MOT trap for the unwary.

[Denis O]

I take mine in around 25 days before the MOT is due. It's then given a pre MOT test and anything that needs doing is done. It then goes off for it's MOT and passes.

Moral is you don't have an MOT, you have a pre test and that way, you'll never fail.

 

[Delayed Steve]

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.

The MOT station by me works like this, you drive round the back and join the queue?
No booking in just turn up.

 

[219]

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).

AIUI , the MOT check is the same as the online one and a simple YES/NO .

Since the unexpired test remains valid , the check will still show a YES .

However , if a car is stopped for any reason , an officer would be able to carry out a more detailed check .

My point earlier was that , if you carry out an early test to identify defects before the existing MOT expires , and if you rectify any defects that are identified , you can continue to drive on the old MOT while it remains valid .

It does not excuse driving around with a defective car .

 

[Cymruambyth]

The MOT station by me works like this, you drive round the back and join the queue?
No booking in just turn up.

I was under the impression that it was much stricter than that! The MOT only garage I used to use was given a warning once...simply for logging on to the system before 7.30 am or whatever it was. I was also under the impression that MOT slots had to be booked on the system BEFORE turning up.

 

[219]

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.

Not necessarily : unless the reasons for failure are marked 'dangerous' on the refusal certificate , you are lawfully entitled to take the vehicle away from the test centre ( remember some centres only carry out tests and do not undertake any repairs ) .

Unless the defect had some bearing on the crash , and as long as you were legitimately taking the car home from the test or to a place of repair , there is no reason why it should be a problem .

 

[219]

I was under the impression that it was much stricter than that! The MOT only garage I used to use was given a warning once...simply for logging on to the system before 7.30 am or whatever it was. I was also under the impression that MOT slots had to be booked on the system BEFORE turning up.

In the case of testing a vehicle which does not have a current MOT , you MUST make an appointment before travelling .

 

[brucemillar]

To summarise:

You can take your vehicle for an MOT anytime before your current MOT expires.
If at this time the vehicle fails and is declared un-roadworthy? You must not drive it on the road. You may have it transported to have the repairs carried out, then driven on the road to a pre-booked retest.

Your current MOT is what the Police, DVLA and Insurance record and check for any discrepancy. An "early" MOT within the date of the "current MOT" would override the current MOT IF?!!!!! the vehicle was declared un-roadworthy.

Now if you were to fail an early MOT and continue drive the vehicle on the public highway in the knowledge that it had a defect (whatever that defect is) and you then had cause to involve the Police or, Insurance, DVLA etc? Attempting to argue in court that you chose to ignore on the basis of a "grey area" or a "loophole in the law" Good luck with that. It defeats the point of the "early" MOT, does it not?

Surely the reason for the early MOT is to get the vehicle in a known, tested, approved, roadworthy condition? Why would you want to drive it knowing that you paid money to see it fail and that it will fail again when it reaches it's "normal" due date?

 

[st13phil]

Before he retired, my father used to be a registered MOT Tester.

At the garage he worked for back in the 1980's, they offered "No Pass, No Fee" MOT tests one day a week - I think it was Tuesdays - and dad always used to comment upon how many people brought their car for an MOT on that day and when it passed would sheepishly say, "Err... can you give me half an a hour while I walk up the bank to get some money as I didn't expect it to pass"

 

[markjay]

AIUI , the MOT check is the same as the online one and a simple YES/NO .

Since the unexpired test remains valid , the check will still show a YES .

However , if a car is stopped for any reason , an officer would be able to carry out a more detailed check .

My point earlier was that , if you carry out an early test to identify defects before the existing MOT expires , and if you rectify any defects that are identified , you can continue to drive on the old MOT while it remains valid .

It does not excuse driving around with a defective car .

This is a good point.

Whether the car is 'roadworthy' or not is one issue, but either way the MOT is not revoked as such because once the fault is repaired you continue and drive on the old certificate - the new one will only come into effect when the old one expires.

As for a failed MOT invalidating the insurance policy - this seems unlikely for several reasons, not the least of which is because if the car failed then you could not drive it off the MOT station forecourt to have it repaired as it would be uninsured from the moment the MOT tester filled-in the online form....

