Mot Query

[ynnafymmi]

I have just noticed my MOT expired on Monday.I have a test arranged for next Friday.Do they give you two weeks grace nowadays?I thought you used to get a e-mail telling you when it is about to expire?I never got nothing?Can i still drive my car till Friday?

[netherfield]

There never has been a two week grace on MOT, back when we had more local police walking around, the would often overlook tax disc for a couple of weeks, because it could be in the  post. 

And until the newer system of not getting any remaining car tax  on a used vehicle, the MOT would be at a similar time as the car tax, which you should have got a reminder for, in plenty of time before expiry.

[Bazile]

NJ

If it fails it's recorded on the database  , isn't it ?

So you won't be able to drive it from the date of the failure ?

 

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ, "It gives you a month to get any problems fixed."

The car can be driven only if,

your current MOT is still validno ‘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."

It's not as straightforward as the existng MOT takes precedence. 

[THECORBYLOON]

Apologies for that being in an odd layout.

Basically the car has to have had no "dangerous " conditions listed in the latest MOT and meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness at all times for the previous MOT to be valid still.

[Canary42]

////won't be able to drive it from the date of the failure ?////

That's where it becomes a bit of a grey area to me. You have to:-

1. Get  it home from the Testing Station

2. Get it from home to a garage to get it remedied (bear in mind not all Testing Stations are geared up to repair all cars).

Providing the latter is pre-booked then wouldn't both those situations be OK?

[netherfield]

And I should have added you can get a MOT two months before the old one expires, effectively a 14 months test certificate.

[barry1010]

One month before, not two. It gives you time to put things right should it fail

[barry1010]

Canary, you cannot drive the car away if it is deemed dangerous. You either have to get that garage to repair it or get it towed to somewhere else.

[netherfield]

Correct Barry, I think they extended during COVID.

[Arrods]

NJ  I think it is still the case that if the insurer has to meet a third party claim as a result of a vehicle defect that is a contributory factor, they can recover that amount from the insured.  So, in a sense, third party cover is excluded, even though it's not detrimental to the claimant.

Of course, no responsible insurer is going to invoke that option.  However, I am aware of one insurer that does - or at least did.

[New Judge]

“That's where it becomes a bit of a grey area to me. You have to:-

1. Get  it home from the Testing Station

2. Get it from home to a garage to get it remedied (bear in mind not all Testing Stations are geared up to repair all cars).”

There’s nothing grey about it at all. If your previous MoT is still valid and, as Corby explains, you have no “dangerous” faults, you can drive it where you like.

“NJ  I think it is still the case that if the insurer has to meet a third party claim as a result of a vehicle defect that is a contributory factor, they can recover that amount from the insured.”

But we’re not talking about vehicle defects. We’re talking about lack of MoT. That, by itself, cannot invalidate insurance. If it did, every time a driver faced an allegation of no MoT he would also face an allegation of the far more serious matter of driving without insurance and clearly that does not happen.

When imposing conditions Insurers must be able to show that their risk has increased if those conditions are not complied with. If they do not and they try to deny or restrict cover (or attempt to recover their outlay) in the event of a claim  by using those conditions, they will fail.

Even if the vehicle is unroadworthy, they must still show that the incident was most likely caused by the expired MOT, not simply that there was no MoT. They cannot simply say “There was no MoT so you are no covered.”

Here’s a ruling from the Financial Ombudsman, covering precisely this point:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3123029.pdf

The claim that no MoT invalidates insurance is often quoted on solicitors’ websites (which is where I imagine PP’s passage originated) and even by some insurers. I don’t know why they do it because it is simply misleading.

[douglas9401]

"Lack of MoT does not and cannot invalidate Third Party insurance required by law."

Matters not in old Aberdeen as Polis Scotchland still sit behind bushes with quill and parchment to record trangressions on the high road.

ANPR is 'another neep pie Ruaridh?'

[Hymie]

A quick google shows that there are an estimate 5 million odd vehicles on the UK roads without a valid MOT, around half a million with no tax, and 300,000 with no insurance.

 

Plod has his work cut out catching this lot.

 

The typical fine for not having a valid MOT is £100, it might be cheaper to risk the fine than make alternative arrangements (car hire, taxis etc).

[Peter Pedant]

In short -  you still gonna DDDDIIIIIIIEEEEEEE!

[THECORBYLOON]

HYMIE you could take the risk or wait until you're stopped by the police who then tell you about having four bald tyres which could lead to twelve points being imposed (three for each tyre) and a driving ban.

[Hymie]

Having a valid MOT will be no defence against driving with four bald tyres (with the penalties you say) – but no MOT is likely to be a £100 fine.

 

With 5 million un-MOT’d vehicles on the road, you are very unlikely to be knicked over a 3 day period.

[Canary42]

Thanks for the clarification NJ.

[Maydup]

If you're confident you don't have four bald tyres or any other reason to be we pulled over, then it's unlikely you will be stopped for having no MOT. Anyone checking ANPR data will be looking for stolen vehicles or those involved in crime tbh.

[New Judge]

“…having four bald tyres which could lead to twelve points being imposed (three for each tyre) and a driving ban.”

I’m afraid this is another urban myth, Corby.

Having bald tyres does indeed attract a fine and penalty points. However, Section 28(4) of the Road traffic Offenders' Act says that where two or more offences are committed on the same occasion, penalty points will be awarded for only one of them (the one attracting most points if they attract different numbers of points):

Where a person is convicted (whether on the same occasion or not) of two or more offences committed on the same occasion and involving obligatory endorsement, the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed on a conviction of one of them (so that if the convictions are on different occasions the number of penalty points to be attributed to the offences on the later occasion or occasions shall be restricted accordingly).

So a person prosecuted for having four bald tyres will see four fines. These will not necessarily be four times the amount a single offence would attract as the court is obliged to consider a "totality" principle. Their driving record will also see four endorsements added. But, because of s28(4), only one lot of three points (the maximum for a single tyre offence) will be imposed.

This sort of misinformation normally stems from solicitors' suggesting that 12 points is a possibility. They usually say something like “you might get 12 points but we may be able to persuade the court to impose only 3”. Gullible drivers then engage them to “persuade” the court to refrain from doing something that is unlawful anyway. (Though that said, I cannot imagine a person driving with four bald tyres will be likely to hire a solicitor). But I can’t understand organisations such as the RAC (no, I haven't checked their site, I'm just citing them as an example) who simply provide advice doing so. There really is so much of this stuff out there that, as has been demonstrated on this thread, it is so easy to be misled.

[New Judge]

And now I have checked (in case the RAC sue AB):

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/tyres/checking-tyre-tread/

"Driving a car with bald tyres can risk a fine of £2,500 and three penalty points. That’s per tyre, too. If all four tyres are worn below the legal limit, you could potentially lose your licence and face a £10,000 fine."

and...

"However, driving with dangerous or defective tyres also puts drivers at risk of a fine of up to £2,500 and three points on their license.

That is per tyre, so four illegal tyres could mean a fine of £10,000 and 12 penalty points."

So-called respected organisations should not publish such tosh.