Driving a Failed voluntary MOT vehicle?

[les]

I’m not necessarily a ‘disbeliever’ and accept what is written. The sentence stating it’s not mandatory to have a retest but one is advised is rather strange, that being the case it is difficult to see why it isn’t mandatory, that would cover all ifs and buts. Alternatively don’t go for an MOT. !! Repeat, I’m not disputing the facts. Maybe just injecting, what would be, some common sense.

[ndevans]

I think it's a mess. Making it "advisory" to have a retest is an open invitation to all not to bother. I still think that driving a car flagged as MOT fail is a red rag to a bull and asking for trouble, regardless of what the official stance of the DVSA is.

[mike1864]

I think it's a mess. Making it "advisory" to have a retest is an open invitation to all not to bother. I still think that driving a car flagged as MOT fail is a red rag to a bull and asking for trouble, regardless of what the official stance of the DVSA is.

But by that same logic the whole historic exemption scenario is already a mess, being an "open invitation" to leave your car unroadworthy; and not just after a MOT, but permanently. For any other car, no other mid term repair of a transient unroadworthiness issue needs to be endorsed by an MOT inspector. Why should a classic car be subjected to a more onerous, official confirmation of the repair quality?

As to why people go for an unnecessary MOT, can I suggest:
1. It's performed by a reliable, government-checked mechanic, giving peace of mind.
2. Under the subsidised MOT scheme, it's probably cheaper than the garage charging their standard hourly rate for a safety check.
3. It gives you defence against challenges from other drivers, insurance companies, and breakdown outfits.
4. It may reduce your chances of being stopped by the police or DVSA inspectors.
5. With their kit and access, the MOT station can check things the average owner can't.
6. In terms of resale value (or even saleability), the value of a MOT far exceeds its cost. Or better still a whole history.
7. It flags any advisories that I don't want to take on the next Minors on Tour!
For all these reasons I get mine MOT'ted every April/May.
But the DVSA ruling means (as I always thought was the case) that classic car owners are free to forgo all these advantages and choose not get an MOT, even after a MOT failure. As long as the fault is fixed, and the car stays roadworthy.

[ndevans]

I will continue to get mine MOTd every year, and will continue to regard an MOT failure as requiring rectification of whatever points it has failed on, and then get a fresh MOT once done.

[mike1864]

Yes, you MUST get a fault fixed, however it was identified.
And yes, you CAN then take it for a test, or retest.
But there is no legal linkage between these two actions.
In the OP’s first post, there is an unwarranted assumption that the owners did not fix the brake faults.
As the DVSA keep saying, a Pass or Fail tells you nothing about the vehicle on any other date.

[les]

All that training of a mot tester on what constitutes roadworthy and now Joe Bloggs can decide for himself !!

[mike1864]

All that training of a mot tester on what constitutes roadworthy and now Joe Bloggs can decide for himself !!

Yes. That's exactly the core provision of the Historic Car MOT Exemption Regulations. It's not a loophole, oversight, grey area, mess, software bug etc as some suggest. Anyone is free to campaign for its repeal; but consider the consequences for the classic car community.
So it's not a case of "now" Joe Bloggs can suddenly decide for himself. Nothing has changed. It's always been every driver's responsibility to ensure the continuous roadworthiness of his car, regardless of its age.
It's the owner's choice how to check this, using any or all of:
1. His trusted local garage (via a service, safety check or specific repair)
2. An MOT inspection (whether required or not)
3. His own observations (eg bald tyre) and diagnostic/repair skills.
4. None of the above <GULP>
If he gets it wrong at any time, he will be in breach of the roadworthiness legislation.

Plus, for a car between 3 and 40 years old, it will need to have passed an MOT test in the past 365 days. Intervening or Voluntary Fails are not relevant for MOT Regulation purposes, even for a modern car.
But, like it or not, for 40+ year old cars, the MOT testing regime simply does not apply, but of course the Roadworthiness Laws still do.
I agree it may be wise to get a major repair checked in a voluntary MOT, and I've listed the many advantages in doing so. (But this may be superfluous duplication if the MOT inspector is the same mechanic who carried out the repair!)
But doing so is not compulsory (the thread's original question).

[les]

Post withdrawn, comment not valid

[myoldjalopy]

I have heard that there are, indeed, moves afoot to make the MOT compulsory again for currently exempt cars.......

[les]

Yes, too many official inquiries could rock the boat.

[mike1864]

I give up!
A member asks a valid question; and when forum opinions differ, the consensus is to ask the relevant authority for a definitive answer.
Some mug then makes multiple personal phone calls and emails to the DVSA, and extracts that answer.
After its publication, some members still seem to harbour a belief that the DVSA is wrong, but now suggest it was unwise to have asked them the question in the first place.
This implies the bizarre scenario that these enquiries have foolishly alerted the DVSA to the belated realisation that their own Historic Car MOT Exemption Regulations may have unwittingly(!) Exempted Historic Cars from the MOT Regulations!

