This is handy for checking over a cars MOT history more so if your in the market for a car and you want to know its history.
mot-history.net/
|
>> mot-history.net/
A useful link, NBD/Sir. Particularly as they are showing the relevant mileage on more recent vehicles.
re NBD/Sir. Delete as you see fit.
|
Great info.
A company car I had from new in 2007 to 2009 had its last MOT in 2012 at 67k miles.
The car was a 3.2l v6 petrol Audi A4 convertible and cost about £35k. (I would love another one!)
Some of the advisories were for balding tyres. I wonder if that is the reason as to why it didn't get another MOT?
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 17 Oct 15 at 14:05
|
Mileage shown for 2008 and on MOT for the Morgan, but it's hardly recent, car was built in 1930!
Interestingly, it does not show the vehicle is now MOT exempt, just that it's not got one.
|
Thanks
Very useful..when buying a s/h car..
(should be fun on ebay in banger section)
Last edited by: madf on Sat 17 Oct 15 at 15:03
|
>> Interestingly, it does not show the vehicle is now MOT exempt, just that it's not
>> got one.
>>
Same on my 1942 Harley. The Police National Computer has a similar blind spot which led to me being pulled in one night by Dyfed-Powys' finest, ultimately resulting in an apology from thier superior for them having wasted my time.
I trust that, like me, you've learned to tick "yes" to the MOT question on the on-line form when re-taxing the Mog!
Last edited by: Harleyman on Tue 20 Oct 15 at 22:30
|
My car had its annual MOT/service in January and I told them that a dip bulb had failed a couple of days earlier and asked that it could be replaced. When I checked on the MOT website, I was reminded that the car had first failed due to a dud bulb, but passed on a retest after the bulb had been replaced.
The garage is, by experience, a very decent organisation - and I am wondering why, seeing as I had informed them about the bulb when I took it in, they chose to test the car and fail it BEFORE doing the replacement. Could it be because it would help boost their 'number failed' statistic. I wasn't 'charged' for the 'retest'.
|
Remarkable: my blue 1998 Saab, which was replaced by the S60 in 2002, had its last MoT three years later, with 95,000 miles added to the 54,000 I did in it. Odd that it seems to have lasted only seven or eight years, though; accident, perhaps.
The S60 passed an MoT in June, two weeks after I offloaded it, so presumably it was bought by the kind of dealer Alanović frequents. Its last two tests with me are shown as fails - one for a failed number plate bulb, the other an opportunist garage picking on the grubby but legible plates themselves - but don't show the subsequent pass. Similarly, I paid only one test fee each time.
|
The Jowett doesn't figure at all......I feel left out !
|
>> Its last two tests with
>> me are shown as fails - one for a failed number plate bulb,
Mine shows similar for a test three years ago. It also shows the same advisory year after year - a message to effect that engine cover obstructs view of the works.
|
Mine shows similar for a test three years ago. It also shows the same advisory year after year - a message to effect that engine cover obstructs view of the works.
With older and specialist vehicles, like the Morgan four wheeler I had, advisories are often a graphic illustration of how little the tester actually understands. I had advisories for things the car would have had if you tested a brand new one.
|
>> With older and specialist vehicles, like the Morgan four wheeler I had, advisories are often
>> a graphic illustration of how little the tester actually understands. I had advisories for things
>> the car would have had if you tested a brand new one.
>>
I've had that before with the Harleys. Front downtube of a 45 frame is curved by design (otherwise it would foul the front wheel) but on one occasion I had to take a selection of reference books and photographs of other bikes to the MOT tester to prove that if mine was faulty, so were 88,000 others!
And don't get me started on taper roller bearings. As most of you will know, a very small amount of play in same is essential; I've had several testers who simply do not understand this.
|
And don't get me started on taper roller bearings. As most of you will know, a very small amount of play in same is essential; I've had several testers who simply do not understand this.
Yup, never had it on an MOT thankfully, but one 'clever' scrutineer on a competitive (tarmac) hillclimb insisted I removed the play before I was allowed to compete. Of course, as soon as he was out of sight, I then readjusted the bearings to make the car safe.
|
>>
>>
>> And don't get me started on taper roller bearings. As most of you will know,
>> a very small amount of play in same is essential; I've had several testers who
>> simply do not understand this.
>>
I've given up having my annual conversation with the tester for three different cars on this subject, so just tighten them by half a nut castelation before the test and ease them off again afterwards. (VW would have a program that did that automatically)
Every year my regular and friendly tester remarked that there was a bit of play in the front wheel bearings, and I explained about taper roller bearings. He always let it pass and we agreed to differ. But it gets tedious, and it's better to save his goodwill and use it on some other near-fail.
|
The garage is, by experience, a very decent organisation - and I am wondering why, seeing as I had informed them about the bulb when I took it in, they chose to test the car and fail it BEFORE doing the replacement. Could it be because it would help boost their 'number failed' statistic. I wasn't 'charged' for the 'retest'.
