On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:22:24 +0000, Andrew May
wrote:

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:38 am, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

The poster didn't actually say his old MoT had run out, did he?
You can get a vehicle MoTd as often as you like.
Its still an un-roadworthy car if it fails, or did you miss that?
No, it's not necessarily.
You ought to learn the difference between 'unroadworthy' and 'MoT
failure'.

Suggest you look at the response from VOSA on http://www.mottest.net/mot/mot-failure-question/


But that doesn't explain the situation where the failure does not make
the car unroadworthy. If the tyres are illegal then it clearly is
unroadworthy as well as being an MOT failure.

But what if it fails because a headlamp bulb has blown and you would be
driving home in daylight and good visibility?

Andrew


And it wasn't VOSA who mentioned tyres ..it was the website .

tennis@home wrote:


"Andrew May" wrote in message
...


But that doesn't explain the situation where the failure does not make
the car unroadworthy. If the tyres are illegal then it clearly is
unroadworthy as well as being an MOT failure.

But what if it fails because a headlamp bulb has blown and you would
be driving home in daylight and good visibility?

And if it starts to rain and you need to use your headlights?

Its still an offence and because you have a fail notice you won't get
away with saying it must have just failed and may not be given the
opportunity to fix it before they issue a summons.


That's a bit like saying that you should be prosecuted for driving to
the pub because someone might buy you a drink. It's not a crime until
you are actually committing it.

On 18/02/2010 11:47, ARWadsworth wrote:

"JimK" wrote in message
...
On Feb 17, 2:54 pm, Invisible Man wrote:
Car tax runs out the end of this month.

Car being traded in on 2nd of next month.

Don't suppose DVLA's computer would overlook the 2 days and doubt
whether the garage will backdate their ownership of the car.

Looks like the best option is to drop the car off on the 28th and manage
without until the new one is available on the 2nd.

Don't really want to tax for 6 or 12 months and get 5 or 11 months back.

Any other ideas?

TIA for any.

strongly suggest the new car salesman helps you out with the use of a
demo or something else for the 48 (or at least 24) hours?

JimK

A loan of some trade plates?

Adam

Deal done.

We are dropping the old car off on 28 Feb.

Service manager is picking up our other car for servicing early on 2
March and taking me with him to pick up the new one.

I will drive new one home and service manager will drop other one off
after it has been serviced AND MoTd!

As a matter of interest my only conviction in over 40 years driving was
for no MoT about 39 years ago. No excuses. Found out when I went to
report my car had been hit whilst parked (and pushed right across a
pavement). Fortunately the other guy reported the accident (company car)
and getting back my excess and NCD was worth much more than the £15 fine.

On Feb 18, 12:22*pm, Andrew May wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:38 am, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

The poster didn't actually say his old MoT had run out, did he?
You can get a vehicle MoTd as often as you like.
Its still an un-roadworthy car if it fails, or did you miss that?
No, it's not necessarily.
You ought to learn the difference between 'unroadworthy' and 'MoT
failure'.

Suggest you look at the response from VOSA onhttp://www.mottest.net/mot/mot-failure-question/

But that doesn't explain the situation where the failure does not make
the car unroadworthy.

What situation is that? Read the quote again. An MOT failure is
unroadworthy by definition.

MBQ

Andrew Mawson wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
On 17/02/2010 14:54, Invisible Man wrote:
Car tax runs out the end of this month.

Car being traded in on 2nd of next month.

Don't suppose DVLA's computer would overlook the 2 days and doubt
whether the garage will backdate their ownership of the car.

Looks like the best option is to drop the car off on the 28th and
manage
without until the new one is available on the 2nd.
IME you have 1 month before the DVLA will issue a fine.

There is still the problem of being caught by ANPR on the way
there on
the 2nd - how about booking a MOT test?
I did that with the daughters car when we met at Warwick services
and I
brought it up to Preston to get an MOT and looked at for a water
leak.
Garage owner laughed his head of, but agreed there was nothing the
police could do about it, because it was on its way for a pre booked
MOT. The law does not stipulate were, or how far away, the MOT
station
should be. It passed, with no recommendation's, by the way.

Dave

Many many years ago I was 'done' for no MOT on my Frog Eyed Sprite, as
although I was on the way to a pre-booked MOT I stopped at a 'hole in
the wall' to get cash to pay for the MOT! Apparently you have to go
'directly' to the garage.

