Halfords dispute

matt_drummer

wongataa said:

A car not having any windscreen washer fluid in it will cause an MOT failure.  Having no washer fluid doesn’t make the car unroadworthy.  There are several things that will cause a MOT failure that don't make a car unsafe to drive.

Yes, I know.

Thank you so much for rubbing it in, I have already been corrected. I'm not sure I really needed telling again, what makes you feel it necessary to do so?

Although being on a motorway with salt and road grime being thrown up with the sun in your eyes is probably quite dangerous and with no windscreen washer fluid to improve your visibility could be considered as contributing to a collision. Some might say unroadworthy.

In any case, I expect it doesn't cost £1,700 to refill the washer fluid so there were probably more serious issues with the car.

Thanks for helping me out again though.

matt_drummer

I would say though that the wording of the law around MOT's is inconsistent, contradictory and vague.

If my car already has an MOT but fails a test due to inoperative windscreen washers it is driveable.

If my car has no current MOT though and fails for the same reason it is now undriveable.

The same car with the same defect but in one case it's deemed fit for the road and in the other it is not.

The wording around failure is very vague.

It says you can drive the vehicle away if there are no dangerous faults.

I don't think it means you can carry on driving the vehicle around ignoring the faults until the current MOT runs out.

It's mad that a test that determines whether a vehicle is fit for the road has different outcomes and consequences based on how old the previous passed test was.

paul_c123

matt_drummer said:

I would say though that the wording of the law around MOT's is inconsistent, contradictory and vague.

If my car already has an MOT but fails a test due to inoperative windscreen washers it is driveable.

No it isn't, if its in conditions that needs windscreen washers. It would be unroadworthy. It would be roadworthy only in good weather.

If my car has no current MOT though and fails for the same reason it is now undriveable.

It wouldn't be able to be used, except for exemptions, because it has no MoT. The car itself would still be roadworthy in good weather.

The same car with the same defect but in one case it's deemed fit for the road and in the other it is not.

The wording around failure is very vague.

It says you can drive the vehicle away if there are no dangerous faults.

Because some MoT fail items don't render the car unroadworthy.

I don't think it means you can carry on driving the vehicle around ignoring the faults until the current MOT runs out.

You could, if it remained roadworthy until then. And after that, the crime would be "not having an MoT", not "driving an unroadworthy car".

It's mad that a test that determines whether a vehicle is fit for the road has different outcomes and consequences based on how old the previous passed test was.

My additions in bold.

Basically, the MoT test is a check on whether the car is roadworthy across all aspects, use cases, passenger numbers (up to its max) and weather conditions and (in the opinion of the tester) will be for 12 months into the future. Hence MoT testers are thorough and advisories are there for items which haven't worn out or failed, but might do in the next 12 months.

Certain MoT fail items can be found but don't render the car unroadworthy in narrow situations, for example:

- lights not working in daytime
- wipers/washers not working in dry/good weather
- seats or seat belts not working for passenger seats which are unoccupied
- emissions
- chassis number, registration plates.

matt_drummer

paul_c123 said:

Basically, the MoT test is a check on whether the car is roadworthy across all aspects, use cases, passenger numbers (up to its max) and weather conditions and (in the opinion of the tester) will be for 12 months into the future. Hence MoT testers are thorough and advisories are there for items which haven't worn out or failed, but might do in the next 12 months.

So the tester uses their judgement to say that the car will be roadworthy in all conditions for the next 12 months but then issue advisories for things that  may not last for 12 months in their judgement. It's a contradiction, how can everything be ok for 12 months to get a pass but some items may fail sooner?

It doesn't make sense.

I always thought the MOT was a test in the moment only, when did they start judging 12 months into the future

paul_c123

The advisory is for items which should not become worn out or dangerous over the course of the next 12 months (ie the MoT he's testing for) but may not last longer, ie an advisory one year, if not addressed, might be a fail next year.

The MoT test is done at a point in time, but its to assess whether a car should be safe for the duration of the MoT certificate, not just that day/point in time. Of course, things can happen before a year, the MoT tester can't predict the future.

For example, completely worn out brake discs or pads will fail an MoT, even if the car performs okay on the brake testing machine. Those worn-out brakes are safe today (shown by it just having done the brake test), but don't have any longevity. And part-worn discs can/will get an advisory, depending on how worn they are.

