Can you drive your car if it has failed a new MOT?

[ProfJohnL]

We all know that the MOT test has its limitations, but I am certain that the general condition of vehicles on our roads has improved with tighter testing and enforcement.

And I suspect that we all know that there are several MOT failures that don't render a vehicle un-drivable or mechanically unsafe such as a horn that does not work, a cracked windscreen a light bulb out etc, But what is the definition of "roadworthy" in the regulations?
Now I have not done any research into this but I seem to recall that to be 'roadworthy' a vehicle must have a current MOT pass.

Consequently if you have an MOT fail on something like a bulb then in the eyes and essence of the act your car is unroadworthy because it does not comply with the regulations.

Look at it another way, if a new car was found to have a bulb or a brake failure, the dealer would not let the vehicle out until it was fixed.

 

[Lutz]

Secondly with such enhanced resolution and light attainment, it may be possible to photgraph as a car approaches without a flash, and thus help to identify the driver at the time if a speeding offence is detected..

The use of a flash doesn't prevent the driver from being identified. Here in Germany the driver must always be identifiable as the holder is not held responsible for any traffic infringements and yet the equipment used does include a flash.
By the way, the cameras only target the person sitting on the left hand side of the car (because of potential incrimination of personal liberties if the photographs show both driver and the front passenger, whoever that may be). Hence, visitors from the UK driving a right hand drive car caught by remote equipment have fool's privilege and can avoid fines in this country.

 

[seth1]

Does make good reading-
So in most peoples eyes an ABS fault does not make the vehicle unroad worthy.
Very sorry its probably one of the most dangerous faults a vehicle can have.Tell this to VOSA .In the HGV world its an instant prohibition.Low loader it home.Its a brake defect.
With out a proper Diagnostic check how do people know what the fault is?It may be a modulating valve fault leading to no brakes what so ever.
As for Steve in leo,you send your vehicle for mot and get only two advisarys.An advisary my friend is one away from a fail.Trival they were not.A broken exhaust strap renders the exhaust insecure.And putting grease on brake pipes is not a cure for rotton pipes.
The MOT certificate is still valid to the last day of the month on the certificate,a road worthyness test is something totally different.
Brillant.

 

[Gafferbill]

............in the UK the law states that the registered keeper or operator of a vehicle must state who was driving the vehicle at any given date and time if requested to do so by the police.
Failure to do so is an separate offence committed by that person and is punishable.

All that is needed from the camera is the time and date, the excess speed and the registration number of the offending vehicle.
Commercial transport companies with lots of vehicles and drivers have to keep comprehensive records for this and other reasons.
This is also one of the reasons UK trailers carry the same registration plate as the towing vehicle.

The mental picture of 1000’s of people sat at desks pouring over photographs looking for windscreen cracks, tax discs and whether they are out of date had me smiling..............

..

……thanks Prof!

 

[Lutz]

This is also one of the reasons UK trailers carry the same registration plate as the towing vehicle.

That is not an adequate explanation, Gafferbill. If the trailer has a different number plate to the towing vehicle, as is the case in most Continental countries, the holder of the trailer can still be traced through the trailer's registration documentation. However, the holder must be given the opportunity of identifying who was driving his car at the time the accused traffic offence was committed and this can only be done by means of a 'full frontal' picture. This is particularly of significance in the case of company-owned vehicles that may be driven by more than one driver, in particular when more than one authorised driver was sitting in the vehicle at the time and each takes a turn in doing the driving.

 

[RogerL]

So in most peoples eyes an ABS fault does not make the vehicle unroad worthy.

Would you have every car banned that was never fitted with ABS on the grounds that they're "unroadworthy"?
ABS was only invented for poor drivers who drive too close to vehicles in front and can't cadence brake.

The fact is that when the ABS electronic finds any fault it disables JUST the ABS - full braking is still available.

 

[RogerL]

However, the holder must be given the opportunity of identifying who was driving his car at the time the accused traffic offence was committed and this can only be done by means of a 'full frontal' picture. This is particularly of significance in the case of company-owned vehicles that may be driven by more than one driver, in particular when more than one authorised driver was sitting in the vehicle at the time and each takes a turn in doing the driving.