Yes, exactly as you suspected. VOSA expect a certain percentage of fails and that was the reason they did it. A dealer who has a MOT testing station is pretty well always going to do this as in reality, they mostly test well maintained cars, so a crude analysis of the figures would otherwise suggest they were passing cars that ought not be.
I think the rules for a test allow for a free re-test of the failed item only if the car is not taken away so they may not be doing as much of a favour as you think.
|
"I think the rules for a test allow for a free re-test of the failed item only if the car is not taken away so they may not be doing as much of a favour as you think."
Don't get me wrong, I didn't, in any way, see that as 'doing me a favour'. Let's face it, as I had informed them about the bulb first, they would have faced a flurry of fists, if not a Molotov cocktail!
As I say, they are a decent outfit - and that's why I thought it might simply be to massage the stats, with no harm done to me.
|
|
Great site. Also interesting to check back over the history of previously owned cars to see what mileage and what condition they're on/like now.
|
Odd. My scooter has a current MOT and is included; as is the old side-valve which is now exempt and was last tested in 2011.
Neither the modern Sportster nor the Electraglide, both of whose tests have expired in the last couple of months, show up even for historic results. The former I've owned for nearly nine years.
|
|
Also odd. Dealer has just emailed me to say MOT is due on 11th November. Site says 12th December. Which do I believe without moving from my sofa?
|
Not sure but when and how did you buy the car? The MB dealer that sold us the LEC MoT'd it before we picked it up but still sends us reminders based on its date of registration, about two months earlier.
Found another 'feature' of the site: the TDS wore a vanity plate while it was with its first owner, but the MoT history shows only the two (!) done by the dealer under its present number. Might make things trickier for those wanting to check the history of a possible purchase.
|
>> Found another 'feature' of the site: the TDS wore a vanity plate while it was
>> with its first owner, but the MoT history shows only the two (!) done by
>> the dealer under its present number.
Intriguing. Mine was delivered to us new in March 2005 on an 05 plate. It took Mrs B's personal plate (a family heirloom!) from June that year until transferred to our newer Berlingo in September 2013. At that point it reverted to the original 05 plate.
The MoT site shows its full history back to first test in 2008. Also disclosed it had no valid MoT for a week or so in 2009 when I forgot about it.
|
>> Also odd. Dealer has just emailed me to say MOT is due on 11th November.
>> Site says 12th December. Which do I believe without moving from my sofa?
>>
MOTs can be carried out up to a month early so can run for 13 months can't they? I wonder if your dealer is using that to try and drum up some business in November? Nthough the days still day quite tie up...
|
|
My S60, sold in 2009 with 155k was MOT'd last year with 99k and 2 years before that with 116k. Based on that, the mileage records are questionable at best.
Last edited by: DP on Sun 18 Oct 15 at 07:51
|
|
A few a did came up the similar, like you say I think the mileage part is a bit iffy.
|
There's no logic to the mileage on my old CBR1000...something like three miles in-between MoTs ...can the testing station be that close...?
|
"There's no logic to the mileage on my old CBR1000...something like three miles in-between MoTs ...can the testing station be that close...?"
I'm afraid it got like that with my old Suzuki until logic kicked in and I sold it.
|
>> As I say, they are a decent outfit - and that's why I thought it
>> might simply be to massage the stats, with no harm done to me.
I've had this happen twice - a pass but with a fail behind it that I didn't know about until handed the paperwork. Once is trusted village garage and once at a franchised dealer.
Both times they told me they are required to test the cars as presented to the garage for the reasons mentioned earlier - to get a picture of how cars on the road are.
I've since been told by an MOT tester that this isn't quite correct - the rule is "as presented for the test" and there's nothing to stop the garage fettling the car first. It seems obvious though that this would distort the stats.
|
I'm all in favour of the transparency!
I've checked a few old company cars, just out of interest really. One of my favourites, a silver A4 Avant with a lovely blue interior, did 40k miles in the 18 months I had it. T622KBL finally expired in 2012 with just under 200k miles on the clock and with a reasonably none eventful history. I like to think it was used and looked after until something terminal happened :). I wonder if the current owner of FP03SDY, a grey Audi Avant that again did around 40k miles in 18 months, is a very low mileage driver though...or if there's been some mileage 'correction'? It's currently still MOT'ed and has under 100k on the clock apparently....