It is a myth and often misinterpreted.

sheramber

Advisories I have had over the years

misting on shock absorbers but not needing changed. Not  a fail. 

This was repeated the next year.
 

Suspension loose- not loose enough to fai.
i but consider before next MOT. 

Tyre tread nearing  limit but not a fail. Next MOT, because I did very little mileage, tyre was still not at the limit, so again no fail. 

powerful_Rogue

paul_c123 said:

The advisory is for items which should not become worn out or dangerous over the course of the next 12 months (ie the MoT he's testing for) but may not last longer, ie an advisory one year, if not addressed, might be a fail next year.

The MoT test is done at a point in time, but its to assess whether a car should be safe for the duration of the MoT certificate, not just that day/point in time. Of course, things can happen before a year, the MoT tester can't predict the future.

For example, completely worn out brake discs or pads will fail an MoT, even if the car performs okay on the brake testing machine. Those worn-out brakes are safe today (shown by it just having done the brake test), but don't have any longevity. And part-worn discs can/will get an advisory, depending on how worn they are.

It is a myth and often misinterpreted.

So by your logic, tyres at 1.6mm should be a fail even though still legal?

paul_c123

powerful_Rogue said:

paul_c123 said:

The advisory is for items which should not become worn out or dangerous over the course of the next 12 months (ie the MoT he's testing for) but may not last longer, ie an advisory one year, if not addressed, might be a fail next year.

The MoT test is done at a point in time, but its to assess whether a car should be safe for the duration of the MoT certificate, not just that day/point in time. Of course, things can happen before a year, the MoT tester can't predict the future.

For example, completely worn out brake discs or pads will fail an MoT, even if the car performs okay on the brake testing machine. Those worn-out brakes are safe today (shown by it just having done the brake test), but don't have any longevity. And part-worn discs can/will get an advisory, depending on how worn they are.

It is a myth and often misinterpreted.

So by your logic, tyres at 1.6mm should be a fail even though still legal?

1.6mm is pass & advise. 1.5mm is fail. You are assuming that a tyre of lower than 1.6mm tread is unroadworthy, and at/above IS roadworthy. It is not as simple as that - in wet weather, the greater the tread depth, the greater the ability (in volume per unit time) of the tyre to clear water and not aquaplane. This translates to, a car can travel at higher speed in the wet without aquaplaning if it has tyres which have greater tread. In dry weather a completely bald/slick tyre could theoretically grip MORE. It is simply a line they have decided to define, for cars. HGVs can legally have tyres of lower tread, so long as its 1mm or more, for example.

powerful_Rogue

paul_c123 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

paul_c123 said:

The advisory is for items which should not become worn out or dangerous over the course of the next 12 months (ie the MoT he's testing for) but may not last longer, ie an advisory one year, if not addressed, might be a fail next year.

The MoT test is done at a point in time, but its to assess whether a car should be safe for the duration of the MoT certificate, not just that day/point in time. Of course, things can happen before a year, the MoT tester can't predict the future.

For example, completely worn out brake discs or pads will fail an MoT, even if the car performs okay on the brake testing machine. Those worn-out brakes are safe today (shown by it just having done the brake test), but don't have any longevity. And part-worn discs can/will get an advisory, depending on how worn they are.

It is a myth and often misinterpreted.

So by your logic, tyres at 1.6mm should be a fail even though still legal?

1.6mm is pass & advise. 1.5mm is fail. You are assuming that a tyre of lower than 1.6mm tread is unroadworthy, and at/above IS roadworthy. It is not as simple as that - in wet weather, the greater the tread depth, the greater the ability (in volume per unit time) of the tyre to clear water and not aquaplane. This translates to, a car can travel at higher speed in the wet without aquaplaning if it has tyres which have greater tread. In dry weather a completely bald/slick tyre could theoretically grip MORE. It is simply a line they have decided to define, for cars. HGVs can legally have tyres of lower tread, so long as its 1mm or more, for example.

Nope. I'm talking about the legal limit which is 1.6mm.

Using your logic, it should fail depsite being legal and a pass.

The MoT test is done at a point in time, but its to assess whether a car should be safe for the duration of the MoT certificate, not just that day/point in time. Of course, things can happen before a year, the MoT tester can't predict the future.

paul_c123

We've already established that what the MoT test tests, and what's roadworthy, isn't necessarily the same. Yours is another example of this (but in the other direction).