New MOT rule confirmed - Page 3

yzf600r · 9th January 2016, 07:19

According to .gov website valid mot then car can be driven but must meet road worthiness standards otherwise you could be prosecuted.
I.e test valid till 30.1.16
You take it for mot on 1.1.16 fails on a tyre for instance
Off you go to tyre place replace said tyre car is road worthy with a valid mot untill 30.1.16

RJ303 · 9th January 2016, 07:52

MOTs are somewhat of a grey area anyway. The fact that a car can become un roadworthy 4-6 months into its current MOT makes this new legislation seem like the DVLA/VOSA are paying lip service to ensuring road users have "safe" cars.

What is the difference between taking your car away after failing an MOT or the car becoming un roadworthy during its current valid MOT period whilst it still may have another 8-6 months of being "roadworthy" as per the MOT certificate. The only difference that I can see is that (in the first instance) the car owner would have been made aware of the fault. How can any mechanic look at a car and predict that everything on the car will last another 12 months - as we all know faults can occur without warning.

To my mind the government is covering its own hide against legal action and making the car owner the scape goat if anything does go wrong.

At the end of the day MOTs are a "visual" inspection of a cars roadworthiness and is only good for the day it was issued. Would you buy a car with 4 months MOT left and take it as read that theres nothing wrong with it because it has a valid MOT - I know I wouldn't!!

Leyland Worldmaster · 9th January 2016, 08:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick-sta

Say if it failed on your back box having a slight leak/hole in it and it failed on that. Chances are you won't be able to have it fixed same day, probably wouldn't know its there and doesn't affect the safety of anyone else and a blow that far back in the system probably wouldn't affect anything else either. Under the old rules you wouldn't have stopped driving it would you, but you's have the chance to go away and have a new box fitted and brought it back for a retest. Now if that happens you're left with no car until you can repair it and book another test on another day.

* Faults like this don't just suddenly happen; regular service and inspection services will pick this up; giving you time to rectify.

And what about those moments when your tester decides to fail it on something you really think it shouldn't fail on? Like my old tester failing my dads 6000k hid's because they were "too blue" according to him, when the same guy passed my 8000k hids a couple months before and i asked him if he'd be happy with 6000k hid's before fitting them? That leaves you stuffed if you cant get another test booked elsewhere quickly.

*You are altering the car from its original specification; he could have been even more "awkward"...

My dads hand brake failed last year due to being a little bit below requirement. Luckily we was able to book it elsewhere a few days later to be adjusted which did the job. However if it was the compensator and couldn't be fixed on the same day then that leaves you without a car again, and this was on an auto that gets left in park everywhere so it isn't going anywhere on a weak handbrake.

* Again; regular servicing and inspection will identify these faults; giving you ample opportunity to rectify.

Serious faults that endanger yourself and others then yes fine, silly faults that are maintenance things but dont endanger you or others but just need doing then no dont agree.

* Again, faults don't just happen suddenly; I think many people forget the whole point of these Technical Checks!
Regular servicing is the way forward! Don't forget these officials are looking after our safety and a lot is at stake if they get it wrong!

AGAs · 9th January 2016, 08:20

If it fails the MOT and you keep using it because last year's MOT hasn't run out then you invalidate your insurance, so the idea of so-called 'common-sense' prevailing is a non-starter. What is wrong with simply planning ahead? Get it serviced near to the MOT, get them to do a full pre-MOT check and then you will have plenty of warning and the car is where it needs to be for any remedial work. The idea that people will happily drive around in a car that has failed its MOT just amazes me. It doesn't matter if it fails on a blowing backbox, your insurance isn't valid!

Les4048 · 9th January 2016, 08:39

It's been like that since the garages were hooked up the the dvla electronically through the computer. I only found out when I remarked to my garage "oh well I've a couple of weeks to fix it" and was promptly told as soon as they put the info into the database my car has no mot

yzf600r · 9th January 2016, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Les4048

It's been like that since the garages were hooked up the the dvla electronically through the computer. I only found out when I remarked to my garage "oh well I've a couple of weeks to fix it" and was promptly told as soon as they put the info into the database my car has no mot

Still shows as having a valid MOT on the MOT check site. I checked when the wifes car failed last week.
What you could be prosecuted for is an unroadworthy vehicle IF you countinued to use it without rectifing the MOT fails.
Which is how its always been the MOT only shows that the vehicle was roadworthy when the tester looked at it 6 months on it could have 4 bald tyres and pads down to metal.
There are 2 different possibly prosectutions
1 - unroad worthy vehicle
2 - No Valid MOT

In theory you could get done for no MOT with a 100% roadworthy vehicle if you didnt actually put it through an MOT or you could be done for unroadworthy vehicle with a valid MOT

MSS · 9th January 2016, 10:28

This new system clarifies a grey area and in my view the new rule is how it should always have been.

I don't think the need to use a car for work during the week should over-ride the need for cars on the road to be safe.

The MOT should be used by the driver as the instrument to demonstrate that the car is roadworthy, not to test whether it is!

planenut · 9th January 2016, 10:36

I am surprised that anybody would think it "stupid" that if a car fails a Ministry Of Transport test it should then be allowed to be on the road, other than common sense approaches, i.e. one would normally have up to two weeks to sort it.

I am always in the hope that the vehicles that are around me on the road are safe and insured.