Quite a few no longer appear, though they are perhaps of the type to end up on private plates? On the whole it's the larger Merc and BMWs that seem to have disappeared?
|
>> Quite a few no longer appear, though they are perhaps of the type to end
>> up on private plates? On the whole it's the larger Merc and BMWs that seem
>> to have disappeared?
>>
Exported (stolen or legally?)
|
>>
>> Exported (stolen or legally?)
>>
Yes, good point.... Hadn't considered that. A couple of MB E class estates have disappeared, along with one 525d touring and an E90 330i. Possible Eastern European fodder in some way shape or form?
|
My old Corsa, which blew its head gasket after I spent a fortune on a MAF, new tyres, new shocks front and back, new springs, and general servicing is still on the road 6 years after I sold it for £300. Has done 114,000 miles now, had done around 85k when I got shot of it.
Failed its MOT on the usual things since I got rid of it. Is over 16 years old now so perhaps I should have kept it, but then I like my Panda and that still has a good ten years of service left in it.
|
>> Quite a few no longer appear, though they are perhaps of the type to end
>> up on private plates? On the whole it's the larger Merc and BMWs that seem
>> to have disappeared?
My old MB is still going. I sold it in 2008 with 215,000 miles on the clock. In two months time it will be 16 years old.
• Vehicle make MERCEDES
• Vehicle model E 320
• Date first used 4 January 2001
• Fuel type Diesel
• Colour Silver
MOT history of this vehicle
• Test date 15 April 2014
• Expiry date 14 April 2015
• Test Result Pass
• Odometer reading 238,222 miles
|
Might like to check the arithmetic there, Duncan.
};---)
|
I sold my Phaeton before it needed an MOT. Close enough though so that I would expect its first MOT was done almost immediately by the garage that bought it.
However, its 2nd MOT failure points and advisories make me quite convinced I sold it at the right time. Although I was expecting electrical difficulties, not mechanical; it would appear that all the front suspension arm bushes and ball joints fell apart together.
Although I do wonder how the following can be ONLY an advisory?
"both front tyres heavily worn on inner edges close to cords in places"
|
|
It shows that my Peugeot 207 which was registered in April 2011 had its first MOT in December 2013, 5 months before its 3rd birthday which seems a bit odd (I had sold it at 2 years old)
|
I checked one car I had for four years. One MOT when I had it was/is down as a fail but that tells me the test station lied and got extra work. It says the wipers weren't clearing the screen and I remember they were replaced.... except they were brand new! I assumed they'd just swapped them and not logged an initial fail.
The car, a 53 plate Mondeo diesel, is still going it seems. But in 2006 they had failed in (before presumably fixing it) for:
Offside Headlamp aim too high (1.8)
Twelve months later they failed it because:
Offside Front Headlamp aim too low (1.8)
But they were the last ones to adjust it!
Mileage shot up in the first 3.5 years after I no longer had it to well over 90k miles. But you'd think a car with this list of problems in 2013 was going to fail:
Nearside Rear Direction indicator not working (1.4.A.2c)
Offside Side repeater not working (1.4.A.2c)
Offside Front Seat belt stitching badly frayed (5.2.2b)
Nearside Front Brake pad(s) less than 1.5 mm thick (3.5.1g)
Offside Front Brake pad(s) less than 1.5 mm thick (3.5.1g)
Offside Rear Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.1.E.1)
Emissions not tested (7.0)
Brakes imbalanced across an axle (3.7.B.5b)
|
|
What's shocking is the back story of cars in dangerous condition going for an MoT....my wife's old Audi S3 Quattro is on there, two tyres down to the wires one defective, and other defects. Doesn't anyone even give their car a casual once over before an MoT these days ?
|
I've told people in the past when I've spotted brake lights/indicators/etc out... often the response was: 'Yeh I know'. And they made it clear they didn't want telling/reminding.
Probably the same muppets driving whilst talking on their handheld phone. Even in cars that probably have Bluetooth handsfree! Nice to see someone steering and changing gears on a manual car whilst holding a mobile. That takes skill.
|
|
It frightens me. I know of a Belgian biker who was "grounded" by the Police recently for having a defective. Not allowed to move until a new tyre was fitted. Shocking for a biker to risk that.
|
The Fiesta failed on this lot in 2008 under my parents ownership!
rear brake application uneven (3.7.B.2)
Nearside Rear rear parking brake recording little or no effort (3.7.B.6a)
Nearside Front Windscreen wiper does not clear the windscreen effectively (8.2.2)
Offside Front Windscreen wiper does not clear the windscreen effectively (8.2.2)
Rear fog lamp switch faulty (1.3.1a)
Offside Rear Rear fog lamp not working (1.3.2b)
Offside Front Headlamp aim too low (1.8)
Nearside Rear Registration plate lamp not working (1.1.C.1d)
Nearside Rear Brake pipe excessively corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Offside Rear Brake pipe excessively corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)
Advisory notice item(s)
Nearside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
Offside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
Front and rear number plates becoming discoloured
I knew about the tyres but we decided to get it MOT'ed first in case it err failed. I remember it didn't actually cost a lot to sort that lot out.
