MOT trap for the unwary.

[Rory]

A reader's comment after the article says:
"According to the government's own website for "Driving a vehicle that’s failed":
You can take your vehicle away if your MOT certificate is still valid.

^This.

The article is nonsense.

 

[davidjpowell]

Don't believe these articles. I'd like to see it referenced to the legislation.

 

[nick mercedes]

From when did anyone get points for not having a valid MOT??

 

[martyz]

From when did anyone get points for not having a valid MOT??

invalidates insurance,after all who would insure an unroadworthy car???

there you go 6 points

 

[renault12ts]

I thought that by definition a car that does not meet the MOT requirements in full is not roadworthy?

How can drivers know if their failed cars are 'roadworthy' or not, anyway?

The MOT tester is not likely to sign a form that says that the failed car is 'safe to drive'.

A bit of a grey area I think.

If your car fails because a headlamp bulb is out is your car unsafe and unroadworthy if you drive it home at midday on midsummer's day during a drought?

 

[markjay]

If your car fails because a headlamp bulb is out is your car unsafe and unroadworthy if you drive it home at midday on midsummer's day during a drought?

I don't disagree, I just think that it leaves a grey area of what's OK and what's not, especially given the the MOT tester is unlikely to help.

When my car failed it's MOT due to a crack in the drop link ball joint rubber cap, I asked the MOT tester if I can drive it away (the MOT has not expired yet). He said he couldn't tell me what to do...

In the event I drove it home, booked it in with Wayne Gates, and had it fixed.

 

[MercedesDriver]

So it seems that same rule applies regardless of whether the MOT expired or not - if the car fails, you are allowed to drive to a garage for the car to be repaired and to an MOT testing station to be retested. All need to be pre-booked I'm told...

(My bold) And that's the critical factor: an MOT fail means that at the time the vehicle was inspected, it was deemed to be not roadworthy. To drive an unroadworthy vehicle on the public highway is a separate (and potentially much more serious) offence than simply not having a valid MOT Test Certificate. You don't collect a £2.5k fine or a driving ban for simply not having a valid MOT Cert: that is normally disposed of by way of a non-endorseable fixed penalty of £100.

Edit: I must have blinked while scrolling and missed MisterMicawber post

 

[219]

invalidates insurance,after all who would insure an unroadworthy car???

there you go 6 points

This old chestnut comes out regularly - lack of an MOT does NOT invalidate insurance ; in fact you need insurance before you can drive a vehicle to , or away from , a pre arranged MOT test .

Also , there is a degree of disinformation in this article . Failure of an early MOT does not invalidate an existing certificate , if you run the car through the MOT CHECK database it will still show as having a current certificate - so the driver won't be guilty of not having one .

A lot depends on the reason for refusal : a car could fail for items such as faulty towbar electrics , a defective passenger seatbelt or a passenger door that doesn't open from the outside - if these things aren't being used then they don't make the car dangerous to drive away from the test .

Dangerous defects - for items such as brakes or suspension as examples , will always be marked so on the refusal certificate and the tester will state the vehicle should not be driven .

Furthermore , as has been stated , a test pass or fail is only a snapshot of the car's condition on the day of the test - a car which passed can develop a defect on the way home from the test ( such as a brake light failing ) .

Conversely , a car which failed the early test can be taken away and the notified defect repaired - the car can then lawfully be driven until expiry of the original certificate which remains valid .

In the cases highlighted in the article , you won't be fined for not having an MOT , because , in law , the currency of the old certificate is not invalidated , but you CAN be charged with driving a defective vehicle , which is not the same thing .

Regardless of possession of a current MOT it is still an offence to drive a defective vehicle on the highway - this is an entirely separate matter .

 

[219]

Don't believe these articles. I'd like to see it referenced to the legislation.

Exactly - the article is a piece of sensationalist journalism .

 

[GeeJayW]

I guess the early fail simply gives Plod a heads up that your car is in some way defective. So in between doughnuts they can nick a few motorists.

 

[Petrol Pete]

No idea... to compound matters further, my local MOT testing station does not take bookings - its first-come-first-served only.

How the heck does 'first come, first served' work at an MOT station ? You are legally allowed to drive a vehicle without an MOT to a test station (via the most direct route) provided you have a documented booking at that station.

If you do not have an appointment booked and documented you are simply driving around without a valid MOT.

My friend has a very busy garage and his MOT station is booked solid most days.

 

[brucemillar]

Common sense folks.

If the MOT tester tells you car has failed and is "unroadworthy". Would you want to driving around in it? Regardless of an early or due MOT date.

If you decide to drive it on the road (not to have it repaired) in the knowledge that you have been told in writing that it is a failure? Your insurer, the Police etc will want a close look at you, were you to be stopped, or worse, involved in an accident.

Why MOT it if your going to ignore it?

Just get a mail order pass. Or print your own.

Sent from my iPhone using sausage fingers.

 

[markjay]

Common sense folks.

