I've had an idea.

[Tetleysmooth]

 

I would imagine this sort of thing has happened to most of us:

You see a car for sale, it's just what you want at the right price, but it's bloody miles away. The cost of transportation is prohibitive, so sadly you have to let it go.

 

Just supposing you could go to your local police station and get an amnesty notice, valid for one day only - midnight to midnight - just so you could get the car back home.

 

I could see the amnesty notice being in the form of a duplicate book in which the police officer would write down the details of the car, from where it's being collected, and to where it's being delivered to. He would give you a copy of the form, and of course, it's duplicated in his book.

 

As long as the car is roadworthy i.e. lights, brakes, tyres etc. and is insured (one day insurance would be ok), then if you were stopped on the way back to yours, you could produce the amnesty form and be waved on your way.

 

It's not open to abuse, because all the traffic officer would have to do is contact the issuing police station to see if they have the duplicate.

 

I doubt if the idea would take off, because there's nothing in it for the government, but I would like to put this idea forward, but to who? Any suggestions fellas?

[Grundig]

This is a good idea, sensible, logical & workable - however......

 

 

I doubt if the idea would take off, because there's nothing in it for the government

......   ^^^^^ & remember, they want you to buy new cars not old shiters  

[Micrashed]

Meh.

If its MOT'd, I drive it back with my cheque book in the car and all the insurance paperwork and just say that I cant tax it as its still in the old owners name.

 

Did that from Swindon to Preston on a Saturday afternoon, got tugged, explained my predicament, post office closed, cant do it on line as not yet in my name, waved MOT cert and insurance cert and green slip, offered to pay officer for tax disc if they could supply one, got waved on my way.

 

Probably lucky, but I would take my chances TBH.

[Tetleysmooth]

I was rather thinking of cars with no mot and no tax.

[DodgyBastard]

Easy, Book it in for an mot then drive it home.

[Tetleysmooth]

 

Easy, Book it in for an mot then drive it home.

I thought of that, but if you were collecting a car in the Northwest, and driving it to the Southeast, I think you'd have a hard time with any traffic officers that may give you a pull.

With my idea, you could collect a car from any distance away, providing you could complete the journey in a day.

You could stop for comfort (piss) and refreshment breaks on the way, as long as you are not deviating from the most direct route.

[NorfolkNWeigh]

I thought of that, but if you were collecting a car in the Northwest, and driving it to the Southeast, I think you'd have a hard time with any traffic officers that may give you a pull.With my idea, you could collect a car from any distance away, providing you could complete the journey in a day.You could stop for comfort (piss) and refreshment breaks on the way, as long as you are not deviating from the most direct route.

You're never going to be exempt from insurance ,so in effect the'prebooked MOT' already exists as your amnesty. The fact 5-O won't like it is neither here nor there, the law makes no mention of nearby or reasonable distance etc. I must admit I tend to treat MOT's as something I need to tax a car and often discover I've been driving round without one,if I get a £60 FP it's not the end of the world. The closest I've come to that was last year when a Met Skoda 'Interceptor' pulled alongside me at traffic lights and shouted across to me ' Theres no MOT on that,get it booked in' Probably helped that it was raining!

[RichardMoss]

The fact 5-O won't like it is neither here nor there, the law makes no mention of nearby or reasonable distance etc.

The law doesn't have to - the judiciary have the discretion to interpret it (to a degree) and they consider that you should get the test done within a "reasonable" distance.    No one has defined "reasonable" though!

[gary_davidson]

Wouldn't the ability to hire a set of trade plates give the same result?

[Junkman]

The ideal solution would be the availability of temporary tags, as it is customary all over the world except the United Kingdom.

[pompei]

I would say that if you were driving a heap on trade plates, you would attract the attention of Plod much more than if you chanced it.  

 

I don't know what the law says but I would suspect that slapping on a set of trade plates won't be an excuse if you're pulled when driving a clearly unsafe or defective vehicle.  Anyone know what would happen then?

[alf892]

Trade plates only cover tax anyway.....

[Guest Breadvan72]

The law doesn't have to - the judiciary have the discretion to interpret it (to a degree) and they consider that you should get the test done within a "reasonable" distance.    No one has defined "reasonable" though!

 

 

 Can you please cite a case at High Court level or above to back up what you are saying.      Either the neutral citation or a law report citation will do.   Thanks

[FredTransit]

no MOT as already mentioned is a FP and not endorsable. The road traffic act allows for going to and from a pre booked MOT and most insurance expects you to comply to the RTA for insurance to be valid. So insure it, book an MOT and drive home. The RTA does say you have to go directly to and from without stopping, and that might be difficult over 100s of miles. I still would do it and have!

