Prang - No Mot

[bigbobs cl]

On private ground the Police won`t be interested, they will tell you it`s a Civil matter. Don`t even involve them, just get onto your insurance.

 

[Rory]

On private ground the Police won`t be interested, they will tell you it`s a Civil matter. Don`t even involve them, just get onto your insurance.

I was thinking that too. But perhaps the insurance company may insist on a crime number before they will proceed.

 

[bigbobs cl]

I was thinking that too. But perhaps the insurance company may insist on a crime number before they will proceed.

No need to inform the Police if no-one has been injured, ok the guy drove off but on Private Land they won`t be interested.

 

[prprandall51]

>>don't turn up at the Police Station with a new MoT dated after the date of the incident.

I disagree - of course the police will see the dates, but then they will also see that as soon as you realised there was a problem that you've done something about it, and obtained a new MOT.

Of course, if asked, don't lie about the MOT being out of date when the accident happened.

Agree with you - I meant simply that the OP shouldn't try to pull the wool over the eyes of the Police. I, too, would obtain a new MoT and 'fess up to the expiry of the previous one.

 

[Rory]

No need to inform the Police if no-one has been injured, ok the guy drove off but on Private Land they won`t be interested.

If the public has access it's not private land as far as the Road Traffic Act is concerned. And as it's effectively criminal damage, even if it was private land, you could still report it - most criminal damage surely takes place on private property.

 

[Number_Cruncher]

>>I meant simply that the OP shouldn't try to pull the wool over the eyes of the Police.

Yes, I agree fully - trying to mislead the police would turn what is a fairly minor misdemeanour into something much more serious.

 

[bigbobs cl]

If the public has access it's not private land as far as the Road Traffic Act is concerned. And as it's effectively criminal damage, even if it was private land, you could still report it - most criminal damage surely takes place on private property.

If he had an MOT then fair enough, i`m just saying there is no need to report it!

 

[Rory]

If he had an MOT then fair enough, i`m just saying there is no need to report it!

Agree, but the point is that the insurance may demand a crime number as the other driver failed to stop.

 

[Pug]

You won't get done for not having an MoT on private land.
Thing is... is your insurance valid without one?

 

[tambyrne]

Had a similar experience.
I was hit by a drunk driver in a hotel car park who then sped off. Got reg no and reported him to police who traced him and charged him under sec.5.
I had to take docs to police station mot had expired two weeks previous. The Desk Sergeant told me to get the car mot'd and bring it in when it was done. I did and all I got was a warning. Honesty being the best policy I think.

 

[219]

If the car park is indeed 'private' then your car was off the road .

Who is to say it had not been there for the week since the MOT had expired and was not going anywhere until due for its test ?

It is not an offence to have an expired MOT , only to have driven the car ON THE ROAD without a valid certificate ( other than going to a pre-arranged test or retrning from it ) .

 

[219]

BTW , you don't need to go to the police for the other drivers details - you can write to DVLA , explaining the circumstances and enclosing an enquiry fee ( used to be £5 ) . As long as you can show a valid reason for requiring the information ( you have a witness statement that this vehicle damaged yours ) , you can obtain the registered keeper's name and address .

 

[Peterdon]

Thing is... is your insurance valid without one?

My brother's van was written off by one of his drivers. It was only then he discovered the MOT had expired three months previously. He sent docs to Insurance company as requested and was paid out in full!

 

[dougal74]

The MOT issue will be at the discretion of the insurance company of the other driver given that the OP is third party only. (Assuming, of course, that the other driver has insurance.)

Depending upon the other evidence (private/public land, witnesses etc.) they may choose not to pay up and fight it.

Given the risk the other driver may not have insurance and at which point the Police become involved it may make sense to go through their documents process and answer honestly about the MOT if questioned about it.

 

[SilverSaloon]

insurnace companies can see what insurance company currently covers any reg number along with the policy number.... so why involve the police at all?

just fill in a claim form for your insurance company saying "reg no hit my car" etc.

they should be able to track them down???

 

[jeremytaylor]

You won't get done for not having an MoT on private land.
Thing is... is your insurance valid without one?

That was my first thought too.

You need an MOT for your insurance to be valid when you drive on the Public Highway. On private road, like this, your insurance will still be valid without MOT, as it's not on Public Highway.

Forget the Police, as others have mentioned, just claim via Insurance co. Or take it on the chin if you don't want to or can't claim.

 

[maddog]

That was my first thought too.

You need an MOT for your insurance to be valid when you drive on the Public Highway. On private road, like this, your insurance will still be valid without MOT, as it's not on Public Highway.

Forget the Police, as others have mentioned, just claim via Insurance co. Or take it on the chin if you don't want to or can't claim.

Its a common misconception but you dont need a valid mot or road fund for you insurance to be valid all are totally seperate.

Not having a current MOT may effect the amount you get paid out though

 

[Number_Cruncher]

>>Not having a current MOT may effect the amount you get paid out though

Yes.

What's more relevant is if there are any faults on your car which have materially affected the accident.

Say, for example, that you skid into another car. Whatever the MOT status, if your car is found to have bald tyres, you will have a rough ride, but, if your number plate lamp was found to be defective, it wouldn't affect the way that the accident and claim were handled. Of course, either fault would result in an MOT fail.

Motorists tend to mis-interpret the MOT. It is not, even on the day it is issued, a certificate proving the roadworthiness of the car. All the MOT certificate says is that on such and such a day, the car underwent a series of tests and inspections which it passed.

That series of test and inspections is by no means rigorous and comprehensive - such an MOT would cost a fortune and take many days - it would be more like the Japanese "shaken".

 

[Rory]

Its a common misconception but you dont need a valid mot or road fund for you insurance to be valid all are totally seperate.

Depends what you mean by "valid".

You certainly do need an MOT with some companies - it's written in the policy of mine (Liverpool Victoria) that the insurance is invalid if the car needs an MOT and doesn't have one.

Of course, 3rd party liability is unaffected, but they could seek to recover the 3rd party costs from you.

Same with many companies if you're convicted of drunk driving.

 

[219]

It is a legal requirement to have insurance before you can drive a car to the MOT station - so , if you have a car that has been off the road and has no MOT , your insurance has to cover you when you take it for the pre-arranged test .

I would doubt that the clause in your policy could be used as an excuse to avoid payment under these circumstances .