 

[MisterMicawber]

This Autoexpress story seems to be the result of a press release from scrapcarcomparison.co.uk . It seems to have been picked up by the Sun, too: here's their take on it

If you compare the stories you'll see that the quotes from scrapcarcomparison.co.uk are identical.

What I'd like to know is whether Autocar is correct when it says: "According to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), motorists can take their MoT up to a month before their existing certificate expires, but any failure recorded will supersede the old pass certificate." I suspect that is just copied from the press release rather than the result of a journalist phoning them to check. If I'm wrong my apologies to AutoExpress. It would be interesting to find out what the DVSA has to say about this.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Not necessarily : unless the reasons for failure are marked 'dangerous' on the refusal certificate , you are lawfully entitled to take the vehicle away from the test centre ( remember some centres only carry out tests and do not undertake any repairs ) .

Unless the defect had some bearing on the crash , and as long as you were legitimately taking the car home from the test or to a place of repair , there is no reason why it should be a problem .

I'd feel uneasy swanning about in a car which was documented as being unroadworthy for whatever reason.

You might think that you know better.

 

[219]

There's a difference between 'swanning around ' and making a necessary journey to a place of repair ( which could be your home ) .

There is also a distinction between a reason for failure which might make a vehicle technically illegal but not unsafe : examples cited earlier in this thread could be such things as exhaust emissions outwith specified limits , a number plate light not working , a defective passenger seatbelt ( which as long as that seat is unoccupied won't be a problem ) or faulty towbar electrics which won't have any bearing on anything if not towing or otherwise using the towbar .

The important thing is that UNSAFE or DANGEROUS vehicles must not be driven away , and the system provides for this by marking such defects accordingly on the refusal certificate .

It really is very simple , and there is a lot of leeway to allow people to get minor and non critical defects rectified with minimal fuss .

 

[Rory]

What I'd like to know is whether Autocar is correct when it says: "According to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), motorists can take their MoT up to a month before their existing certificate expires, but any failure recorded will supersede the old pass certificate."

That is not correct.

To be fair, the .gov website had this wrong for a couple of months last year. The wording was changed after a bit of an outcry that what they were stating had no force in law.


Here you go - read the update at the bottom: https://www.motoringresearch.com/ca...ter-an-mot-fail-if-the-old-test-hasnt-expired

 

[Deleted member 6183]

There's a difference between 'swanning around ' and making a necessary journey to a place of repair ( which could be your home ) .

There is also a distinction between a reason for failure which might make a vehicle technically illegal but not unsafe : examples cited earlier in this thread could be such things as exhaust emissions outwith specified limits , a number plate light not working , a defective passenger seatbelt ( which as long as that seat is unoccupied won't be a problem ) or faulty towbar electrics which won't have any bearing on anything if not towing or otherwise using the towbar .

The important thing is that UNSAFE or DANGEROUS vehicles must not be driven away , and the system provides for this by marking such defects accordingly on the refusal certificate .

It really is very simple , and there is a lot of leeway to allow people to get minor and non critical defects rectified with minimal fuss .

You have missed the point.

 

[whitenemesis]

That is not correct.

To be fair, the .gov website had this wrong for a couple of months last year. The wording was changed after a bit of an outcry that what they were stating had no force in law.


Here you go - read the update at the bottom: https://www.motoringresearch.com/ca...ter-an-mot-fail-if-the-old-test-hasnt-expired

"Beware, though – if you do drive your car away it is technically unroadworthy. If you were to be caught driving a dangerous vehicle, you could be prosecuted – and you definitely can’t plead ignorance if you have an MoT fail sheet informing you of this"

 

[Rory]

"Beware, though – if you do drive your car away it is technically unroadworthy.

It might be and it might not be - not all MOT failures render the car legally unroadworthy.

That's not the point of the original scaremongering article anyway.

 

[whitenemesis]

It might be and it might not be - not all MOT failures render the car legally unroadworthy.

That's not the point of the original scaremongering article anyway.

From the Gov website (my highlighting) -

"4. How the MOT test works

During the MOT, important parts on your vehicle will be checked to make sure they meet the legal standards."


