MOT Expiry

BeenThroughItAll

JustinR1979 wrote: »

...it's a dark matter.

You think?


Posting style doesn't feel right to me.

PDC

Tilt wrote: »

The original MOT remains valid up until it's expiry date even if a newer MOT test produces a fail. However if the reason for the fail is due to the car being in an un-roadworthy condition (defective brakes, steering, tyres etc) then you would be committing an offence driving it anyway thus you would need to get the fault(s) rectified immediately.

This is what I've always understood the situation to be.

Master_Blaster

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

I'm aware of the C&U regs, thanks. And I'm aware the police can and do prosecute for them, but your statement in answer to the OP's question that "the defect that caused it to fail must be rectified to make the car road legal" was, and still is, incorrect and that is what I set out to demonstrate using realistic examples.


I am VERY happy for you to point me to any case you can find where someone has, to continue the original example, been prosecuted for having a car with a cut or otherwise inoperable seatbelt on an unoccupied seat.


Yes, police will prosecute for an overweight vehicle, or for severe or safety-critical defects, or even for the results of a non-safety critical defect (for example, where the wiper blades I mentioned earlier as not making the car illegal to use in their own right cause the driver to be unable to see through the screen, in which case he could be prosecuted as a result of the wipers not being good enough to pass the MOT); but your implication that a contravention of C&U regulations = a definite prosecution is false.

I did not say there would be "a definite prosecution" but I will maintain there are offences under the Construction and Use Regulations 1986. I said Reg 48 covers the maintenance of seat belts not the use of. So whether anyone is sat in that seat is irrelevant.

Joe_Horner

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

Yep, that's exactly what I said, and yet Mr Blaster doesn't seem to agree with my post.

I get the feeling he's taking the theoretical line that:

A cut rear belt not in use, or faulty towbar electrics on a car that's not towing, does make it technically unroadworthy - and so illegal to drive

Rather than the real-world one that the rest of us use which is that:

honestly, no-one will care.


It's a bit like these two "musts" from the highway code:

248

You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space. Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24
249

All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h).
Law RVLR reg 24


Doing either is an offence but no-one's going to be prosecuted unless, possibly, something happens as a result :beer:

Master_Blaster

That's correct joe, I wish I had not bothered now. I was only trying to help out.

Had I stated incorrectly that you are alright to drive until the MOT expires he would have been quoting what about the bald tyres. Maybe he is not getting any.

BeenThroughItAll

Master_Blaster wrote: »

Had I stated incorrectly that you are alright to drive until the MOT expires he would have been quoting what about the bald tyres.

You may well have been trying to help, but what you actually stated was just as incorrect as the answer you say you were trying to avoid; you made the blanket statement that fail points must be rectified or the car would be illegal to use which is NOT the case.

All I was trying to do was to give the fuller picture which you didn't take the time to put into your post; that which has been adequately explained several times since. If you really want to help (and you know what you're talking about, which you seem happy to admit you do once other people have written posts explaining), then perhaps giving a fuller answer is the way to do so. Clearly you prefer the way Joe Horner's explained exactly the same point that I made.

I assume your final sentence about 'not getting any' was aimed at me; if it were, there was absolutely no reason for it. I'm not the sort to go running to the mods every time someone says something I don't like, but there's no reason to be impolite.

BeenThroughItAll

JustinR1979 wrote: »

Nor me, and this guy seems to know a bit and makes some sense!
Just keeping the name alive
I know the 2 I have my eye on, it's pretty obvious.

Roger that - I suspect this is a different re-incarnation.


DM101 however is, I'm sure, lurking behind one of the new ones.

Joe_Horner

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

You may well have been trying to help, but what you actually stated was just as incorrect as the answer you say you were trying to avoid; you made the blanket statement that fail points must be rectified or the car would be illegal to use which is NOT the case.

The thing is that, strictly by the law, any fail does make it illegal to use, in the same way that it's illegal for me to park where I do every night facing oncoming traffic and not in a marked bay.

To use a car on the road legally it must meet all relevant requirements of the C&U regs, lighting regs, RTA and so on. Any MOT fail means it's not meeting one of those requirements.

In practical terms, many potential fails really don't matter and no-one's going to bother prosecuting for them even if they notice, but that doesn't make such use "legal".

mrmot

What about things that aren't tested on a MOT but will get you a prohibition on a roadside check?

JustinR1979

Tyres for example?