Each year after that it failed on usual Fiesta stuff, suspension related mostly.
My Panda this year did have a couple of advisories:-
Nearside Rear Shock absorber has a light misting of oil (2.7.3)
rear wiper blade split
rear exhaust box corroded and has slight blow
I got the shock absorbers replaced on Friday, the exhaust I am leaving as it has many skins and it isn't blowing so no point on fixing something that isn't broken. The rear blade was done at MOT time.
Me and my mechanic both disagreed with the back box having a blow and just put it down to an over zealous MOT inspector. Interestingly I put in a neighbours Fiat 500, as they bought the car new just 3 weeks before mine. There car also as exactly the same advisory for the back box.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Sun 18 Oct 15 at 20:07
|
|
funnily enough, it has mine down for a fail last time out, and a pass. Same date, same mileage. I came out of the test centre with a pass in my hand so who the hell knows WTF went on with the system.
|
Great!
Just looked up the V reg Honda Accord 2.0 we owned before the Focus, sold in 2007. Last tested in 2011, when it failed:
Nearside Front Direction indicators incorrect colour (1.4.A.2f)
Offside Front Direction indicators incorrect colour (1.4.A.2f)
Nearside Rear Direction indicators incorrect colour (1.4.A.2f)
Offside Rear Direction indicators incorrect colour (1.4.A.2f)
Nearside Side repeater incorrect colour (1.4.A.2f)
Offside Side repeater incorrect colour (1.4.A.2f)
Nearside Front Headlamp aim aimed so that it dazzles other road users (1.8.A.1a)
Offside Front Headlamp aim aimed so that it dazzles other road users (1.8.A.1a)
+ others
Sounds like someone tried to chav it up?
Looked up the Focus (Y reg, sold in 2012) - 99.6k miles, still going, just about...
|
|
Not necessarily. Modern cadmium-free orange bulbs lose their coating with age; this happened to the S60 at ten years and it needed four new ones to get through the MoT. And the Fabia failed one test on headlamp aim. No chavving up in either case, I promise!
|
>> I've told people in the past when I've spotted brake lights/indicators/etc out... often the response
>> was: 'Yeh I know'. And they made it clear they didn't want telling/reminding.
Walking through a car park at the weekend I spotted a 'yoof' getting out of a Fiesta. Pointed out his rear offside tyre was flat. Yeah was the reply.
|
>> >> I've told people in the past when I've spotted brake lights/indicators/etc out... often the
>> response was: 'Yeh I know'. And they made it clear they didn't want telling/reminding.
>>
>> Walking through a car park at the weekend I spotted a 'yoof' getting out of
>> a Fiesta. Pointed out his rear offside tyre was flat. Yeah was the reply.
>>
or
"Somebody else told me that. "
" Its gown fer its MoT next month"
When told " one of your tyres is flat / very soft" often just a "Yeh"
These days I am very reluctant to say anything to anyone about their vehicle.
I used to feel a little guilty if I did not "easily" alert someone about tyres but now I just drive on.
A sad ( in the old sense) situation.
|
>>Doesn't anyone even give their car a casual once over before an MoT these days ?
It’s frightening!
My ex company car noted above had a warning re the tyres – bald on inner edge and very close to cord - in 2012 then no more MOTS. The car must have been worth about £10k at 5 years old. I guess it came a cropper somewhere.
I start to panic when my tyres are at 2mm. they are the only thing connecting 1.5 tonnes of metal to the road and I contribute to the upkeep of the ex’s car including forking out for decent tyres as she ferries my kids about.
|
>> I start to panic when my tyres are at 2mm...
One of my company cars was on a lease which didn't change the tyres until they were at the 1.6mm! As I drove at least 500 miles a week, it was really hard to plan getting them replaced.
I used to have to lean on them really hard once the tyres were down to 2mm.
I was much happier when I opted out and could do my own thing.
|
|
Somewhat worryingly another of our cars, WV53FPD, which is a Renault Megane that was written by Direct Line off as uneconomic to repair after being shunted hard on the A3 in 2004, is still going, albeit not that strongly looking at the failure and advisory history...
|
|
Putting in random Pandas, I am surprised how high mileage some of them are, one was 188K!. Most the MOT failures all seem to be tyres with some of the older ones being bulbs. I cannot believe people would take a car for an MOT with a blown brake light or illegal tyre, there is just no excuse unless it is an older car that the owner suspects will fail, even then there is no excuse to actually have illegal tyres.
|
My wife's Beetle that was written off in 2012 is still going strong on average 20k miles a year being put on it. I better not tell her that.....
My 2004 Scenic seems to have had its mileage reset to zero a couple of years ago!
|
>> My 2004 Scenic seems to have had its mileage reset to zero a couple of
>> years ago!
the instrument cluster failed. Happens to all of them.
|
>>Putting in random Pandas
you have a note of random Pandas registration numbers??
|
I'd not really bothered to look back at past vehicles with this web page before but there were some interesting results....
My 2009 Citroen C5 Tourer has continued with my low mileage covered during the lease period... only on 45k at 6yrs old.
My 2001 Mondeo Ghia X Estate 2lit petrol is still going with 210,000mls now.
Mrs F's 1998 Xsara 1.9TD which we put into the scrappage scheme 6yrs ago is still going at 215,000mls.
My lovely Series III SWB Safari Land Rover is still passing with no advisories at 42yrs old.
Similarly the SWB Series IIa I restored around 1989 is also passing with no advisories at 48yrs old.
|
This one surprises me "Mrs F's 1998 Xsara 1.9TD which we put into the scrappage scheme 6yrs ago is still going at 215,000mls"
I assumed cars put into the scrappage scheme were..err... scrapped.
|
|
Yes and me... but it was a lovely top model with climate, elec windows etc in a nice dark met grey with rust/blemish free body. I can see why it got saved but I knew it was heading for a clutch, suspension joints and other bits that equalled its value.
|
>> This one surprises me "Mrs F's 1998 Xsara 1.9TD which we put into the scrappage
>> scheme 6yrs ago is still going at 215,000mls"
>>
>> I assumed cars put into the scrappage scheme were..err... scrapped.
>>
Indeed I thought they had to be scrapped, which was always going to be a criminal waste of bangernomics vehicles for the likes of me. Glad to hear at least one escaped. :-)
|
>> Indeed I thought they had to be scrapped, which was always going to be a
>> criminal waste
I thought that too but perhaps it was more one in one out - so long as a car was scrapped.
Or maybe somebody just frigged the paperwork....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 20 Oct 15 at 16:43
|
It can't find any record of JYT 8, the left-hand-drive 1948 Light 15 Citroen bought from two Aussie girls in West Kensington for £60 which was my first car. It was rusty and clapped but still a terrific car, good-looking too in matt desert buff with austere post-war trim. It had sporting pretensions, two Solex carburettors and a spring-spoked steering wheel.
Ignorant and heavy-footed in those days, too naive even to patronise decent garages, I killed the poor thing in four months of flat-out clumsy driving. Had a good time in it and a few near misses, even not misses once or twice. I was an utter disgrace, and knew it. Lucky to be alive really.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 20 Oct 15 at 16:50
|
Appreciate AC is joking about his light 15 but the thing doesn't seem to go back much before 2008.
Certainly no trace of my second BX, H967DNV, which failed in March 2005 on steering rack condition prompting us to purchase current 05 Berlingo.
|
|
Fascinating. The knob next door is six months out of date.
|
|
This system will only work for electronic MOTs, which only became standard in the late 2000s, the Fiesta seems to go back to 2007 but obviously it won't work for hand written MOTs. It is hard to believe that only ten years ago the MOT's were just hand written or at least manual in the sense they were not recorded onto a central database.
|
I just looked up my old Passat 1.8T and it's still on there. It was MOT'd in 2014 in the July and had advisories:
Nearside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
Offside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
Nearside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
Offside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
Nearside Rear Brake pad(s) wearing thin (3.5.1g)
Front Exhaust has a minor leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)
n/s/r brake disc badly corroded inside
Just over a year later (after the MOT had expired!) it then failed for:
nearside rear Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.1.E.1)
offside rear Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.1.E.1)
nearside rear Tyre has a lump, caused by separation or partial failure of its structure (4.1.D.1b)
Anti-lock braking system warning lamp indicates an ABS fault (3.4.1c)
front Exhaust has a major leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)
Exhaust emissions Lambda reading after 2nd fast idle outside specified limits (7.3.D.3)
So in just under 5000 miles and just over 12 months they had done nothing about most of the worn tyres nor the front exhaust leak!
