'Dodgy' used Corvette's

[James Vette]

Another way to catch you out and get in trouble!

 

[phild]

My view is that an MoT, whether legally needed or not, is cheap insurance. For £50 a year its reassuring to have an agnostic second pair of eyes check things over. Particularly as they have access to equipment that I don't have such as brake testing on rollers etc.

 

[Roscobbc]

For me the low point right now is a thread in the remembrance section that has ended up with contacts being exchanged between members. I had brought it to the attention of a moderator but it fell on deaf ears.

Now done!

 

[Corvette]

Thank you Ross.

 

[Forrest Gump]

I guess it is so the vehicle is recorded on the system as opposed to someone driving about in an un taxed vehicle that is not historic . Otherwise according to DVLA and ANPR cameras we would all show up as untaxed .

And it’s just the press of a button or two if they decide to change the tax exemption.

 

[CaptainK]

Some ones gonna have to sell it one day , or are you going to be buried in it like a Viking chieftain in his longship ?

Now that does sound like a plan. Though it'd be a waste of a good car, and I couldn't do that. It'll be passed down the family. Maybe eventually they'll sell it, but hey hum I'll be long dead

 

[Stingray]

1. In your terminology a dangerous fail is akin to administrative.

2. The law changed a couple of years ago. If your car has a dangerous fail you would only have to drive past an ANPR camera for you to receive an automatic fixed penalty for driving a car that has a dangerous MOT fail. No inspection is required.

1. That is absolutely not what I said but if you want to be argumentative that's fine.

2. The law still focuses on the concept of roadworthiness.

A car may have had a "dangerous fail" and then been professionally repaired but not yet put through another MOT although it will pass. So it,
(a) had a dangerous fail,
(b) is roadworthy, but
(b) doesn't yet have an MOT,
The only offence committed is "no MOT".

 

[Oneball]

1. That is absolutely not what I said but if you want to be argumentative that's fine.

2. The law still focuses on the concept of roadworthiness.

A car may have had a "dangerous fail" and then been professionally repaired but not yet put through another MOT although it will pass. So it,
(a) had a dangerous fail,
(b) is roadworthy, but
(b) doesn't yet have an MOT,
The only offence committed is "no MOT".

I wasn’t trying to be argumentative, I was trying to show how the law changed a couple of years ago.

I apologise if I’ve offended you. I will no longer express my opinion but advise that anyone read the appropriate legislation.