Car damaged during MOT

Calios1

Interesting MOT pickle this week:

I took my car in for its MOT (driving fine, brakes fine etc) and part way through the examiner advised me that the brakes had broken during testing. Apparently the amount of pressure that needs to be applied to the brakes during an MOT test is very high and that caused the brake pipe to break.

The examiner's point was that as the car is old, the pipe was rusty and so it broke. I asked to see the pipe but he said that it could not be seen by either of us.

The liability for cost of repairs seemed to rest with me (according to the examiner - well it would, wouldn't it?), but that didn't seem right to me (as I'd started with a car with functioning brakes and in the hands of the examiner it is now a car with no brakes).

Looking at the MOT Test Regulations 1981 it states that:
"...the extent of an authorised examiner's liability is set out as...damage to the vehicle occurring in connection with carrying out the examination, in the custody of the authorised examiner."

The legal definition of damage here is a loss of monetary value or loss of functionality.

Thus, it was damaged during the test, in the custody of the examiner.

It seems very clear to me (well it would, wouldn't it? ) that liability rests with the examiner, according to the law as it is defined in the actual regulations, as both value and functionality were lost.

The examiner stated a troubling notion, that it's a good thing it happened now rather than when out on the roads: the point of an MOT test is not to destroy a functioning part to prevent it from failing later on.

Ayr_Rage

I disagree, they did not damage your car.

Your car's braking system failed during the test and as they said it was a good job that happened during a static test rather than when a child ran out in front of you.

visidigi

If the part failed as part of the testing procedure then it would fall to you to pay to resolve, the tester is right, if that had happened in a real emergency you would have been in trouble.

DullGreyGuy

Agree with the above, as long as the damage caused during the routine testing then that's an issue with your car. If they went to drive it over the inspection pit and misjudged it and it fell in then that's their issue and they'd be liable. 

eskbanker

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-testing-guide/appendix-4-liability-for-loss-or-damage gives examples:

Liability if there is loss or damage to a vehicle, its equipment or accessories

For an examiner to be liable for the types of damage listed in (1) and (2), the circumstances must be that the damage can be connected to an examination carried out by that examiner whilst the vehicle or accessory concerned was in their custody.

Examples of these types of damage that (1) and (2) are intended to cover are where an examiner, whilst testing a vehicle smashes a brake light, causes the steering to become defective or inflicts other types of harm to the vehicle that did not exist at the time it was left in their possession for testing.

and I'd have thought that there's an argument that OP's scenario is analogous to the steering one, but perhaps this would be one for the motoring board rather than the generic consumer rights one?

Calios1

eskbanker said:

(link removed)

Liability if there is loss or damage to a vehicle, its equipment or accessories

For an examiner to be liable for the types of damage listed in (1) and (2), the circumstances must be that the damage can be connected to an examination carried out by that examiner whilst the vehicle or accessory concerned was in their custody.

Examples of these types of damage that (1) and (2) are intended to cover are where an examiner, whilst testing a vehicle smashes a brake light, causes the steering to become defective or inflicts other types of harm to the vehicle that did not exist at the time it was left in their possession for testing.

and I'd have thought that there's an argument that OP's scenario is analogous to the steering one, but perhaps this would be one for the motoring board rather than the generic consumer rights one?

Thanks, I did read that one! Yes, I think you're right about the board, I wanted to focus on the legal side of things.

fatbelly

I think a court would be asking whether the damage occurred by negligence. You can see if the garage will make a contribution to the repair but I suspect they won't

Good job it didn't happen when you needed to make an emergency stop. That could have been very expensive as well as potentially injuring yourself and others. Shows the value of the test.

In relative terms you now have a cheap fix

Grumpy_chap

Calios1 said:

Interesting MOT pickle this week:

I took my car in for its MOT (driving fine, brakes fine etc) and part way through the examiner advised me that the brakes had broken during testing. Apparently the amount of pressure that needs to be applied to the brakes during an MOT test is very high and that caused the brake pipe to break.

The examiner's point was that as the car is old, the pipe was rusty and so it broke. I asked to see the pipe but he said that it could not be seen by either of us.

The liability for cost of repairs seemed to rest with me (according to the examiner - well it would, wouldn't it?), but that didn't seem right to me (as I'd started with a car with functioning brakes and in the hands of the examiner it is now a car with no brakes).

Looking at the MOT Test Regulations 1981 it states that:
"...the extent of an authorised examiner's liability is set out as...damage to the vehicle occurring in connection with carrying out the examination, in the custody of the authorised examiner."

The legal definition of damage here is a loss of monetary value or loss of functionality.

Thus, it was damaged during the test, in the custody of the examiner.

It seems very clear to me (well it would, wouldn't it? ) that liability rests with the examiner, according to the law as it is defined in the actual regulations, as both value and functionality were lost.

The examiner stated a troubling notion, that it's a good thing it happened now rather than when out on the roads: the point of an MOT test is not to destroy a functioning part to prevent it from failing later on.

I think I agree with the Tester.

The brake pipe fitted to the car was in a state of deterioration and could fail at any time. That time will be when maximum force is applied.
Most of the time, you drive sensibly, other people around you drive sensibly, everyone uses foresight and only light braking force is required.
You never know when an emergency stop might be required.  That emergency stop requires maximum braking force.
In the case of this car, at that emergency stop event, the brake pipe would have failed and the car would not come to a halt as it should.  The outcomes could be very serious indeed.

Fortunately for the OP and everyone else, the maximum braking force event occurred in the MOT station and the failure was under controlled conditions where no harm has come.

TELLIT01

Another in support of the tester.  The brake pipe failed during testing in accordance with MOT requirements.  The tester did nothing he/she was not required to do, therefore they bear no fault or responsibility for the failure.  The cost lies with the vehicle owner.

ArbitraryRandom

eskbanker said:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-testing-guide/appendix-4-liability-for-loss-or-damage gives examples:

Liability if there is loss or damage to a vehicle, its equipment or accessories

For an examiner to be liable for the types of damage listed in (1) and (2), the circumstances must be that the damage can be connected to an examination carried out by that examiner whilst the vehicle or accessory concerned was in their custody.

Examples of these types of damage that (1) and (2) are intended to cover are where an examiner, whilst testing a vehicle smashes a brake light, causes the steering to become defective or inflicts other types of harm to the vehicle that did not exist at the time it was left in their possession for testing.

and I'd have thought that there's an argument that OP's scenario is analogous to the steering one, but perhaps this would be one for the motoring board rather than the generic consumer rights one?

Both of those examples are resulting from the examiner being in the car during the test - not resulting from the test itself.

i.e. if in testing the steering the wheel detaches... because it wasn't firmly connected to the steering column - that would be the 'steering becoming defective' - but it wouldn't be 'damage' as to attract liability as much as the component failing a test designed specifically to assess if it was securely connected. 

vs the brake light being smashed (there's no way for that to be the result of normal use) or the steering being defective due to improper use 

Ditzy_Mitzy

The OP might consider suing the MOT tester, but in the spirit of fairness he ought to think about turning himself in for a CU20 offence (Construction and Use: defective brakes) and volunteering for a three point licence endorsement and a fine of up to £2,500.  Fair's fair, don't you think!