Can I drive it? Is It Legal

[hotrodder]

The situation is clear. The tester has an obligation to declare a vehicle as dangerous if that indeed is what it is. If this didnt happen in the case of a corroded brake pipe then he is implicitly saying the vehicle is not inherently dangerous, just that it is likely to become so before the next test.

However, follow this little thought experiment ...........if the driver hits the brakes in an emergency stop and a pipe blows, following which (irrespective of brakes as a contributory cause) he hits another vehicle or squishes a pedestrian, what's there to stop the insurer wriggling out of stumping up on the basis that there was a known defect?

It now becomes the responsibilty of the driver to prove that there was no leak immediately prior to the accident and that brake performance was unaffected until after both vehicles came to rest.

I suspect that conversely, there would be a little more room for maneuver in a death by dangereous driving charge, since the prosecution would have to prove that the brake pipe was a significant component of the cause of the crash or the severity of the result. Driver argues that pipe popped after or during the crash so can claim reasonable doubt.

It is NOT necesarily legal to drive an MOT failure to get repairs done even if still in date. For example, if the car has failed for a bald tyre then 3 points are waiting if you get pulled up. An insurer would almost definately back heel a claim as well, it wouldn't even need to be raining. Possession of a valid MOT is no guarantee of roadworthiness, only that the vehicle was okay on the day it passed.

.

The Road Traffic Act? Specifically part vi section 148 for the scenario you propose IIRC [/not a lawyer]

 

[markjay]

Who has said it's not black or white? There are no if's or buts. Unless instructed the car is dangerous, you can drive it until the original certificate expires.

What if you hadn't had the car tested until next week, would you have driven it?

I think the best way to put it is that if your car failed its MOT before it expired, then it is simply subject to the usual rules regarding roadworthiness.

It can either be driven on a public road, or it can not - having failed its MOT test simply takes away your potential 'I did not know' defence, but it does not change the basic legal situation regarding the car's mechanical roadworthiness.

 

[Timster]

So the law says I can drive it but will come down pretty hard on me if something goes wrong!

I'll have it back tomorrow night. I'm glad I waited. Just in case .....

It will be a pleasure to be back in the. S210 after 600 miles in a manual ford focus!

 

[Dieselman]

So the law says I can drive it but will come down pretty hard on me if something goes wrong!

I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, but , The tester wouldn't have allowed you to drive away in a dangerous vehicle without expressly telling you or saying it couldn't be driven.

Most cars will have some level of corrosion on the brake pipes. Even when the pipe fails the car still has adequate stopping power.

 

[deian]

I agree with dieselman, brakes are split diagonally anyway, I once had an E39 beemer that had a leaky pipe at the rear, it still braked (just), but the pedal travelled further down, now I wouldn't have taken it far or fast (maybe to get some nappies in an emergency only), but at the end of the day, the mechanic would tell you if it was dangerous, most cars have corroded brake pipes, and most last until the next mot, if ur mechanic was keen enough to spot this and fail it on it, but didn't tell you the car was a danger then you'd have been ok until the current mot expires.
personally, i wouldn't take a chance on brakes/suspesnion/chassis warnings, so you did the right thing, morally you feel better about it, especially if you love your family!

 

[Teflonso]

The Road Traffic Act? Specifically part vi section 148 for the scenario you propose IIRC [/not a lawyer]

Delaney v Pickett [2011] EWCA Civ 1532 ... and .... EUI v Bristol Alliance [2012] EWCA Civ 1267 . Both different in circumstances to the hypothetical example I constructed, but similar enough to give you a very unsure picture of where you'd stand.

The bottom line is that insurers are free to set the terms of their insurance and this nowadays invariably has some weasel words about un-roadworthy vehicles, whether you are aware of a problem or not. So, have an accident in a car with rusty brake pipes - no problem. Have the same accident with a pipe that perforates during the event and you already knew it to be corroded - you are probably uninsured. Even if you were not aware of a potential problem they still have some wiggle room.

The injured parties would still have the option to seek compensation from the MIB under the scheme they run, but there's no guarantees about either success or the quantum of damages.

/me no lawyer either, so my opinion has no more legal validity than Dieselman's banging away at the same drum, post after post.
.

.

 

[markjay]

Delaney v Pickett [2011] EWCA Civ 1532 ... and .... EUI v Bristol Alliance [2012] EWCA Civ 1267 . Both different in circumstances to the hypothetical example I constructed, but similar enough to give you a very unsure picture of where you'd stand.

The bottom line is that insurers are free to set the terms of their insurance and this nowadays invariably has some weasel words about un-roadworthy vehicles, whether you are aware of a problem or not. So, have an accident in a car with rusty brake pipes - no problem. Have the same accident with a pipe that perforates during the event and you already knew it to be corroded - you are probably uninsured. Even if you were not aware of a potential problem they still have some wiggle room.

The injured parties would still have the option to seek compensation from the MIB under the scheme they run, but there's no guarantees about either success or the quantum of damages.

/me no lawyer either, so my opinion has no more legal validity than Dieselman's banging away at the same drum, post after post.
.

.

I don't think you and DM disagree by much... the car is either roadworthy or it isn't.

If the mechanic had said either 'don't drive it' or 'you can drive it' then the OP would know where he stands.

As no such advice was forthcoming, DM seems to suggest that the assumption is that the car is roadworthy unless otherwise stated, and you seem to say (in not so many words) it isn't roadworthy unless told otherwise...?

 

[Teflonso]

I don't think you and DM disagree by much... the car is either roadworthy or it isn't.

If the mechanic had said either 'don't drive it' or 'you can drive it' then the OP would know where he stands.

As no such advice was forthcoming, DM seems to suggest that the assumption is that the car is roadworthy unless otherwise stated, and you seem to say (in not so many words) it isn't roadworthy unless told otherwise...?

No, that's not my point at all. I'm saying that everything is okay until something goes wrong, then there may be issues. If you expected to have an accident you'd never go out in the car. But nevertheless, they happen. The chances of a corroded pipe busting during an accident are small but non-zero and it's not unknown for someone to hit the brake pedal terrifically hard before ploughing into someone or something.

Thinking a little bit further, DM is making a pronouncement about an area where neither he nor the MOT tester have sufficient information.

At the test, there is permission, indeed an obligation, to stick a screwdriver in critical bodywork to confirm freedom from rot. The exact opposite is the case for brake pipes. The tester is obliged to inspect them, but has no way of knowing the condition behind the pipes where salt might cause pitting corrosion or under clips where crevice corrosion might be having a party. He is just required to comment that there is visible corrosion.

Here's a cautionary tale. I once bought a 2 year old Cavalier. I took it for it's first test less than a year later and it failed for corrosion of every single brake pipe. I continued to drive it for a week or two before it's 3rd birthday while I bought a couple of coils of Kuniper and a brake flaring too, plus some nipples. When I started taking off the old pipes I was horrified at the state of them in some isolated places - pitting corrosion that was almost full skin and wouldn't have stood up to a serious jab on the anchors.

Just sayin' ....
.

 

[Timster]

Thanks all.

I've enjoyed reading this thread!

Pleased to say that I now have another 12 months mot on the car. It's over 200k and runs great. was a real pleasure to get back in it tonight after a few days in a focus!

Ps- new brake pipes so the whole thread becomes moot, but I enjoyed it none the less and despite DM's conviction that all was fine I remain convinced that I did the right thing by not using it as I didn't have to! Cheers all!