MOT trap for the unwary.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Not at all, the official wording is pretty clear - https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/after-the-test.

The salient points would appear to be:

Driving a vehicle that’s failed
You can take your vehicle away if your MOT certificate is still valid.

If your MOT has run out you can take your vehicle to:

have the failed defects fixed
a pre-arranged MOT test appointment


and

You can be fined up to £2,500, be banned from driving and get 3 penalty points for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition.

There is a considerable difference between a failed MoT, and being in a dangerous condition. A simple analogue of this situation is whether the police issue a VDR notice, or seize the car on the spot.
 
Last edited:
There is more than one scenario here but the one that I believe is being discussed is this:

Your MOT is due in 4 weeks or so, you take it in early and it fails. Under normal circumstances you are able to use the car to get it repaired and retested but in this specific instance are you allowed to go swanning around in the car for the next month under the old MOT?
By swanning around I mean going about normal business/leisure not related to getting the car repaired.

It seems that some on here feel that if the MOT failure is for something that they deem to be trivial then it's OK but if it's serious then maybe not.

My view is that it's not up to the individual to decide whether the failure is serious enough to take it off road until repaired and the old MOT has been superceded and formally documented as such so any accidents that occur while the car has no valid MOT and is considered unroadworthy leave the driver in a tricky position.
 
There is more than one scenario here but the one that I believe is being discussed is this:

Your MOT is due in 4 weeks or so, you take it in early and it fails. Under normal circumstances you are able to use the car to get it repaired and retested but in this specific instance are you allowed to go swanning around in the car for the next month under the old MOT?
By swanning around I mean going about normal business/leisure not related to getting the car repaired.

It seems that some on here feel that if the MOT failure is for something that they deem to be trivial then it's OK but if it's serious then maybe not.

My view is that it's not up to the individual to decide whether the failure is serious enough to take it off road until repaired and the old MOT has been superceded and formally documented as such so any accidents that occur while the car has no valid MOT and is considered unroadworthy leave the driver in a tricky position.

On the other hand.....if you don`t take it early, you`d be unwittingly driving around in an unsafe car anyway :D
 
That is one of the many grey areas in the system that needs to be cleared up; as it stands a failure notice does not explicitly and automatically negate the previous MoT - perhaps it should. VOSA themselves state that an MoT certificate is only a guarantee of condition at the moment it was issued, yet it lasts for 12 months.

Equally, there is a gap between what constitutes a failed MoT, and what constitutes dangerous condition, both measures of which are open to interpretation by the official arbiters. Put a car in for test with 10 different testers, and you'll get more than one result, guaranteed.

As usual, on the one hand it's clear, on the other it's a crap shoot.
 
Last edited:
... To be 100% clear. If the tester tells you that your car is unroadworthy and enters that into the MOT cert. You are committing an offense if you drive it away. That is not the same not necessarily the same as them issuing a fail!! This is a fail by default with the added caveat that the vehicle has been deemed not safe to be on the road.

How do I know? Well last week my friends Navara, failed in exactly this manner when the chassis was found to have snapped. He argued "I drove it here Okay" the tester told him that if he drove it away? He would call the Police as he had been issued with formal notice that the vehicle was not fit to be on the road. He had to leave the truck at the station and arrange a pick up truck to collect it and move it to a repairer.
 
That would fall into the "dangerous condition" section :thumb:

In regards to unroadworthy, pretty much any MoT failure would seem to meet that bill as the Govt. define it using C&U and RVLR. Yet at the same time they state you are drive away from the MoT if you still have a valid certificate. Clear as mud...
 
Last edited:
I commented on a recent thread regarding mot tests and pretty much stated this and got told I was wrong......:dk:

It doesn't make sense to go for a mot, fail and then be allowed to continue to use your car for the remaing mot.
 
On the other hand.....if you don`t take it early, you`d be unwittingly driving around in an unsafe car anyway :D

Though it wouldn't show up on the 'failed' database, so plod wouldn't know without pulling the car over and checking for themselves...
 
People who take their car in 4 weeks early aren't the kind of people who Swan about willy nilly without a care in the world, dare I say, if their car was to get a dangerous or unroadworthy fail, they would be mortified and take the car off the road immediately or just scrap it.
These people are generally car people/weekend mechanics who take their pride and joy for an mot early one Saturday, so they have the following weekends to prepare and fix the car before the mot has ran out(if it fails).

