Massive fines for failing MOT from May 2018

[dingov70]

Morning all , MOT tester stepping up again . With regards to these new rules , let's make one thing absolutely clear .

If you have a current MOT certificate & your vehicle is tested early and it fails , THEN you have no MOT applicabe to that vehicle PERIOD .

Reason ? at the time of test your vehicle failed to meet a minimum standard & therefore requires repair / rectification of the faults before retesting & passing .

In earlier times the issuing of embossed certificates with no online checks available you could blag your way out of "not having an MOT " by producing your embossed & valid certificate

The last test a vehicle undertook is the only one that is valid , be it pass or fail , anything prior is superceded ,no if's , no but's .

[dingov70]

[QUOTE=green van man;2389392]Thinking on this, I would like to see brake fluid tested at the mot.

Nice idea , but the test precludes us opening & checking into reservoirs Etc. so unlikely to change .

[tofufi]

Originally Posted by dingov70

Morning all , MOT tester stepping up again . With regards to these new rules , let's make one thing absolutely clear .

If you have a current MOT certificate & your vehicle is tested early and it fails , THEN you have no MOT applicabe to that vehicle PERIOD .

Reason ? at the time of test your vehicle failed to meet a minimum standard & therefore requires repair / rectification of the faults before retesting & passing .

The last test a vehicle undertook is the only one that is valid , be it pass or fail , anything prior is superceded ,no if's , no but's .

That's not true. I clarified it with DVSA's MOT policy team last week and the situation is unchanged before and after the new rules come into place.

The old MOT is still able to be used once the repairs are carried out - if you use it before repairing the vehicle however you can be prosecuted for driving an unroadworthy vehicle. If the vehicle is fixed, you don't need to re-MOT it before driving it as the previous one is not invalidated.

[tofufi]

Originally Posted by dingov70

Nice idea , but the test precludes us opening & checking into reservoirs Etc. so unlikely to change .

Contaminated brake fluid will be a major fail from May 2018.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...2018-draft.pdf

See section 1.8, P37.

You're not allowed to remove the cap, so inspection is limited to a visual check on the plastic reservoir.

[Marty Dolomite]

[QUOTE=dingov70;2390383]

Originally Posted by green van man

Thinking on this, I would like to see brake fluid tested at the mot.

Nice idea , but the test precludes us opening & checking into reservoirs Etc. so unlikely to change .

You should be getting a notice from DVSA about what you can and can't do to remove the brake fluid cap as its part of the new MOT

[Marty Dolomite]

Originally Posted by tofufi

That's not true. I clarified it with DVSA's MOT policy team last week and the situation is unchanged before and after the new rules come into place.

The old MOT is still able to be used once the repairs are carried out - if you use it before repairing the vehicle however you can be prosecuted for driving an unroadworthy vehicle. If the vehicle is fixed, you don't need to re-MOT it before driving it as the previous one is not invalidated.

That is correct and it states that on the DVSA page

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Teilo1979

My biggest concern is the possible scenario of having a valid MOT but being subjected to a random roadside check and failing an emmisions related test and being fined. Although this scenario is not new because of the rule change its is an aspect of car maintenance that one cannot keep on top of with routine maintenance

Errrr, you can actually. By keeping on top of oil and filter changes (including air and fuel filters), plug changes (or checking, cleaning and regapping on older plugs) this will go a long way to keeping the emissions as they should be.
If you're worried that still isn't enough, buy yourself a Gunsons Gastester and check the emissions yourself.

Granted it only shows CO but if the HC is incredibly high, this will also show up by pushing the needle sky high so you'll know there's a problem somewhere.

At least if you were stopped and taken to court, you could argue you had made every effort to ensure things were ok and it must have been a sudden, unpredictable component failure causing the roadside failure, especially if the problem was sorted and you presented a clean bill of health emissions wise from an MoT station as part of your defence.

I've got one and use it, not only as part of my pre-MoT checks but through the year as well, just to make sure. I did forget last year on my 827 Coupé and it was throwing out 5% CO at the MoT, a quick tweak on the idle mixture screw and it was down to 0.1%, i checked it the other day and it was showing 0.8% so should pass quite happily - it runs on LPG so is allowed up to 3.5% CO but in practice doesn't usually get that high.
Also used it on my 760 back in november before the MoT and it showed 1% CO - a few days later it passed the MoT with guess what? 1% CO

To me that bears out the accuracy of them so they are a useful tool if you take the time to learn how to use them.

Originally Posted by DaveNP

Could someone with knowledge of the present system correct me if I'm wrong,
but
I thought under the current system it was possible to have a fail and for it to be endorsed to the effect that the vehicle was dangerous to drive and should not be driven on the road (as opposed to just not meeting minimum standards), that is surely what is being formalised in the new 'major fail' category, and if you were to get an MOT fail today with a notice that the vehicle was dangerous you'd surely be liable for prosecution, and a penalty, if you used it on the road.

I was always under the impression that even with a dangerous defect (eg welding needed) the vehicle could be driven home or to/from a permanent place of repair (pre-booked) - nothing i've read in the new regs seem to change that, they have always said "The vehicle is dangerous and shouldn't be driven".

They're opening up a logistical Pandoras Box if they insist the car cannot be driven home or to a permanent place of repair.

Many MoT stations don't even do repairs (for example, Council run testing stations), others won't have the capacity to do the work in a reasonable timescale, others there will be people who can't organise recovery the same day so there will be MoT stations across the length and breadth of the country where they can't get the next vehicles in for test because so many cars have been left there, awaiting recovery.

