Driving a Failed voluntary MOT vehicle?

[les]

Place your bets, my money is on a retest. I can’t see after getting an official government document, ie a failed mot certificate, they would trust someone to rectify the faults without proving it and leave it at that. I suppose stranger things have happened.
Also if the vehicle was later involved in an accident, the latest documents would doubtless come to light. I bet the insurance company would have something to say also.

[mike1864]

The matter is settled.
I've just spoken to Swansea DVSA.
Jade (Team 13), after consulting her manager, confirmed that an MOT-exempt car does not need a retest following an MOT failure and subsequent repair.
Though - as we all agree - the fault needs to be fixed, to make the car roadworthy.
However the DVSA advise carrying an invoice for the remedial work, to convince any police officer that the vehicle is now safe, despite the latest flag that they can see on the MOT database. [And yes to a previous poster, voluntary MOTs are recorded on the database]
I'm not sure how that would work for a tail bulb you yourself replace, with one one bought 30 years ago. But presumably the PC would just have to use his eyes!
So getting a Retest may make life simpler. And it may give you reassurance (though my mechanic is more of an expert on Minors than the MOT station). Plus it will help in any dealings with insurance companies, and with any resale.
But doing so is NOT mandatory. Says the DVSA.

[ndevans]

The matter is settled.
I've just spoken to Swansea DVSA.
Jade (Team 13), after consulting her manager, confirmed that an MOT-exempt car does not need a retest following an MOT failure and subsequent repair.
Though - as we all agree - the fault needs to be fixed, to make the car roadworthy.
However the DVSA advise carrying an invoice for the remedial work, to convince any police officer that the vehicle is now safe, despite the latest flag that they can see on the MOT database. [And yes to a previous poster, voluntary MOTs are recorded on the database]
I'm not sure how that would work for a tail bulb you yourself replace, with one one bought 30 years ago. But presumably the PC would just have to use his eyes!
So getting a Retest may make life simpler. And it may give you reassurance (though my mechanic is more of an expert on Minors than the MOT station). Plus it will help in any dealings with insurance companies, and with any resale.
But doing so is NOT mandatory. Says the DVSA.

Well done for finding out first hand from DVLA, but it sounds like a half-assed fudge typical of British bureaucracy.
I'm not minded to take my chances either with the fuzz or an insurance company- if my car fails it's MOT the defect will be rectified and a retest taken. I think driving around in a car flagged as MOT fail is a red rag to a bull, you are just asking to be stopped.

[les]

Well I’m shocked ! Without that confirmation I would not have believed it !

[Bill_qaz]

Thanks Mike, for getting DVSA clarification on exempt vehicle retest,weird loophole.
But that does not change the fact that a major defect failure vehicle cannot be driven legally away from the test centre if un-repaired as it's no longer roadworthy, even if its mot exempt.
Your insurance would also be invalid.
For more simple failures bulb out etc why would you not simply fix it there and then and have the free retest, especially if you wanted the mot in the 1st place.

[mike1864]

Thanks Mike, for getting DVSA clarification on exempt vehicle retest,weird loophole.
But that does not change the fact that a major defect failure vehicle cannot be driven legally away from the test centre if un-repaired as it's no longer roadworthy, even if its mot exempt.
Your insurance would also be invalid.
For more simple failures bulb out etc why would you not simply fix it there and then and have the free retest, especially if you wanted the mot in the 1st place.

I don't see it as a loophole. An MOT is just a momentary snapshot of the vehicle's condition, obligatory only for <40 year old cars. It says nothing about the following 364 days. It can't be turned off; it's not like a driving or doctor's licence that can be revoked mid term. Unroadworthiness can manifest itself at any time; perhaps during a voluntary MOT, or by a wheel falling off. In the latter case I don't believe the law requires the repair to be checked by an MOT station. So why should any other diagnosis/remedy be subject to this?
Nobody here has suggested that it's legal to drive an unroadworthy car, or that it would be insured.
And the advantages of a retest have been well highlighted. But imagine...
Your car fails a voluntary MOT; dead bulb. The garage doesn't have one. You drive home; you don't have one. You park the car in your garage and fly off on a fortnight's holiday. On return you fit an eBayed bulb. You know the car is now roadworthy, but don't want to pay £50 for a retest. No problem; the DVSA says you don't need one.

[geoberni]

I don't see it as a 'loophole' I just see it as the DVLA making do with their old software and not making changes to facilitate the vagaries of MOT Exemption.

Bare with me on this..., but an MOT is only valid for 12 months.
So if you take it for an MOT just before it's due, and it gets a Fail, at what point does the FAIL caption change to MOT Expired?
Do only 'valid' MOT's change to Expired, or does the FAIL take precedence over Expired, forever labelling the owner/vehicle as a Failure....

Has anyone got a car, Minor or otherwise, that has Failed and is now off road for a few months? What does the MOT Check page say?

Which returns me to the bit about DVLA software.

My car hasn't been MOT's for a few years, the MOT check page proclaims in bright Warning Grade RED:
.

MOT Expire.JPG (37.66 KiB) Viewed 120 times

.
But the Vehicle Check simply states, in happy good news GREEN....
.

vehicle checker.JPG (21.03 KiB) Viewed 120 times

.
So, why does the DVLA not change their software to show Exempt, rather than No Results?
Why does the MOT Checker basically say, "Hey, it's expired, but you'll have to work out for yourself whether it's Exempt or Not..." even though they have that information....