It's not difficult in the UK for companies to know who was driving, without a frontal photograph - they know it's a requirement so they should be keeping records - this is why the S172 notification must be sent within 14 days of the alleged offence. Where multiple drivers are involved, they should know what times they changed over.
Frontal photographs are being increasingly used in the UK to thwart couples who falsely declare a driver to prevent the real driver getting extra points or a ban. AFAIK these cameras will see both front seat persons so we don't offer the same concession to foreign drivers as in Germany.

 

[NickinFrance]

By the way, the cameras only target the person sitting on the left hand side of the car (because of potential incrimination of personal liberties if the photographs show both driver and the front passenger, whoever that may be).

Considering that the distance between the driver & passenger & that the vehicle can be anywhere in the lane they must be pretty clever cameras.

Hence, visitors from the UK driving a right hand drive car caught by remote equipment have fool's privilege and can avoid fines in this country.

The reason non German registered vehicles avoid fines & points is because there is not an EU wide licensing system (that's how I avoid parking fines, congestion charges etc in the UK).
For what it's worth, at least France & Belgium use the same system as the UK of writing to the registered keeper & asking them to name the driver.
I seem to remember that there was some fuss about human rights & self-incrimination about this but as speeding drivers are the spawn of the devil they have no human rights (unlike murderers, rapists etc.).

 

[Lutz]

Considering that the distance between the driver & passenger & that the vehicle can be anywhere in the lane they must be pretty clever cameras.

The camera takes a full frontal picture but the details are automatically filtered so that only the number plate and the face of the person sitting on the left are recorded.

The reason non German registered vehicles avoid fines & points is because there is not an EU wide licensing system (that's how I avoid parking fines, congestion charges etc in the UK).

That is also true, but from my own experience the trick also works with a German-registered right hand drive vehicle.

It's not difficult in the UK for companies to know who was driving, without a frontal photograph - they know it's a requirement so they should be keeping records - this is why the S172 notification must be sent within 14 days of the alleged offence. Where multiple drivers are involved, they should know what times they changed over.

But what happens if the multiple drivers can't remember when they were sitting at the wheel, or worse, if they accuse each other?

 

[Gafferbill]

Lutz …….in the UK it is an offence not to display a rear number plate on a trailer and it must have the same registration as the towing vehicle.
Many ANPR, speed, London congestion and London City HGV prohibition cameras work on the rear registration plates of vehicles in the UK.

I have often wondered how it can be proved who or what vehicle was towing a trailer under the Continental/German system unless the outfit was physically stopped or comprehensively photographed front and rear.

Multiple drivers will fill in a daily record as a requirement of their employers.
This will have been handed over well before any alleged offence is subsequently pointed out to them.
To late for arguments or the blame game!

 

[RogerL]

But what happens if the multiple drivers can't remember when they were sitting at the wheel, or worse, if they accuse each other?

Then, it can't be dealt with by fixed penalty so it goes to court where the penalty is automatically higher, as multiple cases, and the court will weigh up the evidence provided by the multiple drivers and decide.
Of course, any alleged offence will include the place, as well as the date/time - drivers should recall where they changed over even if not what time.

 

[NickinFrance]

And I suspect that we all know that there are several MOT failures that don't render a vehicle un-drivable or mechanically unsafe such as a horn that does not work, a cracked windscreen a light bulb out etc, But what is the definition of "roadworthy" in the regulations?

I was using the definition of what the Police can nick you for, which includes a non-functioning horn

Now I have not done any research into this but I seem to recall that to be 'roadworthy' a vehicle must have a current MOT pass.

It will have a valid MoT certificate until the expiry date of the old one.

Consequently if you have an MOT fail on something like a bulb then in the eyes and essence of the act your car is unroadworthy because it does not comply with the regulations.

If an exterior lamp, then yes, you can be nicked for that but in the case of a failed indicator lamp (ABS, handbrake warning etc,) that would mean a MoT fail but not something you could be prosecuted for.
My comments were in response to RogerL's comment 'There is a separate offence of "unroadworthiness" which it clearly is if it failed the test ', which while true for most fail items, it's as clear cut as he said. (BTW acording to my spell checker, there isn't such a word as 'unroadworthiness' so I doubt there is such an offence )

 

[Lutz]

I have often wondered how it can be proved who or what vehicle was towing a trailer under the Continental/German system unless the outfit was physically stopped or comprehensively photographed front and rear.

