Driving a car after it fails the MOT, even if the MOT is still in date?

[vaughant]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/simple-mistake-can-see-you-12291770.amp

 

Saw this earlier and my MOT tester alluded to it last year. Normally I'd say it's not going to be that easy to enforce but of course truthfully it will be with the advent of anpr/central databases etc.

 

Of course as we all know there's only 2 Coppers covering the whole of Britain now but it's perhaps* an item of concern to us shitters????

[lesapandre]

Anyone want to look into this or an MoT tester? My first reaction is not to believe everything in the paper - be useful to look at the Regulations for a clear view. 

[Dave_Q]

Think we've had this before, it's not really new, as the article says its just an easier way for them to apply the existing regs for driving a car in a dangerous condition.

 

The old MOT is still in force as such but it only relates to condition on the day of the repair. Actually ever since the MOT database was computerised plod would have access to any fails in this situation, I guess the only thing changing really is if the MOT clearly states a specific category of fail is dangerous its not worth going to court to argue the toss about whether slight balljoint play or whatever is actually dangerous.

[Guest]

It's always been a question, and always had very vauge answers, from both VOSA (as they were) and the 5-0. The existing MOT was valid until it expired, but you now know you are driving a defective vehicle, so you could be considered liable if anything happened because of it... was the general response I got. An MOT is only a snapshot of the roadworthiness of your vehicle at time of test, it's your responsibility to ensure it is roadworthy at all times otherwise..

[robinmasters]

How does this keep getting reported as 'news'? If journalism continues this way, every day's newspaper will contain exactly the same stories.

[MikeR]

given you can drive around for months with out an MOT , nothing will change ?

 

unless the car is dangerous whats the problem , the test could be failed for the sake of a bulb !!!!!

 

driving around with a wheel hanging off , you deserve it ...

[dozeydustman]

Following this - Saab's booked in for tomorrow but ticket runs out on 26th

[Des]

I've heard something about serious faults will lead to prohibition notices, it's the MOT testers who I'll have sympathy for, going to need to grow thick skins to deal with moronic argumentative twats.

[Pillock]

This article is clearer than the Daily Fail one earlier.

 

As I read it:

• There's three new classifications - minor, major, dangerous.
• If you take your car for an MOT, then the result is displayed instantly on the system
• Whilst a fail doesn't alter the expiry date of your current MOT, it will be displayed to the police that you're driving with a dangerous fault.
• The oft-quoted £2500 fine is therefore the existing fine for driving a car in a dangerous condition and NOT a new fine for not having an MOT

All that's changed really is you can no longer ague that you didn't know having a slinky in place of your rear spring was dangerous, officer. 

 

Minor faults are the same as advisories at the moment. The article is a little vague on what a "major" fault is, but it does feel awfully like the current system of advisory, fail, and "in the testers opinion the car is dangerous to drive" which I've had on a fair few test sheets.

 

Edit: that Mirror article even has

 

 

 

This article has been amended to clarify that the offence of driving with a dangerous vehicle, and police enforcement powers, have not been changed. It is the classification of faults as dangerous during the MoT Test that will be updated in May.

[Dave_Q]

Yeah I have also had ***DANGEROUS*** on stuff like a fuel leak or a floppy track rod end so again, it's not like this is all new, just classifying all faults according to a fixed system rather than a testers opinion.

[bunglebus]

I would hope most of us on here would have an idea if we had a dangerous fault - having said that I once drove an Anglia quite enthusiastically to its MoT, only to find the steering box was fairly vaguely attached to the car thanks to a cracked chassis leg.

I got it trailered home.

[sierraman]

Grey area, technically if you had an accident after, it was proven that you knew the car had faults that made it unroadworthy and kept using it. Unlikely but Insurance would very likely use this as a get out clause.

[vaughant]

Like I said above, only posted by me as it popped up on my news feed but I thought that it would be better to ask on here.

 

For me if it's a dangerous fault I wouldn't want to move it far from there anyway but as the tester mentioned it to me I thought it seemed a bit odd. He told me to drive my car right up until the MOT ran out as if he found a major I could be in a bit of shit if they stopped me rather than if I was simply driving it when the MOT had unwittingly ran out.

 

It passed first time anyway though.

[AMC Rebel]

The independent and council run stations are going to have a few vehicles hanging around awaiting trailer recovery then?

[dozeydustman]

Saab passed with an advisory - works depot (the council) does MoTs and Hackney Carriage approval, when I asked the workshop manager he said it was the first he'd heard about it, so is now going to investigate. Hopefully I'll get some feedback.

