MOT trap for the unwary.

[markjay]

The law is the law.... if you are stopped for driving with and expired MOT, the fact that the car is in perfect working order and that it successfully passed the MOT test later on the same day is no excuse.

You are not being fined for driving an unsafe car (which you didn't), you are being fined for the offence of not having a valid MOT certificate at the time of the event.

The simple question here is if you are legally allowed to drive on the highway a car that failed its MOT test? It the answer is no, than it does not matter if the failure is big or small. It's a technical offence to begin with.

The issue of driving an roadworthy or unsafe car is a septate one - you are not suppose to do this at any time, regardless of the MOT certificate status.

The difference is that if you drive with an expired MOT - or failed MOT test - the police does not have to prove that it was actually unsafe to do so, just that you have committed the said offence.

So back to the beginning... is it an offence to drive a car that failed its MOT test?

 

[219]

The law is the law.... if you are stopped for driving with and expired MOT, the fact that the car is in perfect working order and that it successfully passed the MOT test later on the same day is no excuse.

You are not being fined for driving an unsafe car (which you didn't), you are being fined for the offence of not having a valid MOT certificate at the time of the event.

The simple question here is if you are legally allowed to drive on the highway a car that failed its MOT test? It the answer is no, than it does not matter if the failure is big or small. It's a technical offence to begin with.

The issue of driving an roadworthy or unsafe car is a septate one - you are not suppose to do this at any time, regardless of the MOT certificate status.

The difference is that if you drive with an expired MOT - or failed MOT test - the police does not have to prove that it was actually unsafe to do so, just that you have committed the said offence.

So back to the beginning... is it an offence to drive a car that failed its MOT test?

It depends on the purpose of the journey .

There is an exemption provided in law to either take such a car to an MOT station for a pre arranged test , and to take it away afterwards , provided no defects are found which render it unsafe to drive . It is also permitted to take the car to a place of repair with a pre arranged appointment .

For any other use , it is unlawful to drive a car on the public road if it requires an MOT but doesn't have one .

 

[markjay]

...provided no defects are found which render it unsafe to drive...

This is precisely my question... how would the layman motorist know if the car is safe to drive or not?

When my car failed, I did ask, but the MOT tester refused to say that the car was 'safe to drive'...

It's very thin ice if motorists are expected to rely on the assumption that unless they were specifically told by the MOT tester that the car is unsafe to drive, then it is safe to drive it (for pre-arranged repairs and test etc).

What would have been good is if MOT testers had a list of 'permitted' failures (and some discretion) and they would then tick a box on the failed MOT form saying 'safe to drive for pre-arranged repair and re-testing'.

Motorists would then have a clear idea of what they can and can not do.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

It depends on the purpose of the journey .

At last.

Do you now understand my 'swanning about' comment?

 

[markjay]

Going back to the DVLA guidelines...:

https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/after-the-test

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if your car failed... you have to make a decision whether the car still does 'meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness'.... obviously your average motorist will know how to check that

As clear as mud.

The DVLA guidelines above look a bit like the Sheriff unlocking your cell door, unholstering his revolver, then saying "go on, run to the hills'.

The de-facto situation is that people just drive away their failed cars until repaired and re-tested on the (correct? incorrect?) premise that it's OK to do so as long as the MOT certificate has not expired yet.

Incidentally... the 'pre-arranged' etc only seems to apply to cars whose MOT has actually expired - there's nothing there regarding cars with un-expired MOT certificate, other than 'you can take it away, but we can still fine you'.

 

[Stratman]

Minimum standards of roadworthiness would surely cover things like tyres, brakes and lights. The sort of stuff the old MOT test was concerned with.

I doubt having a football team's small badge, for example, covering the EU stars on a number plate renders the car dangerous but it would fail the modern MOT, presumably for 'undue individualism' or some equally ridiculous thought crime.

 

[219]

This is precisely my question... how would the layman motorist know if the car is safe to drive or not?

When my car failed, I did ask, but the MOT tester refused to say that the car was 'safe to drive'...

It's very thin ice if motorists are expected to rely on the assumption that unless they were specifically told by the MOT tester that the car is unsafe to drive, then it is safe to drive it (for pre-arranged repairs and test etc).

