Presenting a car for MOT before earliest test date

[Jewel25]

Morning all , my Rover's MOT expires on the 19th of September. The earliest I can present the car for a MOT is the 20th August. Both dates are a little too late for me ( I have the school summer holidays off) . Could I present the car earlier i.e next week and if it failed , would the existing certificate remain in place ? This would give me time to repair any failure points. I'm not too fussed about preserving the MOT date , I'd rather have an expiry date that was mid to late August.

[Heidel_Kakao]

Yeah a fail does not invalidate a current MOT certificate.

[Tamworthbay]

the advice above is out of date, if it has failed it is not deemed roadworthy so therefore you can't drive it on the road. Depending on the fault you could risk it (I don't know how they update the system so the old one may stay on but I doubt it) but anything serious would land you in trouble if caught. It would also be a very good excuse for the insurance not to pay out in the event of an accident.

[BorniteIdentity]

Link please?

 

I've heard this little rumour, but never seen anything evidential of a change.

 

Roadworthiness has always been a thing. MOT aside.

[Captain Furious]

_{Yeah I got told that by someone who heard it from a mate on the internet etc - but I've never seen anything official to that effect - I think its internet folklore}

 

_{the Gov website seems to suggest the first reply is correct}

 

_{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.}

_{If your MOT has run out you can take your vehicle to:}

• _{have the failed defects fixed}
• _{a pre-arranged MOT test appointment}

_{In both cases, your vehicle still needs to meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness at all times or you can be fined.}

[Tamworthbay]

Link please?

I've heard this little rumour, but never seen anything evidential of a change.

Roadworthiness has always been a thing. MOT aside.

I accept this a shit link (the sun) but sums it up:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/3506420/the-mot-loophole-that-can-get-you-a-2500-fine-and-three-demerit-points-even-if-most-recent-test-is-valid/

 

The government website makes no mention of the database either way, but it has been in use for some time - we all check it before purchases after all. All MoTs are listed there so you are flagging up that you are driving a car which has failed the MoT. If it's a dash bulb or something similarly minor then the chances are you would get away with it, but not if it's anything that affects it being roadworthy or safe - or to put it another way, the majority of the test.

[Anthony]

I don't think that anything has changed - an MOT failure has always potentially highlighted that the car is unroadworthy even if the existing MOT certificate is still valid.

[BeEP]

So we're going with the Sun rather than the government's own website?  The gov.uk site was updated in Autumn 2015, firstly to state that the remaining MOT was not valid after a failure, and then a month later to the current wording (as quoted above) which states that it is; a fact that was picked up on here at the time.  And as far as ANPR goes it still shows as having a valid MOT, so a failure isn't 'flagging' anything up unless you are stopped for another reason (which obvioulsy could be for driving a car that was clearly unroadworthy in some way). There are many MOT failures which would not necessarily fail a (admittedly subjective) roadworthiness appraisal.

[beko1987]

My Gooner showed at MOT'd for the 3 weeks between it failing next years test and it passing. Good enough for me, with all the roadworthiness bits taken into consideration (I had to explain to Amy that a marginal handbrake on an auto doesn't mean it's not safe to have the children in...)

[quicksilver]

The first reply does appear to be correct. As part of my usual checks when captioning photos I checked one of the cars at the Festival of the Unexceptional and the MOT history site said it failed on 20 July, two days before it was driven there, but at the same time the vehicle enquiry site said it had a valid MOT until 4 August. I guess that proves it was still legal despite failing an MOT before the due date so the failed test didn't invalidate the current MOT and it was okay to drive afterwards. I doubt it would flag up on ANPR and cause you to get stopped by itself but I suppose it might be an issue if you happen to get stopped for some other reason.

[Jewel25]

Thanks for the replies. So in theory I could book it in this week and if it failed it would still be covered until the 20th of September. It won't be driven much anyway , as it is my second car.

[mercrocker]

I think on-line MOT confirmation has muddied the waters completely on this.   There seems little point presenting a car early if a fail is now a fail and the remaining original term of MOT validity is indeed deemed not to be valid.

 

In the old days of merely having a valid certificate to be "safe" the 30 days grace gained by early submission was actually useful to buy more time for repairs. 

 

Hadn't really thought about this until reading this thread.... 

[Jewel25]

I suspect it would show as a fail online straight away . I'd like to MOT mine before the grace period , which in theory shouldn't affect the fact the certificate is vailed until September 20th.

[Captain Furious]

All it means is if your car goes in for an MOT and fails on something that makes it unroadworthy, such as a bald tyre, then if you subsequently get pulled over for that bald tyre you'll still get prosecuted for it regardless of having an MOT - or in other words, The Sun stating the blindingly obvious.

