MOT, Computerisation and the Law

Joe_Horner

bazster wrote: »

In which case it's almost certainly an offence to drive it.

You are just being pedantic.

No it's not.

An example is completely missing windscreen:

That's not an MOT, or even a Construction and Use, issue so it in no way breaks the law in terms of roadworthiness. It's appropriate for a tester to put an advisory for it because, without the screen, he won't have tested the wipers or washers (not needed) or for screen damage. It's also appropriate to flag it as dangerous for reasons you'll understand if you've ever tried driving without one.

So, result is dangerous but fully road legal.

bazster

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No it's not.

An example is completely missing windscreen:

That's not an MOT, or even a Construction and Use, issue so it in no way breaks the law in terms of roadworthiness. It's appropriate for a tester to put an advisory for it because, without the screen, he won't have tested the wipers or washers (not needed) or for screen damage. It's also appropriate to flag it as dangerous for reasons you'll understand if you've ever tried driving without one.

So, result is dangerous but fully road legal.

Yep, pedant.

Joe_Horner

Spivved1987 wrote: »

Thanks for all responses. It's too late for this year, as I've agreed to have the work done by Lookers. I think I will write to Swansea about this. But even then I doubt if I'll get a definitive answer. I think it's one of those 'needs to be tested in court' jobs. I'd be amazed if there will be something as clear as 'failed but not dangerous = grace period' and 'dangerous = don't drive and no grace period'

Rather than writing to Swansea, give the VOSA line a call - they're the ones who administer the MOT, not DVLA.

It's also not a case of "grace" periods".

You car either has a current MOT or it doesn't, and failing a test doesn't invalidate an existing valid MOT. That bit is absolutely simple.

The question of dangerous etc is a little more blurred, but you said in your first post that it didn't get one of those anyway so it's just one of those side-tracks that happen.

VOSA really don't take kindly to MOT stations using scare tactics to drum up work because they see it (rightly) in the same light as testers inventing faults. Both gve the scheme a bad name and they fight pretty hard to keep the public happy that it's about safety rather than revenue.

Joe_Horner

bazster wrote: »

Yep, pedant.

Not at all.

Earlier posts said that having the dangerous box ticked meant automatically that the car couldn't be driven legally. It's a common belief but it's simply not true.

The tick in the dangerous box has no meaning as far as legal roadworthiness is concerned or there couldn't be any case where it would be legal to drive with it ticked.

From the legal roadworthiness POV, a fault marked "dangerous" is no different to the same fault without the box ticked, so having the box ticked can't affect whether or not it's legal to drive.

Notmyrealname

Spivved1987 wrote: »

I've just returned from a perplexing conversation at my local Lookers. I always get my car MOT done in advance of the expiry date, so that I can draw breath to get finance ready if necessary, get to important appointments etc. My understanding was always that as long as the car was booked in for any necessary repair work (other than if the garage had decided that the car was actually dangerous) you were ok to drive in the days between the MOT test and the expiry date of the old one.

My car failed its MOT - not dangerously - but the lady told me that 'with everything being computerised' it was now logged at Swansea as an MOT failure and that technically I would be breaking the law if I used it to drive anywhere other than to and from a garage I had booked it into for repair. Knowing my luck with traffic police I would have been the one caught out, so I didn't feel like putting this to the test.

But this raises a couple of issues. Firstly there is now no such thing as a grace period, so I might as well leave the MOT till the last day in the future.

Technically she is correct. Your car does not meet the minimum standard to be classed as roadworthy. A car to be truly legal to drive on the road must be capable of passing an MOT at any time. However there is leeway given because the law recognises that not everyone is a mechanic.

Now here's the rub. With certain things, if you were stopped and the defects were found during an inspection and it was something a normal lay person wouldn't be expected to know about such as a corroding brake pipe, depending on how dangerous it was you would be given a vehicle defect rectification notice and be on your way. However as it has failed an MOT and the defects have been pointed out to you, you no longer have that defence.

Again this is all based on you being stopped at a roadside VOSA checkpoint and it being something not obvious like bald tyres.