Over here, no-one is really interested in the trailer as the traffic offence is committed in the towing vehicle, not the trailer. The number plate on the trailer is only to determine whether it is taxed and insured or not, but that is not normally the purpose of implementing camera equipment. Consequently, there is no need to photograph from the rear.

 

[Surfer]

IMHO if the car fails a MOT before the expiry of the old MOT, it cannot be driven on the road as you may have no insurance. Your insurance certificate T & Cs probably has a clause some where stating that it is the responsibility of the RK and a condition of the insurance to ensure that the vehicle is kept in roadworthy condition at all times. It would probably be the insurance company that would drop you in the doo!

 

[seth1]

No Rodger i wouldnt have every car not fitted with ABS banned on the grounds of unroadworthy because they are not fitted with ABS.They dont use modulating valves,wheel speed sensors,ABS control units,that is how their made from day one.
A vehicle fitted with ABS does use all the above,when braking calculations are made ABS is taken into the design.
Lets say a vehicle has an ABS fault,it could be a speed sensor fault or it could be a modulating valve stuck open to atmosphere therefore no brakes or at least very low effort.In alot of cases the electronic side is switched off if a fault is found and instead it will resort to mechanical braking,greatly reducing stopping distances.Why not just fix the fault?

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Nick,

I think you are missing the point of my last post.

It is my contention, that if you submit an vehicle for an MOT test before the expirey of the old one, then effectivly the outcome of the most recent test supperceded the valididty of the origonal certificate. Thus if the vehicle fails the most recent test then that result will take precedence over the old one.

If you think about it, consider the case where you vehicel fails an MOT, and it requires remedial work, When the car is re submitted for MOT and it passes, then then most recent result supercedes to older one. The reverse must also be true.

The second point relates to the defiition of 'roadworthy' in the relevant regulations. If it is a requiremnt that a vehicle can only be legally used on the highway when it has a current MOT, then that means that the vehicle must still have all the items include in the MOT functioning. Thus if a functioning ABS light is part of the MOT test, (and I only use this as an example) and your ABS light has stopped working, then the car would fail an MOT, and thus is not roadworthy in the eys of the act.
Whist a malfunctioning ABS light may not be a specific offence on its own, but the fact that it would fail an MOT means the car is not MOT able, and thus that may be prosecutable rather than the individual item.

 

[NickinFrance]

IMHO if the car fails a MOT before the expiry of the old MOT, it cannot be driven on the road as you may have no insurance. Your insurance certificate T & Cs probably has a clause some where stating that it is the responsibility of the RK and a condition of the insurance to ensure that the vehicle is kept in roadworthy condition at all times

Not always true, as I have said there are MoT fail items that don't effect the roadworthyness of the car, also the law says there are certain circumstances where a car without a MoT can be driven on the road

It is my contention, that if you submit an vehicle for an MOT test before the expire of the old one, then effectivly the outcome of the most recent test supperceded the valididty of the original certificate. Thus if the vehicle fails the most recent test then that result will take precedence over the old one.

Accorting to http://www.mottest.net/mot/mot-failure-question/ you are wrong

The second point relates to the definition of 'roadworthy' in the relevant regulations. If it is a requirement that a vehicle can only be legally used on the highway when it has a current MOT,

Which it still has (acording to the above link).

then that means that the vehicle must still have all the items include in the MOT functioning. Thus if a functioning ABS light is part of the MOT test, (and I only use this as an example) and your ABS light has stopped working, then the car would fail an MOT, and thus is not roadworthy in the eys of the act.

There is only are a requirement to get a Mot Test every 12 months other than that there are specific vehicle offences which can be prosecuted

Whist a malfunctioning ABS light may not be a specific offence on its own, but the fact that it would fail an MOT means the car is not MOT able, and thus that may be prosecutable rather than the individual item.

I'm pretty sure it's not because there is no requirement to get a MoT before the expiry of the one currently in force, certainly the Police can't force the owner to get a new MoT before it's expiry date. They can however get a full inspection on the vehicle but as I keep saying there are items that would cause a MoT fail that can't be prosecuted.

