Movilogo posted a link in the VW thread and while reading it I came across this -
www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/can-you-drive-your-car-after-an-mot-fail-if-the-old-test-hasnt-expired-0918996188
If it's true it could potentially catch a few people out.
|
Well that's blinking annoying, they've moved the goalposts then. Thanks for pointing it out.
Edit: another take on it here, which summarises the reasons why this sucks:-
tinyurl.com/pxt2c23
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Fri 25 Sep 15 at 21:52
|
You're kind of goosed if the car fails at a garage that does repairs.
What justification can you have in law for driving it away to have repairs done?
|
|
It surely cannot be beyond the wit of a repairer to charge you a fee similar to the MOT fee to check whether or not your car will pass an MOT and throw in a free MOT Test & certificate if it can.
|
>> It surely cannot be beyond the wit of a repairer to charge you a fee
>> similar to the MOT fee to check whether or not your car will pass an
>> MOT and throw in a free MOT Test & certificate if it can.
>>
Trouble is they're then tying up a mechanic + equipment for 2 MoT's worth of time for 1 MoT's revenue. Start and stop times of an MoT have to be logged on the system, so they can't do a 'trial run' and then just log the car on to the system after it's been through the trial run and pass it immediately. IYSWIM. It explains this on the link I posted.
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Fri 25 Sep 15 at 22:27
|
IDSWYM.
But there must be an approach. Sell an MOT with a £10 pre MOT check, or something.
|
>> IDSWYM.
>>
>> But there must be an approach. Sell an MOT with a £10 pre MOT check,
>> or something.
>>
I did think of a ruse where you complete the MoT check on a car, log it into the system, then do the pre MoT check on a second car whilst the timer is running, so to speak, then once the timer is up pass the first car on the system. Then the second car is logged on to the system whilst a third car is checked, and so on. I have been drinking a variety of Sharps's Brewery products this evening mind you.
|
>> I have been drinking a variety of Sharps's Brewery products this evening mind you.
Good for you.
I am just about to disappear down a local bar with three visiting gringos myself. If I do post anything later, I wouldn't bother reading it if I were you.
|
Silly frankly. Umpteen things a car can fail on that are nothing to do with safety or emissions.
I even wondered if this was wrong, as it certainly used to be. But going to the horses mouth covers the issue:
www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/after-the-test
Page updated on 11 September which sort of ties in with the IGA forum post date and the fact that these days the little sneaks seem to alter rules and not tell anyone so they can nick more people.
|
>> Well that's blinking annoying, they've moved the goalposts then.
I'm not convinced it means what it seems to say.
It seems to assume the vehicle will be unroadworthy, and it's always been the case that you can't drive an unroadworthy vehicle so in that respect nothing has changed except they've clarified that having a pre-existing MOT isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.
|
"You must not drive the vehicle on the road if it fails the test, even if the MOT hasn’t run out"
Now that is pretty unequivocal.
As you say, you've never been able to drive something unroadworthy, so there's no change there.
This seems to specifically change just those items which are not safety related. Which is dumb.
|
In the drive for 'plain English' as content is moved to gov.uk, a great number of things seem to get simplified. Another good example is the rules for towing trailers.
Will be interesting to see what happens to the MOT status online. It sounds like they are saying that it now goes to 'no MOT', even if there is time remaining on the old ticket.
|
Yes, I've noted the occasional inaccuracy that has crept in with simplification, but this looks like a change in actual policy, not an error that has crept in.
But, if can be proven, I'll be one of the first to complain in writing. I'm already an official pest so one more won't alter things...
|
Most definitely happening already.
This happened back in May, I took my car in 3 weeks early but it failed due to a cracked rear spring, I pointed out that I weeks left to run on the MoT but they said it was now invalid as a fail had been entered onto the central computer.
I was made to feel that I had no choice but to get it fixed before I could drive it away.
|
So now we might as well wait until the eleventh hour before getting the car tested. No point in doing it early anymore.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sat 26 Sep 15 at 11:15
|
>> Yes, I've noted the occasional inaccuracy that has crept in with simplification, but this looks
>> like a change in actual policy, not an error that has crept in.
>>
I don't think a Civil Servant can just change stuff like this on a whim. It has to have the backing of law.
There's a discussion going on on another forum where MOT testers are saying they know nothing about this (and it apparently changed a couple of weeks ago). Normally they get advised of any such changes.
|
>> I don't think a Civil Servant can just change stuff like this on a whim.
>> It has to have the backing of law.
That's certainly right. Unless there's been a change in the regulations or a relevant decision in a senior court then no change in law. However if there's a Cabinet Office directive to simplify English and remove ambiguity it's possible the author has gone for a simple answer and one that doesn't allow a member of the public to argue but the website said.....
The law quoted at the foot of the page refers to a vehicle in dangerous condition. Plenty reasons for MoT failure, including the diesel smoke test, have no bearing whatever on safety.