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 20 Oct 15 at 18:01
|
Given it's three points for an illegal tyre, and HMG knows your tyres are illegal, how long before a failed MOT leads to automatic points.
|
>> I cannot believe people would take a car for an MOT with a blown brake light or illegal tyre, there is just no excuse unless it is an older car >>
My last VW, a 1999 Bora that's still going strong according to the website, used to "fail" on some of its tests for a blown rear light bulb.
Yet they were fine when it went in - what seemed to blow them were the sustained braking checks. Always had some handy in the glovebox.....:-)
|
>> >> I cannot believe people would take a car for an MOT with a blown
>> brake light or illegal tyre,
The site shows mine as having failed on blown sidelight bulbs. While I'm almost obsessive about checking main/dipped bulbs (and brake/tail) via reflections I use dipped beams if lights are needed. Sidelights end up off my radar.
|
>>Sidelights end up off my radar.
I'm the opposite. I don't check the lights very much, but I do check the radar.
|
|
Just a thought, if it's that easy for Joe Public to check a vehicle and its mileage (from Aug 2011) then I imagine insurance companies who ask you what your estimated annual mileage is can also check to see if you're telling porkies to obtain a cheaper premium.
|
|
Maybe - but it doesn't mean you drove all the miles in a year. Someone else using their third party cover might have done that.
|
>> I imagine insurance companies who ask you what your estimated annual mileage is can also check to see if you're telling porkies to obtain a cheaper premium.
It doesn't necessary follow that doing a low mileage results in a lower premium.
Someone doing only a few hundred miles a year may pay a higher premium than those doing a good few thousand.
|
>> >> I imagine insurance companies who ask you what your estimated annual mileage is can
>> also check to see if you're telling porkies to obtain a cheaper premium.
>>
>> It doesn't necessary follow that doing a low mileage results in a lower premium.
>>
>> Someone doing only a few hundred miles a year may pay a higher premium than
>> those doing a good few thousand.
>>
Last time I bothered checking 10K a year vs. my normal 30K a year it made little/no difference with most companies, but did make a big difference with some.
|
>> It doesn't necessary follow that doing a low mileage results in a lower premium.
>>
>> Someone doing only a few hundred miles a year may pay a higher premium than
>> those doing a good few thousand.
That is very true. My sisters premium was higher when she said she only does approx 5000 miles a year (which is true). She increased it to "up to 12,000 miles a year" and it was cheaper. She's not actually lying by saying she does more mileage than she actually does, it's down to poor wording on the insurance policy website which says "up to".
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 21 Oct 15 at 12:56
|
> Someone doing only a few hundred miles a year may pay a higher premium than
> those doing a good few thousand.
>
I used to drive 30,000 miles or so a year, but a change of job went to just 5,000 or so. After about a year, I noticed that the quality of my driving fell and I started to make mistakes.
I'm now commuting 500 miles a week again, and my competence is back.
|
Fair point, Tigger: a busy motorway on a weekday evening is hardly fun, but it's a picnic compared with the same road on a sunny bank holiday, when the occasional drivers are out in force.
I expect the actuarial maths still (generally) favours the lower mileage driver. You'd have to be seriously clueless - and no doubt a few really are that bad - to have ten times the risk of causing an accident, or of failing to avoid someone else's. But the insurers are very clever with their multi-dimensional Venn diagrams, so maybe they know that if you live in an odd-numbered house and put your trousers on left leg first, you really do reduce your risk per mile by enough to offset the additional miles.
|
|
For some reason my new insurance company thought I did 9000 miles a year when it is actually 6000 (even less than that). I was checking through the documents and noticed the mistake. I rang them up and they said no problem sir, your premium has now gone down by £57. Paying just over £300 a year now fully comp including business use. Not bad for central Manchester!
|
Can we add 'fully comp' to the Tautology thread? Or was 'partially comprehensive' an option?
We need to get you out of Manchester, Rats. Down here that premium would get you 12,000pa in a six-cylinder BMW.
};---)
|
The chances of an insurer caring about your mileage normally are minimal. Non-existent in fact.
However, if you have a nasty accident, then they notice that the mileage of your vehicle is a bit high, and then they decide to go back and have a check , then they may well use a similar service and you may well end up wishing that they didn't.
But are people still actually dumb enough to cheat on their insurance and not expect it to end in tears?
|
>> But are people still actually dumb enough to cheat on their insurance and not expect
>> it to end in tears?
I think we know the answer to that one!!!!
|
Made use of the MoT check already. Friend is looking for a large comfy car as a wee luxury, not a runabout - 3 litre+ and we spotted one about 90 mins away. Thought about going to see the car - described as excellent condition for its 6 years use with FSH.
