New MOT before current one expirers?

prowla

Car_54 said:

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to popular belief, if you take it in early at any time and it fails, any existing MOT it may have still had is no longer valid.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

Hmm - you're focusing on the "a person" whereas I'm focusing on the "is guilty".

My assertion is the "person" can only be "guilty" if so found to be via a court and/or makes an admission that they are.

Up to that point, they can indeed be the "person" driving the vehicle, in that condition, but they are not "guilty" in the eyes of the law.

Car_54

prowla said:

Car_54 said:

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.

Hmm - you're focusing on the "a person" whereas I'm focusing on the "is guilty".

My assertion is the "person" can only be "guilty" if so found to be via a court and/or makes an admission that they are.

Up to that point, they can indeed be the "person" driving the vehicle, in that condition, but they are not "guilty" in the eyes of the law.

We seem to be going round in circles.

This Act (and countless others) is essentially saying that anyone who commits a certain act is guilty of an offence.

This does not conflict with the presumption of innocence. It is up to the authorities to prove that a particular individual has actually committed the offence in question.

To summarise, either

(1) Thousands of Acts of Parliament (successfully prosecuted on a daily basis) are fundamentally flawed and unworkable, and no-one has spotted it, before, or

(2) you're wrong!

TooManyPoints

I'll go for the latter.

I'm getting hints of "Freemen on the Land" from all this. I hope I'm wrong.

Herzlos

metropolis090 said:

A small heads-up for anyone reading: if you go in early and get a fail, it stays in the system and you’re not supposed to drive until it’s fixed, especially if the issues are major or dangerous. I first did a pre-check at MB MOTORS (kind of like a pre-MOT), they pointed out small things (bulb, wiper), and only then I went through with the actual test.

Technically it'd be unroadworthy and illegal anyway, but you'd lose deniability if it was written on the MOT. 

If it's a minor thing you can still use the car but you should be looking to get it addressed ASAP. 

prowla

Car_54 said:

prowla said:

Car_54 said:

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.

Hmm - you're focusing on the "a person" whereas I'm focusing on the "is guilty".

My assertion is the "person" can only be "guilty" if so found to be via a court and/or makes an admission that they are.

Up to that point, they can indeed be the "person" driving the vehicle, in that condition, but they are not "guilty" in the eyes of the law.

We seem to be going round in circles.

This Act (and countless others) is essentially saying that anyone who commits a certain act is guilty of an offence.

This does not conflict with the presumption of innocence. It is up to the authorities to prove that a particular individual has actually committed the offence in question.

To summarise, either

(1) Thousands of Acts of Parliament (successfully prosecuted on a daily basis) are fundamentally flawed and unworkable, and no-one has spotted it, before, or

(2) you're wrong!

Yep circles, beginagain.

This Act (and countless others) is essentially saying that anyone who commits a certain act is guilty of an offence, if found guilty.

TooManyPoints

It was this comment that amused me the most:

In fact that document [The Road Traffic Act] it pretty poorly written...

prowla

TooManyPoints said:

It was this comment that amused me the most:

In fact that document [The Road Traffic Act] it pretty poorly written...

Thanks for pointing out my typo (now corrected); sometimes my fingers and brain diverge...

Just like the law, my posts could do with proof-reading!

The difference is mine are chatter and opinions in an internet group, whereas the laws are sets of rules with which the entire population of the country is expected to comply.

Grey_Critic

Cannot say if the same applies but years ago Motability policy was that all cars have an MOT at Two Years Nine months.