MOT History Question

[Hendry]

Was doing a little digging on the MOT history of my car and out of curiosity decided to put the reg of the Mondeo my dad bought on 31st August in to see what it was coming up with, it's a 2013 63 plate first registered 15/10/2013 so would only have been due its first one a couple of months back but as part of the same we insisted the Ford main dealer put a full year on it for us buying it even though it wasn't quite due one yet, just wanted to see if it had failed on anything to begin with or if any advisories.

 

Anyway was surprised to find it had already had an MOT done before, not unusual in itself until I looked at the dates and mileage, for some reason it was MOT'd when it'd only covered 2901 miles on 30/01/2014 I.e. When it was just over 3 months old!!!

 

Does anyone know why anyone would MOT a 3 month old car?? Or if there's any reason at all why it could possibly be stipulated, because even taxis don't need an actual MOT until they turn 3 even though they need to pass a taxi test, the other question is, if a car is put through an MOT when it's under 3 years old and that MOT then expires whilst the car is still under 3 years old, can you legitimately not bother getting it MOT'd again until it turns 3 or are you obliged to keep renewing the MOT every time it expires just like you would on a car older than 3?? Does that mean someone would have been driving that car for 21months with an expired MOT and liable to be stopped and prosecuted by the cops if it pinged up on ANPR there was no MOT? I'm not sure how they managed to tax it either because I know on cars older than 3 you can't tax without a valid MOT because the computer can tell if it's valid and if not won't issue you new tax, and obviously back then I think you still had to present a physical copy of the certificate if taxing at a post office. Mega confused!!

 

EDIT: I see the MOT history checker now no longer tells you which testing station carried out previous MOTs like it used to, is it possible to find out the testing station from the test number?

[Cavcraft]

Can only suggest it belonged to a company/care home/taxi firm that insisted on a three month check of some sort. How many owners has it had? If you're the third it's possible someone insisted on an MOT when they bought it at three months old, some odd people about. 

[Hertz]

Does VOSA insist on an MOT after it's been repaired regardless of age? Hopefully not in your case...

[Mr A Lawrence]

That is a strange one.

 

I've just tried to put the missus's 65 reg abarth in and it says no details found and in the tax checker it says taxed but no mot details available.

 

Maybe it's a glitch??

 

Couldn't you contact the previous owner for clarification??

[meggersdog]

Could have been bought abroad then brought over here.I think cars need to be MOT'd on the chassis number before being issued with a reg number

[AMC Rebel]

Wasn't there someone on here saying some Local Authorities Taxi Licensing requires MOTs on any age of vehicle?  I did a quick Google and Dartford seems to use MOT as an entry criteria to a licence - they don't mention age except to exclude older cars all together.

[Richard]

I believe all taxis have to have an MOT, even if they are brand new.

[Pillock]

Does it have the name of the previous owner on the V5?

[twosmoke300]

Bet it's had a bump . Didn't it used to mean any write off had to have a fresh mot to go back on the road ?

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

I suspect the MOT history held by the DVLA is not correct. False data entries doesn't seem to be an especially rare problem - there is a thread dedicated to it somewhere on Piston Heads. My own car's MOT history is garbled on the DVLA site, with genuine MOTs listed alongside the MOTs for another car - and more MOTs are listed on the DVLA's site than it has had. It is annoying actually since the mileages on the phantom MOTs are different to the number of miles my car has done, which makes the car look like it has been clocked. Thanks DVLA!

 

I have owned the car a long time - and the car's fist MOT was done by my dad, so the car doesn't  have any hidden history I am unaware of.

[NorfolkNWeigh]

Ive discovered, whilst looking at E Classes , that TFL don't inspect private hire vehicles themselves like most Provincial Licensing Authorities rather they require an MOT every 6 months . A lot of London minicabs belong to big fleets so are likely to be bought either new or nearly new hence thousands of cars with 10 or 12 MOTs on their history at 5 or 6 years old.

Addison Lee , the biggest company have just under 5,000 cars , mostly Galaxys, Priuses and E Classes. So that's a lot of ex taxis, many of which seem to get a 6 monthly haircut before their MOT ,neither that or they can make a living doing 8,000 miles a year!

 

Edited to add , I don't mean AddiLee clock their cars, they sell theirs direct to the public from a showroom in Camden . Rather other individuals trying to hide the history.

[oldford]

That is a strange one.

 

I've just tried to put the missus's 65 reg abarth in and it says no details found and in the tax checker it says taxed but no mot details available.

 

Maybe it's a glitch??

 

Couldn't you contact the previous owner for clarification??

Nothing strange about that, as it doesn't need a MOT until 2018, no MOT test done, hence no MOT history available.

[sierraman]

VIC check? If your car got writ off you usually needed an MOT IIRC

[twosmoke300]

That's what I was thinking of

[Timewaster]

Oldford, I think ATTM was saying his car is what you would expect so the OPs situation was odd.

