News2 mins ago
Mot
if you have your mot done early, and it fails can the car still be driven on the old mot till it expires?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bednobs. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
For clarification (which seems to be badly needed here!):
There are TWO entirely SEPARATE offences to be considered.
1. It's an offence to drive a car on a public road with a valid MOT (unless, of course, it's not old enough to need one) ; and
2. It's an offence to drive an unroadworthy vehicle.
If your vehicle fails the MOT test before the previous certificate has run out it still has a VALID certificate. (Failing an MOT test DOESN'T invalidate an earlier test certificate). So you WON'T be committing an offence under '1' by driving it and your vehicle WON'T show up on police ANPR systems as having no valid certificate.
Whether an offence will be committed under '2' if you drive the vehicle will depend upon the REASON that the vehicle failed the test. For example, if it failed because the brakes are grossly inefficient then, clearly, it's 'unroadworthy' and it WILL be an offence to drive it. However if it failed simply because the steering lock doesn't come on when you remove the ignition key then that has nothing to do with the vehicle's 'roadworthiness' and it WON'T be an offence to drive it.
There are TWO entirely SEPARATE offences to be considered.
1. It's an offence to drive a car on a public road with a valid MOT (unless, of course, it's not old enough to need one) ; and
2. It's an offence to drive an unroadworthy vehicle.
If your vehicle fails the MOT test before the previous certificate has run out it still has a VALID certificate. (Failing an MOT test DOESN'T invalidate an earlier test certificate). So you WON'T be committing an offence under '1' by driving it and your vehicle WON'T show up on police ANPR systems as having no valid certificate.
Whether an offence will be committed under '2' if you drive the vehicle will depend upon the REASON that the vehicle failed the test. For example, if it failed because the brakes are grossly inefficient then, clearly, it's 'unroadworthy' and it WILL be an offence to drive it. However if it failed simply because the steering lock doesn't come on when you remove the ignition key then that has nothing to do with the vehicle's 'roadworthiness' and it WON'T be an offence to drive it.
Bazile:
An unroadworthy vehicle can't be driven on public roads but, as you state, millions are. (Every vehicle that fails an MOT test for things like poor brake efficiency must have been unroadworthy on the way to the garage and possibly for many months before that). However, as I made clear in my post above, a vehicle can fail an MOT test for a reason that doesn't render it 'unroadworthy'.
An unroadworthy vehicle can't be driven on public roads but, as you state, millions are. (Every vehicle that fails an MOT test for things like poor brake efficiency must have been unroadworthy on the way to the garage and possibly for many months before that). However, as I made clear in my post above, a vehicle can fail an MOT test for a reason that doesn't render it 'unroadworthy'.
This is quite straightforward.
When a vehicle undergoes an MoT test any defects are classified (in ascending order of seriousness) "advisory", "minor", "major" and "dangerous". Vehicles with advisory or minor defects will pass, those with major or dangerous defects will fail. Only if the vehicle has dangerous defects should it not be driven (even if the old MoT certificate still has time to run).
As ‘Chico has explained, there is a difference between driving a vehicle without a valid MoT and driving an unroadworthy vehicle.
“Are the authorities, and perhaps more importantly the insurer, going to be happy when the vehicle within that period is involved in a collision or other incident ?”
Insurers cannot refuse to pay for Third Party claims for damage or personal injury on the basis that the car had no MoT or was unroadworthy. In fact, there are very few circumstances where they can decline to meet such claims. Even if the vehicle was driven by a person not named on the policy (including somebody who may have stolen it) they are still liable to meet Third Party Claims. However, I digress.
When a vehicle undergoes an MoT test any defects are classified (in ascending order of seriousness) "advisory", "minor", "major" and "dangerous". Vehicles with advisory or minor defects will pass, those with major or dangerous defects will fail. Only if the vehicle has dangerous defects should it not be driven (even if the old MoT certificate still has time to run).
As ‘Chico has explained, there is a difference between driving a vehicle without a valid MoT and driving an unroadworthy vehicle.
“Are the authorities, and perhaps more importantly the insurer, going to be happy when the vehicle within that period is involved in a collision or other incident ?”
Insurers cannot refuse to pay for Third Party claims for damage or personal injury on the basis that the car had no MoT or was unroadworthy. In fact, there are very few circumstances where they can decline to meet such claims. Even if the vehicle was driven by a person not named on the policy (including somebody who may have stolen it) they are still liable to meet Third Party Claims. However, I digress.
Wow, so if Chris is correct (point 1, typo corrected) then so far as the MOT alone is concerned you can legally drive a vehicle on the road regardless of how badly it has failed an inspection, so long as an older certificate is still "within time". Extraordinary and clearly a shambles (right hand-left hand). Only in the UK.......