What's the offence charged for defective sidelight bulbs? That's not really unsafe either (though a failed dipped beam might be).
>> There's a discussion going on on another forum where MOT testers are saying they know
>> nothing about this (and it apparently changed a couple of weeks ago). Normally they get
>> advised of any such changes.
It needs one one more of the relevant trade bodies to take it up with Dept for Transport.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 26 Sep 15 at 12:26
|
>> This seems to specifically change just those items which are not safety related. Which is
>> dumb.
The MOT exists, its reason for being, is to ensure cars are safe for the road. Everything checked on the MOT is for safety. Fail the MOT and by definition its not deemed safe.
I don't see a problem with this.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 26 Sep 15 at 11:23
|
>>Everything checked on the MOT is for safety.
Sorry this is complete misinformation!
Things tested that are not directly safety related...
Petrol car emissions (other than excessive smoke obviously)
VIN presence
Numberplate font/spacing, and presence of late makers details
Presence of catalytic converter
EGR presence
And I am sure that there are many others!
|
>> And I am sure that there are many others!
Probably due to the fact you have made some of them up. Vin EGR and Cat presence?
|
>> Probably due to the fact you have made some of them up. Vin EGR and
>> Cat presence?
>>
No he hasn't. Present a vehicle which should have a catalytic converter but doesn't, and it will fail. Or at least, it should.
As to the OP; surely the onus is on the vehicle's owner or user to ensure that it's fully compliant with the MOT regulations before presenting it? This is very much the case with commercial vehicles and woe betide the operator who persistently ignores it.
Too many people, in my view, just chuck the car at the garage and expect it to be right because it was last year.
|
It's quite possible that this situation has been created by the introduction and use of the MoT database as the point of reference for legality, rather than the certificate.
At some point somebody will have been asked "So what do you want to do about the MoT status then when the car fails an MoT before the expiry date of the last one?"
The options would be
- stick with the old test as valid until it expires
- say that the latest test rules, logical because it ias the latest, so the car has no MoT.
- Some more complicated rules dependent on what it failed for.
If the third one was labelled "too hard" then in this liability conscious world the second would be the obvious choice.
|
>> The options would be
>> - stick with the old test as valid until it expires
>> - say that the latest test rules, logical because it ias the latest, so
>> the car has no MoT.
>> - Some more complicated rules dependent on what it failed for.
>>
>> If the third one was labelled "too hard" then in this liability conscious world the
>> second would be the obvious choice.
>>
I can see why. If, for example, a car failed an MOT (carried out say 3 weeks before the new one is due) for a faulty steering ball joint, which then failed two weeks later causing a fatal accident, it could probably be proved in court that the MOT tester had some liability for allowing a defective vehicle to remain on the road. This should never be the case, hence the safeguard has to apply; and there cannot be any exclusions regardless of whether the fault is safety-critical or not.
Many garages offer pre-MOT examinations, and furthermore the basics such as lights, horn, tyres etc. are not only well within the scope of every able-bodied driver but should be part of every motorist's regular checklist before even driving.
|
>>
>> I can see why. If, for example, a car failed an MOT (carried out say
>> 3 weeks before the new one is due) for a faulty steering ball joint, which
>> then failed two weeks later causing a fatal accident, it could probably be proved in
>> court that the MOT tester had some liability for allowing a defective vehicle to remain
>> on the road. This should never be the case, hence the safeguard has to apply;
>> and there cannot be any exclusions regardless of whether the fault is safety-critical or not.
>>
The situation has always been that if an MoT tester uncovers a dangerous fault then the car cannot be driven away from the test centre, I believe. We all know that the MoT only checks the car at an instant in time; 1 hour out 8760 per year; driving an unroadworthy vehicle on the public highway is an offence irrespective of its MoT status. So I see nothing to gain if this is a 'stealth' change in the law.
I suspect that this change is actually a 'plain English' edict gone wrong, as previously discussed, given the lack of change in the law and the lack of notification to the general public.
|
So going by certain people's expectation on here of the MOT rules, from the time I get a new MOT Id have to take it back every day just to make sure it's safe to drive on the road.
A car that passes on the day could fail the test the next day or day after that. On the day it passes the car is considered safe for a year. So surely if I take it a couple of weeks before renewal the previous MOT is still valid even if it fails. Can you imagine not being allowed to drive it off to get repairs done. The testing stations would be choked up with failed vehicles.
It's got to be nonsensical not to be given a period of grace to get the problems sorted out prior to a retest. Not everyone is mechanically minded to inspect their own vehicles and to have potential faults rectified before they take it for MOT. That is the reason for the MOT. To point out faults so you get them rectified.
|
>>. Can you imagine not being allowed to drive it off to get repairs done.
>> The testing stations would be choked up with failed vehicles.
>>
My, of choice, MoT testing station does not do repairs and what then ???
