New MOT before current one expirers?

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Contrary to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.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!

TooManyPoints

…you are picking up things and running with them beyond the context they were written in.

No not really. I was simply commenting on this:

 

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

Your policies may have had that stipulation. But if an insurer tried to deny liability on the basis of no MoT they would have to show (1) that the vehicle was unroadworthy (2) that the defect contributed to the accident and (3) the defect would have been picked up during the MoT test. 

I don’t know why insurers make the MoT stipulation because, by itself, it is largely unenforceable. The test the insurers must apply is whether the vehicle is roadworthy. Only if it is not should they go on to determine whether the defect contributed to the accident. If they decide it did, then whether or not the car had a valid MoT is immaterial. Lack of one may emphasise the driver’s culpability, but since he is culpable whether he was aware of the defect or not, there isn’t much to prove.

If the car is roadworthy and has no defects then lack of MoT cannot invalidate the policy, regardless of whether or not the insurers list that as a policy condition. They might just as well say that it is a condition of the policy that the driver must wear a white shirt.

Goudy

Well it appears when you apply for insurance cover, some insurance companies won't cover vehicles without MOT's.

A lot of temp cover polices won't cover cars without MOTs. 
Some will allow you to drive to a pre booked MOT but if it fails the policy won't be valid.

I think it's a valid point to make as I presume a lot of people may take out these types of policies to test drive cars that might not be MOT'd or take an otherwise uninsured car to an MOT appointment.

See vehicle criteria here
Temporary Car Insurance | Short Term Car Cover
and again
What vehicles can we cover? | Cuvva Help Center

They aren't denying a claim, they are denying a policy.

prowla

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.

Thanks - the criteria is somewhat subjective; arguably the act of driving a motor vehicle at all implicitly involves a danger of injury, so that definition doesn't stand up as an absolute.

In fact that document is pretty poorly written...

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute.

Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?

Car_54

prowla said:

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.

..

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute.

Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?

No. A person using etc. a vehicle meeting those conditions IS guilty. The court's job is to determine the facts, i.e. whether the person in front of them is indeed such a person., 

As for women, '... in 1850,  Parliament passed an Act “for shortening the Language used in Acts of Parliament”. The Act said that masculine words in legislation are “deemed and taken to include females”.

Goudy

prowla said:

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.

Thanks - as you say, the criteria is somewhat objective; arguably the act of driving a motor vehicle at all implicitly involves a danger of injury, so that definition doesn't stand up as an absolute.

In fact that document it pretty poorly written...

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute.

Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?

Yes, I spotted "he" myself.
I thought Mr Clumley Warner might have wrote it but it's actually from the Road Traffic Act 1991.

TooManyPoints

“They aren't denying a claim, they are denying a policy.”

That’s an entirely different matter. Insurers can, by and large, decide who and what they will cover. But once cover has been agreed they cannot impose unenforceable or unfair conditions.. 

“…..arguably the act of driving a motor vehicle at all implicitly involves a danger of injury, so that definition doesn't stand up as an absolute.”

But it’s not proposed as an absolute. It is conditional on (a) to (d) which determines that the condition of the vehicle or the way in which it is used must satisfy one of those conditions before the statute is applicable.

"In fact that document it pretty poorly written...

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute."

Most statutes say “ if [a person] does something he is guilty of an offence.” How else do you suggest they are worded? Something like “he might be guilty if he admits it or a court decides that he is”?

"Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?"

I imagine the person who drafted it was familiar with section 6 of the Interpretation Act:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/6

Where are you getting some of these ideas from?

prowla

Car_54 said:

prowla said:

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.

..

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute.

Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?

No. A person using etc. a vehicle meeting those conditions IS guilty. The court's job is to determine the facts, i.e. whether the person in front of them is indeed such a person., 

As for women, '... in 1850,  Parliament passed an Act “for shortening the Language used in Acts of Parliament”. The Act said that masculine words in legislation are “deemed and taken to include females”.

According to the Government (https://www.copfs.gov.uk/resources/words-and-meanings/):

Guilty – A verdict that means it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime.

An issue with a lot of UK laws are that they are vague and open to interpretation, so that people reading them often make their own inferences and present those as fact.

Under UK law there is the 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty'; therefore a written rule in UK law cannot state that you are factually guilty.

Further, as pointed out, the wording is such that each and every time you drive a car comprises an infringement of those rules and so everyone is implicitly "guilty" then.

An example is: you are driving along normally and get a sudden puncture which causes you to veer off the road; that could happen to anybody at any time and therefore "the purpose for which it is used," "is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.".

As to the courts; their job is to determine whether it is that person and whether they are guilty of the alleged offence.

Car_54

prowla said:

Car_54 said:

prowla said:

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.

..

There's the term "guilty of an offence"; as I understand it, that is a specific legal term which only an admission, a court or judge can attibute.

Since it specifically says "he", does that mean it doesn't apply to women?

No. A person using etc. a vehicle meeting those conditions IS guilty. The court's job is to determine the facts, i.e. whether the person in front of them is indeed such a person., 

As for women, '... in 1850,  Parliament passed an Act “for shortening the Language used in Acts of Parliament”. The Act said that masculine words in legislation are “deemed and taken to include females”.

According to the Government (https://www.copfs.gov.uk/resources/words-and-meanings/):

Guilty – A verdict that means it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime.

Under UK law there is the 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty'; therefore a written rule in UK law cannot state that you are factually guilty.

But the Law does not say that you, Mr Prowla, are guilty. It says that "a person" who uses a dangerous vehicle  is guilty of an offence.

The police or CPS must bring evidence to court that Mr Prowla is such a person. Until the court finds, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are such a person, you are presumed innocent.

That is a clear and important distinction.