Pulled/ Battery Issue

[Kezzer30 40 1 Cars]

Ok so i was driving to work this morning and on the estate near my house i cop van just happend to end up behind me , he follwed me for a few mins and then pulled me over , (typically as i was running late for work as it was) .

Now i was not speeding or anything like that he said he pulled me due to my seat belt being under my shoulder but he said very little on the matter , didnt even warn me at all.

He then started to ask me the usual question like i it mine and how long have i had it , then asked me what i had done to it , i said what u can see ive done but nothing under the bonnet .

He then said ok pop bonnet lets have alook he then looked under for a min and grabbe the battery , now it just sits in there no casing or straps but having passed an mot literally 3 week ago i assumed no foul play but he basically said thats a 3 point offence for dangerous parts .

He started to worry me as he was saying he could not let me drive it knowing it was not fully secure .

He then did a full vehicle and persons check which all came back fine , then he said he would let me off if i went back home and tied it up so it did not move and then sort the correct fittings out asap .

 

So no points and a warning on the battery but it was all very strange didnt ask about any of the mods etc insurance knows anyway but it was very weird oh the whole thing took 20mins and i ended up 35mins late for work haha

[Paul_13 212 1 Cars]

Obviously bored.

I have little respect for the rozzers, never there when you need them, but always there to piss you off.

[cRaig 273 1 Cars]

It is annoying when the police basically waste your time like that.. but get your battery clamped in properly! As far as I know it is a MOT requirement (changed recently?) and is just common sense.. somthing that big and heavy rattling around in an accident wouldnt be fun!

 

Cheap to sort http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Peugeot-205-206-306-GTi-Citroen-Saxo-C4-Battery-Clamp-Bolt-NEW-/321099155367?pt=UK_CarsParts_Vehicles_CarParts_SM&hash=item4ac30047a7 , I imagine cheaper from your dealer if you can be bothered going!

 

Craig

[Redtop 14 2 Cars]

Tbh he's right about the battery. I think someone on here one time mentioned they lost a 205 due to fire, because of an insecure battery shorting out and causing an electrical fire. Your tester should have noticed that. I know over here in N.I the government operated test centres wouldn't of let it through like that.

[Simes 248 2 Cars]

......to add if the battery strikes anything apart from setting fire to your car it could also liberate itself of the rather corrosive acid within.

[Kezzer30 40 1 Cars]

Dont get me wrong im not saying he was wrong about the battery and i have tied it in for now and will get sorted .

It was just all very random ive never been asked to pop the bonnet and also not asking anything else and also asking what i had done to it then not asking anything else .

But hey ho didnt get any points or owt so always a bonus

[dcc 855]

you're lucky. normally they'd issue you with a ticket demanding it get sorted within 7 days, and you'd have to visit a garage, get them to sign as proof of the work being completed and take it to the local cop shop.

 

either way you've drawn attention to your self now. If the cop sees you again hes likely to pull you over, if not only to just check it has been done

[Alan_M 66 1 Cars]

Really bugs me this.

 

I bet that they saw your 205 and thought they would drag something up on it (which they did in this case). But, 205s these days are owned by enthusiasts who tend to ensure their car is roadworthy.

 

Shame the same can't be said of your average pleb in an A3/3***/Focus etc with bald tyres. But because of what the car looks like, or is of youngish age, the Police tend to ignore them and pick on us 'boy-racers'.

[welshpug 1,657]

all this for a 99pence dealer part...

[TooMany2cvs 65]

Let's forget what we all know about 205s specifically, for a moment, and remember that Sergeant Average probably isn't a regular on a 205 forum.

 

So look at it from his PoV.

 

Mr Plod spots a small, older hatch with a bodykit, being driven by a young 'un.

We all know that there's a lot of small, older hatches about with bigger/16v/turbo/whatever engine swaps.

We all know that insurance for mechanically modified cars can be expensive, especially for young 'uns.

We all know that lying to insurers is a Really Stupid Thing.

We all know that a heck of a lot of young 'uns in modified cars don't seem to have twigged that last point.

 

So... he sees a car that - statistically - has a high chance of a tug that VERY few people would actually disagree with. Right?

Even better, the driver has given him a gold-plated excuse to stop. (BTW, why on earth would you tuck your seatbelt under your shoulder?)