If the MOT tester tells you car has failed and is "unroadworthy". Would you want to driving around in it? Regardless of an early or due MOT date.

If you decide to drive it on the road (not to have it repaired) in the knowledge that you have been told in writing that it is a failure? Your insurer, the Police etc will want a close look at you, were you to be stopped, or worse, involved in an accident.

Why MOT it if your going to ignore it?

Just get a mail order pass. Or print your own.

Sent from my iPhone using sausage fingers.

My point is that I don't think the MOT tester will volunteer this information....

And I suspect many motorists won't be able to tell if the car is 'safe to drive' or not.

Most people do not have the same level of familiarity with cars as mbclub members do.

I think it's still a (very) grey area.

 

[219]

How the heck does 'first come, first served' work at an MOT station ? You are legally allowed to drive a vehicle without an MOT to a test station (via the most direct route) provided you have a documented booking at that station.

If you do not have an appointment booked and documented you are simply driving around without a valid MOT.

My friend has a very busy garage and his MOT station is booked solid most days.

Quite - the computerised MOT system requires the bay to be booked for each test .

The 'direct to the station' bit is also a myth - you can go by any route , nothing in legislation about distance , nor is there any prohibition on stopping , so you can , for example stop for fuel , or go to have tyres fitted on the way .

 

[grober]

Its probability thing. Since the certification process has been digitised/ networked the test information pass/fail is now immediately available to the traffic police with their APNR [Automatic Plate Number Recognition] cameras. Now many cars do suffer from MOT failure due to relatively trivial faults- dodgy lights/indicators ,windscreen washers etc but equally they fail on dangerously worn steering, inadequate brakes, corroded suspension mounts, broken springs, tyres worn below the legal limit= accidents waiting to happen. I suspect the APNR system simply flags up a lack of MOT not the detailed test results and that's what the police will act on.
Returning to the probability thing, taking your car back to your house for some DIY or garage of choice to be repaired or simply to and fro the MOT testing station is unlikely to land you in trouble, but continuing to use it for that daily commute or that weekend motorway trip from London to Birmingham for the mother in laws birthday may land you in trouble.

 

[BTB 500]

Common sense folks.

If the MOT tester tells you car has failed and is "unroadworthy". Would you want to driving around in it? Regardless of an early or due MOT date.

I think the point being made now is that any MOT fail immediately renders the car 'unroadworthy'. This may well be the case (legally), but obviously there are plenty of things it can fail on that have no safety implications whatsoever (slightly high emissions, for example) so I can see why some people would assume it was OK to use the car till the original expiry date.

Obviously showing up a problem with tyres/brakes/suspension/steering etc. would be a different matter.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

It does seem a grey area but the fact is that if you have an accident, especially where someone else is hurt, while driving about in a documented MOT failure you are in a world of pain.

The cause of the failure becomes irrelevant.

 

[markjay]

It would be interesting to know if ANPR automatically flags-up failed MOTs, or just expired ones.

Obviously the officer can manually check if the car failed its MOT, but unless ANPR actually flags this us automatically, chances are the officer won't know (ie unless they happen to stop the car for other reasons).

 

[markjay]

It does seem a grey area but the fact is that if you have an accident, especially where someone else is hurt, while driving about in a documented MOT failure you are in a world of pain.

The cause of the failure becomes irrelevant.

Clearly it's a conversation I would not like to have with my insurer...

But legally speaking, I think that unless the policy in invalidated by the MOT failure (which I don't think it would be), then if it gets to court the insurer will need to demonstrate a casual link between the MOT failure and the accident if they want to avoid paying out.

But again, this is a situation best avoided altogether.

 

[brucemillar]

My point is that I don't think the MOT tester will volunteer this information....

And I suspect many motorists won't be able to tell if the car is 'safe to drive' or not.

Most people do not have the same level of familiarity with cars as mbclub members do.

I think it's still a (very) grey area.

Mark

I can only speak for myself and my own knowledge here:

I have always been told by the inspector if the car is un-roadworthy or something required "immediate" attention. "You should not be driving that SIr"


As Grober states. What the tester types in at the station is immediately recorded on-line for the Police and all to view. Be that failure or an advisory. A fail is a fail, is a fail. Trying argue degrees of fail in court of law would be folly. It's binary. Did the vehicle have a valid MOT certificate at the time in question = Yes or No. If No and you are driving it outside of to a booked MOT (direct route) or to have the work carried out (direct route) then you are in trouble.

If the the inspector has advised that the car should not be driven (lets say a broken chassis) then it "must not be driven" it can be transported without concern.

We can all take view that bulb fail is does not make the car unsafe to drive? That is until the person drives up your backside and claims that you had not stop lights!!!

There is a culture that exists of people who will search for what they believe is the easiest MOT station to get a pass through. As above that is folly. If the vehicle is subsequently inspected and found to have been issued a pass when it should not (VOSA) this is also big problem territory.