"...then so far as the MOT alone is concerned you can legally drive a vehicle on the road regardless of how badly it has failed an inspection, so long as an older certificate is still "within time"."
Provided it did not fail with any "dangerous" defects and that it is not unroadworthy (which is a different test to the MoT). From the .GOV website on the subject:
--------
Driving a vehicle that’s failed
You can take your vehicle away if:
- your current MOT certificate is still valid
- no ‘dangerous’ problems were listed in the MOT
Otherwise, you’ll need to get it repaired before you can drive.
If you can take your vehicle away, it must still meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness at all times.
-------
Fairly clear providing you understand that passing an MoT test and being "roadworthy" are different animals.
Provided it did not fail with any "dangerous" defects and that it is not unroadworthy (which is a different test to the MoT). From the .GOV website on the subject:
--------
Driving a vehicle that’s failed
You can take your vehicle away if:
- your current MOT certificate is still valid
- no ‘dangerous’ problems were listed in the MOT
Otherwise, you’ll need to get it repaired before you can drive.
If you can take your vehicle away, it must still meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness at all times.
-------
Fairly clear providing you understand that passing an MoT test and being "roadworthy" are different animals.
So, failing the MOT does not make a vehicle illegal on the road - until the previous certificate expires (whenever that is), then at last it becomes illegal. Then, there is an altogether different/separate set of criteria which dictate whether the same vehicle is legal/illegal on the road from a different perspective. Sheer brilliance, this I must put on my list ! The foreign systems I am aware of involve any inspection immediately becoming the deciding/overarching criterion - the result is either a pass (fully legal), failure with a limited time to rectify yet continue being on the road or else the vehicle becomes illegal, or an immediate and complete failure and no option to be on the road until rectified. The comparison yet again shows the British system to be clearer, more logical and simply altogether superior.
The crucial issue, Karl, is the differentiation between the MoT test criteria and the standards needed to make a vehicle “roadworthy”.
Any vehicle tested that exhibits “dangerous” faults will necessarily be unroadworthy and the legislation determines that it must not be driven away from the testing station. It would be foolish, though, to insist that a vehicle that has failed on a minor issue (say, a sidelight not working) is confined to barracks until a new bulb is fitted.
Another important contrast between the two is that an MoT certificate lasts for twelve months. It is still valid even if the vehicle deteriorates badly within a short time of being tested. Conversely, as soon as a vehicle develops a major or dangerous fault it becomes unroadworthy immediately and must not be driven. Vehicle owners must understand this difference and the possession of an MoT certificate does not confer roadworthiness on a vehicle for its duration.
To a certain extent the “foreign systems” which you describe are largely mirrored here in the UK. A seriously deficient vehicle will be immediately taken off the road whether by the police as a result of a roadside check or as a result of an MoT test. Similarly a vehicle with minor faults will be allowed to remain on the road until the faults are fixed. The MoT test is mandatory for all vehicles over three years old but of course the police cannot check every vehicle at the roadside, so the MoT is a useful safeguard against seriously defective vehicles being driven.
Any vehicle tested that exhibits “dangerous” faults will necessarily be unroadworthy and the legislation determines that it must not be driven away from the testing station. It would be foolish, though, to insist that a vehicle that has failed on a minor issue (say, a sidelight not working) is confined to barracks until a new bulb is fitted.
Another important contrast between the two is that an MoT certificate lasts for twelve months. It is still valid even if the vehicle deteriorates badly within a short time of being tested. Conversely, as soon as a vehicle develops a major or dangerous fault it becomes unroadworthy immediately and must not be driven. Vehicle owners must understand this difference and the possession of an MoT certificate does not confer roadworthiness on a vehicle for its duration.
To a certain extent the “foreign systems” which you describe are largely mirrored here in the UK. A seriously deficient vehicle will be immediately taken off the road whether by the police as a result of a roadside check or as a result of an MoT test. Similarly a vehicle with minor faults will be allowed to remain on the road until the faults are fixed. The MoT test is mandatory for all vehicles over three years old but of course the police cannot check every vehicle at the roadside, so the MoT is a useful safeguard against seriously defective vehicles being driven.
The daft foreigners allow their police to invalidate/overrule an inspection pass certificate if they come across a vehicle that has one but is nevertheless at this point sufficiently sub-standard. The certificate is no longer valid from then on and a fresh pass must be obtained before the vehicle is allowed on the road - silly beggars, eh ?
Whether they're silly or wise is not for me to say. But it is made quite clear to vehicle owners that an MoT certificate merely certifies that the vehicle met the standards required on the day of the test and nothing else. The legislation requires annual testing and not re-testing if a vehicle is found to be unroadworthy.
