Change in MOT rules?

marlot

Driving without an MOT is only a minor offence - it doesn't even carry any points, just a fine.

Driving an unroadworthy can is much more serious, of course.

As noted above, DVSA had suggested that an MOT fail cancelled an existing MOT. They changed the wording a while ago, to return to old understanding - that the previous ticket is valid to its expiry, even if there is a subsequent fail.

salubrious

I'd be looking at using another garage myself. Makes one wonder just how bad they are at carrying out an actual mot, when they are giving out such bad information.

Edwood_Woodwood

jase1 wrote: »

The car is old. Unseen rot, for example is always a possibility.

Don't drive a rust bucket around mate with no mot, it's not worth it.

Aretnap

The law, as opposed to the Internet, is Attalid pretty clear on the point. Road Traffic Act section 47

A person who uses on a road at any time, or causes or permits to be so used, a motor vehicle to which this section applies, and as respects which no test certificate has been issued within the appropriate period before that time, is guilty of an offence.

In this section and section 48 of this Act, the “appropriate period” means a period of twelve months or such shorter period as may be prescribed.

In your case, a test certificate HAS been issued within the appropriate period (12 months), and a re recent failure doesn't chan that fact. There in no provision in the law for a certificate to be withdrawn. Changing this would require parliament to pass new legislation amending the Road Traffic Act - it's not something that VOSA could change on a whim by changing the wording on their website.

arcon5

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

Don't drive a rust bucket around mate with no mot, it's not worth it.

Isn't the point of "unseen rot" example used by op that it's exactly that - unseen by op. Aka unknown to op.

arcon5

Quentin wrote: »

No, can't see any point in telling the op ( or us) that it's illegal to drive a car that's not roadworthy (ie. how to suck an egg) in a thread enquiring about any changes to the 12 month validity of an mot cert!

That's why I asked.

You say it's telling op how to suck eggs - implying it's common sense. Yet having worked in an mot station I can tell you from experience it's not exactly rare for people to think because they have that little white sheet still their car is fine!!

Most would be shocked at the condition some people think is ok.. And "some" isn't a minority

jase1

salubrious wrote: »

I'd be looking at using another garage myself. Makes one wonder just how bad they are at carrying out an actual mot, when they are giving out such bad information.

I think that's unfair to be honest -- it's clear from this thread that VOSA did issue an update consistent with what the garage said, and so it's not unreasonable to carry that information forward even though VOSA later clarified what was bad information on their part.

jase1

arcon5 wrote: »

Isn't the point of "unseen rot" example used by op that it's exactly that - unseen by op. Aka unknown to op.

Indeed. I acknowledge that the car has known problems with rust, evidenced by the need for new sills. A lot of older cars do.

Just because a car is a rustbucket does not mean it's unroadworthy -- and it's still entirely possible that this car is currently only cosmetically tatty (the sills still seem solid, but are starting to get crusty round the edges again).

The concern, obviously, is that where a car has visible rust, it may or may not be totally rotten in places you can't get to without thorough inspection.

I would never drive a car without a valid MOT and would never drive it knowing it was unroadworthy. I could afford to replace this car tomorrow with something much newer, but I just don't believe in scrapping something that still has life left in it.

The concern I had was the notion of what to do with a jalopy that had failed expensively and needed to be towed away due to it being illegal to drive away. This looks to be unfounded.

jase1

Aretnap wrote: »

In your case, a test certificate HAS been issued within the appropriate period (12 months), and a re recent failure doesn't chan that fact. There in no provision in the law for a certificate to be withdrawn. Changing this would require parliament to pass new legislation amending the Road Traffic Act - it's not something that VOSA could change on a whim by changing the wording on their website.

Thankyou for this insightful post. I think that last sentence sums things up -- and it seems this thread is a retread going by some of these posts so I apologise for that.

Edwood_Woodwood

arcon5 wrote: »

Isn't the point of "unseen rot" example used by op that it's exactly that - unseen by op. Aka unknown to op.

Try giving that excuse to a cop.

One may have been unaware of a speed camera whilst speeding.

Sorry, won't wash.