As to the voluntary MOT, well that's just more Software changes which they have put on the 'Too Difficult' pile.....

[les]

40+ yr vehicle taken for mot, fails, fault to be fixed (we trust you to do it) no need to bring back for retest, Modern vehicle taken for mot, fails, fault to be fixed (we don’t trust you to do it) bring it back for retest. The law is the law.

[mike1864]

So....
I've just spoken to Andrea of DVSA's Team 3. And it's been recorded (by them, not me!)
She tells me that an MOT Failure on a modern vehicle does not in any way cancel its current MOT.
I posed the example of someone taking their car for an MOT 11 months into the validity of its current one. It gets issued with a Fail Notice (our good old dead bulb). The garage doesn't have the right type, but you take the car home and fit your own.
If, I asked Andrea, the owner then goes off on a 3 week driving holiday, planning to postpone the MOT test till the old one's due date, is the driver guilty of driving on holiday without a valid MOT? The answer was a definitive NO. A Fail does not cancel - or modify the validity of - the current one. Extra costs and peace of mind may enter the owner's mind. But the legality is not an issue.
As with my previous query, she issued the caveat that the police or vehicle inspector might need evidence of the satisfactory remedy of a recorded Fail Notice (ie a works receipt or sight of a glowing bulb).
It's as I keep saying; a current MOT is not a status that can be turned off and on during its currency. It simply lasts a year, even if a wheel falls off the day after its issue.
Drivers are indeed trusted to keep their cars roadworthy at all times. But - like it or not - that trust is explored once a year for newer cars; never for older ones.

[les]

No point trying to work out the thinking behind these rules/laws

[Bill_qaz]

Removed

[ndevans]

So....
I've just spoken to Andrea of DVSA's Team 3. And it's been recorded (by them, not me!)
She tells me that an MOT Failure on a modern vehicle does not in any way cancel its current MOT.
I posed the example of someone taking their car for an MOT 11 months into the validity of its current one. It gets issued with a Fail Notice (our good old dead bulb). The garage doesn't have the right type, but you take the car home and fit your own.
If, I asked Andrea, the owner then goes off on a 3 week driving holiday, planning to postpone the MOT test till the old one's due date, is the driver guilty of driving on holiday without a valid MOT? The answer was a definitive NO. A Fail does not cancel - or modify the validity of - the current one. Extra costs and peace of mind may enter the owner's mind. But the legality is not an issue.
As with my previous query, she issued the caveat that the police or vehicle inspector might need evidence of the satisfactory remedy of a recorded Fail Notice (ie a works receipt or sight of a glowing bulb).
It's as I keep saying; a current MOT is not a status that can be turned off and on during its currency. It simply lasts a year, even if a wheel falls off the day after its issue.
Drivers are indeed trusted to keep their cars roadworthy at all times. But - like it or not - that trust is explored once a year for newer cars; never for older ones.

That is news to me. I have always been under the impression that when a new MOT certificate is issued it supersedes an older one, pass or fail. Call me cynical but this smacks of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.

I will continue to treat an MOT fail as a fail, the car to be unroadworthy until a pass is issued, and only to be driven on public roads to & from a place of repair and/or a test centre.

[les]

That has been my view also but now it’s getting confusing.

[ndevans]

Thought-ask the MMOC committee to request the FBHVC seeks formal written clarification of the official position in what would seem to be a grey area with more than one interpretation.

[les]

How far to go with this, too much of a fuss might cause a rethink on this no mot concession. Does it matter ? Whatever the position, wouldn’t it make sense, for those that want a mot, to be agreeable to have a retest if failed. Then obligatory or not, everything is covered. If not, why present for a mot in the first place.

[jagnut66]

Hi,
This is a veritable minefield for historic vehicles!
If owners are found by the public at large to have had 'voluntary' MOT tests, failed them and then continued to drive their vehicle without a retest to show that the fault has been fixed and the car is 'officially' roadworthy again, then what confidence are the general public going to have in us to look after our vehicles and, should we submit them for an MOT and they fail, then to act in a responsible manner and rectify said faults???
Sorry but if you submit your car for a 'voluntary' MOT and it fails then IMO you should follow through and get it fixed and retested just as if it were a modern.
We have to play the game with this, otherwise we leave ourselves open to a massive own goal, which will only come back to bite us on the proverbial 'bottom' and for which we will have no one to blame but ourselves!
Best wishes,
Mike.

[ndevans]

Hi,
This is a veritable minefield for historic vehicles!
If owners are found by the public at large to have had 'voluntary' MOT tests, failed them and then continued to drive their vehicle without a retest to show that the fault has been fixed and the car is 'officially' roadworthy again, then what confidence are the general public going to have in us to look after our vehicles and, should we submit them for an MOT and they fail, then to act in a responsible manner and rectify said faults???
Sorry but if you submit your car for a 'voluntary' MOT and it fails then IMO you should follow through and get it fixed and retested just as if it were a modern.
We have to play the game with this, otherwise we leave ourselves open to a massive own goal, which will only come back to bite us on the proverbial 'bottom' and for which we will have no one to blame but ourselves!
Best wishes,
Mike.

Couldn't agree more.

[simmitc]

This is a very interesting and serious discussion, but it is getting "congested", so I'm going to lock the topic for now and try to get some professional expert advice on the subject. If I succeed, then I will post what will hopefully be a definitive answer,