 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Car Maintenance (UK group) / November 2009MOT query
I am sure this has been asked before but cannot find anything. My old car goes in for an MOT this morning, two weeks before actually due. If it fails can I still drive the car on it's existing MOT until it's expiry or does the new one supersede the old one. Thanks, Bill. "Bill" <co10@hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > I am sure this has been asked before but cannot find anything. My old > car goes in for an MOT this morning, two weeks before actually due. If > it fails can I still drive the car on it's existing MOT until it's > expiry or does the new one supersede the old one. The fail will not invalidate the old certificate. However, if the car is unroadworthy, it's illegal to drive it - even before it fails a test. > "Bill" <co10@hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > However, if the car is unroadworthy, it's illegal to drive it - even > before it fails a test. The MOT is only an indication of the car being roadworthy at the exact time it was inspected. > I am sure this has been asked before but cannot find anything. My old car > goes in for an MOT this morning, two weeks before actually due. If it fails > can I still drive the car on it's existing MOT until it's expiry or does the > new one supersede the old one. No because although it has a certificate still in force, it doesn't meet the minimum standards required to be roadworthy which is why it has failed. It was also not legal to drive on the road with the faults before it failed the test either. Technically, depending on the reason for the failure, you may have had an excuse for driving an unroadworthy vehicle prior to the test however now you are aware of the faults/the fact the vehicle doesn't meet the minimum requirements, there is no excuse should you be pulled into a roadside VOSA checkpoint or pulled up by the Police and the faults found. It will come to light that there is a fail issued on the MOT database.  SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. >> I am sure this has been asked before but cannot find anything. My old >> car [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > by the Police and the faults found. It will come to light that there is > a fail issued on the MOT database. They're all may not be legal though, it depends on what it's failed on. > They're all may not be legal though, it depends on what it's failed on. Perhaps you'd care to tell me what fault its legal to drive with but fail an MOT on? Actually, I can think of one possible, cracked numberplate but only if its readable OK. SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. >> They're all may not be legal though, it depends on what it's failed on. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Actually, I can think of one possible, cracked numberplate but only if > its readable OK. Headlamp alignment when driving during the day, emissions fails short of gross polluting, seatbelt fails for seats not in use, faulty abs warning light, temporary windscreen, spacesaver tyre fitted, there's plenty more. > >> They're all may not be legal though, it depends on what it's failed on. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Headlamp alignment when driving during the day, If pulled into a roadside check, you'd fail it. > emissions fails short of > gross polluting, If pulled into a roadside check, you'd fail it. > seatbelt fails for seats not in use, If pulled into a roadside check, you'd fail it. > faulty abs warning > light, If pulled into a roadside check, you'd fail it. > temporary windscreen, Do such things exist? > spacesaver tyre fitted, SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. >In article <op.u2rjm9fnhaghkf@lucy>, Duncan Wood says... > >> temporary windscreen, > >Do such things exist? I remember them advertised, years & years ago - a plastic sheet with bracing rods, that could be rolled up. Don't ask me how it was kept in place ... But - if I turned up for MOT with no windscreen whatsoever (on my Volvo, say), would it be a fail? SignatureRoger Hunt >> In article <op.u2rjm9fnhaghkf@lucy>, Duncan Wood says... >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But - if I turned up for MOT with no windscreen whatsoever (on my > Volvo, say), would it be a fail? The temp. screens were extra long and you closed the doors over the ends, I have got one in the garage, it saved my sister an unpleasant journey in the wet once, so they do work, even the wipers work after a fashion on them. I expect it would crack up if I unrolled it now, but in the days before laminated screens were on everything they were very useful. No, no screen is not a failure. I used to get my kit car mot'd without a screen and put it back on immediately after (minor crack in the corner) >Roger Hunt wrote: >>> In article <op.u2rjm9fnhaghkf@lucy>, Duncan Wood says... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >expect it would crack up if I unrolled it now, but in the days before >laminated screens were on everything they were very useful. Aha! Very useful idea, clever fixing too. >No, no screen is not a failure. I used to get my kit car mot'd without a >screen and put it back on immediately after (minor crack in the corner) Did they still check any wiper operation!?! And washers! SignatureRoger Hunt Roger Hunt <nospam@nospam.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>No, no screen is not a failure. I used to get my kit car mot'd without >>a screen and put it back on immediately after (minor crack in the >>corner) > Did they still check any wiper operation!?! And washers! If the windscreen can be opened/folded, then wipers are unnecessary for the MOT. > Roger Hunt <nospam@nospam.