[gigglepin]

when i was van shopping ...i was looking at one..drove it to my MOT guys ...it failed on a few little things  like fluid levels etc   ...but it already had an MOT so it didn't matter they were happy to treat it like a pre purchase exam 

if you know you're vehicle is dangerous and still drive it then you deserve what you get ..we all..push things a bit ..bit of play in a ball joint,mirror cracked,bulb  gone etc that's  different

[Parky]

Grey area, technically if you had an accident after, it was proven that you knew the car had faults that made it unroadworthy and kept using it. Unlikely but Insurance would very likely use this as a get out clause.

Exactly this. I think the insurance company would be able to clearly state you were in a vehicle classed as unfit for use on the Queens Highway, ergo they aren't paying out.

 

Even if someone hit you, they would still argue that your car was illegally on the road and if it hadn't been there you wouldn't have had the accident.

 

Smaller value claims probably wouldn't bother them but if you mowed down a busload of Nuns and Kittens because your track rod snapped and the liability was massive, this would give them the perfect escape clause

[DodgeRover]

They don't have that escape clause, liability would be reduced to 3rd party only otherwise every other claim would be struck off for a pre existing fault if they could do as you suggest.

The insurers terms and conditions are often different than what is stated in the law and it is the law that they must comply with, it isn't optional no matter how much big companies would like it to be.

[Eddie Honda]

Exactly as DodgeRover points out, the Road Traffic Act trumps any T&C on a policy.

[Talbot]

Problem here is that (as per bloody usual) the law has not kept up with modern technology.

 

20 years ago, if you took your car in for MOT when it still had 6 months left to go on the current certificate and failed dismally, people would "forget" about the new MOT and sell the car with 6 month valid ticket. I knew of a couple of garages who would do this.. a suspicious few number of cars with just a couple of months left to run, when the rest of their stock have fresh MOTs. Hmm........ Given that the *only* evidence of that MOT was the certificate, there was no traceability.

 

Fast-Forward to now, and anyone with internet access knows that you've taken your car for MOT, what it failed on/advised on. This means that you cannot now claim that you "didn't know" about the bald tyre / gaping hole / ridiculous fuel leak, (whether you did know or genuinely didn't know) as you've had it pointed out to you in black and white.

 

So we have the situation that *technically* you still have a valid MOT certificate, despite the fail you have just gained, but you can't realistically drive the car untill you've fixed it, as you're advertising to the world that you've been told about the faults, but are choosing to ignore them.

 

Which also now means it's somewhat pointless taking your car in for the MOT during the last month of validity in an attempt to get a "13-month" MOT unless you know for absolute sure that you're going to get a pass, as if it fails, you're off the road regardless. Might as well keep driving for that month and put it in the day it expires. If you pass, you pass. If you fail, you're off the road anyway.

 

 

Personally, I think the MOT system needs a better overhaul than it has recently had:

 

* MOT's for all cars. No 3-year-old exemptions: A car could have done 150k miles in that time.

 

* 2 types of pass: Pass for 12 months, and Pass but with advisories that you then have 6 (or some figure of) weeks to fix, and then go back for your 12-month pass. This might be for some serious-but-not-life-threatening welding work, a balljoint that is borderline, or some other thing that is clearly OK-ish at the moment, but is also clearly not going to last 12 monts.

 

* 40+ year old cars still need MOT, but a reduced vesion that just ensures it's not completely about to fall to pieces. This might include tyres, general corrosion check, Brakes do at least do something, and a general look over the vehicle to ensure it's not about to kill anyone.

 

 

All of these would mean more work for MOT centres (a good thing, surely?) and improved road safety. Doubt it would ever happen.

[robinmasters]

I've heard something about serious faults will lead to prohibition notices, it's the MOT testers who I'll have sympathy for, going to need to grow thicker skins to deal with moremoronic argumentative twats.

FTFY.

 

Grey area, technically if you had an accident after, it was proven that you knew the car had faults that made it unroadworthy and kept using it. Unlikely but Insurance would very likely use this as a get out clause.

 

Exactly this. I think the insurance company would be able to clearly state you were in a vehicle classed as unfit for use on the Queens Highway, ergo they aren't paying out.

 

Even if someone hit you, they would still argue that your car was illegally on the road and if it hadn't been there you wouldn't have had the accident.

 

Smaller value claims probably wouldn't bother them but if you mowed down a busload of Nuns and Kittens because your track rod snapped and the liability was massive, this would give them the perfect escape clause

 

They don't have that escape clause, liability would be reduced to 3rd party only otherwise every other claim would be struck off for a pre existing fault if they could do as you suggest.

