At last .....

Postie rocked up here with the number plate that I ordered on the 8th.
Postmark unreadable so not sure who to blame.

Front wheel bearings and brake shoes replaced already so with any luck
the Bantam will now get an MOT in the new year.

 

What is this with wanting to always blame someone? It arrived, so
where's the problem.

If you wanted to use the bike just go to a motor factors pay the £7.99
and wait 10 minutes.

 

A yellow carsize plate on a classic bike is just so WRONG.
Might even be an MOT fail but ICBW.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, sweller

OOOH nooooo... That would be a Yellow one and that's Just Wrong for a
fine machine like the Bantam I mean they fitted them in the factory with
black and silver ones and you can't get the original factory screws now
except there's a little chap down in the New Forest who makes them to
order but he'll only do them in batches of 743 and I'm waiting for 370
friends to want some too (and I'll have one left over as a spare) and
then I'll complain that they're the wrong colour and the alloy's not
what it was when the factory made them and these modern ones are never
as good and...

(cont P.94)

 

FFS - it doesn't stop you using it and the plates I was talking about are
legal bike size.

Yellow perspex does look odd on very old bikes I agree but black pressed
plates, IMO, look wrong on '68 onwards - especially cars.

I admit I have a black pressed plate on a '72 bike but that thing looks
like it came from the 30s. It's borderline Flash Gordon.

However, to the point - where's the BLAME! Did the company give definite
delivery dates? Did they DENY you the use of the machine? Why the ****
are you bothered?

 

It does with no MOT therefore no tax. Which invalidates the insurance.

I was promised 3-5 days delivery. I wanted this restoration project finished
and on the road all proper and legal.

 

How do you get it to the MOT station then?
Many people have said that their Insurance is invalid without an MOT,
but I have never seen such a policy, and have had many different
policies over the last 25 years.
The usual wording I have seen is 'must be in a roadworthy condition' or
similar. That doesnt mean must have MOT and Tax.
Alan.

 

Does it bollocks.

 

Quite.

Though if you took down a line of kids I expect the Ins Co would try to
wriggle on the hook.

 

I ran my 1971 Cooper S on the original dealer supplied pressed black
alloy plates for as long as that car was on the road, and I'll use the
exact same plates when I finally get round to finding a suitable car to
reshell it all into.

 

Utter nonsense.

 

Anything pre-jan 1973, IIRC. However, prior to that, yellow and white
plates were around (at least from 1970) and were mostly fitted to new motors
so that you could show-off that you had a new motor with the new shiny
plates.

Having said that, the '71 SIII Lard Rover here has black and silver on it.

 

in essence true, but as Hog said, I'd not want to bet on it in extremis,
unless you could claim that you were on the way to an MOT.

Of course, a brand new one doesn't need an MOT, but that's probably a
specific bit of the contract. Have to say I've never read the small print,
life's too short: but I'd bet that they'd try to wangle out of paying a
claim on the basis that the vehicle should not have been where it was at the
time, on account of no MOT.

 

Maybe, it would be interesting to watch them wriggle.
Which does not affect the original point that the delay in receiving the
new number plate deprived me of the opportunitity to complete the work
required to LEGALLY use the bantam on the road.
Add this to the fact that the village plod has a thing about bikes and
legality which makes it a bad idea to take chances around here.

 

If the vehicle was unroadworthy, then they might. But a missing rear
reflector (for example) is an MoT failure and I think an insurance
company would have a hard time arguing that this invalidates insurance.

 

They would have to show it was a contributory factor.

 

yeah, but that misses the point (perhaps deliberately). It's illegal to use
it on the road if it doesn't have an MOT and should have. Hence if it
hasn't, they can legitimately argue that it shouldn't have been used thusly
at all - the vehicle has no right to be on the road where the incident
occurred. If it's not got tax it's not even allowed to be KEPT on the road.

Like I say, I don't know if they would argue thusly. But why give 'em the
chance?

 

Yes, I understand what you're saying.

Hunting around finds as many people saying "yes, it invalids your
insurance" as it does people saying "No, it doesn't.

This made sense: "The insurance is not invalidated or every no mot
offence would become a no insurance offence too. The insurer would
certainly use the no mot situation as a way of reducing or removing any
potential payout in the event of an accident. "

So, no, it doesn't invalidate the insurance, but yes, (some) inscos
would use it against you. So I guess you're right.

 

Looks perfect on my 72 series 3 109

 

It looks right on a Land Rover because they're agricultural [1] - looks
wrong (try too hard stupid) on a Mk III Cortina or a Saab 96 etc.


[1] My SIIa had hand painted plates.