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If the windscreen can be opened/folded, then wipers are unnecessary > for the MOT. and washers. >Roger Hunt <nospam@nospam.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like >they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >If the windscreen can be opened/folded, then wipers are unnecessary for >the MOT. The MOT appears to be pretty well thought out. Good for them. SignatureRoger Hunt >> >> They're all may not be legal though, it depends on what it's failed >> on. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> light, > If pulled into a roadside check, you'd fail it. All that happens if you fail any of the above is you get a seven day wonder. >> temporary windscreen, > > Do such things exist? Yes. >> spacesaver tyre fitted, >> I am sure this has been asked before but cannot find anything. My old car >> goes in for an MOT this morning, two weeks before actually due. If it fails [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > by the Police and the faults found. It will come to light that there is > a fail issued on the MOT database. I thought there were things that failed the MOT but would pass the 'unroadworthy' test. Such as rear seat belts being worn or torn. I'd like to see you get nicked if you didn't have any rear passengers! Also there are many 'self repair'items that could be put right quickly : bald tyre, duff bulb, out of spec numberplates - do people suggest that the current MOT is still supeceded by a new fail - if you repair these before driving? >>> I am sure this has been asked before but cannot find anything. My old >>> car goes in for an MOT this morning, two weeks before actually due. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > the current MOT is still supeceded by a new fail - if you repair these > before driving? It's irrelevant, the old one is still valid, anything that previously made the car unsafe will still be doing so. There's a separate box for this shouldn't be driven down the road. "Duncan Wood" <nntpnews@dmx512.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > It's irrelevant, the old one is still valid, anything that previously > made the car unsafe will still be doing so. There's a separate box for > this shouldn't be driven down the road. So any fail that the tester doesn't flag as "dangerous" doesn't count towards "unroadworthy"? > "Duncan Wood" <nntpnews@dmx512.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So any fail that the tester doesn't flag as "dangerous" doesn't count > towards "unroadworthy"? No, the existence of said box is a clue. > No, the existence of said box is a clue. But the fail certificate states the vehicle fails to meet the minimum standards for roadworthiness and/or emissions. It does not comply with the minimum requirements under the road traffic act or construction and use. What the box on the certificate actually says is "DANGEROUS", not "isn't legal to drive". The handbrake could be inoperative which isn't dangerous but you'd still find yourself in the sh.t at a roadside inspection. SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. > I thought there were things that failed the MOT but would pass the > 'unroadworthy' test. > > Such as rear seat belts being worn or torn. I'd like to see you get > nicked if you didn't have any rear passengers! You'd get pulled up in a VOSA roadside check for it. > Also there are many 'self repair'items that could be put right quickly : > bald tyre, duff bulb, out of spec numberplates - do people suggest that > the current MOT is still supeceded by a new fail - if you repair these > before driving? If you've repaired them, then the fault doesn't exist. I doubt the OP has any intention of doing though. SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. > If you've repaired them, then the fault doesn't exist. I doubt the OP > has any intention of doing though. Bizarre conclusion, why do you think that? He's putting his car in for an MOT 2 weeks early. Stands to reason that he intends to get it sorted. > > If you've repaired them, then the fault doesn't exist. I doubt the OP > > has any intention of doing though. > > Bizarre conclusion, why do you think that? > He's putting his car in for an MOT 2 weeks early. Stands to reason that > he intends to get it sorted. I think that because it could've failed so miserably that its not worth repairing so he's wondering if he can still run around in it whilst he finds another. SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. >>> If you've repaired them, then the fault doesn't exist. I doubt the OP >>> has any intention of doing though. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > repairing so he's wondering if he can still run around in it whilst he > finds another. Nah, if he thinks his car's that bad, he's not going to throw away fifty quid to have it confirmed. At worst, he just wants to use the car while fixing the faults one at a time, just like most of us would do. > Nah, if he thinks his car's that bad, he's not going to throw away fifty > quid to have it confirmed. Might not have known. Could be that its failed on all the brake pipes or needs a shedload of welding. SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. >> Nah, if he thinks his car's that bad, he's not going to throw away fifty >> quid to have it confirmed. > > Might not have known. Could be that its failed on all the brake pipes or > needs a shedload of welding. Pah - just bought a van off Ebay - failed on MOST of its brakepipes being 'corroded'. Took it for an MOT station near me where it failed on ONE. Took it to the garage next door where they wirebrushed the 'corrosion' off and it passed.... Has anyone EVER seen a car brakepipe (corroded rather than damaged, and within recent MOT) split? > Has anyone EVER seen a car brakepipe (corroded rather than damaged, and > within recent MOT) split? Yes and more than once. One actually even passed the MOT visual inspection but then subsequently failed on the brake tester. I believe I've posted about it before. SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. >>> Nah, if he thinks his car's that bad, he's not going to throw away fifty >>> quid to have it confirmed. