MOT Changes.. |
MOT Changes.. |
Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 16:51
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 882 Joined: 7 Nov 2004 Member No.: 1,847 |
I see the Daily Fail and most of the other scandal rags are peddling the idea that from May, if your car fails an early MOT, the existing MOT is cancelled and you risk a £2500 fine and 3 points if you continue to drive it.
e.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-55...2-500-fine.html AFAIK, this is untrue, I can't find anything on .GOV (Which I agree isn't exactly renowned for knowing The Law) I think they are mixing up driving an unroadworthy vehicle with no valid MOT (£1000 no points), which has always been the case. (You could fail on a damaged tyre, and rectify it at Mr Tyre on the way home and the vehicle would no longer be unroadworthy) The main change to the MOT seems to be the creation of "Dangerous" fail, which means it can't be driven away from the test centre, rather than "major" fail which can. Has anyone found anything official on this supposed cancellation of a current valid MOT? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 16:51
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 17:30
Post
#2
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
You could fail on a damaged tyre, and rectify it at Mr Tyre on the way home and the vehicle would no longer be unroadworthy) I don't believe it's ever been the case that you could drive a vehicle on the road in an unroadworthy condition, whether or not it's on the way home from an MOT test. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 19:18
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 882 Joined: 7 Nov 2004 Member No.: 1,847 |
Of course you mustn't drive an unroadworthy vehicle on public roads, as this is an offence
It could have failed because there is a sidelight bulb out, and you are driving home in the daylight. You could make it roadworthy outside the test centre, but they have no time for a re-test that day. You could dispute the failure (later appeal and be proved right) in which case it wouldn't actually even be unroadworthy However, currently, if you still have say 28 days of valid MOT, as soon as you rectify the problem, you can carry on driving it until the 28 days expire. The comics are claiming that those 28 days would be cancelled by the failure. I can't find anything that indicates this will be the case. Obviously on a scale of credibility, those "papers" are somewhere below the average Politician, but sometimes they can be right by the Infinite Monkey Theorem. This post has been edited by facade: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 19:20 |
|
|
Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 19:35
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
It used to be the case that a failed MOT cancelled the previous one, it’s not been the case for a while and there is a part of the .gov website that makes that clear. As can drive a car without an MOT (under one of the statutory provisions) but not an unroadworthy car.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 00:04
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
It used to be the case that a failed MOT cancelled the previous one Really? How long ago was that? Must have been before my time for sure. It could have failed because there is a sidelight bulb out, and you are driving home in the daylight. Nah, just get a daytime only MOT. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 10:54
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
It used to be the case that a failed MOT cancelled the previous one Really? How long ago was that? Must have been before my time for sure. I can remember an article on 'that's life' (1973-1994) that mentioned it as they put a car through a number of MOT tests where a lot failed it on a known dodgy item on that make/model (Lower trunnions on a BL car) and garages were failing it despite it having a brand new part (camoflaged with some applied gunge), they noted that after the last fail, despite the car having an otherwise still live MOT cert, they still had to get a pass to make it legal. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 11:09
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 119 Joined: 28 May 2010 From: Sussex Member No.: 37,839 |
I have never been aware at any time of an MOT failure cancelling out a current MOT.
The changes being brought in will see defects listed as minor, major or dangerous. Any vehicle issued with a dangerous defect "should not" be driven on the road - not CAN NOT ! Testing stations have no authority to stop vehicle presenters from driving them away - currently anyway. If a vehicle fails the MOT and it still has a current unexpired certificate it can be driven away and go anywhere. If it has an expired certificate it can still be driven away but only to either -have the failed defects fixed or a pre-arranged MOT test appointment. Obviously a person could still be guilty of driving a vehicle in unroadworthy condition even with a current Mot. I wonder if testing stations are falling foul of the Road Traffic Act 1991, when handing over keys to vehicles that have been tested and considered unfit/dangerous to use ! 40A Using 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 ©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.” This post has been edited by Harnes: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 11:20 -------------------- Better to be 20 minutes late in this life than 20 years early into the next one !
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 11:19
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,423 Joined: 15 Apr 2009 From: Winnersh, UK Member No.: 27,840 |
I suspect that the MOT station are not committing any office because they are not "using" the vehicle. Only somebody who drives it onto the road would be using it. That said, about 20 years ago, I took a car for an MOT and it failed due to excessive tyre wear on the two front tyres. The testing station made me sign some sort of form acknowledging that I understood that the car was not roadworthy should not be driven on the road.
Having re-read Harnes post, I also think that the phrase "permits another to use" cannot be applied to an MOT station. After all the vehicle is not theirs and it is therefore not at their discretion as to who may be permitted to use it. Generally speaking, only the keeper would have the discretion to permit or deny use (note: I did not say registered keeper ) |
|
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 16:37
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
I can't imagine MoT garages would want in the slightest to prohibit people from driving a vehicle away.
Otherwise you will just get cars abandoned there whilst their mate with a tow truck comes to pick it up/they find the money to get it towed away/etc. Also a load of people cheesed off that they can't drive home. It is right that people are told if a fault is dangerous but it is less dangerous knowing about it. I remember a while back I had a car fail on brakes and I might as well have been driving on snow on the way home. The danger was to all intents and purposes mitigated. |
|
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 17:11
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,140 Joined: 19 Jun 2004 From: Surrey Member No.: 1,326 |
That's the Daily Fail for you. I once had my car failed on three different things with three different garages within a week, and chose the most likely/cheapest. It turned out the first two were wrong (including Kwik Fit). I wish I'd known you could claim back the cost for inaccurate MOTs at the time.