[les]

You answered a question by asking at the official office, and the answer you got was accepted, and I’m sure your efforts were appreciated. There were several opinions regarding this answer, as it was, to the layman, perhaps more sense to have a retest if a fail originally. However the situation as it is, has been accepted as the law.
Regarding enquiries bringing attention to things, I think it’s true to a certain degree, I’m not implying your enquiry in itself is a problem but depending how long and to what extent these things are discussed and brought up, can cause change. The post prior to mine implied there might be a rethink, if true, I wonder what triggered that possibility. Hope we can get over this mike1864.

[mike1864]

Back in January, Classic Car Buyer reported....
"It appears that classic car owners in the UK could soon face some significant changes regarding the MOT exemption status of their vehicles. Currently, vehicles built or registered over 40 years ago are exempt from annual MOT tests, provided they haven’t undergone any substantial modifications in the last 30 years. However, a recent consultation by the UK Government put forward suggestions that this exemption could be reconsidered, and over two fifths of the respondents to the proposals agreed with this idea in some form...
...Even if the end result is not a requirement for a full MOT, then having at least some ‘age-appropriate’ checks in place has been suggested as being a good idea, with 41% of respondents to the consultation thinking that this would be the better option (with just 18% of people favouring a full MOT). It has also been put forward by those in the industry that one-off safety checks would be appropriate for any classics that have had a major rebuild, or perhaps a roadworthiness check for classics that have spent time in storage."

So we are still awaiting the government's conclusion, following their lengthy consultations. We would be flattering ourselves to think that our tiny forum's July discussion was influential enough to have played any part in an issue initiated long ago; and now closed for further submissions.

Sorry to witter on , but even if Classic Cars are brought fully into line with modern cars, it does not change the fact that a Failed MOT taken at 11 - or even 6 - months after a Pass does not cancel that previous Pass. Of course the fault needs to get promptly fixed, but regardless, the car remains MOT legal until the anniversary of the previous pass. An MOT was never intended to be an ongoing, rescindable certification of roadworthiness; its sole purpose is to ensure that no car (unless exempt) goes more than 365 days without being presented for (and passing) a "snapshot" roadworthiness test.

[myoldjalopy]

"We would be flattering ourselves to think that our tiny forum's July discussion was influential enough to have played any part in an issue initiated long ago; and now closed for further submissions."
Correct - I heard about the proposal to re-introduce MOTs for currently exempt cars back in April, months before this current thread was started.

[svenedin]

Yes I remember taking part in the consultation on Historic Vehicle MoT testing a while back. There was a post on this forum about it (which I cannot find now).

Personally, if MoT testing or some modified type of annual test was introduced it would not bother me in the slightest. I have my Minor MoT tested anyway. For those with a collection of classic cars and perhaps some cars used very infrequently it could be a real nuisance.

Stephen

[mike1864]

Yes, I'm not bothered either if, some time in the future, the government says I need to get an MOT.
But - as some may possibly have gathered - my goat is got when there are incorrect suggestions that currently an MOT failure instantly negates a previous pass, and compels a retest to check the repair .

[ndevans]

That must have been the result of the consultation by FBHVC las year, I remember filling it in.
I get mine MOTd every year, and will continue to do so regardless anyway, unless they ask for more frequent tests. I have no objection to some sort of basic approval test for mods either, though defining a benchmark will be a minefield, and may leave a lot to the judgement of the tester.

[mike1864]

At around £50, MOT's are so cheap! Why not take advantage of this nearly free (!) check by an approved mechanic; when even a basic mechanic could normally cost you £100/hour? And there's no downside. Even if it doesn't pass, you now know to promptly fix a safety related fault; at that garage, yourself or elsewhere. And no statutory need to take it back once fixed. (Though it's clear that many - including me - might prefer the many benefits of doing so!)
In real terms MOTs used to be much more expensive. In 1996 my Cortina's cost £27.38. That's around £72 in today's money.

[ndevans]

Agree completely.

[mike1864]

I'd asked the DVSA if a modern car's MOT Fail (eg 11 months after the preceding Pass) somehow cancelled that first MOT for those remaining 4 weeks.

As promised, below is their answer. As you can see (in my emboldening), a failure in a compulsory MOT does not cancel the current one, ie it's the same treatment as for a historic car.

Dear Mike ****

Thank you for your email.

Following a fail at MOT test, you may take your vehicle away if your current MOT test is still valid and there are no dangerous problems listed in the MOT. It does not cancel out an existing valid MOT test.

As you quite rightly state, it must still meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness at all times, and as stated above would need to be repaired before driving if there are dangerous defects listed against the new MOT.

I hope this assists with your enquiry.

Yours sincerely

Angela | DVSA Customer Service Centre Agent
Tel: 0300 123 9000

How did we do? Please take a few moments to complete our customer satisfaction survey by clicking Here

Follow us: Facebook | YouTube | Twitter
Find out more about government services at DVSA

Keeping Britain moving safely and sustainably