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Has anyone EVER seen a car brakepipe (corroded rather than damaged, and > within recent MOT) split? Ive had a few over the years burst whilst doing brake roller tests during an mot, its normaly the ones that you cant see that run either through chassis or behind the fuel tank. >I am sure this has been asked before but cannot find anything. My old car >goes in for an MOT this morning, two weeks before actually due. If it >fails can I still drive the car on it's existing MOT until it's expiry or >does the new one supersede the old one. > > Thanks, Bill. It was interesting reading the replies. Thanks to those who responded. I put it in early to see a: if it would pass and b: if it failed to give me a little leeway to get it fixed if it was economically viable for an old car. (K reg Rover Metro) Anyway, it doesn't matter now because it passed OK, and with no advisories! The only thing he suggested was getting the suspension pumped up as it was a bit low. He suggested a place that did it, and we left the test station and drove straight there and had it done. Bill >> I am sure this has been asked before but cannot find anything. My >> old car goes in for an MOT this morning, two weeks before actually [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > drove straight there and had it done. > Bill the old mot is not cancelled by the failure, so a casual anpr check or the need to produce your documents after a roadside stop would have been no problems. But you may still have been driving an unroadworthy vehicle, same as you may be at this very moment!! An MoT pass is only saying that the vehicle met certain standards at the time it was tested. > and washers. And screen demisters :) >> and washers. > > And screen demisters :) there is no requirement for any ventilation systems or heaters in the mot. with or without windscreen. :) >I am sure this has been asked before but cannot find anything. My old car >goes in for an MOT this morning, two weeks before actually due. If it >fails can I still drive the car on it's existing MOT until it's expiry or >does the new one supersede the old one. > > Thanks, Bill. Do you understand what "expiry date" is? In article <hcngo5$egj$1@news.albasani.net>, roger20nospam@ntlworld.com says...> > >I am sure this has been asked before but cannot find anything. My old car > >goes in for an MOT this morning, two weeks before actually due. If it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Do you understand what "expiry date" is? I think you'll find that under recent(?) changes your vehicle is deemed not to have a valid MOT as soon as it has been recorded as a fail irresepective of the exisiting certificate's expiry date. Signaturejeremy [...] > I think you'll find that under recent(?) changes your vehicle is deemed > not to have a valid MOT as soon as it has been recorded as a fail > irresepective of the exisiting certificate's expiry date. Are you able to cite references please? Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. In article <9HVHm.77514$zt3.32188@newsfe03.ams2>, cawhelan@prejudicentlworld.com says...> > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Are you able to cite references please? Nope. Seems I was wrong - or more particularly the garage mis-informed me.... I e-mailed VOSA and got the following reply: ======================= Dear Jeremy, Thank you for your email enquiry dated (03/11/2009), concerning the above. An MOT is valid until midnight on the date of expiry of the current certificate - even if the vehicle fails an MOT prior to that date. Please note however that the vehicle should also be kept in a roadworthy condition and meet legal requirements at all times in order to be driven on the public highway. Once midnight on the date of expiry is reached, you are only legally able to drive the vehicle directly to/from a pre-booked MOT test. If the vehicle fails the test you are also able to drive it to a place of repair and back to an MOT garage for re-test. I hope this information has assisted you with your enquiry, but if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us again. Kind Regards, Tina ====================== Signaturejeremy Conor to note: >======================= >Dear Jeremy, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Tina >====================== >In article <hcngo5$egj$1@news.albasani.net>, roger20nospam@ntlworld.com >says...> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >not to have a valid MOT as soon as it has been recorded as a fail >irresepective of the exisiting certificate's expiry date. What recent changes ??? >> In article <hcngo5$egj$1@news.albasani.net>, roger20nospam@ntlworld.com >> says...> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What recent changes ??? The ones where all the laws morphed at the same time as Roger? SignatureDuncan Wood |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.