MoT and stopped by police. (1 Viewer)

[Minxy]

Easy targets ...
And easy money

Only if they make themselves targets ... if they don't speed they won't be fined.

 

[dunnah01]

I'm now cacking it - thanks..
We're hoping to exchange contracts shortly on a house that's been empty for about 18 months (we've been full timing for over a year). We did one viewing in October last year but not seen it throughout winter. It's a dooer upper so not 100% water tight and there are some big trees in the garden near the house. Before exchange we want to check it's still OK and no severe damage has happened over winter so I've arranged a second viewing on Monday. It's a 200 mile round trip and we've only got the moho to travel in. I'll be taking correspondence from the estate agents and camp site to demonstrate my situation and reason for travel but still worried. Hopefully we'll be OK but still a concern that I might get a wrong officer stopping us.

Just to close out one of the quieter arms of this thread - the trip was very uneventful in the end. Saw a couple of police cars with blues n twos doing something else important but nothing else of concern in the 6 hr trip. Only slight issue was the snow storms in the east but roads were clear. Oh and the house was fine

 

[billym]

Billy,

Parking a vehicle on a road without an MOT is an absolute offence. It’s got to have an MOT just to be there (plus tax and Insurance of course). I’m not sure why you need to define ‘Uses’. The very fact it is on a road is Uses.

Just trying to be helpful

Thanks.
I'm not trying to be confrontational because I just don't know.
I knew the definition of the offence, simply did not know the definition / advice of the term "uses" and wondered if the was any appeal court decisions on it in relation to keeping a vehicle on a road with no MOT.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Emmit]

Thanks.
I'm not trying to be confrontational because I just don't know.
I knew the definition of the offence, simply did not know the definition / advice of the term "uses" and wondered if the was any appeal court decisions on it in relation to keeping a vehicle on a road with no MOT.

"Thanks (for nothing)?

You are being confrontational with comments like that to me.

I am not being obstructive in not giving you Chapter and Verse on this because I am 20yrs. down the line from the most confrontational Job in the Job. If you want up to date advice I'm not your man.. After all, would you take advice re electrics from a bloke who was into Red/Black wiring or a plumber who exclusively used lead piping? No, I didn't think so.

For what it's worth, I do not think there are any stated cases with regard to the word 'USE' when applied to the owner of a motor vehicle 'using' when the vehicle is merely parked on a road. That's because the Law in this case encapsulates common sense.
One 'Owner' did try to claim he wasn't using it when he was sat in the passenger seat (I think he had a broken limb) but the Courts decided he was using it. Had he not been in the vehicle and allowed the driver to use it, the owner would have been prosecuted for 'Permitting' .

It might help you to understand the concept of the word 'Use' if you you think around the phrase, " Have Use of'
As the owner, you 'Have Use of' your vehicle even though you aren't using it.

I recall several years watching a former colleague who had rose to the dizzy heights of Chief Constable (Meredydd Hughes CBE QPM)

At the time, there was a campaign to prevent the 'USE of mobile phones when driving. (Stay with me)

He was asked about the lawfulness of handling a phone when one was the driver. He said, and this has stayed with me.
"If you have the phone in your hand, YOU ARE USING IT. Even if you aren't 'ON THE PHONE'

I hope that analogy helps you understand the concept. If you have the keys in your pocket, you are using it.
You 'Have the use of' it. when you're not in it.

 

[grumps147]

Another ‘just a speeder that’s no real problem is it’, who apparently in this case doesn’t much care about anything or anyone else, but if he had not been stopped for speeding the next one he collided with may have been you or yours. Talk about a full house ....

Covid: Speeding driver stopped during 200-mile trip to 'buy food'

A motorist from Staffordshire tells police in West Yorkshire he visited Bradford to buy food.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[David and Sally]

Car seized. Great result

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Nigel P]

Thanks.
I'm not trying to be confrontational because I just don't know.
I knew the definition of the offence, simply did not know the definition / advice of the term "uses" and wondered if the was any appeal court decisions on it in relation to keeping a vehicle on a road with no MOT.

Dunthorne v Bentley (1999) decided that a car that had run out of fuel and parked whilst the driver left it to get help was being 'used' when someone else collided with the driver whilst she was crossing the road to get help. You could probably extend the same principle to any vehicle 'parked' for whatever reason.

 

[Poursay]

Well Minxy girl, who decides if someone is speeding? A few years ago, when we lived in Warwickshire, we were going up to Manchester airport via the M6, my wife normally falls asleep in the car and it was early morning ( 1-2.00 am ) so our daughter( 17 year old ) was in the front passenger seat. I was taking it easy, speedo showing no more than 75/ 80 when I saw blue flashing lights behind me. Slowed to show 70, eventually he flashed his lights at me and I pulled over. He asked me to get in his car and then told me I had been doing over 100! I told him that my Speedo was showing nothing like that and as the car was only some 6 weeks old I would have it checked on my return. He said he would process the case and as we were going on hols for some 10 days I couldn’t get into show my insurance etc. When I got back into the car, I told my family what had happened and my daughter immediately replied that was impossible as she had been looking at my Speedo and told my wife that it was a good job dad wasn’t in a rush and was only doing about 75.
on my return I wrote to the Staffordshire cops asking what was happening as I would strongly contest any case with the info. A short while later I got a phone call from a very senior officer saying that the case was dropped. Was the cop looking for a bribe or just an out and out liar? No other cop in the car with him as witness.