Some idiot politician with too much time on their hands thought this one up and should be shot - no, scrub that, hanged by the neck until they are dead (we can use the same rope for the next idiot!) to prevent them from inflicting their misguided ideas on humanity in general.

As for the 40 year rolling-exemption, i'm sure there will be some sort of statement that has to be signed or confirmed to say in your belief the vehicle is capable of passing an MoT test if it were put in for one. As such, if you sign to say it's roadworthy and ten minutes after taxing it you are stopped by the police with 4 bald tyres, not only are you driving an unroadworthy vehicle (so your insurance will be invalidated) but in addition to the 4 bald tyres and anything else they find, you will have committed fraud by stating it was roadworthy.

The wise owner of any 40+ year old vehicles will put them in for an MoT or at least an inspection to MoT standard and keep the paperwork as proof that the car is indeed roadworthy, or at least was on that day.

[Marty Dolomite]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

I was always under the impression that even with a dangerous defect (eg welding needed) the vehicle could be driven home or to/from a permanent place of repair (pre-booked) - nothing i've read in the new regs seem to change that, they have always said "The vehicle is dangerous and shouldn't be driven".

.

You have never been legally allowed to drive a car with a dangerous defect no matter where you are coming from or going to.

[Marty Dolomite]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

As for the 40 year rolling-exemption, i'm sure there will be some sort of statement that has to be signed or confirmed to say in your belief the vehicle is capable of passing an MoT test if it were put in for one. As such, if you sign to say it's roadworthy and ten minutes after taxing it you are stopped by the police with 4 bald tyres, not only are you driving an unroadworthy vehicle (so your insurance will be invalidated) but in addition to the 4 bald tyres and anything else they find, you will have committed fraud by stating it was roadworthy.

.

NOPE.... you sign a form V112 that states the car is of historic interest and MOT exempt due to its age.
You could be stopped by police 10 minutes after passing an MOT for driving an unroadworthy car.


Here is the current V112 form, the only difference in the new version will be the details in section O.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...n-from-mot.pdf

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Marty Dolomite

You have never been legally allowed to drive a car with a dangerous defect no matter where you are coming from or going to.

As a general rule, yes i agree. However i'm making the point that the whole purpose of the MoT is to ensure roadworthiness and because most people who use their cars simply as a tool to get from A to B and back again have little or no concept of what constitutes dangerous, never mind how to check for it, the "grace" if you will was always there in law that you are taking it to be assessed/inspected.

Originally Posted by Marty Dolomite

NOPE.... you sign a form V112 that states the car is of historic interest and MOT exempt due to its age.
You could be stopped by police 10 minutes after passing an MOT for driving an unroadworthy car.


Here is the current V112 form, the only difference in the new version will be the details in section O.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...n-from-mot.pdf

You've totally missed the point of what i'm saying - what i'm saying is that when you tax and/or insure the car, you will have to state SEPARATELY that it is roadworthy.

I get the idea of filling in the form to register it as a Historic Vehicle and as such you will keep it roadworthy but to use tyres as an example, they do wear out. Even if the tread hasn't worn away, the sidewalls could perish and the owner may not know how to inspect the tyres for that - probably one of the more dangerous defects that is visible without putting it on a ramp IMHO yet most people are oblivious to it!

For example, when i bought my current 760, a friend gave me a lift to collect it and between the two of us, gave it a fairly good check over before even starting it or handing the cash over.

Many defects were noted by the pair of us, some we knew would get the car home so it could be dealt with later, others that although desirable to fix weren't that urgent and worst of all, although all 4 tyres had reasonable tread, the sidewalls were perishing and beginning to crack.

The guy selling it made some comment about the tyres having plenty of tread so would be good for a long time yet. He was looking at me as he said it, i was at the back of the car and my mate at the front. With just the slightest shake of my mates head he confirmed the front tyres were as bad as the back and held up 4 fingers which concurred with my thoughts. Yes, they'd get me home and a bit of running about while i gave the car a "shake down" but would need renewing before the MoT a few months later.

The point of all this waffle is it took me and my friend a matter of minutes to fully assess what was immediately obvious without even driving it and the tyres would need imminent replacement. Despite this, the guy selling it would happily have carried on driving it until the tyres resembled Telly Savalas, Richard O'Brien and others of a follicly challenged nature.

As for your point about being stopped by the police a short time after passing the MoT, i've actually had this happen. I had a brake light bulb fail shortly after passing the MoT, in fact about 10 minutes after leaving the testing station.
I've also had bulbs fail during the test and the best one was the Lambda sensor failing during the emissions test. Started off fine at about 0.2% then started climbing. When it got to 9+% the tester pulled the probe out of the tailpipes. There was no clue from the engine management light, no fault codes flashing on the ECU self-diagnostics and no other clues as to what was happening.

A quick chat with the tester and it was agreed i would take it home and investigate it but i felt sure if it was a sensor, it would show up on the diagnostics fairly soon. It did - 15 minutes into my homeward journey, up came the PGM-Fi light on the dash and when i got home, checked the flashes and it was the code for the front bank Lambda sensor.
New pair of Lambdas ordered, delivered and fitted and i gave the cat a clean while i was waiting for delivery as well. Fitted the Lambdas and refitted the lemony-fresh cat and took it back for re-test - 0.00%CO and an MoT tester wandering round muttering about "a funny lemony smell".