MoT - has not been MoT'd or taxed for 18 months - failed MoT in 2014 on several counts - 2 bald tyres, 1 light out and worn ball joints. It passed 1 week later.
However, in my friend's mind a careful previous owner 9s) would not run about on bald tyres and why would a 50K mile car that initially cost £35K have worn ball-joints.
To go or not to go? - That is the question
|
While an insurance company will probably use the data, I wonder just how much weighting they'll place on it? My classic policy is for a certain number of miles and not only do I have to declare the current milometer reading, every 3 years I have to include a photograph of the milometer as well.
As for estimated mileage for the normal car, for years I've given a figure on the high side to play safe.
|
>> insurance companies who ask you what your estimated annual mileage is can also check to see if you're telling porkies
Should not be like that.
My personal mileage is low but I use my car to travel to clients' sites and rack up quite high mileage. But during those commutes, I am covered by my employer's insurer - so in case of accident during those commutes, I'd be claiming from my employer's insurance rather than my own.
Also, in UK insurance is not car specific but a specific driver driving a specific car. A car can be driven by multiple people having different insurances.
|
>> Also, in UK insurance is not car specific but a specific driver driving a specific
>> car. A car can be driven by multiple people having different insurances.
>>
Is that really true for other people on here?
I have never heard of an employee's car being covered on company insurance
Personally I only ever drive cars I am named on the insurance of
Company car is any driver over 25
Wife / daughters car I am a named driver
Commer - I am the insured
I don't drive any other cars
Nobody else (apart from wife / daughter) drives their cars
Nobody else drives the Commer
Hired vehicles are aways on their insurance unless it's a business hire when it's company insurance.
Last edited by: commerdriver on Wed 21 Oct 15 at 11:56
|
|
Exactly. Can you even get 'any driver with permission' insurance any more? My parents used to have it but that was 25 years ago. I've not even looked recently to see if it's an option.
|
>> I have never heard of an employee's car being covered on company insurance
Search on web for "Employer non-owned car liability coverage".
This is from US site but concept is similar in UK.
www.hiscox.com/small-business-insurance/business-owner-insurance/non-owned-auto-liability/
|
|
Interesting , new one on me, wonder how many people/companies use it in the UK apart from you that is:-)
|
|
Fairly normal I think on most large companies fleet policies. Certainly had that cover when I worked for a large company with more than one location. Inevitably employees without company cars will need to drive to one of the other operations.
|
>> Fairly normal I think on most large companies fleet policies. Certainly had that cover when
>> I worked for a large company with more than one location. Inevitably employees without
>> company cars will need to drive to one of the other operations.
>>
Interesting, my employer does not cover users own cars, it's either company car or make sure you heve the right insurance on your own. My eldest works for a large helicopter manufacturer who provide hire cars if business car use is required, very few company cars. Wife & daughter, both in education have to deal with own car insurance if needed or use public transport.
You live & learn
|
>> Interesting, my employer does not cover users own cars, it's either company car or make
>> sure you heve the right insurance on your own.
Very rarely needed to drive on business as a Civil Servant, though it would have been different if I worked outside London. When using my own car I had to sign a declaration confirming comprehensive insurance and had to be insured with an 'approved' company that agreed to indemnify any claim against the Department. Pre IT and intranets 'Personnel Management Manual' contained a list of such companies - all the big ones were on there.
Latterly the policy was pool cars with private use strongly discouraged. I got permission to use mine for a trip to Wetherby in 2012 - meeting at British Library re digitisation of archive records but only because I live a third of the way from London to my destination.
|
>>
>> I have never heard of an employee's car being covered on company insurance
>>
Our company motor cover policy also covers extending employees SDP and commuting cover on their own vehicles to include business use. The premium is based on an estimated number of 'users' declared at the beginning of the year.
|
Same here, my old Vectra, a 99 V plate was written off in 2004, had been hit very hard on the off side by someone who didn't see a give way sign at a crossroads and thought they had the priority....
Considerable damage ensued, drivers door and pillar, front wing, wheel and suspension pushed totally out of line, steering rack trashed, engine twisted on mountings......
Written off, as I said, in 2004, failed last MoT in 2011....... So someone must have spent a fair amount on it to get it back on the road, mind you, not so sure I would have wanted it back, it always seemed to be one of those 'invisible' cars, always having near misses from people who just never seemed to see it.
|
Bromptonaut will be along to prove me wrong, this is lovely big data in action.
Enter all the cars in your street and create a fail/expired MOT map. The authorities then know where to look.
Perfick !
Target the authorities where the proles point them.
