MOT Requirement

Wireless_2

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But the OP hasn't taken the car for an MOT yet, so there is no failure report.

As you're quite well aware, the discussion had opened up into a number of different areas, and my post isn't necessarily in response to the OP's situation.

So the OP isn't knowingly driving a vehicle that is defective, we're agreed on that, so what point are you trying to make here?

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But not having a valid MOT certificate does not invalidate the insurance. I can drive from Land's End, to John O' Groats and back again, with no MOT and still be insured.

We are not in disagreement, if you properly read my earlier comments, I have agreed that Insurance isn't invalidated by not having a valid MoT, indeed I believe I mentioned that I currently own a vehicle that is insured and doesn't have a MoT.

However, the point I made, that any reasonable person would be able to understand from my previous comments; is that undertaking a journey with valid Insurance, to anywhere other than to or from an MoT Testing Station for the purposes of an MoT Test, without a valid MoT, is illegal. This has nothing to do with having valid Insurance, it is due to not having a valid MoT.

That includes driving from Land's End to John O'Groats without a valid MoT. Of course, if you're intent on chancing your arm, that is entirely your bag.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

That's a bit contradictory, isn't it? How can one ensure that it would pass the test, if they aren't qualified mechanics or don't have the skills necessary to ensure that it will pass before taking it to the testing station?

Not at all contradictory; depending on circumstances, we're all capable of replacing bulbs, and ensuring there's no cracks in the windscreen, and that we've replaced the wiper blades if they weren't properly cleaning the screen, and that any obviously defective tyres are replaced by qualified mobile or garage services, and that the engine is properly serviced by using qualified mobile or garage mechanics.

Doing the above, as any reasonable person would agree, would be more likely to enable your vehicle to pass an MoT that doing nothing at all between MoT's. You don't need to be a qualified mechanic to understand that looking after your vehicle will promote its longevity, and make it more likely to pass an MoT, than a vehicle that is neglected.

However, because we're not all qualified mechanics, our Society insists on a properly qualified mechanic to test and check a vehicle is properly roadworthy on an annual basis, and that such vehicles that pass the test are awarded a valid MoT.

You do appear to require everything explained a number of times.

Flyboy152

Wireless wrote: »

As you're quite well aware, the discussion had opened up into a number of different areas, and my post isn't necessarily in response to the OP's situation.

So the OP isn't knowingly driving a vehicle that is defective, we're agreed on that, so what point are you trying to make here?

We are not in disagreement, if you properly read my earlier comments, I have agreed that Insurance isn't invalidated by not having a valid MoT, indeed I believe I mentioned that I currently own a vehicle that is insured and doesn't have a MoT.

So why did you write that the OP's insurance would be invalid, if she didn't have a valid MOT certificate? :huh:

However, the point I made, that any reasonable person would be able to understand from my previous comments; is that undertaking a journey with valid Insurance, to anywhere other than to or from an MoT Testing Station for the purposes of an MoT Test, without a valid MoT, is illegal. This has nothing to do with having valid Insurance, it is due to not having a valid MoT.

That includes driving from Land's End to John O'Groats without a valid MoT. Of course, if you're intent on chancing your arm, that is entirely your bag.

But still does not make one in violation of part six of the RTA; which was the point of the post.

Not at all contradictory; depending on circumstances, we're all capable of replacing bulbs, and ensuring there's no cracks in the windscreen, and that we've replaced the wiper blades if they weren't properly cleaning the screen,.....

There is little chance of the average person being able to change light bulbs on many cars being sold today. For example, to change the headlamp bulbs on a Renault Scenic, involves removal of the bumper and other body components (in the absence of a ramp or pit in their garage).

......and that any obviously defective tyres are replaced by qualified mobile or garage services, and that the engine is properly serviced by using qualified mobile or garage mechanics.

Which involves taking it to a garage, or paying for someone to do the work. Not exactly the same as doing it oneself.

Doing the above, as any reasonable person would agree, would be more likely to enable your vehicle to pass an MoT that doing nothing at all between MoT's. You don't need to be a qualified mechanic to understand that looking after your vehicle will promote its longevity, and make it more likely to pass an MoT, than a vehicle that is neglected.

That was not the point of your remarks though, was it. You implied taht motorist should do all of these checks themselves and carry out the remedial work themselves before taking to the MOT test station. What would be the point in going to all that trouble and then finding out that the car fails the test and you have to take it away from the testing station, have the work done again and pay for a re-test? You might as well have the test and get the testing garage to do the remedial work, negating the risk of having to pay fro the re-test.

However, because we're not all qualified mechanics, our Society insists on a properly qualified mechanic to test and check a vehicle is properly roadworthy on an annual basis, and that such vehicles that pass the test are awarded a valid MoT.

You do appear to require everything explained a number of times.

No, you seem to have dug yourself into a hole and are digging yourself even deeper. Your remarks seem to contradict themselves and have succeeded in confusing the issues.

dibuzz

Microwave_Dinner wrote: »

I deliberately bought six months tax disc so mine didn't all run out at same time. I kept finding that I couldn't tax my car online because the DVLA computer was saying my insurance was about to run out and by the time they updated computer there weren't enough days left for tax disc to definitely arrive in post in time. Surely this must happen to anyone who buys a car from new? (Ours wasn't brand new but we purchased bang on the anniversary of it's registration date).

Am I right in thinking the tax disc doesn't have to arrive on or before the days it's due? I've always thought that as long as it's been paid online and acknowledged then your car is legal to drive.