Driving a car that fails the MOT in the last month before the old MOT expires?
- Thread starter oldcardriver
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Just been looking around online and the AA seem to agree with my interpretation. On their website they state:
"Getting an MOT early
You can take your car for an MOT up to a month early and preserve the same renewal date but what happens if the car fails the test?
Your vehicle still has a current MOT as the expiry date of the old MOT still stands so if you take your car away you will not be committing the specific offence of driving a vehicle without a valid MOT.
However it is an offence to drive a vehicle with a known defect and to drive an unroadworthy vehicle so you can't simply ignore the test result and continue to drive the car normally until the old MOT expires.
You can be fined up to £2500, be banned from driving and get three penalty points for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition."
More here:
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/legal-advice/mot.html
"Getting an MOT early
You can take your car for an MOT up to a month early and preserve the same renewal date but what happens if the car fails the test?
Your vehicle still has a current MOT as the expiry date of the old MOT still stands so if you take your car away you will not be committing the specific offence of driving a vehicle without a valid MOT.
However it is an offence to drive a vehicle with a known defect and to drive an unroadworthy vehicle so you can't simply ignore the test result and continue to drive the car normally until the old MOT expires.
You can be fined up to £2500, be banned from driving and get three penalty points for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition."
More here:
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/legal-advice/mot.html
You're right of course, but "It's just happened / I hadn't noticed" sometimes works with the police if it's a minor thing. I think the only time I used that excuse was for a brake light, and I'd checked the lights a day or two before. I got a let off, and I'd got a spare bulb, so I changed it there and then.
Far as I know though there's nothing really new about these rules. perhaps they're just making the point, or perhaps there's somethign more draconian in the pipeline.
Actually, (I'd need to check the regs) but I think there ARE specific exemptions in the regs for things that "stopped working during the journey in which you were pulled over". I'm fairly certain that lighting and speedometer defects are among them.
Sponsored Links
"'Onest officer, the brakes were workin' an' the tyres were new when I come out this mornin!"
Seriously I'd forgotten, but I think you're right. I'm sure I remember reading something somewhere about that.
Whether a vehicle can pass the MoT and whether it is legally roadworthy are not the same thing, and the MoT test is certainly not the minimal standard required to be on the road legally. Roadworthy, in the legal sense, means that it complies with all the requirements of the Construction & Use Regulations (which vary depending upon type of vehicle, age and so on).
The MoT inspection can result in a fail for many things which are not requirements of the C & U Regs. I've not followed the most recent changes being outside Britain now, but certainly to take a trivial example which I know was the case a few years ago, take hazard warning lights. The C & U Regs. require them to be fitted and working only on cars first used after a specific date (sometime in 1986 if I recall correctly), but the MoT test manual requires that they be tested if fitted, and if not working will result in a fail regardless of the car's age. There are numerous such examples.
Last time I checked, there were also changes in the works to add a huge range of extra MoT test requirements on newer vehicles (steering lock must work on cars after 2010 or some such date etc.) which won't be found in the C & U Regs., so expect it to get worse.
Conversely, until quite recently the MoT didn't test the speedometer, even though a legal requirement under the C & U Regs. That was finally changed a few years ago I remember, but for years it was quite possible to pass the MoT with a dud speedo. There may well still be other things which are in the C & U Regs. but not the MoT, although with the way the MoT inspection is heading, that probably won't last too much longer.
Back in the early 70s, I knew someone who used to ride a trials bike on the road. Can't remember the make now. Anyway, this bike was road legal, and there was no problem getting an MOT. He was pulled by a particularly zealous cop, who decided that the standard chainguard, which was admittedly fairly minimal as I remember it, was illegal under C & U. At the time, there was quite a fuss about it, it was certainly in the Motorcycle News, and I think it made the national papers. In the end the maker became involved and there was IIRC a court case which found the chainguard to be OK (again IIRC).
All of which goes to show that you can have something bog standard, in good repair, and MOTd, but it doesn't mean to say that it is "legal" So once you stray outside bog standard and in good repair, you could find yourself in trouble with the law.
All of which goes to show that you can have something bog standard, in good repair, and MOTd, but it doesn't mean to say that it is "legal" So once you stray outside bog standard and in good repair, you could find yourself in trouble with the law.