So stopping at a service area for a toilet break would be the same
thing, according to what you are saying. (remember, the car was
travelling with children in it for over 260 miles to its pre booked MOT
and repair.) I can't see the MOT tester liking soiled seats. Can you?

Dave

Clot wrote:
Andrew Mawson wrote:

Many many years ago I was 'done' for no MOT on my Frog Eyed Sprite, as
although I was on the way to a pre-booked MOT I stopped at a 'hole in
the wall' to get cash to pay for the MOT! Apparently you have to go
'directly' to the garage.

Ouch! The stewards.

Bar type I presume :-(

Dave

Invisible Man wrote:
Car tax runs out the end of this month.

Car being traded in on 2nd of next month.

Don't suppose DVLA's computer would overlook the 2 days and doubt
whether the garage will backdate their ownership of the car.

Is this a real issue now, then (genuine question - have I missed
something? Just that I found myself in the identical position to the OP
a few months ago (deal was scheduled for 30th of previous month, but my
insurance co screwed up and failed to get the new cover note to the
dealer in time so they couldn't release the vehicle - something to do
with it being ex-Motability).

Anyway I decided to take a flyer for the trip to the dealer, and (I
thought) got away with it... am I to believe that the DVLA computer may
still come knocking at my door, then? :-(

David

On 18/02/2010 18:37, Lobster wrote:
Invisible Man wrote:
Car tax runs out the end of this month.

Car being traded in on 2nd of next month.

Don't suppose DVLA's computer would overlook the 2 days and doubt
whether the garage will backdate their ownership of the car.

Is this a real issue now, then (genuine question - have I missed
something? Just that I found myself in the identical position to the OP
a few months ago (deal was scheduled for 30th of previous month, but my
insurance co screwed up and failed to get the new cover note to the
dealer in time so they couldn't release the vehicle - something to do
with it being ex-Motability).

Anyway I decided to take a flyer for the trip to the dealer, and (I
thought) got away with it... am I to believe that the DVLA computer may
still come knocking at my door, then? :-(

David

David, absolutely no idea. I reckon you are probably safe after a few
months but now cars have to be either taxed or sorn all the time I
prefer to play it safe.

JimK wrote:

shurely they'll be after the buyer/garage rather than OP/seller?


Registered keeper, whoever that is. This may be an issue, unless you
send the forms recorded...

Andy

"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:47:06 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
You do understand the difference between driving a car with no MOT and
driving an MOT failure?
Check that your insurance is valid if you are driving an un-roadworthy
car.

I thought he was driving a bus?

The OP is driving a car, you know one of those things that the majority of
drivers have,


fx: fossicks

aha: "I did this for many years when I lived in a bus"

Can we spell bus, Dennis? Can we? b - u - s

Can you read?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

But what if it fails because a headlamp bulb has blown and you would be
driving home in daylight and good visibility?

And if it starts to rain and you need to use your headlights?

Weather forecasts aside, the headlight isn't the greatest example - so
how about my windscreen?

Ask a copper?

"Andrew May" wrote in message
...
tennis@home wrote:


"Andrew May" wrote in message
...


But that doesn't explain the situation where the failure does not make
the car unroadworthy. If the tyres are illegal then it clearly is
unroadworthy as well as being an MOT failure.

But what if it fails because a headlamp bulb has blown and you would be
driving home in daylight and good visibility?

And if it starts to rain and you need to use your headlights?

Its still an offence and because you have a fail notice you won't get
away with saying it must have just failed and may not be given the
opportunity to fix it before they issue a summons.


That's a bit like saying that you should be prosecuted for driving to the
pub because someone might buy you a drink. It's not a crime until you are
actually committing it.

Driving a car with faulty lights is a crime, even if you don't have them
turned on!

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Man at B&Q"
saying something like:

What situation is that? Read the quote again. An MOT failure is
unroadworthy by definition.

********.

On Feb 19, 2:01*am, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Man at B&Q"
saying something like:

What situation is that? Read the quote again. An MOT failure is
unroadworthy by definition.

********.

I've got two thank you.

tennis@home wrote:

Driving a car with faulty lights is a crime, even if you don't have them
turned on!

I notice you didn't respond to Adrian's point about the windscreen.

