Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Savannah02K
    • By Savannah02K 1st Jul 17, 10:11 AM
    • 290Posts
    • 435Thanks
    Savannah02K
    Query re MOT Expiry Date and Early Fail
    • #1
    • 1st Jul 17, 10:11 AM
    Query re MOT Expiry Date and Early Fail 1st Jul 17 at 10:11 AM
    Hoping someone can just clarify this for me. My MOT expires on 3 August, if I take the car in earlier than that, say next week, and it fails the MOT, I am still covered by the 'original' MOT Certificate aren't I, i.e. the one that goes to the 3 August?

    Reason for asking is that I'm actually getting another car at end of July but I'm giving the old one to a relative once I get my new car. We agreed I'd get it MOT'd and he'd pay for an repairs necessary but I can't be without a car so if it fails, I'll still have to drive it until it can be repaired.

    I'm just worried as I know that if you're driving without an MOT your insurance is invalid but I wasn't sure how that works if you have last year's MOT Cert that's still 'live.' Thanks.
Page 3
    • Bigphil1474
    • By Bigphil1474 7th Jul 17, 1:28 PM
    • 659 Posts
    • 269 Thanks
    Bigphil1474
    OP, sounds like you're probably best off leaving it until the end of July, then there's no issue. Don't forget, when you transfer keeper to your relative, they'll have to sort out the road tax as well, and you'll both probably be better off if you do that at the end of the month.
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 7th Jul 17, 4:26 PM
    • 1,878 Posts
    • 939 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Say my tyres are now bold but were not 11 months ago. MOT centre fails both tyres, its unroadworthy and hence illegal.
    Originally posted by consumers_revenge
    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.
    • d123
    • By d123 7th Jul 17, 7:30 PM
    • 6,378 Posts
    • 4,116 Thanks
    d123
    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.
    Originally posted by Le_Kirk
    My tyres can boldly go where no man has gone before, that's also because they aren't bald.

    ====
    • Geoff1963
    • By Geoff1963 12th Jul 17, 11:26 PM
    • 586 Posts
    • 365 Thanks
    Geoff1963
    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.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Jul 17, 11:56 PM
    • 32,074 Posts
    • 16,142 Thanks
    Quentin
    .....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........
    Originally posted by Geoff1963
    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 valid
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 13th Jul 17, 12:04 AM
    • 2,014 Posts
    • 1,276 Thanks
    Car 54
    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.
    Originally posted by Geoff1963
    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.
    • d123
    • By d123 13th Jul 17, 4:58 PM
    • 6,378 Posts
    • 4,116 Thanks
    d123
    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.
    Originally posted by Geoff1963
    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?
    ====
    • Geoff1963
    • By Geoff1963 13th Jul 17, 10:12 PM
    • 586 Posts
    • 365 Thanks
    Geoff1963
    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.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 13th Jul 17, 10:18 PM
    • 14,710 Posts
    • 13,077 Thanks
    AdrianC
    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.
    Originally posted by Geoff1963
    Simple.

    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.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 13th Jul 17, 11:15 PM
    • 2,014 Posts
    • 1,276 Thanks
    Car 54

    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.
    Originally posted by Geoff1963
    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.

    BTW
    • Geoff1963
    • By Geoff1963 15th Jul 17, 1:19 AM
    • 586 Posts
    • 365 Thanks
    Geoff1963
    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.
    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.

    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.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 15th Jul 17, 6:48 AM
    • 2,014 Posts
    • 1,276 Thanks
    Car 54
    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.
    Originally posted by Geoff1963
    Of course he could drive it away. Stopping is another matter.
    • Rover Driver
    • By Rover Driver 15th Jul 17, 8:28 AM
    • 1,276 Posts
    • 582 Thanks
    Rover Driver
    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 ) .
    Originally posted by Geoff1963
    The MOT requirement is an annual test of the state of the vehicle only on the day of the test, nothing to do with what happens to the vehicle or how it will be in the following 12 months.
    • chrisw
    • By chrisw 15th Jul 17, 9:12 AM
    • 1,572 Posts
    • 844 Thanks
    chrisw
    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.
    Originally posted by Geoff1963
    This is where you are going wrong - you are over thinking it.

    It is a procedural thing, some people e.g. Car A, may get round the procedure and others eg Car B, may not, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. At some point the positions may be reversed.

    There is no forethought or anticipation (other than the advisories), it is simply a statement of the condition on the day.
    • Retrogamer
    • By Retrogamer 15th Jul 17, 3:36 PM
    • 3,706 Posts
    • 3,694 Thanks
    Retrogamer
    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.
    Originally posted by Geoff1963
    There are certain things that could cause your car to fail an MOT, but not be an issue with making it unroadworthy and there are certain things that would make your car illegal to use on the road, but it could still pass an MOT.
    • Geoff1963
    • By Geoff1963 16th Jul 17, 9:57 PM
    • 586 Posts
    • 365 Thanks
    Geoff1963
    If I were an electricity supply company, wanting to keep my wires off the ground, I would install pylons of a sufficient height and spacing, to allow for the sag in between. I can only be sure of the height of the wires, at the pylons ; but if certain assumptions are true, they will always be high enough off the ground.

    I expect that the Minister of Transport applied similar logic, when he thought up the MOT in 1960.
    • Rover Driver
    • By Rover Driver 16th Jul 17, 10:34 PM
    • 1,276 Posts
    • 582 Thanks
    Rover Driver
    If I were an electricity supply company, wanting to keep my wires off the ground, I would install pylons of a sufficient height and spacing, to allow for the sag in between. I can only be sure of the height of the wires, at the pylons ; but if certain assumptions are true, they will always be high enough off the ground.
    Originally posted by Geoff1963
    The difference between that theory and the MOT test is that there may be an allowance and consideration that the cables will be high enough off the ground in the future.
    The MOT test is the condition of the vehicle only at the time of the test, there is no allowance or consideration in that test for what may happen to it in the future, although there may be an advisory note about matters that may need attention in the future, but they do not affect the actual test.
    Last edited by Rover Driver; 16-07-2017 at 11:09 PM.
    • Aretnap
    • By Aretnap 16th Jul 17, 10:48 PM
    • 2,655 Posts
    • 2,099 Thanks
    Aretnap
    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.
    by AdrianC
    On a slightly pedantic point, both of those faults would actually make the car illegal to drive, though your chances of actually getting into trouble for them would be very low.

    Another reason why a car which has failed an MOT is not automatically illegal to drive is because MOT testers are not infallible (apparently there are even some dodgy ones who fail cars on dubious points to drum up business for repairs) and the offence of driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition is determined by whether your car actually is in a dangerous condition - not whether a bloke in a garage told you it was in a dangerous condition two weeks ago. If your car fails its MOT and the tester tells you that it has four bald tyres, brake pads worn down to the rivets and a steering column which is about to snap then if you think he's taking rubbish you can drive it away perfectly legally - so long as you're right of course.
    • Geoff1963
    • By Geoff1963 17th Jul 17, 12:57 AM
    • 586 Posts
    • 365 Thanks
    Geoff1963
    I was once stopped by the police for having a failed headlamp ; but they only noticed that filament was out, because I was kind enough to dip the beam as I drove past them.

    A friend tells me of an MOT test station which charged : £35 if you brought the car in, or £100 if you didn't.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,240Posts Today

6,896Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin