Oh s**t Oh S**t Oh S**T! Have I killed the E320?

[Cyclone1]

All sounds good to me, get some more derv in it and pile on a few miles and fingers crossed it'll be as good as it was previously.

 

[AngryDog]

It certainly has. Popcorn, anybody?

For what it's worth, my view is that once a car has failed an MoT test, it no longer complies with the Construction & Use regulations, and it would be entirely illogical that it could still be driven on the road until the old MoT actually ran out.

Technically the MOT is only valid for the time it is at the test centre after passing. Once you drive it away from the garage you could cause something to happen to the car that would cause it to fail an MOT the very same day.

If the MOT failure isn't a biggie / serious then I'd see no issue myself in using it until I could get the issue resolved.

 

[E55BOF]

True, but the same does not apply to a failure; if a car fails, and therefore does not comply with the regs, it will not magically heal itself. The failure certificate remains valid until the car passes an MoT test.

 

[Doodle]

Unfortunately there seems to be a popular confusion between MoT pass/fail, and a car being unroadworthy - the two are entirely separate from a prosecution perspective.

You can have a car that is roadworthy (i.e. would pass an MoT), but be prosecuted for failing to possess a valid certificate.

Equally, if you had an interim test and your car failed, your previous certificate would not be superseded and you could not be prosecuted for failing to possess a valid certificate, only for the vehicle being unroadworthy (unless you fixed it).

 

[AngryDog]

True, but the same does not apply to a failure; if a car fails, and therefore does not comply with the regs, it will not magically heal itself. The failure certificate remains valid until the car passes an MoT test.

Quite, unless the previous pass certificate is still in valid, at which point it is still valid, and as per the post above.

 

[markjay]

Unfortunately there seems to be a popular confusion between MoT pass/fail, and a car being unroadworthy - the two are entirely separate from a prosecution perspective.

You can have a car that is roadworthy (i.e. would pass an MoT), but be prosecuted for failing to possess a valid certificate.

Equally, if you had an interim test and your car failed, your previous certificate would not be superseded and you could not be prosecuted for failing to possess a valid certificate, only for the vehicle being unroadworthy (unless you fixed it).

I believe this is correct. If you car did not pass an MOT test, however or wherever taken, then you know it is not roadworthy, and you should not be driving it on a public road. This is no different to the driver noticing the brakes have failed for example - the brake failure in itself does not invalidate the current MOT certificate, but it makes the car unroadworthy and the driver could be prosecuted for driving it (if found out) even-though the MOT certificate has never been formally invalidated.

This is the letter of the law... in reality this does leave a grey area, because the DVLA say that if your car fails an MOT test then you can 'take it away', but they do not specify if you can actually drive it away or perhaps you need to take it away on a low loader.

They do say that once repaired you can drive it to a pre-booked MOT, but this is only after the repair has been made - at no point do the DVLA actually say that you can drive the car on a public road prior to it having been repaired.

 

[E55BOF]

Unfortunately there seems to be a popular confusion between MoT pass/fail, and a car being unroadworthy - the two are entirely separate from a prosecution perspective.

You can have a car that is roadworthy (i.e. would pass an MoT), but be prosecuted for failing to possess a valid certificate.

Equally, if you had an interim test and your car failed, your previous certificate would not be superseded and you could not be prosecuted for failing to possess a valid certificate, only for the vehicle being unroadworthy (unless you fixed it).

Which is rather my point. The vehicle has been shown not to be roadworthy by the MoT failure. Prosecution is a different matter.

 

[Doodle]

I refer to this part:

The failure certificate remains valid until the car passes an MoT test.

You would only need to fix the fault, not return it for a retest. The failure MoT has not rendered the previous MoT invalid.

Being open to prosecution is entirely the matter, you either are or you aren't. The difference is what you are liable to be prosecuted for, and being liable for one does not automatically include the other - that appears to be the popular misconception.

 

[E55BOF]

Ah...

 

[saff]

Can't say I've ever heard a skeleton cracking one off in a dustbin, but I' ll take your word for it that's what it sounds like...

Listen to Egyptian shuffle on youtube. Sounds like a skeleton knocking one out in a shoebox...I'm told.

 

[Deletedmember130310]

I won't be driving a car that has failed its MoT, even if the previous MoT is still valid...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/350...rit-points-even-if-most-recent-test-is-valid/

 

[E55BOF]

Bit of a stupid article, that; essentially, it advises you not to have your car tested early. So leave it till the day the MoT runs out, and if it would have failed a month earlier, it will fail now.

I seriously doubt the police are interested in cars that have failed an MoT on something minor, but dangerous faults are another matter. If your car is dangerous to drive, the sooner you have the car tested, the sooner you will have to take it off the road.

But if you're a bit of a thick-fingered numpty, how will you know if it's OK? Well, you could take it for an early MoT test...

 

[Deletedmember130310]

An MoT is binary - there is no concept of a "small fall".

 

[Deletedmember130310]

I refer to this part:



The failure MoT has not rendered the previous MoT invalid.
.

Yes it has..

 

[markjay]

An MoT is binary - there is no concept of a "small fall".

Correct.

 

[Doodle]

Yes it has..

Welcome to the flat earth society

Let's try again. An MoT certificate has a valid duration of 12 months from date of issue (up to 13 months if issued up to a month before expiry of previous). It is a statement that the car was deemed up to standard at the moment of testing, and makes no guarantees for the subsequent period.

A subsequent failure notice has no bearing whatosever on the validity of this previous certificate as a document - once issued it cannot be rescinded under normal circumstances. That includes the vehicle being identified as having developed a subsequent fault.

If you were, under the aforementioned circumstances, asked to present your documents by the authorities, the earlier certificate would be, is and has been accepted as possesion of a valid MoT certificate. There is procedural precedent on this.

However, what the MoT failure notice does mean is that the car has been shown to have a fault that renders it no longer roadworthy, until rectified.

Failing an interim MoT is little different to getting a VDR off the police/VOSA after being stopped on the highway, except it's on your terms.

 

[Deletedmember130310]

******

 

[DSM10000]

******

It is not a difficult concept to follow surely?

 

[TheFoX]

It is easy for us to accidentally fill with the wrong fuel, especially if we have several vehicles that use different fuels, but a few years back a tanker driver actually filled one of the tanks of a forecourt with the wrong fuel, and hundreds of cars all broke down not long after fuelling up at this forecourt.

 

[E55BOF]

To answer my original question, no I haven't killed it. New MoT day before yesterday; no advisories. It's a good 'un...