 | |
Ferfuxxake, they can't even bodge things properly
Cars Modifications Aspects of car modifications (tuning, styling) (uk.rec.cars.modifications)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Ferfuxxake, they can't even bodge things properly -
02-24-2007
, 05:39 PM
|
The RX-7 convertible just "virtually"[1] failed its MOT because the bodyshop couldn't even bodge the sill repair within the MOT guidelines, let alone repair it in the quality I wanted. Anybody know what the deal is with driving a car that failed its MOT with the express purpose of getting it to someone to repair it properly? |
Quote:
|
It's going to be some distance (100+ miles) so transporting it would cost a bit... You're gonna have to. |
--
Conor
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
Tunku wrote: "Timo Geusch" <tnewsSPAMMENOT (AT) unixconsult (DOT) co.uk> wrote in news:xn0f2ugvch0if9008 (AT) nermal (DOT) unix-consult.com: Anybody know what the deal is with driving a car that failed its MOT with the express purpose of getting it to someone to repair it properly? It's going to be some distance (100+ miles) so transporting it would cost a bit... Timo, you might be better pointing this at uk.rec.cars.maintenance, there's a couple of mot peeps on there I believe. I think you can drive it with the express condition of an MOT repair, and then from there to the testing station, but I wouldn't be 100% sure. Thanks Tunku, that's a jolly good idea. Could someone in the assembled multitude of ukrcm(s) comment on the legality of this? |
MoT as necessary, he lives 80 miles away. He was stopped and a prosecution
for no MoT started. At court, pre trial he produced a letter from me, in it
I stated that I had carried out all his car repairs for the last 20 years
and that he used to live near me (he did) and that he trusted no-one else to
do his work, and that was why he was not going to a more local repairer when
he was stopped. The prosecution was dropped, but not before everyone was at
court, what a waste of time.
I also understand that if you can show that the nearest specialist in your
model is a long way off there is a similar get out.
Mrcheerful
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
One of my customers got away with this. He was bringing his car to me for MoT as necessary, he lives 80 miles away. He was stopped and a prosecution for no MoT started. At court, pre trial he produced a letter from me, in it I stated that I had carried out all his car repairs for the last 20 years and that he used to live near me (he did) and that he trusted no-one else to do his work, and that was why he was not going to a more local repairer when he was stopped. The prosecution was dropped, but not before everyone was at court, what a waste of time. I also understand that if you can show that the nearest specialist in your model is a long way off there is a similar get out. |
you, that'd come under the "car is too dangerous to drive away" box that
they tick if need be, thinking about it.
--
"For want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died."
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 24 Feb, 19:28, "Timo Geusch" <tnewsSPAMME... (AT) unixconsult (DOT) co.uk Anybody know what the deal is with driving a car that failed its MOT with the express purpose of getting it to someone to repair it properly? It's going to be some distance (100+ miles) so transporting it would cost a bit... you would be driving illegaly without an mot certificate, your vehicle insurance would become void. |
The usual line in Insurance Policies is that 'the car must be
roadworthy'.
If it was the case you suggest, then a car without MOT would not be able
to go on the road under its own power to attend a pre-arranged MOT.
Yes, there may be odd Ins. Cos. showing such wording, but I have never
seen such clauses, and in many Usenet discussions, no proof has been
given - a few have come on and said theirs does have it, but no scans of
the document have been forthcoming.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
kronenburgh (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote: On 24 Feb, 19:28, "Timo Geusch" <tnewsSPAMME... (AT) unixconsult (DOT) co.uk Anybody know what the deal is with driving a car that failed its MOT with the express purpose of getting it to someone to repair it properly? It's going to be some distance (100+ miles) so transporting it would cost a bit... you would be driving illegaly without an mot certificate, your vehicle insurance would become void. How many Insurance Policies prohibit the use of a car without MOT? The usual line in Insurance Policies is that 'the car must be roadworthy'. If it was the case you suggest, then a car without MOT would not be able to go on the road under its own power to attend a pre-arranged MOT. Yes, there may be odd Ins. Cos. showing such wording, but I have never seen such clauses, and in many Usenet discussions, no proof has been given - a few have come on and said theirs does have it, but no scans of the document have been forthcoming. Alan. |
& it would then have been in contravention of the policy before it failed
the MOT.
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
I guess it's dependent on how seriously the car failed the MOT though. Mind you, that'd come under the "car is too dangerous to drive away" box that they tick if need be, thinking about it. |
the car HAD a valid MOT.