 

It will not invalidate the rest of the MOT, you won't be prosecuted for having no MOT, but you may be prosecuted if your vehicle is unroadworthy, just like you would have been anyway whether it had just been for an MOT or not.

[Jewel25]

It's covered around 4,000 since last year . Corrosion always a fear , but no advisories last year.

[djimbob]

Thanks for the replies. So in theory I could book it in this week and if it failed it would still be covered until the 20th of September. It won't be driven much anyway , as it is my second car.

 

yes, as with anytime you check your vehicle and find a dangerous fault, use your noggin and get it fixed so as not to kill yourself and others

[Guest Hooli]

Oh & before anyone suggests it. Failing/not having an MOT doesn't invalidate your insurance either.

[panhard65]

Just looked at my mot cert as I put it in early due to going on holiday next month. Even though I was less than a month early it hasn't been dated on. I suspect it is due to a registration change 6 months ago but I have lost 3 weeks worth of mot, not a happy bunny as I was thinking of selling the car after my holiday when it would still of had 12 months test left now it will only have 11. So much for the computer is always right

[castros_bro]

Oh & before anyone suggests it. Failing/not having an MOT doesn't invalidate your insurance either.

 

My insurance smoll print - so you can now have an argument about it being insured but the insurance not paying.

 

 

 

 

SIGNIFICANT & UNUSUAL GENERAL EXCLUSIONS/LIMITATIONS (continued)

Vehicles Values -

(Endorsement VV01)

The policy will only pay the market value of the insured vehicle up to £45,000. There is no cover for vehicles

worth less than £1500.

Use of Approved Repairer

(Sections A &

If repairs to the insured car are not carried out by our Approved Repairer we will only pay up to the amount

our Approved Repairer would have charged. If the repairs are carried out by an alternative repairer an additional

£250 excess will apply.

Looking after your car

(Section A & General

Conditions 2, 3 & 4)

The policy will not pay if you have not maintained the car in a roadworthy condition – this includes having a

current MOT Certificate if required.

We will not pay for damage resulting from an inappropriate type or grade of fuel being used.

We will not pay for further damage to your car if, following an accident, it is driven or there is an attempt to

drive it in a damaged condition.

Driving licences

(General Exception 1)

You and all drivers must comply with the conditions of your driving licence(s) otherwise cover will not be provided

by the policy.

Drink/Drugs Exclusion

(General Exception 1)

The policy will not pay if you are involved in an accident and are subsequently convicted of driving under the

influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of such accident.

[Dave_Q]

^Thats useful info for you, mine doesn't say that so I guess it varies.

 

Can't believe I have to say this, but your own insurance terms and conditions are a more reliable source than the flipping Sun, if people are concerned about whether you're insured with no MOT then read your own insurance documents.

 

Or repost stuff somebody said once, that'll probably do it.

[Jewel25]

Thanks for the replies . Took it last Saturday , passed with advisories for rear tyres that are getting close to the legal limit.

[andy18s]

My insurance smoll print - so you can now have an argument about it being insured but the insurance not paying.

 

 

 

 

SIGNIFICANT & UNUSUAL GENERAL EXCLUSIONS/LIMITATIONS (continued)

Vehicles Values -

(Endorsement VV01)

The policy will only pay the market value of the insured vehicle up to £45,000. There is no cover for vehicles

worth less than £1500.

Use of Approved Repairer

(Sections A &

If repairs to the insured car are not carried out by our Approved Repairer we will only pay up to the amount

our Approved Repairer would have charged. If the repairs are carried out by an alternative repairer an additional

£250 excess will apply.

Looking after your car

(Section A & General

Conditions 2, 3 & 4)

The policy will not pay if you have not maintained the car in a roadworthy condition – this includes having a

current MOT Certificate if required.

We will not pay for damage resulting from an inappropriate type or grade of fuel being used.

We will not pay for further damage to your car if, following an accident, it is driven or there is an attempt to

drive it in a damaged condition.

Driving licences

(General Exception 1)

You and all drivers must comply with the conditions of your driving licence(s) otherwise cover will not be provided

by the policy.

Drink/Drugs Exclusion

(General Exception 1)

The policy will not pay if you are involved in an accident and are subsequently convicted of driving under the

influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of such accident.

I'm guessing it will be getting slipped into more and more policies as time goes by,similar to social,domestic and pleasure cover not actually including commuting to work...

[Tamworthbay]

I have heard so many times that not having an MoT won't invalidate insurance. The problem is that people forget there are two aspects to insurance - what they will pay to someone else if you are at fault and what they will pay to you. They MAY still pay the 3rd party (but may seek to claim that back from you) but they aren't going to pay you out if they can get out of doing so in any way. Having a car that is demonstrably not roadworthy is a perfect way for them to avoid paying out. If you are driving a £100 scrapper you might not worry but if the car is worth anything it could be a big headache.

