New MOT before current one expirers?

Aretnap

Goudy said:

marlot said:

Goudy said:

Car_54 said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

There is also some ambiguity in the wording of most car insurance policies.
There will be a clause stating something along the lines your car must be in a roadworthy condition AND have a valid mot to use on the road.
Now if it failed a test early, it's obviously not in a roadworthy condition and may not be insured even through the MOT appears valid.

MOT failure does NOT mean a car is "obviously" not "roadworthy". There are major faults which do not in themselves make a vehicle dangerous in law.

You need to explain that, perhaps use an example because as far as I understand it, if a car fails at the end of it's current MOT, it's no longer roadworthy until it's repaired and retested.

So why is it roadworthy if it fails 20 odd days before the end of the current test?

I had a fail last year with one dangerous (a tyre problem on the inside edge that I hadn't spotted).  I immediately changed the tyre, but the MOT station couldn't fit me in for a retest for a few days.  So my car was now roadworthy again, the old MOT was still in date but the most recent MOT was a dangerous fail.  So I had a 'fail' on a (now) roadworthy car.

When it comes to the law and it's roadworthy, then no. You'd be hard pressed to argue it was unless you had evidence it was repaired.

You're getting that one backwards. You didn't need evidence of anything. It's for the prosecution to prove that the car was in a dangerous condition at the time that you were driving it. The fact that there's an MOT failure on it's record a few days earlier doesn't do that. Perhaps you'd got the fault rectified and hadn't got round to having it retested yet. Or perhaps there was no fault in the first place and the MOT tester had simply got it wrong (which does happen). It's on them to present evidence of the car's actual condition at the time that it was being used.

Car_54

marlot said:

Goudy said:

Car_54 said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

There is also some ambiguity in the wording of most car insurance policies.
There will be a clause stating something along the lines your car must be in a roadworthy condition AND have a valid mot to use on the road.
Now if it failed a test early, it's obviously not in a roadworthy condition and may not be insured even through the MOT appears valid.

MOT failure does NOT mean a car is "obviously" not "roadworthy". There are major faults which do not in themselves make a vehicle dangerous in law.

You need to explain that, perhaps use an example because as far as I understand it, if a car fails at the end of it's current MOT, it's no longer roadworthy until it's repaired and retested.

So why is it roadworthy if it fails 20 odd days before the end of the current test?

There can be some strange features of the system. 

It's now changed, but it used to be that if you had a puncture on the way to your MOT and fitted your (legal) spacesaver you'd fail your MOT.  The reason was because the MOT manual insisted that tyres on the same axle had to be the same size.

Has it? The manual still lists ."Tyres on the same axle or on twin wheels are different sizes" as a major fault.

prowla

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

...

So for an example, you may get a Major Fault if two out of your three brake lights are not working and a Dangerous Fault if all brake lights aren't working.

Out on the road, the fault is it is in a Dangerous condition for both.
There is no difference between the two different MOT category fails in this situation.
...

Can you give a link to where in the law it says that, please?

Mildly_Miffed

jimjames said:

Goudy said:

There is also some ambiguity in the wording of most car insurance policies.
There will be a clause stating something along the lines your car must be in a roadworthy condition AND have a valid mot to use on the road.

I'm not aware of that clause in any insurance policy I've had but there may be some I guess. If that was really the case then you wouldn't be able to take your car for an MOT once it has expired but it's not really ambiguity - you're either covered or not. I've driven on the road entirely legally with no MOT and no tax but fully insured.

The wording tends to be around having an MOT where one is legally required. That would clearly allow for <3yo cars, 40yo exempt ones, AND those in between being driven to a pre-booked test. Breakdown cover wording is usually the same.

And, of course, if there's time left on the previous test, you still have one, intervening fail or not.

TooManyPoints

Every policy I have ever had has stated the vehicle most be roadworthy AND have a valid MOT if required.

 And any insurer who tried to repudiate liability solely on the basis that the car had no current MoT would almost certainly see their attempt fail. 

Insurers must show that there is a connection between the failure by the policyholder to comply with a policy condition and the cause of the incident. Having no MoT (or tax for that matter) does not, by itself, make a car dangerous or unroadworthy and makes it no more or less likely to be involved in an accident, be stolen or catch fire. It may be perfectly sound but the owner has simply failed to have it tested. 