What would have been good is if MOT testers had a list of 'permitted' failures (and some discretion) and they would then tick a box on the failed MOT form saying 'safe to drive for pre-arranged repair and re-testing'.

Motorists would then have a clear idea of what they can and can not do.

If a defect is serious enough , the refusal certificate will have 'dangerous' annotated against it .

 

[MisterMicawber]

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

I'm not so sure that it's a nonsense, exactly. Misleading perhaps, but only if people misinterpret what an MOT is.

My understanding is that an MOT confirms that at a particular hour on a certain day a vehicle met the legal requirements.

What it doesn't do (and what a lot of people seem to think it might do) is continue to confirm that the car is legal for up to 12 months after the test date. In fact, it's common sense that you can't rely on the MOT to tell you anything about the condition of a car from the moment it leaves the testing bay.

That being the case, it makes sense that a close-to-expiry MOT would continue to be valid as a snapshot of the situation a year earlier. A new MOT has no bearing on this snapshot from a year earlier - the new MOT is a snapshot of the car as it was on the day of the second test, not a rewrite of the car's condition a year ago.

There is, however, the separate issue of whether your car is roadworthy. And that's an issue to be borne in mind whether you had an MOT yesterday or 11 months ago. Taking a new MOT may provide concrete evidence that your car is no longer roadworthy and you have to decide what to do based on this new information.

But the new MOT doesn't invalidate the MOT from a year ago

So an MOT tells you this one fact (the car was legal at a single point in time) whenever you look at it, whether it's a minute after the test or a year. In a sense it never expires because it's always true that the car was legal at that point in time. But it does become unusable in the sense that you have to provide an MOT that's less than a year old to tax your vehicle.

From the safety point of view, the ideal would be to have confirmation that a car is legal every time it's driven. But it isn't reasonable to ask people to provide proof that their car is legal every day of the year that they drive it, nor even every week or every month. So the most that can be asked (at the moment) is that your car has been legal at some point in time, no more than 12 months ago. And you have to provide this proof (along with insurance) in order to get it taxed.

 

[219]

At last.

Do you now understand my 'swanning about' comment?

I've known the rules all along , and have neither suggested nor considered anything other than permitted journeys .

However , many on here appear to think you can't even take a failed vehicle away from a test , or somewhere to have it repaired ( assuming no notification of defects rendering it unsafe to drive , which they are obliged to note on the refusal certificate , if they exist ) .

 

[219]

I'm not so sure that it's a nonsense, exactly. Misleading perhaps, but only if people misinterpret what an MOT is.

My understanding is that an MOT confirms that at a particular hour on a certain day a vehicle met the legal requirements.

What it doesn't do (and what a lot of people seem to think it might do) is continue to confirm that the car is legal for up to 12 months after the test date. In fact, it's common sense that you can't rely on the MOT to tell you anything about the condition of a car from the moment it leaves the testing bay.

That being the case, it makes sense that a close-to-expiry MOT would continue to be valid as a snapshot of the situation a year earlier. A new MOT has no bearing on this snapshot from a year earlier - the new MOT is a snapshot of the car as it was on the day of the second test, not a rewrite of the car's condition a year ago.

There is, however, the separate issue of whether your car is roadworthy. And that's an issue to be borne in mind whether you had an MOT yesterday or 11 months ago. Taking a new MOT may provide concrete evidence that your car is no longer roadworthy and you have to decide what to do based on this new information.

But the new MOT doesn't invalidate the MOT from a year ago

So an MOT tells you this one fact (the car was legal at a single point in time) whenever you look at it, whether it's a minute after the test or a year. In a sense it never expires because it's always true that the car was legal at that point in time. But it does become unusable in the sense that you have to provide an MOT that's less than a year old to tax your vehicle.

From the safety point of view, the ideal would be to have confirmation that a car is legal every time it's driven. But it isn't reasonable to ask people to provide proof that their car is legal every day of the year that they drive it, nor even every week or every month. So the most that can be asked (at the moment) is that your car has been legal at some point in time, no more than 12 months ago. And you have to provide this proof (along with insurance) in order to get it taxed.