[Guest Breadvan72]

The law doesn't have to - the judiciary have the discretion to interpret it (to a degree) and they consider that you should get the test done within a "reasonable" distance.    No one has defined "reasonable" though!

 

The requirement for an MoT certificate is contained in section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.  The Motor Vehicle (Tests) Regulations 1981, as amended  (which now have effect as if made under the 1988 Act), contain the exemption for driving a vehicle without a certificate to a pre arranged test.   The relevant provision is as follows

 

"6.(2) Pursuant to section [47(6)] the Secretary of State hereby exempts from section [47(1)] the use of a vehicleâ€â€

(a)

(i) for the purpose of submitting it by previous arrangement for, or bringing it away from, an examination..."

 

 

Note the absence of any distance limitation or requirement as to reasonableness.    No case law on this Regulation is listed by Westlaw. I therefore query RichardMoss's assertion about reasonable distance, but stand to be corrected if there is case law that I have failed to find. 

 

Note also that the Regulation does not require the journey to the MoT station to be conducted in one leap, without stopping for fuel, a sandwich, etc.   The question is for whether the vehicle is being driven for the purpose of submitting it for a pre arranged examination. 

 

I suspect that the idea of a reasonable distance may be a pub myth, propagated by silly websites such as the appalling Honest John, that may have stemmed from an old rule that applied to certain types of vehicle moving from one site to another within an "immediate neighbourhood".  Some Magistrates may perhaps have misinterpreted the Regulation, but the decisions of Magistrates establish no precedent, and no Higher Court appears to have construed the Regulation as containing a requirement of reasonableness.  I would argue that the words of the Regulation are not capable of being so construed, but, as I said, I stand to be corrected if RichardMoss knows of a decision of the High Court or above that is to the contrary.  

 

[michael1703]

The reasonable distance thing is a myth, I asked the vosa guys at my mot testing course, it does still have to be roadworthy but as long as you've got 4 legal tyres,good brakes and all the lights work I wouldn't worry about distance,furthest I've personally done is central london to Norfolk with no mot n tax to a pre booked mot just over 100 miles, but have known and heard of people doing 3 times that distance without problem

[Guest Breadvan72]

A myth indeed, but one that is regularly trotted out on all car fora.  Those who trot it out never seem able to provide any basis for the myth, but maybe Richard will buck the trend.  

 

I once drove a car that I bought in Ireland(it had UK plates) to the ferry at Dublin, and then from Holyhead to London for an MoT test.  I stayed the night in Birmingham.   I am confident that what I did was lawful.  

[RichardMoss]

I'm going by what i was told by west midlands police when i was contemplating driving an un-mot'd car from oxford to wolverhampton. Their traffic department told me that they would regard a journey of that length as being an un-reasonable distance and that in their opinion any other force would say the same. So I rang Thames Valley plods (the Oxford end of the journey) and they did indeed say the same. They said that they would expect me to get an MOT done at or near to the start of the journey and that was that.

 

I worked on the principle that they knew the rules better than I did and that it would be unwise to take the piss

[Tetleysmooth]

 

My idea isn't so bad then really, is it.

 

Just think, I could go to my local old bill shop, get a 'chitty' for the following day, transport myself to Blackpool and drive scooter's T5 back without the fear of being prosecuted. Roadworthiness and insurance pending of course.

[Guest Breadvan72]

I'm going by what i was told by west midlands police when i was contemplating driving an un-mot'd car from oxford to wolverhampton. Their traffic department told me that they would regard a journey of that length as being an un-reasonable distance and that in their opinion any other force would say the same. So I rang Thames Valley plods (the Oxford end of the journey) and they did indeed say the same. They said that they would expect me to get an MOT done at or near to the start of the journey and that was that.

 

I worked on the principle that they knew the rules better than I did and that it would be unwise to take the piss

 

 

Police officers rarely know very much about the law.  That's not a jibe.  it's regrettably true.    Anyway, they were wrong about that one.  

 

BTW, when you referred to the judiciary, were you just bullshitting us?  Why embellish in that way when you were just going on what some ill informed coppers told you?   This is the way that myths propagate.  

[Guest Breadvan72]

My idea isn't so bad then really, is it.

 

Just think, I could go to my local old bill shop, get a 'chitty' for the following day, transport myself to Blackpool and drive scooter's T5 back without the fear of being prosecuted. Roadworthiness and insurance pending of course.