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:22 pm, Andrew May wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:38 am, Grimly Curmudgeon

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

The poster didn't actually say his old MoT had run out, did he?
You can get a vehicle MoTd as often as you like.
Its still an un-roadworthy car if it fails, or did you miss that?
No, it's not necessarily.
You ought to learn the difference between 'unroadworthy' and 'MoT
failure'.

Suggest you look at the response from VOSA
onhttp://www.mottest.net/mot/mot-failure-question/

But that doesn't explain the situation where the failure does not
make the car unroadworthy.

What situation is that? Read the quote again. An MOT failure is
unroadworthy by definition.

Not all MOT checks are safety related.

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:23:21 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:47:06 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
You do understand the difference between driving a car with no MOT and
driving an MOT failure?
Check that your insurance is valid if you are driving an un-roadworthy
car.

I thought he was driving a bus?

The OP is driving a car, you know one of those things that the majority of
drivers have,

Sigh... you're just not as much fun as Drivel, you know.

"Andrew May" wrote in message
...
tennis@home wrote:

Driving a car with faulty lights is a crime, even if you don't have them
turned on!

I notice you didn't respond to Adrian's point about the windscreen.

Yes I did.

"PM" wrote in message
...
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:22 pm, Andrew May wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:38 am, Grimly Curmudgeon

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

The poster didn't actually say his old MoT had run out, did he?
You can get a vehicle MoTd as often as you like.
Its still an un-roadworthy car if it fails, or did you miss that?
No, it's not necessarily.
You ought to learn the difference between 'unroadworthy' and 'MoT
failure'.

Suggest you look at the response from VOSA
onhttp://www.mottest.net/mot/mot-failure-question/

But that doesn't explain the situation where the failure does not
make the car unroadworthy.

What situation is that? Read the quote again. An MOT failure is
unroadworthy by definition.

Not all MOT checks are safety related.

The only ones that might not be are emissions tests, but even they could be
safety related depending on your views.
I don't see anything else that isn't directly related to safety in car MOTs.

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Driving a car with faulty lights is a crime, even if you don't have
them turned on!

I notice you didn't respond to Adrian's point about the windscreen.

Yes I did.

"Ask a copper?" is not a response.

Let me remind you...

Perhaps an even clearer example - the windscreen on my car is
currently cracked, following a stonechip the other weekend. The crack
is into the wiper swept area by just over 40mm. It is, therefore, an
MOT fail. It's barely visible to the driver, as it's behind the
mirror. It contributes nothing to the structural strength of the car,
as it's an older-style gasket-mount windscreen, not bonded.

Is the car unroadworthy?

If I took it for an MOT this afternoon, and it failed, would it be
unroadworthy afterwards?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Driving a car with faulty lights is a crime, even if you don't have
them turned on!

I notice you didn't respond to Adrian's point about the windscreen.

Yes I did.

"Ask a copper?" is not a response.

Let me remind you...

Let me remind you...

asking an expert is a proper answer.

As what *you* quoted says, its an MOT failure.
It doesn't become un-roadworthy if it fails an MOT it already is.
It becomes documented as un-roadworthy when it fails.
Will a copper do you for it? well ask them.
While you are at it ask your insurance what the cover is on an MOT failed
vehicle, I would be interested to know what different companies say.


Perhaps an even clearer example - the windscreen on my car is
currently cracked, following a stonechip the other weekend. The crack
is into the wiper swept area by just over 40mm. It is, therefore, an
MOT fail. It's barely visible to the driver, as it's behind the
mirror. It contributes nothing to the structural strength of the car,
as it's an older-style gasket-mount windscreen, not bonded.

Is the car unroadworthy?

If I took it for an MOT this afternoon, and it failed, would it be
unroadworthy afterwards?

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Driving a car with faulty lights is a crime, even if you don't have
them turned on!

I notice you didn't respond to Adrian's point about the windscreen.

Yes I did.

"Ask a copper?" is not a response.

Let me remind you...

Let me remind you...

asking an expert is a proper answer.

No, you're the one making the claims. I'm asking you to address your
claims to a very specific scenario.

As what *you* quoted says, its an MOT failure.

Yes, it would be. But is it unroadworthy?

It doesn't become un-roadworthy if it fails an MOT it already is.

Once again - is this specific scenario "unroadworthy" to you?

It becomes documented as un-roadworthy when it fails.

No, it becomes documented as having failed an MOT.

While you are at it ask your insurance what the cover is on an MOT
failed vehicle, I would be interested to know what different companies
say.

