- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 45,237
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
Being pedantic, one could argue that the link I posted points to guidelines for MOT testers, but it is not the VIN legislation itself, and it's technically possible for something to be a legal requirement to have on the car for it to be roadworthy, but not a legal requirement in order to pass an MOT test.
E.g., a car with badly-corroded brake lines hidden under a plastic cover will be unroadworthy, but it will still pass an MOT inspection because there's no obligation on the tester to inspect hidden parts.
So in short, a car without a valid MOT is unroadworthy by definition, but a car that did pass its MOT, isn't necessarily roadworthy, it that makes sense (because not all aspects of roadworthiness are being inspected in an MOT).
That said, I think this is unlikely to be the case here.
So I would say that the lack of specific reference for VIN in the windscreen in the VIN-related legislation, is probably the legal 'proof' that it isn't mandatory, i.e. it is better 'proof' than the fact that the car will pass an MOT inspection without it.
E.g., a car with badly-corroded brake lines hidden under a plastic cover will be unroadworthy, but it will still pass an MOT inspection because there's no obligation on the tester to inspect hidden parts.
So in short, a car without a valid MOT is unroadworthy by definition, but a car that did pass its MOT, isn't necessarily roadworthy, it that makes sense (because not all aspects of roadworthiness are being inspected in an MOT).
That said, I think this is unlikely to be the case here.
So I would say that the lack of specific reference for VIN in the windscreen in the VIN-related legislation, is probably the legal 'proof' that it isn't mandatory, i.e. it is better 'proof' than the fact that the car will pass an MOT inspection without it.