Yes it may be a grey area regarding a valid mot but any policeman worth his salt, we're he to pull said car over, would issue a 7 day rectification notice for the fault to be fixed, just like he would if they picked up a minor fault on a random stop.

These aren't hardened car thieves or people flouting no tax/insurance/mot laws.... Guys like us generally!
 
Last edited:
I commented on a recent thread regarding mot tests and pretty much stated this and got told I was wrong......:dk:

It doesn't make sense to go for a mot, fail and then be allowed to continue to use your car for the remaing mot.

But a car could pass today and pick up a fault tomorrow that renders it an MOT failure but you may not find out for another year.

From VOSA:

Failing the MOT
If your vehicle fails the MOT:

you’ll get a ‘refusal of an MOT test certificate’ from the test centre
it will be recorded in the MOT database
You can appeal the result if you think it’s wrong.

Driving a vehicle that’s failed
You can take your vehicle away if your MOT certificate is still valid.

If your MOT has run out you can take your vehicle to:

have the failed defects fixed
a pre-arranged MOT test appointment
In both cases, your vehicle still needs to meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness at all times or you can be fined.

You can be fined up to £2,500, be banned from driving and get 3 penalty points for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition.
 
Last edited:
There is more than one scenario here but the one that I believe is being discussed is this:

Your MOT is due in 4 weeks or so, you take it in early and it fails. Under normal circumstances you are able to use the car to get it repaired and retested but in this specific instance are you allowed to go swanning around in the car for the next month under the old MOT?
By swanning around I mean going about normal business/leisure not related to getting the car repaired.

It seems that some on here feel that if the MOT failure is for something that they deem to be trivial then it's OK but if it's serious then maybe not.

My view is that it's not up to the individual to decide whether the failure is serious enough to take it off road until repaired and the old MOT has been superceded and formally documented as such so any accidents that occur while the car has no valid MOT and is considered unroadworthy leave the driver in a tricky position.

The old MOT may be superceded , but it is NOT invalidated .

I agree that a failed vehicle should not be used for any purpose other than taking it away from the test centre or , subsequently to a place of repair or for a retest .

Even without a still valid previous MOT , there is still an exemption in law to take a vehicle to a pre arranged test appointment and/or away from the test afterwards , provided nothing on the refusal certificate is marked as 'dangerous' - this is entered by the tester and not left to the judgement of the owner/driver .

Once the defect is fixed , the vehicle can again be used on an existing pass certificate as long as it remains valid , or until a retest is carried out .

The link to the government website in the post above yours refers to each of these points .
 
The old MOT may be superceded , but it is NOT invalidated .

I agree that a failed vehicle should not be used for any purpose other than taking it away from the test centre or , subsequently to a place of repair or for a retest .

Even without a still valid previous MOT , there is still an exemption in law to take a vehicle to a pre arranged test appointment and/or away from the test afterwards , provided nothing on the refusal certificate is marked as 'dangerous' - this is entered by the tester and not left to the judgement of the owner/driver .

Once the defect is fixed , the vehicle can again be used on an existing pass certificate as long as it remains valid , or until a retest is carried out .

The link to the government website in the post above yours refers to each of these points .

It's the swanning about that this thread is concerned with as far as I am aware.
 
But a car could pass today and pick up a fault tomorrow that renders it an MOT failure but you may not find out for another year.

You are correct, and I agree, but that could be said for anything that gets serviced/maintained etc.
 
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.
That's wrong. The old MOT remains valid.

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.

That's wrong.
They "don't write it up within minutes" - it's done live online.
ANPR isn't updated live
ANPR won't pick it up until the old MOT expires.


Having said all that, it's clearly a nonsense that the old MOT remains in force, however that's the way the law is.
 
That's wrong. The old MOT remains valid.



That's wrong.
They "don't write it up within minutes" - it's done live online.
ANPR isn't updated live
ANPR won't pick it up until the old MOT expires.


Having said all that, it's clearly a nonsense that the old MOT remains in force, however that's the way the law is.

Rory

You may well be correct to the 'letter of he law'. But I would not want to be stood in a court, arguing why knowing, that I had a valid, dated, timed, failure certificate in my hand, I continued to drive on the highway.

