same thing happened to me - you can only take the test up to 28 days before the old one runs out. Any longer and you only get a year from the test date - seems a bit unfair
Not unfair really -- you need a cut-off point somewhere, otherwise people would be going in with 11 months MOT left over and getting cars retested so they don't have to worry for nearly 2 years.
The month is arbitrary but it's probably the best amount of grace to give out.
|
|
|
|
Right, did'nt realise that was the case. Just been thinking, it failed first time on a few things (see another thread), I took it home to do the work myself. Others on here reminded me that the old certificate was invalid due to it failing the test, so tecnically it did'nt have any valid MOT hence the new one only for 12 months not 13. Does that sound right?
|
>>Others on here reminded me that the old certificate was invalid due to it failing the test, so tecnically it did'nt have any valid MOT hence the new one only for 12 months not 13. Does that sound right?
No, it is not right.
|
>No, it is not right
Are you sure about this Mark? I have a feeling that with the new central database in operation the existence of a failure statement would be flagged up so that an enquiry would generate a unroadworthy vehicle notification to the enquirer (warden, traffic copy - general busybody et.et.and open a nasty can of worms. What would be the insurance co's attitude to a claim made post the issuance of failure statement??...
Phil I
|
|
or even a traffic policeman with flat hat.:-))
|
|
I believe the MOT certificate once issued is valid for a full 12 month period from the date of the test. If the vehicle becomes 'unroadworthy' during the twelve month period after the test, strictly speaking, your MOT has not become 'invalid', rather you are guilty of driving an unroadworthy vehicle which, I think, is a different offence and a distinction which other posters were referring to.
|
|
|
|
Do not confuse an unroadworthy vehicle with a car that has, or does not have, a valid MOT certificate. You should not drive an unroadworthy vehicle on the road (knowingly or unreasonably) irrespective of its MOT'd-ness.
However, let us say my MOT will expire 31/12. I tak eit for a test 1/12 and it fails because the back brakes don't work. on the 02/12 I fix the back brakes and the car is now roadworthy with a valid MOT certificate.
Equally an MOT certificate is not an absolute defence for driving an unroadworthy vehicle.
|
Was thinking about this when I was driving to the test station. Thought I should have been OK as I was driving to a pre booked appoitment etc.
Does'nt the car need to be re-tested to become legal again, or are the repairs enough?
And going back to my original question, does anyone know if I should have been given a 12 or 13 month MOT? Thank you.
|
I posted this on a previous thread, it is equally applicable here, but (slightly edited).
This thread raises the interesting point about whether MoT test failure of an an individual item makes the car unroadworthy.
Certainly in the case the failure of the brakes to reach a satisfactory numerically measured degree of efficiency would presumably make the car 'unroadworthy' under construction and use regulations.
The garage have the option of marking the test result as 'a dangerous defect' and the car should not then be driven. I cannot recall the exact terminology but there has been discussuion in the past where a garage has prevented removal (by driving) from their premises after this sort of failure. Does it leave the garage liable if a driver removes his car and is immediately involved in an accident? Remember not all drivers can comprehend the full meaning given on the advisory sheet relating to the failure.
Other itemscan be much more subjective items and whilst a MoT strictly relates to the condition at the time of test, an experienced tester will presumably will make a value judgement on how bad the wear/corrosion is and the likely hood of failure over a period of time.
A classic example of this is the splitting of a rubber boot on a CV joint. This does not make the car immediately dangerous to drive, although continued use will result in the ingress of moisture and consequent wear and failure of a joint. This is a regular cause of failure in older cars.
With the old system of no centralised record keeping a 6 monthly MoT cycle of testing could allow considered use and disposal of a vehicle. Under the new system the failure or list of advisory items becomes available to the public (with DVLC V5 or MoT s no. details to hand), police , and other MoT testing stations.
Whether it flags on a straight ANPR enquiry is not known.
--
pmh (was peter)
|
|
|
|
|
No FM2R, as Poirot would say, exactement
|
You answer your own question really.
In the old days before the computerised MOTs you used to be able to take the test up to a month early, is this no longer the case?
the old one was valid till 27/12/06
Things are no different - yoiu can take an MOT test at any time, if it happens to be within a calendar month of the old expiry then it's dated from the expiry of the old one.
you've taken it in more than a month early - so you get 12 months from the date of the test. The old paper system was identical.
|
|
Thanks for that Martin. I took it in early cause I felt it was going to fail miserably, was'nt too bad in the end. probably gonna get rid of it after the winter anyway so does'nt make much difference to me.
|
Actually this has made me think about that old Drummer Versus Drum machine joke - The Dum Machine winning because you only have to punch the instructions in once
Unfortunately that's also been my experience with MOT testing stations, they will remember that they should give you the extra month only if you really, really remind them. Leave it on the seat and up to them - they won't bother.
|
if i have a car with a months mot on it and its going up for sale then i dont get 13 months because most people have never heard of a 13 month ticket and assume ive had the 'john bull' out.
Why should the garage assume you want 13 months anyway ? i as an mot man(im not) wouldnt stick my neck out in this situation just in case i was wrong and once done it couldnt be re-ammended (sic) .
|
Had a reminder through the post last week that the wifes MOT expired on the 29th of this month and I could have it done up to 28 days before this and the extra days would be added on.
Took it in on on Friday and it failed with a rusted brake pipe.
You can take it away and get it done and have a free retest within 10 days or we can do it for you and it will cost about £90.
I asked if it was deemed roadworthy to drive away and he said absolutely,
I tool it round my usual independant and luckily he had just finished a job. He put a new copper! brake pipe in from front to rear 8' long in just 20 minutes. and charged me £25.00. Good service and yes there was a badly rusted area a few inches long which would have taken some spotting as it was hidden away.
Back at the MOT station within half an hour of leaving him and he couldnt believe how quickly it had been done.
Put it back up on the ramps and checked it out. Tested the brakes and gave me the new MOT dated up to the 29th of this month.
|
and charged me £25.00.
That's a good price for the job.
|
Yes it was a good price and usually is there.
One thing surprised me when he did it and I still havent figured it..
I stopped for a couple of minutes talking to his mate and when I went in to the work area he had the car up on the ramps and the old pipe off.
I helped him measure out the old and new pipe (copper)and he went back under the ramps after cutting it and making off one end.
He bent it round its winding route and made the other end off and said "thats it."
I said what about bleeding it now. "No need its already done, I let it trickle bleed."
As a one time Plumber (which he knew) I said there has to be some air in it.
He let it down from the lift and said try it. It was as solid as before with no sponginess at all.
He lifted the bonnet to check fluid level and that was OK with just a small loss.. I knew the old trick of putting a putting a a piece of clingfilm or similar to prevent fluid loss under the cap but he hadnt done that and knowing the problems of getting air out of any system I was impressed with his party trick.
The brakes were perfect afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