 

At the end of the day it's for each person to decide what risk is acceptable to them, but one thing we can all be sure of is that insurance companies will be arseholes if it's in their interests to be at the best of times, so avoiding giving them reason to be is maybe not a bad idea.

[gtd2000]

Insurance and no MoT eh?

 

So you've just bought a car with no MoT. You need to drive it to the test centre....

 

Lack of MoT and being unroadworthy are two very different things.

 

As far as I'm concerned having an MoT is simply a snapshot of the car when it was inspected one day out of 365.

 

I always take my car in for the 13 month MoT, as I use the extra month as leeway for any potential issues that might get flagged up.

 

I see the MoT merely as a Bureaucratic inconvenience and a valid existing certificate is simply the way the game is played.

 

I wouldn't be driving around in a dangerous vehicle to be honest, I've lived in enough countries where vehicles are not inspected by the state and never had any issues due to poorly maintained vehicles. Certainly experienced arsehole drivers but no incidents due to not being able to pass an MoT standard inspection.

 

The 1969 Mazda 2000 which used a length of string for the throttle and had only one working brake on the front axle is quite possibly the worst car I've ever driven (in Zimbabwe) but I didn't own said vehicle

[Tamworthbay]

As I am sure you are aware, there are specific exemptions for driving to and from a pre booked MoT. But if you wish to try your luck against an insurance company in the event of issues beyond that, then good luck to you.

[sierraman]

The problem is, you might not drive an unroadworthy car, but if there wasn't in instrument in place to make sure cars were roadworthy, a lot of people would ride about on bald tyres and failing shockers.

 

It's no good explaining to a copper that you don't believe in the system, they'll just cause you twice the trouble for giving them shit.

[castros_bro]

I have heard so many times that not having an MoT won't invalidate insurance. The problem is that people forget there are two aspects to insurance - what they will pay to someone else if you are at fault and what they will pay to you. They MAY still pay the 3rd party (but may seek to claim that back from you) but they aren't going to pay you out if they can get out of doing so in any way. Having a car that is demonstrably not roadworthy is a perfect way for them to avoid paying out. If you are driving a £100 scrapper you might not worry but if the car is worth anything it could be a big headache.

 

At the end of the day it's for each person to decide what risk is acceptable to them, but one thing we can all be sure of is that insurance companies will be arseholes if it's in their interests to be at the best of times, so avoiding giving them reason to be is maybe not a bad idea.

 

Arsehole here.  

 

  I do admit to having worked in the motoring part of an insurance company, they (the one I worked for) do not base their  procedures and decisions on anecdotal anecdotes.  The unroadworthy clause was bought in because of things like expensive moderns on PCP get driven on bald underpressure front nearside tyres then find they don't go round the roundabout in a controlled manner, nothing to do with driving older/cheaper cars.  By writing it in the insurance just adds clarity to the otherwise endless pointless wibble about "insurance covers me to drive to a prebooked MOT or not" 

[sierraman]

Insurance and no MoT eh?

 

So you've just bought a car with no MoT. You need to drive it to the test centre....

 

Lack of MoT and being unroadworthy are two very different things.

 

As far as I'm concerned having an MoT is simply a snapshot of the car when it was inspected one day out of 365.

 

I always take my car in for the 13 month MoT, as I use the extra month as leeway for any potential issues that might get flagged up.

 

I see the MoT merely as a Bureaucratic inconvenience and a valid existing certificate is simply the way the game is played.

 

I wouldn't be driving around in a dangerous vehicle to be honest, I've lived in enough countries where vehicles are not inspected by the state and never had any issues due to poorly maintained vehicles. Certainly experienced arsehole drivers but no incidents due to not being able to pass an MoT standard inspection.

 

The 1969 Mazda 2000 which used a length of string for the throttle and had only one working brake on the front axle is quite possibly the worst car I've ever driven (in Zimbabwe) but I didn't own said vehicle

I'd love to watch you explain this to the traffic police.

[gtd2000]

The problem is, you might not drive an unroadworthy car, but if there wasn't in instrument in place to make sure cars were roadworthy, a lot of people would ride about on bald tyres and failing shockers.

 

It's no good explaining to a copper that you don't believe in the system, they'll just cause you twice the trouble for giving them shit.

 

People do all of the above with the MoT system in place, next!

[gtd2000]

I'd love to watch you explain this to the traffic police.

 

Explain what to the traffic police, that I was driving a 1969 Mazda in Zimbabwe?