a sidelight bulb duff for example.

If your insurance was invalidated by such things, I've seen at least 10 people driving with invalid insurance this evening.....



Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[Stickyfinger]

The 3rd party aspect my payout, but I bet they would not pay for your new face if the AirBag was a known fault and you had a smash

[GiveMeABreak]

Like the 1.266 Million European Toyotas being recalled for faulty airbags that could deploy abnormally in a crash - no car is 100% safe and nobody can be expected to know if it is safe under normal circumstances. Tyre blowouts is another one - so unless your car's the silver hornet who's to say?

[bobins]

Doesn't mention anything about my car being roadworthy on my Direct Line policy....

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Whilst I appreciate that car insurances vary, and not everyone gets the same policies, the current Direct Line car insurance policy wording requires:

6. Taking care of your car
You and any person who is covered by this policy must:
• make sure your car is roadworthy;

It's under 'General Conditions' Section 6.

[Paul-R]

Ah, roadworthy. So is a blown sidelamp bulb, which would not even show up during the day, to be classed as making a car unroadworthy? It would cause an MOT failure, of course.

Just askin', like.

[BenC5HDi]

Ah, roadworthy. So is a blown sidelamp bulb, which would not even show up during the day, to be classed as making a car unroadworthy? It would cause an MOT failure, of course.

Just askin', like.

Of course it wouldn't make it unroadworthy. That's the point I'm making

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[Stickyfinger]

BUT, that is your view, I wonder what the views of the insurance company legals would be if the saw a chance of a non payout ? ......£1/1p they would make life difficult for you

[CitroJim]

......£1/1p they would make life difficult for you

You know they will... Blood out of a stone and all that

[bobins]

I've been trying to find out what would make a car 'unroadworthy'. Although it's fairly straightforward:

"A motor vehicle is unroadworthy if it is in such a condition that its use on the road would
involve a danger of injury to any person including driver, passenger(s), other road users
or pedestrians. The danger may be caused by, amongst other things; worn suspension,
worn steering joints, defective brakes or corrosion of load bearing parts of the vehicle."

......It doesn't seem to end up being that straightforward.

It is up to the driver / person in charge of the vehicle to ensure it is roadworthy.
It is up to a DVSA examiner / authorised constable / other entitled person to tell you it isn't roadworthy.
It'd, probably, be ultimately up to the courts / legal system to decide who was right in each and every case. There are procedures in place to appeal an 'unroadworthiness' declaration from the DVSA, but - as with most things in life - in the end it'd be for the courts to decide if you wanted to take it that far.

A good indication of a roadworthy vehicle would be one that met the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations and/or Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations.
An MOT pass does not mean a car is roadworthy.
"An MOT certificate is only an indication that the car was fit to pass the test on the day it was examined and does not indicate the car is roadworthy.
An MOT test does not cover every aspect of the roadworthiness of a vehicle and the car may have deteriorated since it was tested."
http://www.southglos.gov.uk/documents/T ... rticle.pdf

If it came to a prosecution against you, a good defence that you thought the car was roadworthy might be: "I only got it MOT'd yesterday" - Although, as above, an MOT is not proof that a car is roadworthy, but it may be helpful to show that you thought the car was roadworthy.
A good case against you that your car was unroadworthy might be the fact that it failed an MOT the previous day, even though you still had time remaining on the previous years unexpired MOT.

Them's my views, and they're worth exactly what you paid for them


I would - genuinely - welcome sensible comment and expansion of the points mentioned above.

[BenC5HDi]

One the one occasion I got stopped for having a bulb out, I was given a ticket and told to fix it and get it stamped by the local MOT station within a period of time (10 days?) And go back to the police station. I'd take that as meaning the car wasn't unroadworthy or dangerous to others.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[bobins]

One the one occasion I got stopped for having a bulb out, I was given a ticket and told to fix it and get it stamped by the local MOT station within a period of time (10 days?) And go back to the police station. I'd take that as meaning the car wasn't unroadworthy or dangerous to others.

A good point, and one for the courts to decide

Seriously though ! the DVSA / authorised constables(AC) have discretion, it would seem:
"Where examiners find on a vehicle roadworthiness defects not serious enough to warrant prohibition, they will advise the user/ owner using a Vehicle Inspection Notice. This notice is advisory only and does not in itself prevent further use of the vehicle.
Even if not prohibitable, some of the defects may mean that the vehicle is unroadworthy and does not comply with the law. Continued use of a vehicle issued with either a Delayed Prohibition or a Vehicle Inspection Notice listing advisory defect(s) risks prosecution under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations or Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations and so it will be in the user’s interest to repair defects as soon as practicable after they are noticed."

There's a whole host of reasons why the DVSA / AC don't have to prohibit a vehicle (for being unroadworthy or dangerous to others) on the spot:

"A delayed prohibition allows continued use of the vehicle until the prohibition comes into force. The period of delay on prohibitions will reflect
-the severity and number of defects observed,
- their significance in road safety and environmental terms,
-any risk presented by continued use of the vehicle,
while taking into account the operational and financial implications for the operator."

Further, and rather tedious , reading can be had here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... efects.pdf

Which has come from here - Categorisation of roadworthiness defects:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... of-defects

[BenC5HDi]

I think if it's suspension, brakes or steering, you'd be screwed. As long as those items are safe, it's not really going to pose a danger to others.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[bobins]

I think if it's suspension, brakes or steering, you'd be screwed. As long as those items are safe, it's not really going to pose a danger to others.

Total headlamp failure whilst driving at night ?
Driving with a smashed windscreen ?
No stop lamps / electrics to your rear lamps ? (as opposed brakes not working).
Passenger door not shutting ? (i.e flapping around in the breeze)
Bonnet missing ?
Drivers seat not bolted down ?
OK, some of those might seem extreme and stretching a point a bit, and yes - suspension, steering and brakes are the main ones, but there are myriad reasons that a DVSA / AC exmainer may deem your car is a danger to others.