Ferfuxxake, they can't even bodge things properly

#21

SteveH wrote:

Quote:

Iridium <iridiumdan (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote:

"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.

Unless you drive past a VOSA van.... with a couple of fully liveried
T5s in the next layby.

They've been really hot on tax and MOTs around here recently.

I'm not going to risk this, not all the way from down here up to Bolton.

--
'89 Mazda RX-7 Convertible
'91 Honda CRX 16V
'92 Mazda RX-7 (pending)

#22

On 25 Feb, 14:59, "PC Paul" <u... (AT) bitrot (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

A.Lee wrote:

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.

One of those would have been me.

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...ranceNeedsMOTF...

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...

cheers for that Paul, hence the reason i posted about it, ive got the
same clause on mine as well. In fact it still dosn't give you immunity
if youv'e no mot and arrange a pre-booked one, the reason i know this
is we had a customer in for a pre-arranged test, all the relevant
details were provided & noted in our workshop diary & he was still
fined for using a motor vehicle without a current mot certificate, i
guess it depends if the local plod is having a good day or not ;o)

#23

kronenburgh (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

On 25 Feb, 14:59, "PC Paul" <u... (AT) bitrot (DOT) co.uk> wrote:
A.Lee wrote:

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.

One of those would have been me.

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...ranceNeedsMOTF...

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...

cheers for that Paul, hence the reason i posted about it, ive got the
same clause on mine as well. In fact it still dosn't give you immunity
if youv'e no mot and arrange a pre-booked one, the reason i know this
is we had a customer in for a pre-arranged test, all the relevant
details were provided & noted in our workshop diary & he was still
fined for using a motor vehicle without a current mot certificate, i
guess it depends if the local plod is having a good day or not ;o)

It sounds like he didn't fight hard enough...

Although I did hear of a case where somebody was done for detouring to drop
the kids off at school on his way to the MOT station - it's supposed to be
done by the direct route
..

#24

Doki wrote:

Quote:

"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.

You abused the first bodyshop yet?

I did so yesterday, the w*nkers started arguing that their repair was up to
MOT standard (nonewithstanding the fact that I wanted better quality in the
first place) and seemed to imply that my MOT tester must've been smokin'
something.

Given the quality of the work, I'm fairly sure who's been smoking something
interesting here, and it wasn't the MOT tester.
--
'89 Mazda RX-7 Convertible
'91 Honda CRX 16V
'92 Mazda RX-7 (pending)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Ferfuxxake, they can't even bodge things properly

Cars Modifications Aspects of car modifications (tuning, styling) (uk.rec.cars.modifications)

Re: Ferfuxxake, they can't even bodge things properly - 02-25-2007 , 09:48 AM

Re: Ferfuxxake, they can't even bodge things properly - MOT question, like - 02-25-2007 , 10:30 AM

Re: Ferfuxxake, they can't even bodge things properly - MOT question, like - 02-25-2007 , 01:40 PM

Re: Ferfuxxake, they can't even bodge things properly - 02-27-2007 , 03:29 PM