MOT question.

[barefoot]

MOT runs out on the 944 in about a month, I set a reminder on my phone to bob up and tell me on the earliest day it can be re-tested so I can nip it down & have the best part of a month to sort out any problems. Phone pinged on Sunday, I took it to the garage this morning.

Chap rings me up, tells me it's failed on a couple of minor points - wheel bearing, anti roll bar mount etc.

Then he tells me that I can have it back, but I WON'T BE ABLE TO DRIVE IT since it's failed & now has no MOT.

Or he'll sort it (which is what I would have had him do anyway) and let me have it back,, tested on Monday.

 

It's not a problem, been going to chap for years, good with Porsches etc

But the MOT story is a new one on me & I thought I'd ask on here, because it sounds like utter bollocks to me.

 

Thanks in anticipation. 

[stripped fred]

I think it's rubbish as you still have a valid mot for it.

 

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.'

[omegod]

I think it was the case for a brief period last year then they realised it was a total fuck up and rescinded it

[sierraman]

If it's still got MOT on it you can use it, however, it's now been deemed to be unroadworthy, hence the police will know this. So technically yes the old MOT is valid but you have now been informed it's unroadworthy so should you have a bang, the insurance could well use this to discredit any claim you put forward etc. HTH

[alfetta]

This is true. Though as someone who drove for nearly a year with no mot, I think you'll get away with it once... no MOT will not void your insurance. though obviously a fail is worse than simply driving expired...

[Walter White]

Your car still has a valid MOT. If the failures were very serious you may be advised not to drive it but that is your choice.

That is the gist of what the tester at the garage I use said when I did a similar thing.

[Urko]

If true, this would have immediately put all the MOT-only testing places out of business - although MOT or not, of course no-one should be driving dodgy stuff.

[Split_Pin]

Definitely shite.

[SiC]

If it's still got MOT on it you can use it, however, it's now been deemed to be unroadworthy, hence the police will know this. So technically yes the old MOT is valid but you have now been informed it's unroadworthy so should you have a bang, the insurance could well use this to discredit any claim you put forward etc. HTH

^^ This. Most insurances also put a clause in their T&Cs that you need to have a road worthy vehicle. How this works if you don't believe that the MOT fail was correct/fair/etc, then I imagine that's when lawyers get involved.

 

The garage (apart from the incorrect MOT thing, as it still has one), by saying what he said, is basically trying to shift liability over to you, if you do decide to drive it. If you do decide to drive it and are involved in an accident, when the police officer arrives at his premises, the garage can say "I told him he can't drive it on the road gov, but its his car and is a grown man an' all."

 

I believe on the MOT fail sheet it also says **DANGEROUS** or something along those lines too.

[barefoot]

Thanks folks,  Pretty much as I thought.

As I say, it's not a problem. Porsche bloke would be fixing it anyway, we're playing in the bay over the weekend

and the fair Lady barefoot can take the scarecrow to work on Monday.

[sierraman]

I can completely understand the garage owner. After all he probably has no end of people come for a test, it fail on all sorts of shit like bald tyres, brakes down to the backing and then leave it a few months, driving round in the meantime. Obviously this isn't your case but there's lots of people who find the MOT an inconvenience.

[oldford]

^^ This. Most insurances also put a clause in their T&Cs that you need to have a road worthy vehicle. How this works if you don't believe that the MOT fail was correct/fair/etc, then I imagine that's when lawyers get involved.

It depends on how they define 'roadworthy', a fresh MOT doesn't, I've had to give a few cars MOTs and they certainly weren't roadworthy.

[twosmoke300]

I'm sure this subject comes up once a month on here !

[SiC]

Probably because a lot of our cars in here have no chance of passing first time!

[For Fiats Sake]

The garage I use does the test then rectifies the faults and re-tests.  I get a fail sheet and a fresh mot.

Taking the car away isn't an issue as it stays with him until he can fit it in.  He's had a car of mine in his compound for the last couple of months, I've had four in and out so far, saves having to get lifts to the garage!

 

Advantage of spreading low miles over many cars is not much wears out!

[Stroller133]

Sorry for thread hijack. Do some MOT failures still result in a dangerous to drive warning? When they were paper only , I seem to remember most fails were reason to refuse a certificate, but some things would result dangerous to drive warning.

My car failed yesterday, pads all round less than 1.5mm , was expecting fronts,but rears have only done 18k and I'm not usually heavy on brakes. There was also a broken spring - would this be classed as a dangerous to drive?

I'm just going out to check the spring is broken and have a look at rear pads - what I find suspicious is that he can do a the work Monday. The other local garages I use are usually booked for at least 2/3 days in advance.

[sierraman]

Depends. A break near the top or bottom then no so long as the spring is still seated correctly, in fact they can pass like that so long as it's the end that's broke and it's still seated correctly. A break in the centre though apart from being a fail could cut into the sidewall of the tyre with the obvious consequences.

[oldford]

The rules changed a while back, a broken spring irrespective of where or how much has broken is a fail.  I failed one the other day, it looked as though a bit had broken off at the top, when it was dismantled it was also found to be broken at the bottom, but this part of the spring was covered with a plastic sleeve.

 

I would tick the dangerous box if the broken spring was resting on the bodywork at the top or in danger of slipping past its lower seat and fouling something.

 

I've also ticked the dangerous box on an advisory in the past.

[the judge]

Mot jobs will always take priority dude. Job n finish. Hard to charge a retest fee if its not the customers fault

[Stroller133]

The Spring is broken at the bottom, nearly didn't see it, but to be fair it IS broken. However there is about 3-4mm of material on all 4 rear pads?

 

Not sure what to do now, almost tempted to just put it in Monday and get the ticket. But afterward it will probably start to get to me that the rear pads didn't need doing an the ill probably diubt whether he even did any of the work!

 

It's annoying really that one of the 6 fails seems dubious.

[twosmoke300]

Bear in mind that the tester has to make a decision on the pads without removing a wheel or even a wheel trim . If any doubt it should be pass and advise tho

[twosmoke300]

Oh and 3mm on the pads - they are fucked anyway ! Get em changed