FYI: I am checking this again. But what I have now, tells me that the courts would look at the latest certificate issued. This is done as as it is 'common sense' and meets 'common law'. Or, put another way "why would you not do this?"

ie. You took it into a MOT station, paid money etc, to learn what requires doing? Having been told "what requires doing" you then decide to ignore this, carry on driving, at the potential risk to yourself and others. I just cannot see the courts accepting this as a defense?

Happy to be shown to wrong here? But I know what I would stick too in practice. ;^)
 
https://www.motoringresearch.com/ca...ter-an-mot-fail-if-the-old-test-hasnt-expired
As discussed above the government changed their advice on this. There is a pragmatic reason for this. If all MOT failure vehicles were essentially rendered "static" MOT test centres would rapidly get clogged up with immobilised vehicles that had failed the test. Thus a degree of flexibility in interpretation of the regulations is necessary. Unfortunately this opens the area to abuse by people who wish to continue to drive their car as normal despite being informed its failed. The thinking going thus " So apparently I've been driving a car with dodgy track rod ends for the last 6 months -----another month isn't going to make any difference is it? " As pointed out already --prior to any MOT test failure you could plead ignorance- afterwards that defence is no longer available to you. I imagine that all these sorts of circumstances are taken into account when they decide to charge you with an offence or not, because while ignorance of the law is no defence the police and CPS are pretty good at distinguishing between people who break the law on a technicality and those who do so willfully while pleading ignorance. Don't rely on that old MOT cert to escape prosecution. Think that's all the article was trying to point out. :dk:
 
Rory

You may well be correct to the 'letter of he law'. But I would not want to be stood in a court, arguing why knowing, that I had a valid, dated, timed, failure certificate in my hand, I continued to drive on the highway.

FYI: I am checking this again. But what I have now, tells me that the courts would look at the latest certificate issued. This is done as as it is 'common sense' and meets 'common law'. Or, put another way "why would you not do this?"

ie. You took it into a MOT station, paid money etc, to learn what requires doing? Having been told "what requires doing" you then decide to ignore this, carry on driving, at the potential risk to yourself and others. I just cannot see the courts accepting this as a defense?

Happy to be shown to wrong here? But I know what I would stick too in practice. ;^)

I think where people are getting het up over this is in the distinction between taking the vehicle away from the test station ( which may not offer repair facilities ) to carry out any repairs deemed necessary , versus carrying on with normal use of the car for a time .

This is provided the refusal does not advise the car is 'dangerous' for use on the road . Incidentally , I've had that situation too , with my 300TE-24 which I bought as a complete car from a breakers on a 'spares or repairs' basis . Having insured the car , I booked it into my local garage for an MOT , and drove it the five miles or so there , having checked what I reasonably could before setting off . After the test , I was told it had failed on rusty brake pipes underneath at the back , marked as 'dangerous' on the refusal certificate . Scott ( the tester ) showed me them on the ramp , commenting they were just about as rusty as any he'd ever seen without being burst . Other than that , the car had a clean bill of health . Of course , I left the car there and told them to do the work . ( Incidentally , I had done both static and moving brake tests both in the yard , and going down the farm road from it , before taking the car out on the public road ) .

In less severe cases , where the car is not deemed dangerous to take on the road , it is permitted to drive it away to have repairs carried out elsewhere - even without an unexpired MOT this is allowed for in law - it could be to another garage , or it could be back home if the repairs are to be done there .

The police will generally not take action against someone taking a car home from an MOT failure as long as the defect isn't marked dangerous and the owner was not advised not to drive the car . This happened to a friend who I had driven to collect his car after the test and was pulled as it showed up as no tax or MOT . When he showed them the fail certificate , which was for a worn bottom ball joint , they let him on his way with the friendly caution ' as long as you're just taking it home ' . He also had his insurance certificate which had started a couple of days earlier , and the new keepers slip from the V5 , which supported his explaination that he'd just bought the car and was returning from the MOT .

Basically , genuine people have nothing to fear , but others who abuse the system ought to .
 
Last edited:
Well I've always taken my vehicles early on the assumption if it fails you still have a couple of weeks to sort it before the current MOT runs out.

Stupid thing is my 1955 Triumph Speed Twin 5T doesn't need a MOT or Tax.
 
The MOT station by me works like this, you drive round the back and join the queue?
No booking in just turn up.:dk:

Same for me when I once lived in Hemel Hempstead.

Used to go to this place and queue up behind where the blue door is:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7426326,-0.4487622,3a,75y,340.92h,86.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd2aEkexjnRVGI8KM8X-IpQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom