|
|
May 10, 2017 11:15:33 GMT
|
I've always applied a common sense approach to this, which is undoubtedly completely incorrect. If a fault was flagged up as dangerous, then the car wouldn't get used until fixed. If it was something obvious and unsafe in my eyes (bald tyres, peeing out brake fluid, ball joints flapping around on the verge of coming apart), I would adopt the same approach. If it was something less critical and not likely to cause a crash (airbag light, number plate, damage to windscreen in prescribed area) I'd get it sorted within the retest period. Does anyone know: 1. of any actual cases where someone has been prosecuted for driving a car which has failed a test but still has a valid MoT certificate? 2. Whether the police ANPR system would flag up your car in such circumstances? your approach is pretty much what the law expects, though doesnt explicitly state. Which is helpful! Procecution cases are when the vehicle has had a knowingly fangerous fault, but they are not stand-alone cases and usually cone under a more serious allegation. ANPR cameras categorically only show the valid MOT pass not the failure.
|
|
Last Edit: May 10, 2017 11:16:19 GMT by s1105117
|
|
|
|
|
May 10, 2017 11:45:28 GMT
|
I normally send mine in a week early so I have time to sort faults, touch wood last few years have been clean passes, however when the Astra did fail on lower arms even though in my head I had a week, I drove it home, jumped in my grandads car, got my lower arms and fitted them, then took it back the same day. That little part of my brain just kept saying "you might have a week but it's just failed, won't look good if you get tugged". Plus if it's failed, and if you're involved in an accident, it's solid ground for an insurer to refuse a payout. I also send cars in first thing in the morning so if it does fail I can spend the day sorting it and send it back the same day lol.
|
|
Last Edit: May 10, 2017 11:46:18 GMT by astranaut
|
|
bortaf
Posted a lot
Posts: 4,549
|
|
May 10, 2017 12:38:08 GMT
|
Agreed VIP. However, I suspect that some folks that aren't particularly car orientated like us presume that if their car has a valid MOT it must be roadworthy, even though the certificate states on it the obvious. So while not an avid Sun reader I welcome the article. Most car owners don't know thier from thier elbow TBH, yesterday i looked at a car for a mates girlfriend, the oil was burnt and black, the timiing belt ribs were showing through the back of the belt and it was frayed, i was TOLD quite firmly it didn't need a service as it had just passed it's MOT
|
|
R.I.P photobucket
|
|
|
|
May 10, 2017 12:47:31 GMT
|
I drove my mx5 with expired mot for months, never got pulled even with a traffic car behind me. Worse case is a non endorsable 100 pound fine. Driving a clear failure may be a different matter.
|
|
'98 e36 316i lux '97 mx5 harvard '87 Saab 900 T16s
|
|
|
|
May 10, 2017 17:24:49 GMT
|
so... its a criminal offence (road traffic act) to drive a car where the test certificate was issued more than 12 months ago (road traffic act section 47) fine up to 1000 if caught (caveats for exempt cars like less than 3 years old)
its a motoring offence (construction and use regs) if you get caught driving a car with valid MOT but car found not to meet minimum road safety standards, FPN up to 2500, ban, 3 penalty points. as the MOT is a test of minimum roadworthiness its fair to say you are not meeting them, if its just failed.
so, back to what we've all been saying, the two are not linked other than by the grace it affords you to drive your car to a place of repair or prebooked MOT. (including if its on SORN)
so original question, the SUN are really just stating the obvious, if you drove round 3 weeks after the fail, on your remaining previous MOT, youd be liable to paragraph 2 just the same as you are for the 11 months and 30 days after as successful test. youd only be liable for paragraph 1 if the failed test was on the day the MOT expired
|
|
Last Edit: May 10, 2017 17:31:44 GMT by darrenh
|
|
|
|
May 10, 2017 23:40:03 GMT
|
I take 4 or 5 cars a WEEK for MOT, on behalf of customers. I engage in a 14 mile round trip for each and every one, even though there is a testing station right next door to my workshop (its run by an idiot with no idea of trade discount and the tester is a rule book johnnie with no common sense) I take cars that are otherwise uninsured, sorned, been off the road since 198* and a few that have a couple of weeks of test left to run. In over 40 years of this sort of activity, I have been stopped exactly once, on my way back with a failure. MR plod was in favour of doing me for no MOT till I showed him the fail ticket bearing that days date and time stamp and pointed out that I am entitled to take the car to a place of repair of my choice. He reluctantly conceeded this and sent me on my way. He was, I think, so put off by my knowing the rules that he forgot about any possible C+U infringements inherent in the failure!
Because we live in an allegedly free country, we can legally CHOOSE where to have our cars MOT'd and where to have them repaired if they fail. A testing station, much as some would like to, cannot compel you to have even so called "dangerous" faults repaired on their premises "because it would be dangerous to drive it away" There are some of the constabulary persuasion who would take advantage in this situation but I have found most coppers to be sensible if you are not taking the mickey.
A couple of other points, an MOT is only a statement that the vehicle meets certain criteria AT THE TIME OF THE TEST! Not that day or even later that same hour, drive off the testing station forecourt and you can still be done for C+U offences (a tester is only human, he could have missed something) And if your car is not COMPLETELY legal going for MOT, make sure the VTS has the reg number when you book the test, otherwise the loophole that lets you go there without MOT, Tax and so on is not valid. Finally, as far as I am aware, there are no licence points for no MOT and the fine is usually nearer £40 than £2.5k. Of course C+U infringements are not so restricted, but a policeman cannot just quote a failure and do you for everything on it, that would be hearsay evidence, inadmissible in court.
Steve
|
|
Last Edit: May 10, 2017 23:51:18 GMT by carledo
|
|
|
|
May 12, 2017 19:32:21 GMT
|
You are permitted to drive to the MoT station using the most direct route. It does not have to be the closest station but the route has to be direct. You are permitted to drive the vehicle home, again most direct route, providing it isn't issued with a major defect making the vehicle unroadworthy and dangerous. The vehicle does not have to have current road fund licence but does need to have insurance. Think thats about it Where does it state it has to be a direct route?
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 12, 2017 19:38:01 GMT
|
Not this load of curse word again, Driving without a valid MOT is a £100 FPN for the fine to be any larger the car would have to have serious defects. If a car fails with a current ticket still in force that current status still stands but as already said you can't drive an unroadworthy car even to or from a test. If in doubt check the facts on the .gov site not a redtop rag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 12, 2017 22:32:00 GMT
|
In the end I decided to read the article knowing that it would be typical tabloid rubbish.
So what the numpties at the Sun are saying is - don't take your car in for MOT early because then you will know that its dangerous, much better to take it in at the last minute so that you don't know its dangerous for as long as possible, and that makes it OK to drive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are permitted to drive to the MoT station using the most direct route. It does not have to be the closest station but the route has to be direct. You are permitted to drive the vehicle home, again most direct route, providing it isn't issued with a major defect making the vehicle unroadworthy and dangerous. The vehicle does not have to have current road fund licence but does need to have insurance. Think thats about it Where does it state it has to be a direct route? doesnt have to be direct route, there was a case a few years back where a chap went out of his way, stopping once for fuel, and then again for fags en route and court deemed he was still on his was to the test station. Big topic this, and as usual the law is open to interpretaton! :-)
|
|
Last Edit: May 13, 2017 12:10:12 GMT by s1105117
|
|
|
squonk
Part of things
Posts: 858
|
|
|
Where does it state it has to be a direct route? doesnt have to be direct route, there was a vase a few years back where a chao stopped for once for fuel, and then again for fags en route and court deemed he was still on his was to the test station. Jig topic this, and as usual the lawbis ope to interpretaton! :-) Have you considered reading your posts before making them!!!
|
|
2004 Chevrolet Avalanche Z71 2005 Mercedes CLK320 Cabriolet 1996 Mercedes C180 Elegance Auto Saloon 1996 Rover 620Ti (Dead fuel pump) 1992 Toyota HiLux Surf 1987 Range Rover Vogue (Rusty) 1992 Range Rover Vogue SE (More Rusty) 2006 Chrysler Grand Voyager 2008 Corsa 1.4 Design
|
|
steveg
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,565
|
|
|
Can you still drive it to a place of repair ie home? That's what i have always done when any work needed has been something i can do my self at home. Yes you can as not all MOT stations carry out repair work. You must drive straight home or to the place it will be repaired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 10:12:32 GMT
|
doesnt have to be direct route, there was a vase a few years back where a chao stopped for once for fuel, and then again for fags en route and court deemed he was still on his was to the test station. Jig topic this, and as usual the lawbis ope to interpretaton! :-) Have you considered reading your posts before making them!!! consider my spelling/typing mistakes corrected oh master 😊 as it happens it is very difficult to type when hiding ones phone under a desk!
|
|
|
|
squonk
Part of things
Posts: 858
|
|
May 13, 2017 15:45:22 GMT
|
Thats better. Now type out 100 times 'I must not go on Retro Rides when I should be doing something else'!
|
|
2004 Chevrolet Avalanche Z71 2005 Mercedes CLK320 Cabriolet 1996 Mercedes C180 Elegance Auto Saloon 1996 Rover 620Ti (Dead fuel pump) 1992 Toyota HiLux Surf 1987 Range Rover Vogue (Rusty) 1992 Range Rover Vogue SE (More Rusty) 2006 Chrysler Grand Voyager 2008 Corsa 1.4 Design
|
|
|
|
|
I made this exact mistake myself a good few years back, car of the time had some repairs that needed doing and I had the mot done 4 weeks before previous expiry, drove it to work and back for about 2 weeks till the guy could fit it in......only found out after the event of my error.
These days I am a lot luckier, the garage I go to are really good, if I book in advance I can get first appointment of the day, he phones me when its done, gives a price for any work (which is always completely honest) and with my authorisation does it the same day (with a courtesy car for as long as the work and getting back to him takes)
usually I take it in for 8:30 (i'm usually sat in the car park before he gets there), walk the half mile into the town centre, do any errands I need to do and by the time I am done its mot'd, fixed and waiting for me.
|
|
|
|
rude
Part of things
Posts: 537
|
|
|
I don't understand why people are running motors in for tests before they expire? Why make life more difficult? That facility should only be used if you are unable to test the vehicle when the test is due. The user of the vehicle is responsible for the vehicles roadworthiness and should ensure that it is before every journey regardless of any MOT. If it's not, you've only yourself to blame. Knowledgeable types will pre MOT check the vehicle themselves before any test date and allow sufficient time to make any necessary repairs. Unknowledgeable types have the use of vehicle repair centres who will oblige in carrying out the task and informing the user of any defects that require rectification. If the vehicle then goes to it's annual statutory government road worthiness check and fails then the user did not do either of those things and are now in a worse off position than those that did and drove off satisfying the basic requirements. You must be allowed to travel to and from the test which you must pre book, again, regardless of any certificate. The government wants it done, they must allow you to do it.
In short, you are responsible for your vehicle, it's condition and that it meets the basic requirements for use on the highway, if you don't know how to do that, pay someone else to do it.
The MOT is an annual inspection to ensure that the requirements are met. Do it how you wish.
If you can't or don't want to do any of that then get a bicycle.
Well, that's how it works in my world.... Out of the 20 odd cars I've owned, 1 failed on a cv boot because I forgot the MOT had expired and couldn't be ar$ed to check it over and I sent my bm through when I first got it so I could get a list of failures on it to work on, bargain at £40.
|
|
Last Edit: May 16, 2017 9:40:03 GMT by rude
1986 Haunted BMW E24 635CSi 1999 Povo spec BMW E36 1.8i Touring Work Hack 2001 Petrol annihilating Discovery V8 2000 Jaguar S Type 3.0 V6 ~NEW~
|
|
|
|
May 16, 2017 21:21:09 GMT
|
I believe it works like this:
The driver is responsible for making sure that any vehicle used or kept on the road meets the relevant Construction & Use regulations at all times, with exemptions for travelling to and from a pre-booked MoT test or to and from a pre-booked repair station. That's it.
It's completely irrelevant to any potential prosecution under the C&U regulations if you have a valid MoT or not, if your vehicle is not up to standard when Mr Plod looks at it, you can be done.
There is a completely different (and potentially unrelated) offence of not having a valid MoT certificate, which you are committing if your MoT has expired and you use or keep the vehicle on the road. A valid MoT is not invalidated by a subsequent test failure, it only becomes invalid once the date on the certificate has passed.
It's not that a possible defence against a C&U prosecution of "I didn't know" is nullified by taking the vehicle for an early test, there is never any such defence.
So as I see it, taking your car in early or not makes no difference; if it fails to meet the required standard, you can be prosecuted.
Interestingly, the current refusal to issue an MoT form has on it the following:
"If you intend to use your vehicle on the road you should have it repaired without delay and have it retested before the existing test validity expires"...that doesn't even suggest that shouldn't use the car, but it is subject at all times to the above C&U requirements.
However, if you get a note saying "in my opinion the vehicle is dangerous because..." type thing, you'd do well to take it seriously!
Oh, and going back to The Sun article...load of curse word in my opinion. No evidence whatsoever that the police are using the failure data to "target" vehicles, not a single case stated, just a load of speculative rubbish. What would you expect?
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 16, 2017 22:12:24 GMT
|
I believe it works like this: The driver is responsible for making sure that any vehicle used or kept on the road meets the relevant Construction & Use regulations at all times, with exemptions for travelling to and from a pre-booked MoT test or to and from a pre-booked repair station. That's it. It's completely irrelevant to any potential prosecution under the C&U regulations if you have a valid MoT or not, if your vehicle is not up to standard when Mr Plod looks at it, you can be done. There is a completely different (and potentially unrelated) offence of not having a valid MoT certificate, which you are committing if your MoT has expired and you use or keep the vehicle on the road. A valid MoT is not invalidated by a subsequent test failure, it only becomes invalid once the date on the certificate has passed. It's not that a possible defence against a C&U prosecution of "I didn't know" is nullified by taking the vehicle for an early test, there is never any such defence. So as I see it, taking your car in early or not makes no difference; if it fails to meet the required standard, you can be prosecuted. Interestingly, the current refusal to issue an MoT form has on it the following: "If you intend to use your vehicle on the road you should have it repaired without delay and have it retested before the existing test validity expires"...that doesn't even suggest that shouldn't use the car, but it is subject at all times to the above C&U requirements. However, if you get a note saying "in my opinion the vehicle is dangerous because..." type thing, you'd do well to take it seriously! Oh, and going back to The Sun article...load of curse word in my opinion. No evidence whatsoever that the police are using the failure data to "target" vehicles, not a single case stated, just a load of speculative rubbish. What would you expect? I believe that you are bang on with that, this thread makes it clear that very many people, even among car enthusiasts, don't understand.
|
|
|
|