So, these new MOTs ..

[The Natural Philosopher]

I shouted and screamed and took it the same day to another MOT test which it passed completely.

I then asked the MOT people to send an independent inspector.

Which it failed on the slight cuts in the tread (exposed cord, he said, easy to miss) but 'It has an MOT already so its leagl to drive'.

At NO TIME did it NOT have a legal MOT.

Therr is a world of difference between 'issues likely to become denagerous befire teh next MOT and 'issues that are so dangerous its not safe to drive teh car home'

In paricivulasr te MOT inspectoitr was scathing over the first garahge fior failing the car on issues like a proken exhaust support (£800 for as ne exhaust: fixed by 5 minutes of welding) which he said were faults, but not MOT failure points,

If it's at a test station you drive until you get a new MOT or the MOT expires. At which point you are allowed to drive it to a garage for the purposes of an MOT.

[Tim Lamb]

Snip

Umm.. So if you test before the current one expires and get a major fault fail?

Driving other than to an MOT station without a current test is already illegal.

[Jethro_uk]

Sounds a bit thick to me then. Try telling plod that when you're stopped with 4 bald tyres.

[NY]

The issues that can result in a "do not drive away" fault seem to have been extended to emissions failures. I read an article the other day (which may have been scaremongering, but how can you tell?) which said that "smoke on starting" was a "do not drive away" failure, as opposed to a minor which you need to get fixed before the expiry of the old MOT (ie in a month's time if you get your car tested as early as possible to give maximum overlap). That seems excessively harsh.

Anyway the good news is that my car passed the new MOT fine. I'm not sure what the emissions were and how close to the limit it came. I'll check the certificate when I collect the car tomorrow: it needed two new tyres which were borderline pass, and they needed to get those in so I've got a loan car.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Id say that was a metter for negotiationm with te garage or testing station. Lets face it if it was a major major faulty you probably wouldn't be taking it to a test station expecting it to pass would you?

I always have a service/MOT a week or to before it expires.Thats when things like brakes that dont work or bodywork hanging off get spotted

The only things occasionbally missed are cut up tyres, fogged plastic lensees on the headlights and wiper blades, but the service will pick all thsoe up and they are hardly 'major faults'

We do know that dear.

[The Natural Philosopher]

They werent bald . They had legal tread. What they had were cuts from stones that went far enough into the tread to see the steel cords in one instance.

One inspector missed them altogether. No policem,en woiuld have been able to spot that.

I changed the tyres after the final MOT anyway as they were near end of life, but still - apart from the cuts - street legal

[The Natural Philosopher]

All cars equipped with cats smoke on cold starting. In fact all cars smoke on cold starting. The mixture necessary to ovcercome a cold engine is always too rich to run on properly.

It sounds like bollocks to me

[dennis]

You can drive out of an MOT station with a new MOT and still be done for driving an unroadworthy car if a copper stops you and you have a fault.

At best you can complain that the MOT should have failed but you can't use it to say the car is OK if it isn't.

[Tim Lamb]

Yes. I was thinking how many currently get prosecuted driving home after a fail.

[Jethro_uk]

Indeed. The telltale puff of smoke from a parked car has always been a clue to keep an eye out for someone pulling out without looking.

[tabbypurr]

You can also drive the car somewhere to be repaired. I suspect if you booke d a repair at the other end of the country you might not get away with it t hough.

A car that has failed an MOT but still has a current MOT is in a grey area. Some faults make it illegal to drive, some invalidate insurance, some are ok. In practice people don't get pulled if they have an MOT, but if you got into an accident it could in some cases get more complicated, and in some situations you'd end up prosecuted.

NT

[whisky-dave]

I've wondered about that, in that if you had a car that failed the MOT and couldnlt or didnlt want to pay for the repairs are yuo the ower oblidged to pay the garage a charge for taking up space if you refuse to remove it fro m their premisis, I suppose legally you'd have to tow it out or put it on t he back of a truck.

[tabbypurr]

Yes and no. If it's a policeman's word versus an expert MOT tester, Mr. MOT's expertise prevails. The police are not normally experts on motor mechanics, even if they sometimes think they are. BTDT.

Of course if the police can prove it's not ok their pov prevails.

NT

[Richard]

The 'test' is if tyres are obviously underinflated. One assumes that common sense will prevail.

[NY]

Or how many get caught driving a car with an expired MOT. I bought a second hand car and was told that the MOT and tax expired at the same time. I should have looked at the MOT certificate - this was *long* before you could check online, so it meant actually looking at the piece of paper. Something made me look at my MOT certificate one day and I discovered to my horror that the MOT had expired a month or so earlier, though the tax still had several months to run. I immediately phoned round to find a garage that could do the MOT there and then, and drove carefully (so as to avoid attracting the attention of the police for any reason) to the garage. I was very pleased once I was legal again.

Strangely, it was the MOT that was out of step: the tax date and the first-registration date coincided. I could have understood it more if the MOT and first-reg had been in sync and it had been the tax that was out of sync, if the previous owner had bought a six-month tax disc at some point in the past.

I always check the MOT and tax dates now when I buy a second hand car to avoid any nasty surprises.

I wonder if in theory anyone could have checked back and seen that there was a period when the car wasn't covered by an MOT. Probably they do routine checks now everything is centralised. Were copies of MOT certificates sent to a central organisation (eg DVLA) in the days before centralised online recording of MOTs? Or was the certificate the only record of when a given car was last tested?

[tabbypurr]

now there's optimism!

[Chris J Dixon]

Isn't it the case that nowadays you have to start your own tax when you buy it, the unexpired portion cannot be passed over?

Chris

[NY]

Yes. But what I'm describing was from long before that. It was probably the early 90s. I haven't bought a new car since the new rules came in, but you are right: the first-reg and tax dates will almost certainly no longer be the same for any car once it has been sold secondhand (except in the special case that it is sold in the same month (but a different year) to the month of registration.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 16:38:05 on Mon, 21 May 2018, Chris J Dixon remarked:

Yes, and the vendor has to make sure he's informed DVLA promptly if it's near the end of the month[1], or he'll lose a whole month's refund.

[1] But then you get lumbered with paying for almost a whole 'backdated' month. Double dipping at its finest!

[The Natural Philosopher]

Nomne. You are allowed to drive back as well