Whilst there is an exemption for going to a pre booked Mot, or from it to a repairer, in theory it does not cover driving it home from the test centre. It most certainly does not apply for any subsequent journey from the place of keeping to a repairer, even if the repairs have been pre-booked, unless it is back to the original Mot centre where it will be retested following repair ie., change of mind over having them effect the repairs, or to another Mot centre where a new test will be carried out (fee payable) following repair. The simple option, if you are correct that there is still some Mot remaining, is to tax it before that jouney, after all, is that not the intention for having it Mot'ed? If the vehicle licence has expired, it should have been declared (SORN) as your thread title suggests, but you do not mention in your post. If that has not been done, a penalty may be averted if it is recent and the new tax is consecutive. Another alternative would be to have the vehicle moved on trade plates as an alternative to being trailered. Do not risk taking it on the road outside of the strict exemptions as APNR cameras have become an unobserved tool for enforcement.

I can see that many experts have made suggestions, so it may be that I am being too simplistic. You have mentioned on a number of occasions on this thread and the associated one, that after doing certain work the results are favourable for a short time, then the problem reappears. If I read your posts correctly, you have done some of the work yourself, so I am wondering if you have used wheel free lifting to gain access and at what stage you nipped the bush securing bolts/nuts etc? In most cases it is necessary to preload suspension, subframes etc., by having the weight on the wheels, usually rolling the vehicle back and forward a couple of times and the suspension bounced with things secure but free, to find a natural position, before nipping them. The vehicle can then be lifted to torque to correct tightness. As has previously been mentioned, no additional weight beyond datum should be introduced when preloading. Even the garage/dealerships that have done other work may not have followed these procedures to preload especially as few use 4 poster lifts other than for Mot testing.

grahamengineering. I suggest that you re-read the original post by silly11. They have clearly said that they wish to settle the matter in a freindly manner, but was asking what other options were open to them, to which a number, including sailorsam have replied giving him the options. I personally feel that the OP would be complicit in assisting in the clear offences that their post would appear to have disclosed, if they did NOT take the matter further. Do you think that the seller would learn their lesson if they were to be allowed to resolve the issue otherwise? I know that this is a forum to advise consumers, which has been the case,but there still remains a duty to prevent other consumers from being caught by this type of transaction.

As I am a newbie I am not allowed to post links. However, if you go to the government website of direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696 you will see the extract. DVLA are concerned with the licencing, not continuous insurance, so may feel justified in not mentioning the exemptions! Regards, Andrew

The new vehicle insurance law - don't be caught out If you're the registered keeper of a vehicle, it must be insured at all times. The exceptions are: if you have made a SORN for the vehicle if your vehicle has been kept off-road since before SORN came into force on 31 January 1998 – unless it was brought back into use if your vehicle is recorded as stolen, passed or sold to the motor trade or between registered keepers if your vehicle is recorded scrapped or permanently exported by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing (DVLA)

If you wish to see a preview of what the traffic will be like, go to:- bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zhzqw/Twenty_Twelve_Episode_1/ Alright it is a comedy, but I suspect that much will turn out to be true!

There are a couple of points that I would like to raise . You could take the offending document to your local VOSA centre who will be able to confirm the true expiry date, no need to go through the DVLA bureaucracy. The Trading Standards service at the county council are keen to clamp down on fraudulent activity. The Seller has commited fraud by means of Uttering a Fraudulent Instrument. Ebay have a mechanism for providing law agencies with all details of the seller. This could uncover other similar activity in the past. Unfortunately this will not help you to get your money back. View the eBay discussion forum where this sort of thread is unfortunately relatively common. There is no protection on eBay where cash has been paid.

Dragon Dennis, May I correct you with regard to Motor Trade Insurance. The obligation is only to notify the MIB of a vehicle that is likely to be in the Trader's custody or control for more than 14 days, or if it could not be anticipated, on the 14th day. It would be impractical to notify them every time I collected a customers vehicle or to otherwise insist on seeing the customer's own documents.

The V5C must be filled in and signed by both the Seller and new Keeper in section 8. This part of the document must be sent by the Seller to the DVLA immediately. Assuming that you are not a registered trader, Section 9 can be destroyed and section 10 ONLY should be handed to you as the new Keeper. As the vehicle was not being exported, section 11 can be destroyed. You were under no obligation to send the V5C to the DVLA when you found it, but rather you should have returned it to the Seller for them to do so. Due to the circumstance of your now having activated a static speed camera, you really should inform the Seller of the delay. The Seller is the one who is liable to a penalty and or summons for the failure to notify. As the requirement is to immediately send it to DVLA, it cannot be prosecuted after 6 months due to it being 'time barred' as a summary offence so the Seller would thus have a defence.

Having only just joined the forum, I make no claims to expertise in dealing with these matters, but my time as a Police Officer and latterly as a self employed motor mechanic leads me to be suspicious of the damage as shown by your photographs. The wing damage is considerably higher than the top level of your bumper, suggesting that there was pre existing damage that the TP was trying to cover by 'swerving into you'. If you are in a position to visit the vehicle, measure the relative heights and if possible photograph the measurements if there IS a discrepancy. Pass this on to your Insurer with a note of the suspicion that you were not responsible for all of the damage.