I've checked my policy documents. They requires me to keep the vehicle in
a roadworthy condition. The make no specific mention of an MOT.

Is it?

Perhaps an even clearer example - the windscreen on my car is
currently cracked, following a stonechip the other weekend. The
crack is into the wiper swept area by just over 40mm. It is,
therefore, an MOT fail. It's barely visible to the driver, as it's
behind the mirror. It contributes nothing to the structural strength
of the car, as it's an older-style gasket-mount windscreen, not
bonded.

Is the car unroadworthy?

If I took it for an MOT this afternoon, and it failed, would it be
unroadworthy afterwards?

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:18:38 +0000, Invisible Man
wrote:

I am not so worried about getting pulled over or having the
car picked up by a camera. I just think that if I send DVLA notice that
I sold the car on the 2nd they will want an explanation of where it was
for the 2 days since the road fund license expired.

A bridge to be crossed if, and only if you come to it, I think.

dennis@home wrote:
"PM" wrote in message
...
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:22 pm, Andrew May wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:38 am, Grimly Curmudgeon

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

The poster didn't actually say his old MoT had run out, did he?
You can get a vehicle MoTd as often as you like.
Its still an un-roadworthy car if it fails, or did you miss
that?
No, it's not necessarily.
You ought to learn the difference between 'unroadworthy' and 'MoT
failure'.

Suggest you look at the response from VOSA
onhttp://www.mottest.net/mot/mot-failure-question/

But that doesn't explain the situation where the failure does not
make the car unroadworthy.

What situation is that? Read the quote again. An MOT failure is
unroadworthy by definition.

Not all MOT checks are safety related.

The only ones that might not be are emissions tests, but even they
could be safety related depending on your views.
I don't see anything else that isn't directly related to safety in
car MOTs.

How about a mis-spaced number plate?

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:18:38 +0000, Invisible Man
wrote:

I am not so worried about getting pulled over or having the
car picked up by a camera. I just think that if I send DVLA notice that
I sold the car on the 2nd they will want an explanation of where it was
for the 2 days since the road fund license expired.

A bridge to be crossed if, and only if you come to it, I think.

Say it was parked on their premises.

"PM" wrote in message
...


The only ones that might not be are emissions tests, but even they
could be safety related depending on your views.
I don't see anything else that isn't directly related to safety in
car MOTs.

How about a mis-spaced number plate?

Is that a fail?

Adrian wrote:
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

It becomes documented as un-roadworthy when it fails.

No, it becomes documented as having failed an MOT.

And somewhere on the MOT doc, as I recall, there is something about it
not being proof that the vehicle is roadworthy


--
David Clark, MSc, PhD. UCL Centre for Publishing
Gower Str London WCIE 6BT
What sort of web animal are you?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/labuk/experiments/webbehaviour

"djc" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

It becomes documented as un-roadworthy when it fails.

No, it becomes documented as having failed an MOT.

And somewhere on the MOT doc, as I recall, there is something about it
not being proof that the vehicle is roadworthy

But a fail notice is proof of it being un-roadworthy unless you appeal
against it and win.

In message , PM
writes
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:22 pm, Andrew May wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:38 am, Grimly Curmudgeon

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

The poster didn't actually say his old MoT had run out, did he?
You can get a vehicle MoTd as often as you like.
Its still an un-roadworthy car if it fails, or did you miss that?
No, it's not necessarily.
You ought to learn the difference between 'unroadworthy' and 'MoT
failure'.

Suggest you look at the response from VOSA
onhttp://www.mottest.net/mot/mot-failure-question/

But that doesn't explain the situation where the failure does not
make the car unroadworthy.

What situation is that? Read the quote again. An MOT failure is
unroadworthy by definition.

Not all MOT checks are safety related.


Yeah - the lambda test - emissions, for example

has no bearing as to it is roadworthy or not


--
geoff

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

The only ones that might not be are emissions tests, but even they
could be safety related depending on your views. I don't see anything
else that isn't directly related to safety in car MOTs.

How about a mis-spaced number plate?

Is that a fail?

Yes.

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m3s06000301.htm

So is a "honeycomb or similar" background to the plates.