 

[Steve L]

As I've already stated. Why would you poke a wasps nest and not expect to be stung!
This realy does apply to trying to re-use a MOT after a new test failure.
The police do inspect cars for roadworthyness using basic mot standards.
Furthermore the first thing they do is a PNC check for tax,mot and insurance. Having discovered then that the car has failed a test, they won't be very welcoming if you try to persuade them otherwise. They will also remember you and your car for future checks.
Back in my day, I used to drive custom cars and had the urge to test the letter of the law as such. So I do know first hand that, if you poke the wasps nest they will sting and keep on stinging until they win.

It's quite plain. If it fails, it fails and must be repaired before further use other than driving between home, repairer and mot test station.

 

[RogerL]

It is my contention, that if you submit an vehicle for an MOT test before the expirey of the old one, then effectivly the outcome of the most recent test supperceded the valididty of the origonal certificate. Thus if the vehicle fails the most recent test then that result will take precedence over the old one.

If you wish to represent the prosecution in court on that basis, that's your prerogative - but that's not how the actual law is worded - it's a requirement to have a valid MoT certificate and the law makes no provision that the earlier certificate becomes void on a subsequent fail.
You've every right to suggest that the law should be changed to reflect your ideas - but it hasn't yet.

 

[NickinFrance]

This realy does apply to trying to re-use a MOT after a new test failure.

If the earlier MoT certificate is still valid, it's not a case of 're-use'
.

Furthermore the first thing they do is a PNC check for tax,mot and insurance. Having discovered then that the car has failed a test, they won't be very welcoming if you try to persuade them otherwise.

I've no idea what information is returned on a PNC check but if you have a MoT certificate that's still valid, why would you 'persuade them otherwise?

It's quite plain. If it fails, it fails and must be repaired before further use other than driving between home, repairer and mot test station

Only if the certificate has expired.

 

[Steve L]

Have you watched a UK MOT being conducted in the last 12 months, Nick?
The vehicle is logged onto a computer in the test area. The test lasts a minimum of 45 mins. If the tester takes shorter than that he/she can't disconnect the lead to the car as it will invalidate the test and get the tester into trouble. Furthermore failures are logged on the pc and it updates the PNC data base.
That's how interplod know if your car has failed a test.

 

[Gabsgrandad]

When I started this topic I didn't expect that a failed abs sensor could cause so much contention. In my initial research before posting this topic I found just the same on other forums. And still no definitive answer, I suspect because there isn't one. On one forum there was a story from a guy that his car had failed on a spare wheel fault in the boot, but was told by the testing garage that if he took the spare wheel out of the car that he would be ok. to drive it , as a spare wheel was not compusory in a car!
Ps. The abs sensor was sorted a long while before this posting (question) was!

 

[Gafferbill]

On one forum there was a story from a guy that his car had failed on a spare wheel fault in the boot, but was told by the testing garage that if he took the spare wheel out of the car that he would be ok. to drive it , as a spare wheel was not compusory in a car!

..........I am sure that soon tow bars and their associated electrics will soon fall into a similar dilemma for people who buy a second-hand car fitted with a tow bar that they never use.
They could own a car that fails the MOT on a tow bar related issue.
They would be better off removing the tow bar altogether so that their vehicle would then pass!!

 

[Gafferbill]

The law regarding a MOT certificate is that it has an expiry date.
It is in force until that date passes.
Nothing changes that fact.
Whilst that certificate is in force you can present the vehicle to which it applies for a MOT test at any time you like.
If it passes you are issued with a new certificate with a new expiry date.
If it fails you are given the clearest indication that the vehicle is not up to MOT standards, that is not roadworthy and you are likely to be committing an offence if you drive it on the public highway.
You are not committing the specific offence of not having a current MOT certificate for the vehicle.

 

[Lutz]

..........I am sure that soon tow bars and their associated electrics will soon fall into a similar dilemma for people who buy a second-hand car fitted with a tow bar that they never use.

They could own a car that fails the MOT on a tow bar related issue.
They would be better off removing the tow bar altogether so that their vehicle would then pass!!

Count your blessings that you don't live in Germany, Gafferbill

. Here, if you remove the towbar, the car has to be the equivalent of re-MOT'd because removing the towbar is considered to be a technical modification to the vehicle (just the same as having one fitted), and this requires a re-test AND an entry into the vehicle registration documents.