The insurers may make an adjustment to the payout in the event of a total loss as the vehicle’s value may be reduced. But they cannot deny liability entirely. In the event of third party claims they cannot refuse to meet a claim even if the vehicle is unroadworthy.

Here’s a case handled by the Ombudsman, illustrating this: 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3123029.pdf

For example, as in this case, a condition of the policy is that the vehicle is roadworthy. If an un-roadworthy car is involved in an accident, the insurer can only decline the claim if it can show the issues with the car would have been picked up by a MOT and these issues were connected to the accident

 

Goudy

prowla said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

...

So for an example, you may get a Major Fault if two out of your three brake lights are not working and a Dangerous Fault if all brake lights aren't working.

Out on the road, the fault is it is in a Dangerous condition for both.
There is no difference between the two different MOT category fails in this situation.
...

Can you give a link to where in the law it says that, please?

Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 8 - Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition.

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits someone to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when—

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or

(b) the purpose for which it is used, or

(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or

(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.”

The criteria is objective by context. So for example, it might be considered less serious in daylight in a 20 mph zone but it might be considered more serious on a motorway at night in fog. Though the offence is still the offence.

As for what constitutes a vehicle in a dangerous condition we're at DVSA's doorstep, who just so happen are responsible for assessing the road worthiness of vehicles through MOT testing. I doubt there are many differences in standards of unroadworthiness and MOT, but if anyone would care to point to the them?

It's not unheard of for certain stops to include DVSA officers, particularly for HGV, Vans, Coaches and Buses, they are after all, the experts that set the standards.

 

Goudy

TooManyPoints said:

Every policy I have ever had has stated the vehicle most be roadworthy AND have a valid MOT if required.

 And any insurer who tried to repudiate liability solely on the basis that the car had no current MoT would almost certainly see their attempt fail. 

Insurers must show that there is a connection between the failure by the policyholder to comply with a policy condition and the cause of the incident. Having no MoT (or tax for that matter) does not, by itself, make a car dangerous or unroadworthy and makes it no more or less likely to be involved in an accident, be stolen or catch fire. It may be perfectly sound but the owner has simply failed to have it tested. 

The insurers may make an adjustment to the payout in the event of a total loss as the vehicle’s value may be reduced. But they cannot deny liability entirely. In the event of third party claims they cannot refuse to meet a claim even if the vehicle is unroadworthy.

Here’s a case handled by the Ombudsman, illustrating this: 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3123029.pdf

For example, as in this case, a condition of the policy is that the vehicle is roadworthy. If an un-roadworthy car is involved in an accident, the insurer can only decline the claim if it can show the issues with the car would have been picked up by a MOT and these issues were connected to the accident

 

I never said it would, you are picking up things and running with them beyond the context they were written in.

I gave no other meaning to the statement that is written on my and probably everyone else's car insurance documents that you must make sure your car is in roadworthy condition.

What happens if a claim is made when/if it's proven to be in an unroadworthy is between you and your insurer. With experience of making a couple of total loss claims over the years, I would hazard a guess a claims adjuster/assessor would look into the condition of the vehicle by using various means.
Which may or may not include physical and documentation examination.

Goudy

Car_54 said:

Goudy said:

Car_54 said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

There is also some ambiguity in the wording of most car insurance policies.
There will be a clause stating something along the lines your car must be in a roadworthy condition AND have a valid mot to use on the road.
Now if it failed a test early, it's obviously not in a roadworthy condition and may not be insured even through the MOT appears valid.

MOT failure does NOT mean a car is "obviously" not "roadworthy". There are major faults which do not in themselves make a vehicle dangerous in law.

You need to explain that, perhaps use an example because as far as I understand it, if a car fails at the end of it's current MOT, it's no longer roadworthy until it's repaired and retested.

So why is it roadworthy if it fails 20 odd days before the end of the current test?

The law is not concerned with "roadworthyness" (except when selling or supplying a vehicle), unless you can find a law I've missed.

It does make it an offence to use a vehicle in a dangerous condition. A missing passenger seatbelt, or indeed seat, does not make a car dangerous, unless there is actually a passenger.