The requirements for hazard warning lights are in the Road Vehicle Lighting Regs, rather than the C&U regs. Obviously, it makes sense not to require them to be fitted to anything that didn't have them as a legal requirement when it was new (just like they don't expect cars from the 1960s to have dual circuit brakes or cars with carburetors to meet catalyst emissions levels)! I certainly think it's reasonabl to have a requirement that safety-related things which are fitted have to work though!
It is also true that some things aren't tested in the MOT that are still legal requirements. For example, these people who take their diesel particulate filters out - that's illegal, but it won't necesarily fail an MOT test. In cases like that, it's simply because the test stations don't have equipment sophisticated enough to test the parts concerned. It's a bit like the Electronic Stability Control warning light - all they can do is check that the warning light works, they haven't actually got the equipment to check that the ESC system works. Like everything, it's a compomise. We could check more things and in greater detail too, but it would put up the cost of the MOT.
That's always been a problem with the MOT scheme. A lot of the tests are pretty subjective. Only last week I saw a notice from DVSA on (I think) Mercedes Sprinter) bottom balljoints saying that up to 3mm of play was acceptable because even new Sprinters could have that much play! I think there are a fair few places in the manual that say something should fail "unless it was an original feature" (or somesuch wording)!
Sorry, obviously you're right that everything related to lighting is in the Road Vehicle Lighting Regs. rather than C & U Regs., although of course the latter covers a lot of legal requirements.
But the point here is that there is no such legal requirement. For example, if the regular turn signals or brake lights on your 1976 car aren't working, that makes it legally unroadworthy because they're a requirement of the Lighting Regs. for a car of that age. But if the hazard warning lights on that same car are fitted but not working, it's still perfectly legal to drive it on a public road because they're not legally required, even though it would be an MoT failure.
And I'm not sure it would actually be reasonable to require a device which is fitted to be working even if there's no obligation to have that device in the first place, which is why the MoT really goes too far in some instances. It's also inconsistent since while it requires hazard flashers to work if fitted regardless of the age, it doesn't, for example, require all rear fog lights fitted to be working, only the single one required for cars first used around 1980/1981 onward (at least unless there has been any change to that in the last few years).
I've learned something there! I didn't know that on cars fitted with two rear fog lamps, only the offside one needs to be working! However, it IS illegal to have a car fitted with hazards that aren't working. The MOT can't (at least, I'm pretty certain it can't!) demand anything over and above the legal requirements. The Lighting Regs state:
"Maintenance of lamps, reflectors, rear markings and devices
23.
(1) No person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road a vehicle unless every lamp,
reflector, rear marking and device to which this paragraph applies is in good working order
and, in the case of a lamp, clean.
(2) Save as provided in Paragraph (3), Paragraph (1) applies to–
(a) every–
(i) front position lamp,
(ii) rear position lamp,
(iii) headlamp,
(iv) rear registration plate lamp,
(v) side marker lamp,
(vi) end-outline marker lamp,
(vii) rear fog lamp,
(viii) retro reflector, and
(ix) rear marking of a type specified in Part I of Schedule 19, with which the vehicle is required by these Regulations to be fitted; and
(b) every–
(i) stop lamp,
(ii) direction indicator,
(iii) running lamp,
(iv) dim-dip device,
(v) headlamp levelling device, and
(vi) hazard warning signal device,
with which it is fitted.
(3) Paragraph (2) does not apply to–
(a) a rear fog lamp on a vehicle which is part of a combination of vehicles any part of which is not required by these Regulations to be fitted with a rear fog lamp;
(b) a rear fog lamp on a motor vehicle drawing a trailer;
(c) a defective lamp, reflector, dim-dip device or headlamp levelling device on a vehicle in use on a road between sunrise and sunset, if any such lamp, reflector or device became defective during the journey which is in progress or if arrangements have been made to remedy the defect wi th all reasonable expedition; or
(d) a lamp, reflector, dim-dip device, headlamp levelling device or rear marking on a
combat vehicle in use on a road between sunrise and sunset."
(I included that last paragraph as that's the bit that I thought I'd seen where it cuts you a bit of slack if the light concerned packed up during that trip..."officer..." (!)
There are other parallels in the MOT. Some of the very first cars to be fitted with cats need to meet cat emissions requirements, even though other cars of the same age don't. My own car is old enough to need dim-dip headlights, so it needs to have its dim-dip working even though its no longer a requirement for new cars OR cars that were more than about 5 years older than it. I've always felt that was really unfair!
Sponsored Links