Rev Jules · 9th January 2016, 10:53

The next stage could be if you vehicle fails and MOT then the garage could have the power to impound it until as such times it has been fixed>

Rev Jules.

bl52krz · 9th January 2016, 11:09

The 'new' ruling in my opinion, is not new, it has always been that way. If common sense is used, if your vehicle fails an mot at 12.00 am Saturday, it has failed an mot, therefore is not in a roadworthy condition, so should not be driven on the road, only to your home address, or a garage to be repaired.
If it failed, then if you were involved in an accident, you would not have any insurance. ( always been the case). Read your insurance details please, and confirm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RJ303

MOTs are somewhat of a grey area anyway. The fact that a car can become un roadworthy 4-6 months into its current MOT makes this new legislation seem like the DVLA/VOSA are paying lip service to ensuring road users have "safe" cars.

What is the difference between taking your car away after failing an MOT or the car becoming un roadworthy during its current valid MOT period whilst it still may have another 8-6 months of being "roadworthy" as per the MOT certificate. The only difference that I can see is that (in the first instance) the car owner would have been made aware of the fault. How can any mechanic look at a car and predict that everything on the car will last another 12 months - as we all know faults can occur without warning.

To my mind the government is covering its own hide against legal action and making the car owner the scape goat if anything does go wrong.

At the end of the day MOTs are a "visual" inspection of a cars roadworthiness and is only good for the day it was issued. Would you buy a car with 4 months MOT left and take it as read that theres nothing wrong with it because it has a valid MOT - I know I wouldn't!!

Totally agree. When I went to buy mine, I was told it had 8 months mot on it, so I told them I wanted a new mot for the twelve months. And they got it tested and I had 12 months mot. Don't ask, don't get..

9th January 2016, 07:52	#22
RJ303 Loves to post MG ZT Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Kingston Upon Hull Posts: 480 Thanks: 71 Thanked 25 Times in 24 Posts	MOTs are somewhat of a grey area anyway. The fact that a car can become un roadworthy 4-6 months into its current MOT makes this new legislation seem like the DVLA/VOSA are paying lip service to ensuring road users have "safe" cars. What is the difference between taking your car away after failing an MOT or the car becoming un roadworthy during its current valid MOT period whilst it still may have another 8-6 months of being "roadworthy" as per the MOT certificate. The only difference that I can see is that (in the first instance) the car owner would have been made aware of the fault. How can any mechanic look at a car and predict that everything on the car will last another 12 months - as we all know faults can occur without warning. To my mind the government is covering its own hide against legal action and making the car owner the scape goat if anything does go wrong. At the end of the day MOTs are a "visual" inspection of a cars roadworthiness and is only good for the day it was issued. Would you buy a car with 4 months MOT left and take it as read that theres nothing wrong with it because it has a valid MOT - I know I wouldn't!! __________________ MG ZT CDTi+ 160 remap/EGR bypass/Viton O-rings

9th January 2016, 08:20	#24
AGAs Regular poster ZT Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Sheffield Posts: 82 Thanks: 26 Thanked 29 Times in 13 Posts	If it fails the MOT and you keep using it because last year's MOT hasn't run out then you invalidate your insurance, so the idea of so-called 'common-sense' prevailing is a non-starter. What is wrong with simply planning ahead? Get it serviced near to the MOT, get them to do a full pre-MOT check and then you will have plenty of warning and the car is where it needs to be for any remedial work. The idea that people will happily drive around in a car that has failed its MOT just amazes me. It doesn't matter if it fails on a blowing backbox, your insurance isn't valid! __________________ 'I'm Brian and so is my wife!'

9th January 2016, 07:19	#21
yzf600r Loves to post MG ZT cdti Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: sheffield Posts: 251 Thanks: 25 Thanked 22 Times in 21 Posts	According to .gov website valid mot then car can be driven but must meet road worthiness standards otherwise you could be prosecuted. I.e test valid till 30.1.16 You take it for mot on 1.1.16 fails on a tyre for instance Off you go to tyre place replace said tyre car is road worthy with a valid mot untill 30.1.16

9th January 2016, 08:39	#25
Les4048 This is my second home Rover 75 Tourer/ MG ZT-T 400 Join Date: May 2012 Location: Lhanbryde Posts: 3,278 Thanks: 2,627 Thanked 1,523 Times in 869 Posts	It's been like that since the garages were hooked up the the dvla electronically through the computer. I only found out when I remarked to my garage "oh well I've a couple of weeks to fix it" and was promptly told as soon as they put the info into the database my car has no mot

9th January 2016, 10:28	#27
MSS This is my second home Rover 75CDT, Jaguar XF-S 3.0V6, V'xhall Omega V6 Estate, Twintop 1.8VVT, Astra Estate and Corsa 1.2 Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Suffolk Posts: 7,085 Thanks: 283 Thanked 624 Times in 440 Posts	This new system clarifies a grey area and in my view the new rule is how it should always have been. I don't think the need to use a car for work during the week should over-ride the need for cars on the road to be safe. The MOT should be used by the driver as the instrument to demonstrate that the car is roadworthy, not to test whether it is!

9th January 2016, 10:36	#28
planenut Regional Secretary Rover 1.8T Tourer Join Date: May 2007 Location: Heathrow Posts: 6,955 Thanks: 1,551 Thanked 2,036 Times in 1,264 Posts	I am surprised that anybody would think it "stupid" that if a car fails a Ministry Of Transport test it should then be allowed to be on the road, other than common sense approaches, i.e. one would normally have up to two weeks to sort it. I am always in the hope that the vehicles that are around me on the road are safe and insured.

9th January 2016, 10:53	#29
Rev Jules This is my second home Rover 75 Tourer+ Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Radcliffe on Trent Posts: 10,711 Thanks: 7,308 Thanked 3,929 Times in 2,051 Posts	The next stage could be if you vehicle fails and MOT then the garage could have the power to impound it until as such times it has been fixed> Rev Jules.