Flat bed truck???
|
Flat bed truck???
For a failed passenger seat belt... Can you imagine the headlines in the Daily Wail and other tabloids?
|
>>
>> As to the OP; surely the onus is on the vehicle's owner or user to
>> ensure that it's fully compliant with the MOT regulations before presenting it?
>>
Like most motorists I don't actually have access to a multi thousand pound emissions tester, so that isn't going to fly.
|
>> Probably due to the fact you have made some of them up. Vin EGR and
>> Cat presence?
Zero, always best to do some research before posting on a subject about which you have little knowledge!
|
Mr Oshea, tell me where it says "check for egr presence" in the testers manual?
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 26 Sep 15 at 17:22
|
>> Mr Oshea, tell me where it says "check for egr presence" in the testers manual?
Mr/Ms/Miss Zero
It may not specifically be referred to in the 'Testers manual' but cars have been failed on emissions because of removed EGR valves!
Ok maybe a slight error in my post but my point still stands!
>> The MOT exists, its reason for being, is to ensure cars are safe for the road. Everything checked on the MOT is >> for safety. Fail the MOT and by definition its not deemed safe.
Your posting that all MOT failures are safety related items is plainly 100% incorrect!
Come on admit it!
Last edited by: Rick O'Shea on Sat 26 Sep 15 at 19:43
|
>> >> Everything checked on the MOT is for safety. Fail the MOT and by definition
>> its not deemed safe.
>>
>> I don't see a problem with this.
>>
Failed sidelight bulb. You drive home in daylight. Where's the danger?
Faulty tow socket wiring. You are not towing anything.
Rear seat belt frayed. There is no passenger.
etc etc etc.
Chassis cracked and vehicle is sagging on the road. Yes, probably dangerous.
|
|
After mine failed early I was told that the online status had been changed to 'invalid' so I couldn't have removed it by driving it away no mater what had caused the fail.
|
But the new guidelines (guidelines, not law) say you can drive the car to somewhere where it can be repaired.
I don't see why that could not include your own home, if you have the facilities for repairing cars.
Most people do have the facilities for replacing lightbulbs or calling out Autoglas.
|
I've rebuilt two cars at home, in both cases from a bare chassis upwards. Sure I do have a few fancy tools, but most of it was done with spanners, screwdrivers and normal DIY tools. So to tell me I need to pay a 'technician' to change a bulb will result in civil disobedience.
But, thinking about this, the rule change* was brought about by a computer system that couldn't handle the complication of doing an MOT early. So instead of modifying the computer system to fit properly, the easy way out was taken and the rules were changed to something the computer could handle.
* Unless I've missed it though, the actual rules might not have been changed, but the government website has been changed anyway, much easier. The web is buzzing with this, and I bet DVLA get more than a few queries on Monday. There is another official source that is as bad, where they refuse to point out that particular UK rules only apply in the UK and the ability you get in the UK is not exportable, so you might not be legal in France (all covered here before).
|
|
I suspect the inflexibility of the computer system could be the reason, imagine being stopped on the way home, the police would say I have no valid MoT while I had a paper one saying the opposite, I wouldn't want to argue the point at the road side.
|
I suspect the inflexibility of the computer system could be the reason, imagine being stopped on the way home, the police would say I have no valid MoT while I had a paper one saying the opposite, I wouldn't want to argue the point at the road side.
Inflexibility? It's gross incompetence if you ask me. All that is needed is for the system to display the latest date of an expiry. Sort of thing you might ask a kid to do, you don't need anything better than basic, and I reckon I could do it still in machine code for a 6080.
But we all know what officialdom and computers are.
|
>> But we all know what officialdom and computers are.
>>
Easy coded but if the relevant civil servants did not state the requirement they would not have got it in the system
|
>> I suspect the inflexibility of the computer system could be the reason, imagine being stopped
>> on the way home, the police would say I have no valid MoT while I
>> had a paper one saying the opposite, I wouldn't want to argue the point at
>> the road side.
>>
Had this already on a slightly different level. As some of you will be aware, pre-1960 vehicles no longer require an MOT test; PNC however did not flag that up when two coppers pulled me on my 1942 Harley one night last year.
I've told the tale on here before, but suffice it to say they ended up with a significant amount of egg on their faces.
|
" they refuse to point out that particular UK rules only apply in the UK "
This smells like an EU directive which our bureaucrats, always anxious to fill their days, have 'gold-plated'. I'm voting No!
|
This smells like an EU directive which our bureaucrats, always anxious to fill their days, have 'gold-plated'.
Third EU directive on driving licences to be precise.
Swapped E mails with a tester today, he does not recall officialdom telling testers of the original subject. It's unfair to expect anyone to remember everything from VOSA, but I'd have thought he would given the expected public reaction. We're now talking about far more interesting things, calibrating pre-war speedos...
|
Driving After an MoT Fail While Current Cert Valid - spamcan61