[Dave_Q]

Is it on a private plate? That confuses it.

[scaryoldcortina]

Was the car HPI checked before purchase? That would show any insurance activity, and would certainly flag up one that was written off.

 

Any car can be submitted for a MoT at any time for any reason, maybe the original owner wanted it checked out and didn't trust the main dealers opinion on something.

[SiC]

Maybe it has been on a private plate and the history has been cocked up. Eithet that or it has a marker on it.

[overrun]

Does VOSA insist on an MOT after it's been repaired regardless of age? Hopefully not in your case...

I had to MOT a one year old Cat D that I had repaired.

[DodgeRover]

I had to MOT a one year old Cat D that I had repaired.

Why? Was it because your insurers insisted?

No requirement as far as I know.

[twosmoke300]

Always used to be part of the vic procedure

[Hendry]

Don't think it's ever been imported, nor has it ever been on a private plate, the reg is BN63GHD and car data check says that's the only plate it's ever had since new. It's had 4 owners according to the V5, had done 51,557 miles when we picked it up, service history all checks out because I've phoned the dealer to confirm, all done by Bristol Street Motors in Crewe, previous owner lived in Crewe, that's where it came from, we bought it from Macklin Motors Ford In Glasgow which is part of the Bristol Street/Vertu chain, previous owner had traded it back in to Bristol Street Crewe as it came up from there for us to buy. There's some other receipts for tyres etc which have mileages which correspond to the cars service history dates and mileages. Car was HPI checked by the dealership when it came in as a part ex. Not sure why it's had 4 owners as the previous owner had owned it since 2014 so 3 owners in under a year from new.

 

Also up here our local authority don't require PHCs to have an MOT under 3 years old, just their Taxi Test, but as the cost of an MOT is included in the Taxi Test fee most people just get it done.

[Pillock]

It's a very grey area around MOT'ing of writeoffs.

I always believed it to be necessary, I then bought a Cat D and had it MOT'ed. Chatting to the tester as he wrote it up, I mentioned I had 8 months left on the certificate that was in the car but it was a writeoff and called me an idiot. He seemed convinced the MOT paperwork I had from pre-crash was still valid.

 

Can any of our resident testers confirm? Any way of tapping in the reg of a recent writeoff to the MOT computer to check?

[bigfella2]

I personally didn't think an mot was a requirement after being written off, and I have repaired a few written off cars. I know on my previous caddy I didn't MOT before going back on road, but being a commercial didn't require a Vic, so maybe irrelevant.

[FakeConcern]

It's a very grey area around MOT'ing of writeoffs.

I always believed it to be necessary, I then bought a Cat D and had it MOT'ed. Chatting to the tester as he wrote it up, I mentioned I had 8 months left on the certificate that was in the car but it was a writeoff and called me an idiot. He seemed convinced the MOT paperwork I had from pre-crash was still valid.

 

Can any of our resident testers confirm? Any way of tapping in the reg of a recent writeoff to the MOT computer to check?

MOT was still shown as valid on my car after it was written off Cat D, but insurance wanted a fresh MOT done.

[scaryoldcortina]

Insurance co said that the focus would need a new MoT because writeoff. Was only tested in august, damage amounts to a scratch down the side of the car. Didn't bother retesting, is still showing as tested on the computer.

 

If I'm stopped for no test I'm quite happy to accept a VDRS ticket which I'll stamp and sign myself while also signing off a fresh MoT.

[SiC]

VDRS == ?

[scaryoldcortina]

Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme...

 

It's the ticket the police give you where you have 14 days to get your car fixed and certified by an MoT station or face court action.

[vaughant]

Never been any requirement to re-mot after a write off of any description and insurance companies certainly can't demand it, it's often recommended you do but is certainly not a requirement.

Was never a requirement of a Vic check either, certainly not in any of the ones I had anyway.

 

Loads of confusion around write off's probably not helped now by the dvla scrapping Vic checks. The amount of idiots I've corrected on other forums who suggest a Vic determined the quality of repairs is unreal, it was a Vehicle Identity Check.

 

You could take a partially repaired car for a Vic ( one I bought was) so deffo no need for a mot first as the car could be missing headlights etc, iirc the stipulation was it had to move under its own steam? Not 100% on that though but "because irrelevant now M9".

 

Also the amount of sellers trying to say the vehicle had " undergone a stringient government vehicle safety check" after the new rules came out were unreal.

 

Apparently you can't insure or finance written off cars either.

😂😂😂😂

 

Internet/pub experts.

[Eddie Honda]

and insurance companies certainly can't demand it

Whilst the current MOT is still valid, the insurer can demand what they like. They can tell you to GTF or demand your firstborn. It's entirely up to the individual insurer what they want before they engage in business or alter the contract.