Query re MOT Expiry Date and Early Fail
Options
Comments
-
Three of my tyres were bold so I went and had a stern word with the fourth one, told it to sharpen up and now it is bold too. However none of them are bald, which would be illegal.consumers_revenge wrote: »Say my tyres are now bold but were not 11 months ago. MOT centre fails both tyres, its unroadworthy and hence illegal.0 -
-
My Dad took his car into a garage, because it was making a funny noise.
The technician reported that it was all fixed, the noise had been told to be more serious.
An MOT (A) is a measure of the "performance" of a vehicle on that day.
The next MOT (B) is up to 12 months away, so the pass threshold of (A) must be a higher than the necessary roadworthiness standard, to allow for 12 months of reasonable degradation.
If (B) is 11 months later, then it will only pass, if the standard of (A) was 23 months over ; but if 23 months over is the standard, that also applies to test (B), and then (A) would have to be 34 months over etc.
If a failure means it immediately can't be driven, that is quite a serious effect. To allow continuous motoring, "unofficial MOTs" would have to be done ; to the MOT standard, but not giving a formal pass / fail.
The only arrangement that makes sense, is for an MOT failure to mean, "I cannot say your vehicle is reasonably likely to be remain roadworthy for the next 12 months" ; but it might be 1 or 5 or even 11. If there are N months left of the old MOT, they can be used up ; though if the vehicle is judged to be already unroadworthy, that is a different statement.
It is rather like flashing green on a pelican crossing. You cannot start to cross, because you won't have enough time ; but if you have already started, you can keep going. If a car looks as though it won't stop, that is a different rule.
Note that 12 months of tax and insurance can be bought, with only 1 remaining day of MOT.0 -
.....Note that 12 months of tax and insurance can be bought, with only 1 remaining day of MOT.............
....... If there are N months left of the old MOT, they can be used up ; though if the vehicle is judged to be already unroadworthy, that is a different statement........
Don't understand your points.
eg. You don't need an mot to buy insurance
eg. If a car is unroadworthy, then its existing current MOT is still valid0 -
An MOT (A) is a measure of the "performance" of a vehicle on that day.
The next MOT (B) is up to 12 months away, so the pass threshold of (A) must be a higher than the necessary roadworthiness standard, to allow for 12 months of reasonable degradation.
If (B) is 11 months later, then it will only pass, if the standard of (A) was 23 months over ; but if 23 months over is the standard, that also applies to test (B), and then (A) would have to be 34 months over etc.
That is a very neat theory, but has absolutely no basis in fact. The MOT tests the condition of the vehicle on that day: no more, and no less.
A tyre with 1.6mm of tread will pass an MOT today, but could very well be illegal within a few days. If your theory were correct, then the test threshold for tyres would be (say) 3mm to allow for a year's wear.0 -
My Dad took his car into a garage, because it was making a funny noise.
The technician reported that it was all fixed, the noise had been told to be more serious.
An MOT (A) is a measure of the "performance" of a vehicle on that day.
The next MOT (B) is up to 12 months away, so the pass threshold of (A) must be a higher than the necessary roadworthiness standard, to allow for 12 months of reasonable degradation.
If (B) is 11 months later, then it will only pass, if the standard of (A) was 23 months over ; but if 23 months over is the standard, that also applies to test (B), and then (A) would have to be 34 months over etc.
If a failure means it immediately can't be driven, that is quite a serious effect. To allow continuous motoring, "unofficial MOTs" would have to be done ; to the MOT standard, but not giving a formal pass / fail.
The only arrangement that makes sense, is for an MOT failure to mean, "I cannot say your vehicle is reasonably likely to be remain roadworthy for the next 12 months" ; but it might be 1 or 5 or even 11. If there are N months left of the old MOT, they can be used up ; though if the vehicle is judged to be already unroadworthy, that is a different statement.
It is rather like flashing green on a pelican crossing. You cannot start to cross, because you won't have enough time ; but if you have already started, you can keep going. If a car looks as though it won't stop, that is a different rule.
Note that 12 months of tax and insurance can be bought, with only 1 remaining day of MOT.
Out of curiosity, why would you take the time to make up an entire story based on your opinion and completely divorced from the actual facts?====0 -
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.
Stating that a car which has not met the MOT standard, might nevertheless meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness ; must mean the MOT standard is higher.
As cars degrade and are repaired, their performance follows a sawtooth profile \l\l\l\l. I expect that the standard and frequency of MOT testing has been chosen such that vehicles are generally still above the threshold when presented for a test 12 months later, rather than only just meeting it after repairs are done.
Tyres can easily be checked by someone with little competence, and are renewed as necessary, We would not say that a vehicle must have several thousand litres of fuel in its tank at the MOT, in the hope that it won't run out of fuel in 12 months. Ditto the washer fluid.
I'm trying to rationalise why a person is allowed to drive as normal, a vehicle which has failed its MOT, if it passed the test less than 12 months before ; but another person, in an identical car, without such a previous pass, would not. If you tell me the government is irrational, and I'm foolish for trying to find logic it it ; then I plead guilty.0 -
Simple.I'm trying to rationalise why a person is allowed to drive as normal, a vehicle which has failed its MOT, if it passed the test less than 12 months before ; but another person, in an identical car, without such a previous pass, would not.
You have a car with three weeks MOT left on it. You take it in for a new test.
It fails on - say - a tyre.
You take it home. You change the tyre.
It's legal to drive until you can book it in for a new test.
It fails on - say - a rear seatbelt. You have no rear passenger. It's legal to drive.
It fails on - say - a headlight bulb. It's daylight. It's legal to drive.0 -
I'm trying to rationalise why a person is allowed to drive as normal, a vehicle which has failed its MOT, if it passed the test less than 12 months before ; but another person, in an identical car, without such a previous pass, would not. If you tell me the government is irrational, and I'm foolish for trying to find logic it it ; then I plead guilty.
Both people can drive away "as normal", but both may be committing various offences by doing so. And they were both committing the same offences before the test.
The only difference is that, after the test, the second driver is also guilty of having no MOT.
BTW0 -
I understand the rules, about what is legal and not. What I'm trying to do, is make sense of them ; to understand the higher purpose, that the rules are intended to achieve.why a person is allowed to drive as normal, a vehicle which has failed its MOT, if it passed the test less than 12 months before ; but another person, in an identical car, without such a previous pass, would not.
The government website suggests that if A and B are driving vehicles which "meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness", but have just failed an MOT, and they are subjected to a spot roadside check : A ( who can produce an old MOT ) is allowed to drive to the pub, but B ( who can't produce an old MOT ) must be taking it to be repaired / tested again. The two vehicles are exactly the same risk to the occupant, and to other road users ; an old piece of paper doesn't change that.
The only reasoning that makes sense to me, is that the MOT tries to forecast how the vehicle will be in 12 months ( excluding normal wear and tear, and fluid consumption ). Neither A nor B are forecast to be good for 12 months, so they fail the MOT. They might be good for N months, but the DVLA don't want the complexity of a variable standard ; so instead they say that the old MOT, with N months left is a permissible "N month" MOT certificate.
I think the MOT refusal certificate has a space for "In my opinion, this vehicle is dangerous to drive because . . ." so the owner has no excuse. I've also heard ( anecdotally ) of a garage cutting some rusty brake pipes, so that the owner couldn't drive it away.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards