Failed MOT in April - legal or not now??

[Damp Logs]

So just been out for dinner with our oldest friends and enjoyed talking about his 1970 Land Rover, and the fact that it doesn’t need an MOT since the rules changed in May.

However the gov.uk MOT history website shows the car as having failed an MOT in April this year. My mate has just taxed the vehicle, at no cost of course.

My thought is that, as the car failed in April, it is not legal to drive, even though the rules changed in May. But the fact that he has taxed it would imply that it’s no longer relevant.

Seems an anomaly to me!

Can anyone clarify the matter for us??

[Keep it stiff]

Regardless as to if the age/originality of the vehicle, that defines if it is with scope or not of requiring an MOT, it is illegal to drive a vehicle that is not in a roadworthy condition. It is a common misconception that being in possession of an MOT certificate is proof of roadworthiness.

[b2hbm]

It might be legal to drive, it depends what it's failed on and whether your mate has rectified the faults.

If he's not done so, then I'd reckon he's in a very dodgy position. He may get it taxed but the last record on the database will show the car failing with the reasons listed there. All you need is a copper to spot the car, check the database and pull him over. If he can't prove the car has been repaired then if nothing else he's going to get some hassle. If he's not repaired it properly then he's in the mire because as already stated, your car must be roadworthy at all times, MoT or not. He'll be driving a car which he's been told isn't up to MoT standard and as the MoT was in April I doubt he'll get away with "I'm driving it to a place of repair".

I would have thought that repairing and re-submitting for the MoT, even though technically the car doesn't need one, is the most sensible way forward.

[tapkaJohnD]

Sad to hear of someone with a classic car behaving like this.
Part of the argument from the Gov. was that the owners of old cars kept them in good repair, and so there was no need for the MoT. There have been a few in the Triumph world that I inhabit but the vast majority have resolved to submit their cars for an MoT equivalent every year, if only so that another's eye and experience can check its condition.

It will only take a single accident due to a poor classic's condition for calls for legislation far more stringent than MoT ever was.
John

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

Depends if he has had the issues that caused it to fail the MOT fixed. If he has, then it is fine and dandy, carry on.

If he has not, then the vehicle is classed as being in an unroadworthy condition, and it is not fine. Anything that would cause an MOT fail would deem it unroadworthy. Even though the Landy does not need to be submitted for an MOT, it still needs to meet the same standard of roadworthyness as it would have needed to meet previously.

[paintman]

What did it fail on?
Has 'your friend' dealt with whatever it was?
What did he say when you raised your concern?

[Damp Logs]

Thanks for replies.

My thoughts are pretty as above, and I said this to him, thanks Stag 3.0V8

But never one to presume I know everything, thought it best to check with more knowledgable collective!

He hasn’t had the issues fixed, and it failed on braking efficiency. It’s a Seies II, so they were never very good anyway.

He’s not a petrol head by any stretch of the imagination, so he looks to me for advise ( yes, I know, the mans a fool!)

I’ve told him not to use it until I confirm one way or the other.

Thanks again.

[InitialDave]

tapkaJohnD said:

Sad to hear of someone with a classic car behaving like this.

While I agree that if he's running the car in an unroadworthy condition, having not fixed a significant MOT fail, checking up on him on the MOT history site and asking here rather than just asking him seems a little off really.

Edit: seen reply above, fair enough.

If the brakes are all in decent condition and it stops straight, then as long as it stops well enough for what it is, I'd ignore a fail as well. Depends whether the brakes are poor by series 2 standards or poor by modern car standards.

(To clarify, unless they've changed the manual, the efficiency requirement is lower on older stuff, it could be it was tested to the incorrect standard)

Edited by InitialDave on Tuesday 13th November 10:26

[Cardinal Hips]

Tell him that if he didn't fix what it failed on then it will be fine as when the legislation was introduced a magic spell was weaved over the classic cars of the UK which means they now self repair. Like that John Carpenter film "Christine".

[Sheepshanks]

b2hbm said:

All you need is a copper to spot the car, check the database and pull him over.

I don't think that happens much - you hear of people driving for many months having forgotten about their MOT and they don't get pulled.

I'd be more concerned about the implications in the event of an at-fault accident - he could be in deep legal and insurance issues.

[Riley Blue]

Sheepshanks said:

b2hbm said:

All you need is a copper to spot the car, check the database and pull him over.

I don't think that happens much - you hear of people driving for many months having forgotten about their MOT and they don't get pulled.

I'd be more concerned about the implications in the event of an at-fault accident - he could be in deep legal and insurance issues.

Because he didn't have a MOT which his vehicle doesn't need? Provided it is maintained in a roadworthy condition he need have no worries.

[Damp Logs]

Riley Blue said:

Because he didn't have a MOT which his vehicle doesn't need? Provided it is maintained in a roadworthy condition he need have no worries.

Issue really is that vehicle failed at a date when an MOT was required.

As mentioned, I suspect tester hasn’t taken account t of age.

I have told him to get it tested and fixed, cos that covers all bases.

Thanks again.

[FlipFlopGriff]

Mine failed on braking efficiency (S3) across axles (must be within 50% of each other) As I still had a week on my current MoT I took the drums off to find the oil seal had gone and the shoes were coated in oil. Cleaned them up took it back and nearly failed as the cleaned up side was nearly 50% better than the other side, Anyway, had both seals changed now after it passed. Mine doesn't qualify for MoT exemption due to being significantly changed - ie its a Rover P6B V8 now not the 2.25 petrol it came out the factory with.
I have a 1959 Moggy which should be MoT exempt but isn't showing as such so I've been told to wait until the current MoT runs out, tax it (that is free) and see if the website prompts me to tick the MoT exemption box, but still got a week to wait toi try it. Will still take it to the MoT station and get it checked in the same manner but they don't then record the details on the database.
FFG

[InitialDave]

Might want to check on the V8 conversion, it's the same basic engine the put in the Stage One, so you may be justified in keeping historic status as it's "alternative original equipment".

[tr7v8]

Just had the Cayenne re-MOT'd Chatting with the tester after he said that a lot of people come in with Classics that although exempt they want MOT'd. He said that he advises a test without logging it on the system & gives them a piece of paper with roadworthy on it. For exactly this reason.
He does a lot of classics so quite likely a few doing these.

[FlipFlopGriff]

InitialDave said:

Might want to check on the V8 conversion, it's the same basic engine the put in the Stage One, so you may be justified in keeping historic status as it's "alternative original equipment".

I did try but no guidance from DVLA or DVSA as they told me its up to me if I declare it MoT exempt so can't take the risk.
FFG

[FlipFlopGriff]

tr7v8 said:

Just had the Cayenne re-MOT'd Chatting with the tester after he said that a lot of people come in with Classics that although exempt they want MOT'd. He said that he advises a test without logging it on the system & gives them a piece of paper with roadworthy on it. For exactly this reason.
He does a lot of classics so quite likely a few doing these.

Exactly what my MoT testers told me to do, and they do a lot of classics to, including all mine.
FFG

[LuS1fer]

A police check will possibly throw up the MOT fail but it may simply show the vehicle is exempt.

If the former, the condition of the vehicle, if dangerous may give rise to a dangerous driving charge:

2)A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 [F2, 1A] and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.

Such conviction comes with a mandatory disqualification and an extended retest so it would be foolish to risk driving a car in a dangerous state when there is plain evidence you knew it had failed the MOT although what it failed on is going to be relevant.

Examples I have come across are more obvious - people driving on a wheel rim that has lost it's tyre, with missing wheelnuts, loose wheels, wholly defective brakes etc.

[Sheepshanks]

LuS1fer said:

Examples I have come across are more obvious - people driving on a wheel rim that has lost it's tyre, with missing wheelnuts, loose wheels, wholly defective brakes etc.

Or perhaps people who were aware the brakes were not up to standard as evidenced by the vehicle failing its last MOT?

[Yertis]

Sheepshanks said:

I don't think that happens much - you hear of people driving for many months having forgotten about their MOT and they don't get pulled.

I wouldn’t bank on that. A few years ago I moved the date of MoT for my Monaro forward by a fortnight, to get it done before hols. The following year I forgot that, and Mr Plod followed me from Blandford Forum to Poole just to tell me my MoT was one day overdue. I promised to get it done as soon as I got home. “I have the power to impound this vehicle, but instead I’m going to let you have (whatever code it was) £60 fine.”



I mentioned this to a copper friend of mine who conceded that incidents such as this did little to help their public image.