Acidburn

Quick question for people.

I got pulled over in january and it turns over my mot had run out the previous month and I didn't know. I got issued with a fine. After getting home we've looked at the fine and the officers got his years mixed up, apparently he pulled me over in jan 2012 and not 2013, there is no other dates on the fine and i've not signed it or dated it.

Does it still need paying or could it be contested as its not been done properly?

leedsrhinos126

Just nip down to ur local station, this happened to me a couple of years ago. It was a wrongly dated speeding ticket on my scooter so no points, no fine

Acidburn

cheers thats good to know

LIMITLESS

As said pay them a visit mate

STAFFY OWNER

I think something similar to this has been asked on here before and the general opinion was that it makes no difference. Basically i think the general thought was you broke the rules you pay the fine regardless of a minor technical error on the ticket.

Of course this was only the general thoughts on PassionFord and not necessarily what would actually happen. I think you will still have to pay the fine though unless you get lucky.

Acidburn

ok

i've had a look online and can't see nothing else as well and I no longer have the car as thats now gone

stevieturbo

In the eyes of the law, the police can make whatever fuck ups they wish, and you still get screwed.
Wrong names, dates, registrations, date of birth etc etc....yet somehow the offence they allege has occurred still stands.

IMO if they are so incompetent they cant record simple details accurately, how the hell can they be trusted in their allegations someone has committed an offence ?
And if they are so incompetent they cannot record simple details accurately, they need sacked !

john_p_b

iTrader: (4)

i'd be amazed if you get off on that technicality and lets be fair here, why should you?! no MOT means no insurance so you're lucky that's all he's fined you for. i was still dating docs 2012 mid way through jan, as much as i detest how the police treat motorists it's a human clerical error and nothing more.

fuzzy

i didnt get off when they wrote i was doing 43 in a 50 instead of 43 in a 30, you can take the chance but its weighted against you if you try to fight it.if you lose youlll get a heavier fine and probably an extra point or two and no mot doesnt automatically mean no insurance or he would have charged you with that as well.

Brendan

iTrader: (1)

we all live in hope of competent, decent, un-biased, able to use common sense police!

Just a shame we are not quite there yet.

stevieturbo

A human clerical error ? Are you serious ?

When it comes to them prosecuting someone, absolutely every detail about what they are alleging should be accurate. There is no excuse whatsoever for getting important details wrong. Otherwise they may as well be making the whole thing up.
If they are so incompetent, SACK THEM.

It is really that simple. I'm not allowed mistakes like that in my work, solicitors wouldn't, doctors wouldn't, so why on earth should cops be allowed to ?

stevieturbo

To add. I'd even suggest the cop should also be charged with making a false statement, or else telling blatant lies.

john_p_b

iTrader: (4)

I'd agree the officer should be reprimanded for getting it wrong but it doesn't change the fact the op was still driving a car with no mot! Makes me laugh how some people are so blinded by hatred for the police that they call for a public hanging when the slightest mistake is made! It's not like the officer killed someone or caused any undue stress in anyway. The op is simply clutching at straws to try and get away with an offence he by his own admittance commited.

cjwood555

Not necessarily - the wording of a policy is usually that the vehicle must be in 'roadworthy condition'. Whilst an MOT is evidence in support of this, it is still possible that the vehicle is no-longer roadworthy 11 months down the line. Equally it is possible for a vehicle to be completely roadworthy without having an MOT. It'd be an argument for sure, but passing an MOT subsequently would evidence that the vehicle was previously roadworthy (assuming no work needed to pass). In the case of an accident you'd have to get an engineer's report and argue the toss.

john_p_b

iTrader: (4)

all i based my post on was that in the past when i've had cars laid up i've rang who ever was insuring it at the time and asked if the insurance is still valid with no mot on the vehicle and without fail i've been told no the vehicle must have a current mot certificate.

no point losing sleep over it though eh :thumb:

Rax

iTrader: (1)

My car was stolen in the beginning of November and the MOT had expired three weeks previous.I was saving some money to go on holiday,came back,car gone.
The claim was settled in full and there wasnt even any mention of the m.o.t

fuzzy

itll be the luck of the draw. my mate got a £14000 payout after writing off his mitsu evo even though he'd missed its first due mot by about 3 months. they deducted the cost of a current mot test that he should have had from his payout though.

vaughant

iTrader: (1)

No mot does not carry any point penalties unless in conjunction with no insurance.

I got done years ago for it (after midnight,it had just expired) and after going to court got fined £20 plus £10 costs,found about the same price as an mot!!!!

oriurbo

Yep same happend to me.