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

And somewhere on the MOT doc, as I recall, there is something about
it not being proof that the vehicle is roadworthy

But a fail notice is proof of it being un-roadworthy

No, it isn't.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

The only ones that might not be are emissions tests, but even they
could be safety related depending on your views. I don't see anything
else that isn't directly related to safety in car MOTs.

How about a mis-spaced number plate?

Is that a fail?

Yes.

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m3s06000301.htm

So is a "honeycomb or similar" background to the plates.

OK.. so why might it be a safety issue..

people that have vanity plates tend to be arrogant and drive badly?
people are trying to disguise the plates so they can speed without getting
caught?

Given a minute or three I can probably find more reasons.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

And somewhere on the MOT doc, as I recall, there is something about
it not being proof that the vehicle is roadworthy

But a fail notice is proof of it being un-roadworthy

No, it isn't.

Well we have seen official sites saying it is, where is your evidence that
it isn't?

dennis@home wrote:
"Andrew May" wrote in message
...
tennis@home wrote:

Driving a car with faulty lights is a crime, even if you don't have
them turned on!

I notice you didn't respond to Adrian's point about the windscreen.

Yes I did.

Captain Teflon strikes again....



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:
"djc" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:
"dennis@home" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

It becomes documented as un-roadworthy when it fails.

No, it becomes documented as having failed an MOT.

And somewhere on the MOT doc, as I recall, there is something
about it not being proof that the vehicle is roadworthy

But a fail notice is proof of it being un-roadworthy unless you appeal
against it and win.

Fraid not. You can fail on exhaust emmissions - they don't make the car
unroadworthy.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"djc" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:
"dennis@home" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:
It becomes documented as un-roadworthy when it fails.
No, it becomes documented as having failed an MOT.
And somewhere on the MOT doc, as I recall, there is something
about it not being proof that the vehicle is roadworthy
But a fail notice is proof of it being un-roadworthy unless you appeal
against it and win.

Fraid not. You can fail on exhaust emmissions - they don't make the car
unroadworthy.




Depends on what you mean by road worthy.

Its certainly possible to have a car with e.g. binding brakes, which
wont stop from 70mph, but passes all the braking tests.

I had a car fail because the bonnet stay was not working properly.
Hardly a danger to road users. Only people looking under it...;-)

Its an MOT failure to not have correct number plates..they are not
dangerous either.

If you DEFINE 'roadworthy' to mesn 'capable of passing an MOT test' then
its a whole new ball game.

dennis@home wrote:

people are trying to disguise the plates so they can speed without
getting caught?

Fat chance of that. There was a prog on TV about 15 years ago about
coated number plates and even then, the police demonstrated how they
could enhance the number with a computer.

I'll get back to you on the other subject you asked about later. We have
had the grand daughters all week and now I am on my own with them. Got
to drive to Warwick services tomorrow to swap them back to their mother
and I will be in no condition when I get back, to answer.

Dave

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

The only ones that might not be are emissions tests, but even they
could be safety related depending on your views. I don't see anything
else that isn't directly related to safety in car MOTs.

How about a mis-spaced number plate?

Is that a fail?

Yes.

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m3s06000301.htm

So is a "honeycomb or similar" background to the plates.

OK.. so why might it be a safety issue..

people that have vanity plates tend to be arrogant and drive badly?


And where is the evidence / statistics to back this wild claim up

or is it, like everything else from you just more bigoted, prejudiced
stereotyping


Do I have a "vanity "plate dennis ?


if so, would it be on my car, my van or on my motorbike ?


people are trying to disguise the plates so they can speed without
getting caught?

Given a minute or three I can probably find more reasons.

Didn't you mean prejudiced assertions?
I think you did, didn't you


--
geoff

"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

people are trying to disguise the plates so they can speed without
getting caught?

Fat chance of that. There was a prog on TV about 15 years ago about coated
number plates and even then, the police demonstrated how they could
enhance the number with a computer.

Well yes.. there is no evidence that any of the anti-speed trap plates work.
However it would be a good way to get some of the fools off the road. ;-)

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

How about a mis-spaced number plate?

Is that a fail?

Yes.

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m3s06000301.htm

So is a "honeycomb or similar" background to the plates.

OK.. so why might it be a safety issue..

people that have vanity plates tend to be arrogant and drive badly?
people are trying to disguise the plates so they can speed without getting
caught?

Given a minute or three I can probably find more reasons.

More spurious nonsense, you mean.
Admit it Dennis, you're just spouting ******** for the sake of it.