Last edited by: gmac on Wed 21 Oct 15 at 21:19
|
|
Think we all owe a debt of gratitude to nice but (no so) dim - probably aka Bromptonaut ;-)
|
>> Enter all the cars in your street and create a fail/expired MOT map. The authorities
>> then know where to look.
You mean we all act as snitches for Govt? Not an opinion that's normally universally popular here!!
|
Just run through a few less likely to be about old ones of mine... and the biggest surprise yet.
1960 Series II SWB Land Rover still on the road.
I sold it 5yrs ago as a heavily rusted chassis/bulkhead with shot 2.25 petrol engine... with no body panels, seats, interior, dash or wiring... it had been standing outside for more than 5yrs.
It has now changed from green to red and has a 2.5 diesel engine which would be from a model some 20yrs more recent.
I very much suspect its ID has been transferred to a newer motor for the purposes of tax exempt status.
|
I very much suspect its ID has been transferred to a newer motor for the purposes of tax exempt status.
Very likely. There is huge industry of folk being naughty with Landrovers and my money is DVLC will come after old Landrovers next. It's possible to tell the naughty from the good very quickly in most cases as all you need to look at is the suspension system as it should be leaf sprung, but I bet it's on coils. The point of looking at the suspension is that the original, or a modern replica chassis has leafs, and unless you have pots of money, cannot be converted to coils.
|
Just scrolled down the past MOTs and hadn't noticed last time I looked... in 2012 excessive pitting on rear discs was an advisory.... so very likely to be a coil sprung 90 in reality.
Surprised the testers haven't raised the issue... perhaps its outside their remit but many years ago one asked me (when I'd updated an old Series II with series III wings/grille and other bits)... "is this the vehicle it's supposed to be".
|
I had a look at my old 2004 Renault (now unlicensed so must be scrapped). I was quite surprise that there are about three MOT failures with tyres below the legal limit, headlight bulbs blown, wipers not clearing etc. Don't people check these things themselves?
Somehow it managed to rattle its way to 135,000 miles, I got rid of it at 34,000 as it was giving expensive mechanical problems and most of the electrical gadgets were playing up. It looks like a SRS failure was the last straw.
|
I checked my car out and found a failure I knew nothing about!
The dealer must have corrected the issue before giving me the pass ticket, turns out the lights were both aiming too low, it must have been the range level adjust because I had a car full of people a few days before and had adjusted the lights accordingly but forgot to put them back
I guess they must have used the dial to adjust it back to normal, it will make me check the next time in case I might have done it again.
|
I had a car in the UK with a private plate on it. I sold the car but retained the plate and the car was supposed to be truend to its original number.. Paid for its retention for a couple of years but then lost interest.
I just idly checked and that car was MOT'd on that private plate last year and there's no record of an MOT on its correct plate.
Curious.
|
>> Curious
I'd be asking the DVLA for a refund at the very least.
|
>> it must have been the range level adjust
>>
>>
I'd have thought as a routine driver-operated control it was the tester's responsibility to check that it was set appropriately for the load (ie just him) rather than marking it down as a fail.
Isn't it a bit like the seat adjuster or the mirror position - if you are tall and he is short, or you are very fat and he is skinny, he should make the appropriate adjustments if he wants to test the car?
|
>> Isn't it a bit like the seat adjuster .....
>> - if you are tall and he is short, or you are very fat and he is skinny,
>> he should make the appropriate adjustments if he wants to test the car?
>>
Thats why the electric seat adjust is now in the MoT.
My Mondeo would fail on that. A bit ironic as I am the only driver.
|
>> >>
>> Thats why the electric seat adjust is now in the MoT.
>>
I think manual adjustment has been for some time. I recall having to discuss vigorously with a tester the original non-adjustability of old landrover seats.
|
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, VOSA expect a number of fails and the gift of a car that fails in the state presented, but only takes a moment to be a pass is a gift for the tester.
They really do not want VOSA to investigate them.
|
|
I pointed out to someone that one of his front tyres was illegal(absolutely smooth)-his answer was it was being serviced in two weeks time and it would be done then!And not an old car.
|
>> You mean we all act as snitches for Govt? Not an opinion that's normally universally
>> popular here!!
>>
True. However, no one has denied the website could/would be used for that purpose. Big Data.
|
|
Do I have a PC/Firewall /DNS problem, (different PC to usual), but the site has been not available for the past 24 hours
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Fri 6 Nov 15 at 09:13
|
|
I've been trying to get on there for a couple of days without success.
|
|
It has been on and off...it's in Beta so i suppose it falls over now again if it's swamped.
|
You can get there via a different route......
www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/
|
MOT checker - Clk Sec