 

 

I suggest that the situation is already provided for by the law, so your idea is redundant.    The last thing that  we need is more regulation, or more power for police officers, especially as they get the existing stuff wrong. 

[Junkman]

I was told - by a policeman - that the police will never pull you over just because the tax disc expired, since enforcing the payment of tax isn't police work. They won't show up at your house when you are in arrears with income tax or VAT either. There are other organisations that enforce taxes.

 

That same policeman also told me, you do not have to buy a tax disc, as long as the V5C hasn't been sent out to you by the DVLA, i.e., as long as the car is on the green slip.

He said, the police will only pull you over, when there are several things wrong, i.e. no tax AND no MoT AND no insurance, but never for no tax alone.

My experience is, if the car is reasonably presentable, i.e. not a total heap, you have insurance, and the green slip is filled out with your address and dated with the date of transfer of ownership of today or yesterday, and you say you just bought it and it's going to be all sorted within the next couple of days, and you didn't drive like an idiot, they wave you on your way.

To be precise, my experience is they leave you alone. I was filling up a car I just had bought and the rozzers filled up at the pump in front of me. They said, oh, nice car and looked suspiciously in the direction of the empty tax disc holder. I said, yeah, I hope so, I just bought it ten minutes ago. They immediately assumed this relaxed stance you have when you just were told you don't have to clean the toilets today, said good luck then, and went on with their business.

[Guest Breadvan72]

There was a case where this came up, it was somebody stopping somewhere on the way there. I can't remember the details, but he won.

 

 

I am not surprised.    If someone was evidently taking the piss  (by, for example, constantly booking and cancelling MoT tests), they might get clobbered, if anyone found them out, but in the ordinary bloke collecting car scenario you would be OK.   I drove my wife's 206 CC from Accrington (where I had bought it) to South Oxon a couple of weeks ago in order to get its MoT.   I mooned my butt cheeks at all cop cars that I passed at 70 mph, as you do, and had no probs.   I had the standard Halford's "Dead Hooker in Boot" sign in the back window, just to make sure.

 

Last year I was stopped in London driving my Beta Spyder.  It had been off the road for repairs, and I had its MoT date mixed up in my head with the date for another car that I owned.  Plod pulled me for having no MoT.  I did all that middle class making eye contact and politeness stuff, was very apologetic, and explained truthfully  that the car was just back on the road after being fixed, and that I had cocked up.  The bloke said OK go and get it done and waved me on my way.  

[Pillock]

If you ever watch the Police! Thugs! Bollocks! type programmes on TV it's plainly obvious they only ever pull people for "no tax" when they want to search the car or have a closer look. It's a means of pulling them over "legitimately" and anything else done there is just coincidence.

[Mr Livered]

^Yup. There's lots of "I'm just stopping you because you weren't wearing a seatbelt - oo, can I smell marijuana?" going on.

 

In other words, if you look like a pot smoker you're likely to get stopped for things others wouldn't.

[Guest Breadvan72]

I always say: "Haven't you got to go off and arrest some black person for being stabbed, Officer?"  That usually works a treat.  

[purplebargeken]

I think this is a brilliant idea but sadly doomed to die on the vine as it relies heavily on the application of being a common sense idea. Coomon sense really isn't that common anymore. 

 

Wishful thinking 

[twosmoke300]

Those police interceptor programs make me laugh when they pull some cretin for no tax, seatbelt or something trivial only to find there is a hundredweight of coke in the boot.

How thick are these people.? If I was doing dodgy Shit like that my motor would be spot on in every respect .

[oldford]

 I asked the vosa guys at my mot testing course, it does still have to be roadworthy but as long as you've got 4 legal tyres,good brakes and all the lights work I wouldn't worry about distance

Was it Clive that you asked?

[Guest Breadvan72]

I think this is a brilliant idea but sadly doomed to die on the vine as it relies heavily on the application of being a common sense idea. Coomon sense really isn't that common anymore. 

 

Wishful thinking 

 

 

The current rules work on a common sense basis.  They allow you to go and fetch a roadworthy car and drive it to an MoT station.  You need insurance but not tax or a test certificate in order to do that.   I don't think that allowing unroadworthy and uninsured jalopes to amble about the roads would be common sense. 

 

Also, if you give any local copper or Desk Sergeant a decision making power, you are creating a system that will be error prone, and also prone to abuse. What if Sarge says no?   What if Sarge is worried that his Chief Constable will be sued by the relatives of someone killed by the unroadworthy heap that he gave the chit to?    

 

What demonstrable need is there for the system you propose?  If the vehicle isn't roadworthy, there are trailers to be rented or borrowed.