 

[Northernraider]

Well Minxy girl, who decides if someone is speeding? A few years ago, when we lived in Warwickshire, we were going up to Manchester airport via the M6, my wife normally falls asleep in the car and it was early morning ( 1-2.00 am ) so our daughter( 17 year old ) was in the front passenger seat. I was taking it easy, speedo showing no more than 75/ 80 when I saw blue flashing lights behind me. Slowed to show 70, eventually he flashed his lights at me and I pulled over. He asked me to get in his car and then told me I had been doing over 100! I told him that my Speedo was showing nothing like that and as the car was only some 6 weeks old I would have it checked on my return. He said he would process the case and as we were going on hols for some 10 days I couldn’t get into show my insurance etc. When I got back into the car, I told my family what had happened and my daughter immediately replied that was impossible as she had been looking at my Speedo and told my wife that it was a good job dad wasn’t in a rush and was only doing about 75.
on my return I wrote to the Staffordshire cops asking what was happening as I would strongly contest any case with the info. A short while later I got a phone call from a very senior officer saying that the case was dropped. Was the cop looking for a bribe or just an out and out liar? No other cop in the car with him as witness.

Just a chancer hoping you'd just accept it . I had one claiming i was doing over 90 once and that he had it on video

3 times he played the video to me as at no time had i went over 75 as the car was on cruise at 72mph.
the only reason id went up to 75 was because when id pulled out to overtake a car entering the motorway off the slip road he'd sped up my rear end with headlights on full beam so i had to go faster to get out his way ..
I then pulled in once passed the car and he came in behind me with blues and twos going.

After him arguing for a good 10 minutes and trying frantically to produce his non exsistant evidence suddenly his partner claimed they had a call to an emergency and had to go

Of course i was still given a lecture about my dangerous driving blah blah blah because they are never wrong or at fault

I only wish id had a rear view dash cam running.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[nicholsong]

Don't forget that Magistrate Court, Crown Court and County Court decisions are not precedents to be followed by courts at the same level, although a party to proceedings may introduce those decisions as persuasive, but the court can go against those previous decisions.

High Court decisions are binding on lower courts, but can be overturned on appeal. Appeal Court decisions are binding on al lower courts as are Supreme Court decisions.

So quoting any case decision is only useful if one considers at what court level the decision was made.

Geoff

 

[nicholsong]

I have been stopped by British Police on the following occasions

1 Embankment in London for old tube breathalyser - showed over on one side of tube/under on other , Inspector called over 'Far to go Sir? on your way' Fair treatment.

2 Stopped in Cheshire after wine bar, panda car(solo officer) noticed tax out of date(applied for), no allegation of bad driving in 1 mile and several junctions, breathalysed, never saw result. Again 'How far to go? On your way.

3 Stopped on M4 near junction 15 eastbound, after a couple o drinks. 'Routine check Sir. No questions about drink, no breathalyser. Think he was just talking while his oppo checked the vehicle on the radio.

4 Stopped near home in London in my Jersey registered car on a Sat, arrested, taken to station on suspicion of driving a stolen vehicle(?), bailed. Turned out Jersey police records were out-of-date and registration office was closed. Mon called in for profuse apologies from an Inspector and a panda to run me over to the police pound to collect my car.

5 Only time I had a short altercation with a policeman was when a motorcycle patrol pulled me up for advancing half over the junction waiting fot the green light on right turn. He said 'I am telling you what the law is' and my response was 'I think Parliament and the Courts decide on that' - cheeky I know but the light was green and it was 1355 and the polce garage is one mile away so I reckoned it was his end of 06-14 shift.

I used to drink in the pub where 4 police units drank.

1 River police- lovely bunch of lads, especially, or because,considering what they had to lift out of the river sometimes.

2 Motor-cycle 'close escourt'(?) Royal etc. Also good bunch.

3 Regular M/C Traffic - not so friendly- some, but not all.

4 'Heavy Mob' - only saw them when they came in to celebrate a big 'bust' - stood in a circle, spoke to nobody, did not even acknowledge a 'Hello', drank 6-8 pints, pulled out their car keys and said I am off now boys - no respect for their image in public, - they do a tough job but keep it in the family - maybe they should have their own bars.

As you see from the above I have had good and fair/lenient treatment by the police over 60 years so I have no complaint myself.

Geoff

[Forgot to mention by 4 convictions for burglary and 2 for GBH - pleas keep them quiet]

 

[Paulypaul]

Coincidentally this appeared in the press:

Man fined after driving from Colchester to Norfolk to 'get his car fixed'

A man who drove from Colchester to Great Yarmouth to "get his car fixed" was hit with a £200 fine for breaching lockdown rules.

www.edp24.co.uk

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[billym]

"Thanks (for nothing)?

You are being confrontational with comments like that to me.