 

Why on earth wouldn't he stick the lights on? He asks the question about mods. No, Ossifer, they're only cosmetic. Yep, that's what the insurance company have been told, too... A quick check seems like a sensible move, doesn't it?

 

As for "roadworthy" - well, we're all agreed that he did pick up on a fairly serious issue...

[ORB 227 1 Cars]

I'll bet my bottom dollar that if your car was mint and standard looking you would get no bother.

 

In all seriousness, why were you not running with a battery clamp?

[Ian205 3 1 Cars]

there was no clamp on my battery when i first got me 205 as there was a higher battery in it , firstt thing i did was get the correct size battery and made a clamp, 5 minute job! very silly have a 'fire hazzard' shuffling around loose in the bay..would be a shame if a 205 was lost over something so small

[Kezzer30 40 1 Cars]

I have no bodykit on it , and i had no idea it was an offence and has just passed an mot , so as far as i was concern there was no issue , and force of habit seatbelt wise i guess .

I mean come on do u all seriously think if i knew id dodge a few quids worth of kit ?

I never said he was wrong i think he was fair but it did seem strange thats all

[TooMany2cvs 65]

I have no bodykit on it

OK, my bad - I was mis-reading the "what mods"/"Just what you can see" conversation snippet. My point remains the same, though.

and i had no idea it was an offence and has just passed an mot

A quick google suggests it was 20th March that "unsecured battery", and other things, changed from "advisory only" (where it's been since the start of '12) to "fail".

[Kezzer30 40 1 Cars]

Yes but as i said im a chef so dont know the mot law , and my point also remains it passed so i was non the wiser etc

[ORB 227 1 Cars]

I got given common sense 20th January 1981

[Kezzer30 40 1 Cars]

I got given common sense 20th January 1981

Well i used my common sense to think ive paid professionals to do a full safety check mear weeks ago , you must forgive me for not questioning them.

[ORB 227 1 Cars]

Fair enough. However, you have to take the MOT test with a pinch of salt. It's a test run by a garage to a set of exact rules, regulations and guidelines. You are solely accountable for the road worthiness of your chariot, not the MOT man (who probably can see he is not going to sell you any hours of labour) and more than likely did not look at your battery!

 

I have had cars pass with NO head lights before. Do I continue driving in the dark???

[ORB 227 1 Cars]

Please understand, I'm not having a go, I merely stress it's all about common sense. Don't rely on a mot. Get a garage "safety check" or "101 point check" or what ever your dealer is charging if you are unsure!

 

Just rest assured a MOT can often mean nothing!

[shalmaneser 26]

Well i used my common sense to think ive paid professionals to do a full safety check mear weeks ago , you must forgive me for not questioning them.

 

You absolutely have not. An MOT is no guarantee of safety whatsoever. It's an MOT.

 

If you can't judge whether something is safe or not pay someone else who can.

[Kezzer30 40 1 Cars]

Well right from the beginning i never stated the officers was wrong an i agree it does need sorting i am not arguing at all with that fact

 

Further more i guess my understanding of a mot is wrong and thats my problem and have used that as my train of thought which as it turns out is wrong .

 

And i had no idea a car with no lights could pass an mot as using what knowledge i had i would assume an instant fail

[ORB 227 1 Cars]

The point is, the mot tester presumed the lights would be ok, thus he did not bother checking.

[TooMany2cvs 65]

Well i used my common sense to think ive paid professionals to do a full safety check mear weeks ago , you must forgive me for not questioning them.

As the others say, an MOT isn't a "full safety check". It's a legal requirement to ensure the car meets bare minimum standards at least once a year.

 

ORB - if he didn't "look at the battery", then that's a fairly shonky test, since it's been a part of the test (albeit advise only) for over a year. Sounds like your tester, with his "assumptions", is going to fall foul of a VOSA check one day soon.

[Matt205 14]

The reality is you're a 'young lad' in a hot hatch that had a hell of a reputation 15-20 yrs ago with old plod, who were probably bored and looking to make something stick. They achieved the objective. Having said that an insure battery is pretty obviously a significant safety issue in terms of fire or during an impact. The mot is nr worthless tbh, so if you are going to run an older car you really must make sure you keep an eye on its condition or pay someone else too. The best analogy I can give is and HGV driver who is responsible for the load being loaded in a legal way, even though she/he doesn't personally load the trailer.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Matt205

[allye 530 3 Cars]

I don't see how the 'copper' was bored, he was doing his job - rather well as it turned out.