You might want to tell that to all the people convicted of driving a vehicle with a dangerous fault.
Road Traffic Act 1991

Surely you didn't think there was no law what so ever relating to the roadworthiness of a vehicle on the public roads?

Car_54

Goudy said:

Car_54 said:

Goudy said:

Car_54 said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

There is also some ambiguity in the wording of most car insurance policies.
There will be a clause stating something along the lines your car must be in a roadworthy condition AND have a valid mot to use on the road.
Now if it failed a test early, it's obviously not in a roadworthy condition and may not be insured even through the MOT appears valid.

MOT failure does NOT mean a car is "obviously" not "roadworthy". There are major faults which do not in themselves make a vehicle dangerous in law.

You need to explain that, perhaps use an example because as far as I understand it, if a car fails at the end of it's current MOT, it's no longer roadworthy until it's repaired and retested.

So why is it roadworthy if it fails 20 odd days before the end of the current test?

The law is not concerned with "roadworthyness" (except when selling or supplying a vehicle), unless you can find a law I've missed.

It does make it an offence to use a vehicle in a dangerous condition. A missing passenger seatbelt, or indeed seat, does not make a car dangerous, unless there is actually a passenger.

You might want to tell that to all the people convicted of driving a vehicle with a dangerous fault.
Road Traffic Act 1991

Surely you didn't think there was no law what so ever relating to the roadworthiness of a vehicle on the public roads?

No, what I actually said was that the law "does make it an offence to use a vehicle in a dangerous condition". [Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended), section 40Z]

If you read the law you have pointed to, you  will still find no mention of "roadworthiness". 

facade

Goudy said:

prowla said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.  
It's not road worthy anymore and it will be logged on the system as such no matter how long you still had left on the original MOT.

That IS the incorrect "popular belief".

It may well have failed *because* it's unroadworthy... and therefore be illegal, just as it would have been on the way to that test. But the old MOT remains valid until the expiry date.

If you don't believe me, go and look at https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history immediately after a fail with some time left on the old certificate. It will still show green, and still be legal.

...

So for an example, you may get a Major Fault if two out of your three brake lights are not working and a Dangerous Fault if all brake lights aren't working.

Out on the road, the fault is it is in a Dangerous condition for both.
There is no difference between the two different MOT category fails in this situation.
...

Can you give a link to where in the law it says that, please?

Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 8 - Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition.

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits someone to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when—

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or

(b) the purpose for which it is used, or

(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or

(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.”

The criteria is objective by context. So for example, it might be considered less serious in daylight in a 20 mph zone but it might be considered more serious on a motorway at night in fog. Though the offence is still the offence.

As for what constitutes a vehicle in a dangerous condition we're at DVSA's doorstep, who just so happen are responsible for assessing the road worthiness of vehicles through MOT testing. I doubt there are many differences in standards of unroadworthiness and MOT, but if anyone would care to point to the them?

It's not unheard of for certain stops to include DVSA officers, particularly for HGV, Vans, Coaches and Buses, they are after all, the experts that set the standards.

 

I assumed prowla was specifically referring to the brake lights.

The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 requires two stop lights, one on each side, carrying an approval mark, that emit a steady red light, no stipulation on size, wattage or intensity. (not if you don't have sidelights and only use it in daylight- you'd have a "daylight MOT" then)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/12/part/I

These are obligatory lights, if one or both don't work on the road you can be prosecuted under RVLR 1989.

The additional stop lights don't need to work.

The MOT also tests the additional stop lights. (except if they don't work at all it is a pass because they might be disconnected) 

The MOT gives a minor if less than half of the elements of any stop light don't illuminate, a major if an obligatory light (or additional light that is known to be connected) doesn't work (or more than half of the elements don't illuminate), and a dangerous if none of the stop lights work.

The dangerous (fail/refusal to issue a certificate) would definitely fall foul of RVLR1989. The major (fail) would if one of the two obligatory lights didn't illuminate at all.

So it is possible to be refused an MOT certificate with a major, but still have legally compliant stop lights under RVLR1989 (and hence a roadworthy vehicle), if the reason for refusal was the additional light, or more than half of your LEDs not lighting on an obligatory lamp!