Doesn't that imply if it fails, parts of the vehicle do not meet the legal requirements and as such is legally unroadworthy?

 

[mat8n]

An mot fail doesn't mean your car is dangerous or unroadworthy
it failed because it didn't meet certain criteria, a chip in the windscreen for example.

If it fails because it's dangerous and unroadworthy the mot man will mark it down as such.

I think people are reading to much into this, the kind of folk who take their car in early for mot's are the kind of people who fix the issues straight away.

The people who take their cars in on the day the mot is due are the kind of people who'll drive around with no mot.

It's a non story that's just trying to scaremonger... As usual!

 

[219]

The title of the linked article is misleading in itself .

It is irrelevant whether or not any previous certificate has expired - or even that one ever existed before .

There is an exemption provided in law that , provided insurance is in place , a vehicle with no MOT ( or one already MOT'd ) can be driven to a pre-arranged test appointment . The same exemption in law also provides that the vehicle may be driven away from the test , even if a. Erotic I ate has been refused , provided that none of the reasons for refusal are marked 'dangerous' on the refusal certificate .

This exemption exists to allow vehicles to be taken for test and for remedial work . While it does not exempt anyone from prosecution for using a defective vehicle , this piece of legislation is designed to allow leeway for a reasonable person to get a vehicle tested and into roadworthy condition .

Police generally will not prosecute anyone for minor defects if they can show they are driving away from the test centre with the refusal certificate , or to a place of repair
With an appointment to have remedial work done .

Even if a particularly keen officer tries to stick someone on for a technicality , if they can show they just picked the car up and were taking it home/elsewhere to be repaired - it is highly probable the case would be thrown out and the officer admonished for wasting courts time .

More minor defects in any case can be dealt with by giving a ticket which gives time to have the defect rectified and the vehicle inspected - which is pointless if it is going to be fixed and retested anyway .

 

[brucemillar]

The bottom line is this:

If your car fails the MOT for any reason at all, no matter how trivial you may judge it to be. It has still failed. If you continue to drive it on the public highway without having it corrected and re-tested, you are liable to prosecution.

If the MOT tester advises you that the vehicle is un-roadworthy, then (as above) you have to get it fixed and re-tested, BEFORE!!! you can drive it on the public highway.

This means that you CANNOT drive it away from the MOT center if that drive involves the public highway (you start to spot a theme here). The MOT garage could charge you storage or help you get a transporter, or both. They could also just say sorry friend, your problem.

Within minutes of the MOT tester writing up his pass or fail + advisories. This will appear online and be visible to anybody (including the general public) who choose to look at it. More importantly it will set a flag on the ANPR database for the Police, should they happen to pass you on the road.

As said earlier, Gents. There are no degrees of pass or fail. There is no sliding scale of pass or fail. There is no leeway in pass or fail.

Likewise "unroadworthy" refers to the vehicle being "un-roadworthy" with zero interpretation or wiggle room. "I was driving it home to fix it your honour". "I thought un-roadworthy, means I have ten days to drive it, before I had it fixed"


No..... At the moment the tester delivers this message, you are on Shanksy's Pony, walking home or getting in a Taxi.

A good wheeze is to abuse the tester for declaring the car un-roadworthy, before taking your keys and driving off.... As recently seen here this can encourage the tester to notify the Police that you have driven off on the public highway.



Standing in a court (this what we are talking about here) trying to argue that you had a previous MOT that was valid is like saying last week when I drove home, I was sober. SO being drunk this week does not count. You are in court as you have flouted a fail (This is a legal fail) and the guidance that is provided to keep other road users and yourself safe.

So my very old fashioned advice. Get the car MOT'd whenever and wherever you choose at a time that suits you, your wife, dog, kids, aunties, husband mate etc. If the car passes then be on your way, happy at this fact. If it fails, follow the law that exists and you know exists. Do not attempt to override the fail by using the "I had another MOT that pre-dates this". The courts will not find this funny, knowing that you, drove a car knowing it had failed but were prepared to do so through some quirk that may or may not stand up to scrutiny.

It is (as they say) common sense and easier to comply than to dodge.