Notmyrealname

Joe_Horner wrote: »

In fact, the test even allows in theory for a car to pass (ie: be roadworthy) yet still have the "dangerous" box ticked for an advisory item that's not part of the test.

No it doesn't. The MOT test is a test of a strict set of mechanical, emissions and safety systems. If it is not within the scope of the items tested, it does not warrant an advisory nor can it result in the dangerous box being ticked. An example would be a car with a faulty 4th gear. It isn't a testable item.

Spivved1987

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Rather than writing to Swansea, give the VOSA line a call - they're the ones who administer the MOT, not DVLA.

It's also not a case of "grace" periods".

You car either has a current MOT or it doesn't, and failing a test doesn't invalidate an existing valid MOT. That bit is absolutely simple.

The question of dangerous etc is a little more blurred, but you said in your first post that it didn't get one of those anyway so it's just one of those side-tracks that happen.

VOSA really don't take kindly to MOT stations using scare tactics to drum up work because they see it (rightly) in the same light as testers inventing faults. Both gve the scheme a bad name and they fight pretty hard to keep the public happy that it's about safety rather than revenue.

Yes, perhaps I should contact VOSA as well. But not 'a call' as the whole point would be to get a written response. However, you will notice that among the contributors to this forum, views are mixed. It seems that one way or another driving on after your car has failed an MOT runs a risk. Perhaps all we can do is decide for ourselves how great that risk is.

mikey72

Notmyrealname wrote: »

No it doesn't. The MOT test is a test of a strict set of mechanical, emissions and safety systems. If it is not within the scope of the items tested, it does not warrant an advisory nor can it result in the dangerous box being ticked. An example would be a car with a faulty 4th gear. It isn't a testable item.

No, advisories can be anything the mot examiner wants to put down. My usuals are oil leaks.

Joe_Horner

Notmyrealname wrote: »

No it doesn't. The MOT test is a test of a strict set of mechanical, emissions and safety systems. If it is not within the scope of the items tested, it does not warrant an advisory nor can it result in the dangerous box being ticked. An example would be a car with a faulty 4th gear. It isn't a testable item.

Yes it does.

Part 6 of the introduction to the Manual deals with recording defects:

6. Recording Defects

a) Reasons for Rejection
[my space-saving note: para a deals with the statutory items you can fail for]



b) Dangerous Defects
If in the opinion of the NT the vehicle has a dangerous defect this must be recorded in box C of the VT30 or in box C of the VT32 as appropriate. Dangerous defects must be clearly explained to the vehicle presenter.

c) Other Defects
It is considered best practice to advise the presenter of: · any items which are near to, but which have not yet reached the point of test failure.
any peculiarities of the vehicle identified during the inspection. ·
any defects on non-testable items which are found during the inspection procedure.

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4i00000404.htm

So, best practice is for a tester to advise any non-tested item faults,that become apparent, which would include my missing windscreen and your faulty 4th gear - although they're far more likely to notice the windscreen!

Having advised a fault for any reason, it will appear on the VT32 advisory sheet and any defect that the NT considers to be dangerous must be recorded in box C of that sheet. If it was only applicable to testable items then that box would only be on the VT30 because a dangerous defect on a testable item will always be a fail.

Another example of dangerous but pass would be tyres severely perished with age.

In terms of the rubber itself they can only fail on "cuts" which expose the cord or "lumps, bulges and tears caused by separation or partial failure of their structure". There's no fail available for cracking due to age (even if there should be) as long as the cords aren't exposed. They can't "open up" cracks to check if they're down to the cord either.

So a severely perished tyre is a pass and, hopefully, advise but the NT may (rightly) decide that this "non-fail" defect warrants a dangerous warning.

Spivved1987

Joe_Horner wrote: »

VOSA really don't take kindly to MOT stations using scare tactics to drum up work because they see it (rightly) in the same light as testers inventing faults. Both gve the scheme a bad name and they fight pretty hard to keep the public happy that it's about safety rather than revenue.

I must admit that this - if true - is very welcome. Most Government Agencies don't give a tinker's cuss what the public perception of their service is !