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
The RX-7 convertible just "virtually"[1] failed its MOT because the bodyshop couldn't even bodge the sill repair within the MOT guidelines, let alone repair it in the quality I wanted. Anybody know what the deal is with driving a car that failed its MOT with the express purpose of getting it to someone to repair it properly? It's going to be some distance (100+ miles) so transporting it would cost a bit... [1] I pointed the repair out to the tester and asked him to look at it, which he did before starting the test. He was kind enough to point out that it's a surefire fail and hence didn't charge me anything. Top marks. |
speeding these days anyway.
--
Dan
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Timo Geusch" <tnewsSPAMMENOT (AT) unixconsult (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:xn0f2ugvch0if9008 (AT) nermal (DOT) unix-consult.com... The RX-7 convertible just "virtually"[1] failed its MOT because the bodyshop couldn't even bodge the sill repair within the MOT guidelines, let alone repair it in the quality I wanted. Anybody know what the deal is with driving a car that failed its MOT with the express purpose of getting it to someone to repair it properly? It's going to be some distance (100+ miles) so transporting it would cost a bit... [1] I pointed the repair out to the tester and asked him to look at it, which he did before starting the test. He was kind enough to point out that it's a surefire fail and hence didn't charge me anything. Top marks. Just chance it, you're incredibly unlikely to get caught if you're not speeding these days anyway. |
in the next layby.
They've been really hot on tax and MOTs around here recently.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
How many Insurance Policies prohibit the use of a car without MOT? The usual line in Insurance Policies is that 'the car must be roadworthy'. If it was the case you suggest, then a car without MOT would not be able to go on the road under its own power to attend a pre-arranged MOT. Yes, there may be odd Ins. Cos. showing such wording, but I have never seen such clauses, and in many Usenet discussions, no proof has been given - a few have come on and said theirs does have it, but no scans of the document have been forthcoming. |
And nobody ever asked for scans... but since you have now, here you go:
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u...ceNeedsMOT.png
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u...edsMOTFull.png
The bit where it says:
"This Contract of Motor Insurance does not cover claims arising from:
1. Any accident, injury, loss or damage that happens while the Insured Car
is being:
* Kept or used in an unsafe or unroadworthy condition
* Kept or used without a current Department of Transport Test (MoT)
certificate if one is needed."
So, if you were driving within the law but without an MOT, i.e. to a
prebooked test, you're covered. Driving to a repair place or anywhere else
when you legally need an MOT but don't have one, you can add driving
uninsured to the list of charges.
That was from the Highway Insurance 'Highway Choice Private Car' Policy
document, which is a pretty common policy offered by many underwriters.
Feel free to ask for more proof if you need it...
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Timo Geusch" <tnewsSPAMMENOT (AT) unixconsult (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:xn0f2ujd3kc1ot00c (AT) nermal (DOT) unix-consult.com... Tunku wrote: "Timo Geusch" <tnewsSPAMMENOT (AT) unixconsult (DOT) co.uk> wrote in news:xn0f2ugvch0if9008 (AT) nermal (DOT) unix-consult.com: Anybody know what the deal is with driving a car that failed its MOT >>> with the express purpose of getting it to someone to repair it properly? It's going to be some distance (100+ miles) so transporting it would cost a bit... Timo, you might be better pointing this at uk.rec.cars.maintenance, there's a couple of mot peeps on there I believe. I think you can drive it with the express condition of an MOT repair, and then from there to the testing station, but I wouldn't be 100% sure. Thanks Tunku, that's a jolly good idea. Could someone in the assembled multitude of ukrcm(s) comment on the legality of this? One of my customers got away with this. He was bringing his car to me for MoT as necessary, he lives 80 miles away. He was stopped and a prosecution for no MoT started. At court, pre trial he produced a letter from me, in it I stated that I had carried out all his car repairs for the last 20 years and that he used to live near me (he did) and that he trusted no-one else to do his work, and that was why he was not going to a more local repairer when he was stopped. The prosecution was dropped, but not before everyone was at court, what a waste of time. I also understand that if you can show that the nearest specialist in your model is a long way off there is a similar get out. |
Well, I did and now I need to get the car to a _decent_ bodyshop
instead.
I won't chance it, I got a reasonable quote for transporting it to my
preferred bodyshop (still a fuckload of money, but hey...) so on the
back of a flatbed it goes.
--
'89 Mazda RX-7 Convertible
'91 Honda CRX 16V
'92 Mazda RX-7 (pending)
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.