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 18:54
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
It used to be the case that a failed MOT cancelled the previous one I call bullshit. I have been putting cars through MOTs since the early seventies & this has never been the case. I would know as I had some very dodgy cars in early years that needed a lots of cosseting & several attempts to get through an MOT so always started a few weeks before the old MOT ran out. This post has been edited by nigelbb: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 18:55 -------------------- British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012 |
|
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 20:22
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I can remember an article on 'that's life' (1973-1994) that mentioned it as they put a car through a number of MOT tests where a lot failed it on a known dodgy item on that make/model (Lower trunnions on a BL car) and garages were failing it despite it having a brand new part (camoflaged with some applied gunge), they noted that after the last fail, despite the car having an otherwise still live MOT cert, they still had to get a pass to make it legal. I'm going to chose to disbelieve your source. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 08:44
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
I can't imagine MoT garages would want in the slightest to prohibit people from driving a vehicle away............... Hmmmm I can imagine a lot of MOT stations, the ones that use MOTs to drum up repair business, being ever so helpful in explaining that driving a car with a dangerous item is worth a huge fine and points. And being very helpful in suggesting that the car is left with them to get it all fixed. Many people do anyway but will be used as an extra incentive for those that are in two minds. |
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 09:54
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 137 Joined: 18 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,469 |
I can't imagine MoT garages would want in the slightest to prohibit people from driving a vehicle away............... Hmmmm I can imagine a lot of MOT stations, the ones that use MOTs to drum up repair business, being ever so helpful in explaining that driving a car with a dangerous item is worth a huge fine and points. And being very helpful in suggesting that the car is left with them to get it all fixed. Many people do anyway but will be used as an extra incentive for those that are in two minds. I had a Main Stealer that offered loss-leader MOT tests fail a car on a seized brake bias valve. The guy was adamant that the existing certificate (with 3 weeks left) was now invalid, and that it would be dangerous to use on the road and implied (without explicitly saying) that he shouldn't even give me my keys back. They quoted £600 and a week to replace the valve, but were able to 'do a deal' to get that down to £450. This was on a 15 year old Toyota Yarris worth about £1k. The car wasn't dangerous. It pretty much never carried rear passengers, so the valve was stuck in the 'up' position, meaning, if someone did sit in the back the weight wouldn't shift some more of the braking force to the back drums. With no rear passengers, the valve was always in the 'correct' position. Despite the dire warnings from the dealer, I took it to my regular mechanic (who would have done the test if he'd not been fully booked). A bit of lubrication and some bouncing on the rear sill freed it up, and it passed the retest the next day (and 4 years of subsequent tests). Cost me £35 - and that included changing the brake fluid (at my request - it was due anyway). |
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 10:06
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
A friend had a very very late model first generation Toyota Avenisis, he took it for its first MOT at 2y 11m old (just inside warranty) they failed it on a number of brake related items, they were a bit miffed when he suggested they needed to fix it then, I suspect they were never reimbursed by Toyota for that warranty work.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 11:18
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
I get newsletters from petrolprices.com and they also are touting these " changes" as gospel so Ive sent them an email to confirm their source
|
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 11:42
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
........I had a Main Stealer that offered loss-leader MOT tests ............. It's not only main dealers, some of the national franchise chains have a very poor rep on padding MOT fails. Years back, my Mother in Law took her 3 year old Rover for its first MOT to one of them, now defunct, Apple IIRC. Fail list as long as your arm and a quote well into 4 figures. I took a look and fixed just two items, handbrake adjustment and a number plate bulb. Then took it in for a test elsewhere. Passed with flying colours. Apple reimbursed MOT fee after some discussion. |
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 12:25
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 119 Joined: 28 May 2010 From: Sussex Member No.: 37,839 |
A statement at the bottom of a VT30 (Refusal of an Mot Certificate)
"If you intend to use your vehicle on the road you should have it repaired without delay and have it re-tested before the existing vailidity expires" Have seen nothing mentioned in any paperwork from DVSA in any Special Notices or the Amended Manual draft that states the existing MOT will be cancelled with a failure. -------------------- Better to be 20 minutes late in this life than 20 years early into the next one !
|
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 13:24
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
........I had a Main Stealer that offered loss-leader MOT tests ............. It's not only main dealers, some of the national franchise chains have a very poor rep on padding MOT fails. Years back, my Mother in Law took her 3 year old Rover for its first MOT to one of them, now defunct, Apple IIRC. Fail list as long as your arm and a quote well into 4 figures. I took a look and fixed just two items, handbrake adjustment and a number plate bulb. Then took it in for a test elsewhere. Passed with flying colours. Apple reimbursed MOT fee after some discussion. Would that be Appleyard ? |
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 14:39
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
Reply from petrolprices.com refers me to >>>>
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-manual-changes But I see nothing about what is mentioned in Post 1 regarding the old MOT being cancelled ( not that I expected to ) This post has been edited by StuartBu: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 14:45 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:51 |