I am not being obstructive in not giving you Chapter and Verse on this because I am 20yrs. down the line from the most confrontational Job in the Job. If you want up to date advice I'm not your man.. After all, would you take advice re electrics from a bloke who was into Red/Black wiring or a plumber who exclusively used lead piping? No, I didn't think so.

For what it's worth, I do not think there are any stated cases with regard to the word 'USE' when applied to the owner of a motor vehicle 'using' when the vehicle is merely parked on a road. That's because the Law in this case encapsulates common sense.
One 'Owner' did try to claim he wasn't using it when he was sat in the passenger seat (I think he had a broken limb) but the Courts decided he was using it. Had he not been in the vehicle and allowed the driver to use it, the owner would have been prosecuted for 'Permitting' .

It might help you to understand the concept of the word 'Use' if you you think around the phrase, " Have Use of'
As the owner, you 'Have Use of' your vehicle even though you aren't using it.

I recall several years watching a former colleague who had rose to the dizzy heights of Chief Constable (Meredydd Hughes CBE QPM)

At the time, there was a campaign to prevent the 'USE of mobile phones when driving. (Stay with me)

He was asked about the lawfulness of handling a phone when one was the driver. He said, and this has stayed with me.
"If you have the phone in your hand, YOU ARE USING IT. Even if you aren't 'ON THE PHONE'

I hope that analogy helps you understand the concept. If you have the keys in your pocket, you are using it.
You 'Have the use of' it. when you're not in it.

Dunthorne v Bentley (1999) decided that a car that had run out of fuel and parked whilst the driver left it to get help was being 'used' when someone else collided with the driver whilst she was crossing the road to get help. You could probably extend the same principle to any vehicle 'parked' for whatever reason.

Thanks for the replies .

Dunthorne v Bentley is pretty much what I was looking for, ( albeit insurance) and confirms my earlier comment that the word ' use' is not as black and white as some may assume.


It took three Supreme Court Judges to rule on that one specific case.

Broken Link Removed

 

[Emmit]

The result of that case would seem to be, as you are sailing into the air having been knocked down by a passing car after running out of the 'van to buy an Ice Cream,

"Bu&&er, I didn't get a chance to get the van MOTed. I wonder if I'll get 'done'

Least of your problems!

To be cont.

Having read that judgement, (admittedly not to the standard I would have in another life), that case revolved not so much about whether the lady who was knocked down was 'using' the vehicle but more that the Insurance Co. that she was Insured by were trying to disassociate themselves from any liability in paying out the driver of the car that knocked the lady down.

That case was less to do with 'using' and more a case of wriggling out of a monetary liability.
What it did state, in the end was that, even though the disabled vehicle was broken down and unoccupied, it was still being 'Used'
,

 

[Chris]

If a commodity is sold and purchased, the transfer of ownership of said commodity becomes essential, whether its a pallet of cornflakes, a box of bubble wrap or a boat.

In this instance, the vendor required his mooring in Plymouth to be vacated and the purchaser in Woodbridge, my customer, wasn't too keen on paying over £300 per month for moorings down in Plymouth when he is already paying for moorings at Woodbridge. He wasn't too keen on leaving his £160,000 boat down in Plymouth either.

I recently moved a 12m RNLI rib from West Wales to Norfolk. Perhaps I should have refused to do it as moving a boat isn't essential

Do you need to show if it’s an essential journey if it’s work related?

If your work is to transfer big boats from A to B I don’t see why you should have to justify it. It’s not as if you can work from home after all.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Paulypaul]

Do you need to show if it’s an essential journey if it’s work related?

If your work is to transfer big boats from A to B I don’t see why you should have to justify it. It’s not as if you can work from home after all.

Exactly my point!

 

[Nigel P]

The result of that case would seem to be, as you are sailing into the air having been knocked down by a passing car after running out of the 'van to buy an Ice Cream,

"Bu&&er, I didn't get a chance to get the van MOTed. I wonder if I'll get 'done'

Least of your problems!

To be cont.

Having read that judgement, (admittedly not to the standard I would have in another life), that case revolved not so much about whether the lady who was knocked down was 'using' the vehicle but more that the Insurance Co. that she was Insured by were trying to disassociate themselves from any liability in paying out the driver of the car that knocked the lady down.

That case was less to do with 'using' and more a case of wriggling out of a monetary liability.
What it did state, in the end was that, even though the disabled vehicle was broken down and unoccupied, it was still being 'Used'
,

Totally agree! It was a result of an insurance wriggle; but to my knowledge it has not been advanced by any other cases. I referred to it as it illustrated the principle that you do not have to be in a vehicle to be using it. Should anyone try to argue in a court that a parked vehicle was not being 'used' it is quite likely to be seen as the prevailing legal position. Hope it goes some way to answering the question about definition of 'use'.

 

[Nigel P]

Coincidentally this appeared in the press:

Man fined after driving from Colchester to Norfolk to 'get his car fixed'

A man who drove from Colchester to Great Yarmouth to "get his car fixed" was hit with a £200 fine for breaching lockdown rules.

www.edp24.co.uk

Just shows you cannot legislate against stupidity, although it should be a fixed penalty offence it its own right!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}