The insurers terms and conditions are often different than what is stated in the law and it is the law that they must comply with, it isn't optional no matter how much big companies would like it to be.

Whilst insurers can't exclude third party liability through their policy terms, they can include clauses which enable them to recover anything they paid from the policy holder. In this case, they'd only get home on this if the reason the car was un-roadworthy was actually causative of the accident. If you were told the track rod end was about to snap, it did, and you killed nuns and kittens, prepare to lose your house. If on the other hand you were texting and hit a nun, nothing to do with any mechanical failure, I can't imagine a Court letting the insurer off the hook.

 

I suppose the only situation where the insurance company could avoid their third party liability was if you bought then insured the vehicle knowing it was dangerously un-roadworthy-they could then say they never would have insured it in the first place if they'd known.

[Kiltox]

Does this mean the *****DANGEROUS**** will now be a fixed thing rather than an option the tester can pick?

 

I’ve seen some pretty laughable use of it in the past

[Roverageous]

What if you get a dangerous fail then fix the car yourself...

 

I'm assuming you still can't drive it on the road until it gains an MOT pass officially?

 

(This technically looks like a legal situation, but that of a copper was so inclined he could give your a massive fine when your car actually IS roadworthy...)

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[lesapandre]

Problem here is that (as per bloody usual) the law has not kept up with modern technology.

 

20 years ago, if you took your car in for MOT when it still had 6 months left to go on the current certificate and failed dismally, people would "forget" about the new MOT and sell the car with 6 month valid ticket. I knew of a couple of garages who would do this.. a suspicious few number of cars with just a couple of months left to run, when the rest of their stock have fresh MOTs. Hmm........ Given that the *only* evidence of that MOT was the certificate, there was no traceability.

 

Fast-Forward to now, and anyone with internet access knows that you've taken your car for MOT, what it failed on/advised on. This means that you cannot now claim that you "didn't know" about the bald tyre / gaping hole / ridiculous fuel leak, (whether you did know or genuinely didn't know) as you've had it pointed out to you in black and white.

 

So we have the situation that *technically* you still have a valid MOT certificate, despite the fail you have just gained, but you can't realistically drive the car untill you've fixed it, as you're advertising to the world that you've been told about the faults, but are choosing to ignore them.

 

Which also now means it's somewhat pointless taking your car in for the MOT during the last month of validity in an attempt to get a "13-month" MOT unless you know for absolute sure that you're going to get a pass, as if it fails, you're off the road regardless. Might as well keep driving for that month and put it in the day it expires. If you pass, you pass. If you fail, you're off the road anyway.

 

 

Personally, I think the MOT system needs a better overhaul than it has recently had:

 

* MOT's for all cars. No 3-year-old exemptions: A car could have done 150k miles in that time.

 

* 2 types of pass: Pass for 12 months, and Pass but with advisories that you then have 6 (or some figure of) weeks to fix, and then go back for your 12-month pass. This might be for some serious-but-not-life-threatening welding work, a balljoint that is borderline, or some other thing that is clearly OK-ish at the moment, but is also clearly not going to last 12 monts.

 

* 40+ year old cars still need MOT, but a reduced vesion that just ensures it's not completely about to fall to pieces. This might include tyres, general corrosion check, Brakes do at least do something, and a general look over the vehicle to ensure it's not about to kill anyone.

 

 

All of these would mean more work for MOT centres (a good thing, surely?) and improved road safety. Doubt it would ever happen.

I think you'll find the manufacturers like the no MoT for 3 years. It's a convenient sales pitch for new motors Rodney...and to get a resale at 3 years. Lubbleyjubbley.

[Kiltox]

What if you get a dangerous fail then fix the car yourself...

 

I'm assuming you still can't drive it on the road until it gains an MOT pass officially?

 

(This technically looks like a legal situation, but that of a copper was so inclined he could give your a massive fine when your car actually IS roadworthy...)

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

You can’t be done for dangerous condition if it’s fixed surely

 

I’d get it in for a retest asap like

[Arthur Foxhake]

In the wise words of President Trump.

 

"That's fake news."

[meggersdog]

here is a draft of the new manual

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/696292/mot-inspection-manual-for-classes-3-4-5-and-7-from-20-may-2018-draft.pdf

 

it is only a draft .Even dvsa don't know as yet what is happening. It could all change on 19/5/18.

 

And yes dangerous is fixed