Motoring Legal Questions - Drls And Private Plates...

[Iggle Piggle]

Hi Legal Beagles, I am after some legally accurate answers to the following before I approach a barrister and hand over my hard earned dough...

a) If a miss-spaced 'Private plate' displayed on a vehicle would fail an MOT, that means the car is un-roadworthy and thus uninsured, am I correct?
Hypothetically, if i am hit by a car with a miss-spaced private plate, could I claim that they are not insured and sue them privately?

b) Some new Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) switch on/off automatically when indicating or turning the steering wheel (make/model dependent). How do these lights satisfy The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 Regulation 13 that demands a "steady light".

Just stirring up the mire....

[Zacs-Master]

Your first mistake is to assume that no MOT means no insurance. It doesn't necessarily follow.

[EDDIE51]

As said, no MOT does NOT mean no insurance ! That one has been on here many times. No MOT is only a fixed penalty offence not even points on your licence. It has happened to me.
The lighting regulations refer to nighttime lights for use after 'lighting up time ' not daytime running lights.

[Zacs-Master]

To be fair tho Eddie, the lights do exactly the same thing in the dark.
I'm pretty sure the DVLA, insurance companies and safety bodies overcame the 'steady' irregularities when flashing indicators were introduced many decades ago.

[Iggle Piggle]

Well, I've checked the small print on both my current insurance and previous insurance and they both state that if my vehicle does not have a current MOT then the insurance is void. I guess different companies are more slack with this.

I still think DRLs that switch on/off automatically are 'flashing' in legal terms. I will seek a substantive answer from my Barrister, I'm thinking of very red faces at the car manufacturers if this is carried to court!

[Iggle Piggle]

Indicators are excluded from Regulations, DRLs, it appears are not.

Lamps to show a steady light
13.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no vehicle shall be fitted with a lamp which automatically emits a flashing light.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply in respect of–
(a)a direction indicator;
(b)a headlamp fitted to an emergency vehicle;
(c)a warning beacon or special warning lamp;
(d)a lamp or illuminated sign fitted to a vehicle used for police purposes;
(e)a green warning lamp used as an anti-lock brake indicator; or
(f)lamps forming part of a traffic sign.

[Zacs-Master]

Well, good luck but I'm pretty sure who will have the red face.

[Buenchico]

The insurance cover which is required by law (i.e. 'third party') can't be voided by things such as having no valid MOT certificate. If you cause an accident which results in injury or damage to another person or their vehicle the insurer must pay out. However:
(a) the insurer would then be entitled to return your premium and seek to recover their loss from you because you've not complied with the conditions of the insurance ; and
(b) any additional cover beyond 'third party' (such as fire, theft or the remaining parts of a fully comprehensive policy) CAN be directly voided through, say, having no MOT certificate.

i.e. You can't be prosecuted for having no insurance simply because you've got no MOT (because the insurer is obliged to pay out to an innocent third party motorist if you're involved in an accident) but you can still lose out from the benefits which would otherwise be covered by your policy.

[Hopkirk]

The daytime running lights do not flash when the indicators flash - they switch off.

[Hopkirk]

Also on your first point you are stretching it to say a car that would fail an MOT effectively has no MOT. It has an MOT until it fails. I would also take issue that failing on number plate spacing makes it unroadworthy.

[alavahalf]

"a) If a miss-spaced 'Private plate' displayed on a vehicle would fail an MOT, that means the car is un-roadworthy and thus uninsured, am I correct? "

No your wrong..
The vehicle in question would't leave the MOT station with a new MOT, should the doctored number plate be displayed on the vehicle, at the time of testing.
Should the driver of the vehicle alter the plate after obtaining the MOT, then the offence is a statutory fine.
It doesn't deem the driver to have no insurance.
A friend of mine drives a 6ltr ML and regularly gets stopped by the Police for the altered private plate .. she is happy to pay the £60 fine and insurance is never mentioned.

[Ryzen]

alav.....will your mate be happy when the cops report it to the DVLA and they take his plate off him?

[Zacs-Master]

Her

[alavahalf]

Must say I have never heard of a private plate being repossesed. But yes it would annoy her, as she paid £20k for it.
She would propably just transfer one of her other private plates held on retention and use that I guess.

[Ryzen]

alav....she paid £20k for a plate that requires miss spacing to have a meaning..oh dear.

[Hopkirk]

Yes, some people have too much money.

[sunny-dave]

AB15 ARS?

[Zacs-Master]

Private registrations are registered to the car, not the person.

[sunny-dave]

Not when on retention Zacs - that is to a person, not a vehicle.

[Zacs-Master]

Correct but the OP relates to one which is on a vehicle.

[Ryzen]

The mark is registered to the vehicle or person if its on a retention ..however you are only given the 'right' to use the mark.If you breach the DVLA rules they can confiscate.That said, whilst there are people willing to keep paying fines of up to £1000,and as yet,no penalty points why should they.The DVLA sell many expensive marks that require 'tweaking' to have any meaning and print a warning on the V948 authorisation cert.