The other way to look at it is that , for most vehicles , and if it is desired to keep using it on the road , a new test is required no later than the anniversary of the last pass certificate ( notwithstanding that an early test pass result can have its period of validity extended to the anniversary of the preceding one ) .

An intermediate test fail won't alter that .

 

[Deleted member 6183]

I've known the rules all along , and have neither suggested nor considered anything other than permitted journeys .

However , many on here appear to think you can't even take a failed vehicle away from a test , or somewhere to have it repaired ( assuming no notification of defects rendering it unsafe to drive , which they are obliged to note on the refusal certificate , if they exist ) .

Then you have definitely missed the point.

 

[Rory]

So back to the beginning... is it an offence to drive a car that failed its MOT test?

No.

You could not be prosecuted for not having an MOT if the previous MOT hasn't expired.

 

[brucemillar]

No.

You could not be prosecuted for not having an MOT if the previous MOT hasn't expired.

.....or if? the reason it failed was because the tester judged it un-roadworthy/dangerous.

 

[Rory]

.....or if? the reason it failed was because the tester judged it un-roadworthy/dangerous.

You still couldn't be prosecuted for not having an MOT.

 

[MarkACLS]

You still couldn't be prosecuted for not having an MOT.

But you can for the unrelated charge of driving a vehicle deemed to be unsafe.

Road traffic act 1991 :

F240AUsing vehicle in dangerous condition*etc.

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when—

(a)the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or

(b)the purpose for which it is used, or

(c)the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or

(d)the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.]



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[jaymanek]

The biggest misconception is that the rules under law as adminstered by the Police and the DVSA MOT standards are the same.

This is not the case. You can drive out with an MOT pass only for the police to pull you over and prosecute you.

Different standards im afraid.

Police have different rules on number plates, tyres, brakes, dangerous bodywork to name a few...

So your old MOT may be valid if has days left on it and you get a fail. That does not mean you are driving legally!

 

[Rory]

But you can for the unrelated charge of driving a vehicle deemed to be unsafe.

Sure, but that's not the question though.

You could pass and get done on the way home for having an unroadworthy vehicle.

 

[markjay]

Interestingly the DVLA use cryptic language when it come to MOT failures while the certificate has not expired.

What does it mean 'you can take your car away? Why don't they use the word 'drive'? Does 'take away' mean drive, or perhaps it means take it away on the back of a recovery truck?

They have no issue with using the word 'drive' when telling you when you CAN'T drive it... very odd they they choose to use the term 'take away' here.

It seems to me like a grey area that was left deliberately ambiguous and vague by the DVLA.

I have no doubt that if it came to court (civil or criminal) following a serious crash lawyers will insist the DVLA never actually said you can drive the car.

 

[AMGeed]

Reviving a month old thread to confirm one or two points after chatting with my MOT tester today. Mine was in for a retest so wanted to confirm a couple of points.

1. Since February 2017 if you present your car for an MOT test and it fails you can only drive it home. If you drive it again, you could be prosecuted unless its for a pre arranged repair or MOT retest.
2. Once presented for an MOT, your old test certificate is no longer valid. The new pass/fail certificate takes precidence, whether it has failed or passed.
3 The expiry date of the old certificate is still carried forward provided you bring the current certificate to the test.

I haven't read all 7 previous pages so apologies if I'm raking up old info, but just wanted to clarify the main points for anyone still unsure.

 

[Teflonso]

Back in the good old days, some garages would do a "pre-test". Same price as an MOT but if there's problems you only got told for info. If there's no problems, then the MOT costs £0.

I know a garage that still effectively does it, by inspecting then running it round to the testing station, but they charge the full MOT price, rather than the £25 that I pay elsewhere.


p.s. As regards "take away" verus "drive away", I would imagine that your practical legal position would depend on the nature of the fault. One indicator bulb out, surely the fuzz would be unlikely to incarcerate you for driving home. But a car with completely rotted out sills and no brakes on three corners - they would quite rightly take a more stern approach if it wasn't on the back of a trailer. Just a thought.


.