Omega 2.5v6 MOT fail

"Dave Plowman (News)" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Or wanted to sell it with a full ticket.

Adrian gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

(bollocks, hadn't finished writing...)

...like I'll be doing with the Saab (6mo early) in a month or two.

Or was going to be out of the country for a while with it. ...like I'll be doing with the VW (6+mo early) in a month or three.

They also mention that you can be prosecuted.

Can act as. But you'd still have to contravene the construction & use act, & in that case it was unroadworthy when driven to the MOT, which is the same offense. after repairing it you don't need a new MOT till the old one expires.

You're confusing the word if with when, & might with will.

The immediate, absolute illegallity is in using the vehicle for other than a permitted journey after it has failed a test. Running a vehicle with a valid certificate, with the same defect will almot vertainly be illegal, depending on the exact fault. It also may or may not be safe to use. However, a fault which would cause a failure, if discovered at a roadside test by VOSA or the police, should result in a prohibition notice being issued by the inspecting official.

I didn't say it was common, just that I've known it to happen. Normally, a delayed prohibition is issued, which lets you drive it to a place of repair.

You're still driving illegally. The failure notice is valid until the vehicle is re-tested and found satisfactory. Depending on the notice given, you are only allowed to drive the vehicle to a place of repair or to a test station.

Or, as in my case last year, I want to align the MOT test with a time when I can afford to have the vehile off the road for a while.

John Williamson gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

That's more illegal than driving it TO the test, is it?

So, yes, the same car on the way TO the test.

Are you talking about cars, or big stuff? I've never _heard_ of a "prohibition notice" being applied to a car.

So you've got a headlamp bulb in the glovebox. You fit it at the side of the road, under the gaze of Mr Plod. What then? Legal or illegal?

So that's a "Yes", is it? You are explicitly saying that the vehicle is illegal despite you having an MOT certificate in your hand that hasn't yet expired, and despite it being fully roadworthy?

Care to provide any evidence to support that?

We're not talking about faults that have been flagged as dangerous. Clearly, with those, the vehicle was illegal and dangerous on the way to the test centre as well.

I expect that would be if you do not get the vehicle fixed. When I have repaired vans that have received a prohibition notice, they have usually had to have an inspection at a vosa test centre after repair. a bit like the vehicle rectification scheme that gets stamped by an MoT place and then prosecution is avoided.

Driving it *to* the test with an *unknown* fault and a valid certificate is not illegal, unless the fault is found at a roadside check. Then the illegallity is the result of the fault.

If the fault is known or discovered at the roadside, yes.

It might not be called that, but when you are refused a test pass, then the paper you get only permits you to drive to a place of repair and back to the testing station, if you read it.

If that's the only fault and there is no currently valid failure cerificate, then yes, it is legal.

Ask VOSA.

And, even with non-dangerous faults, the vehicle may well be illegal. A side marker light out or similar, for example.

John Williamson gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

So you could drive around on four bald tyres, just so long as you never checked them?

By that logic, murder isn't illegal, so long as nobody notices the victim is missing. You seem to be confusing being caught with breaking the law.

Umm, yes...

Once again - something illegal is illegal whether you get caught for it or not.

I don't have a VT30 to hand. Care to quote the exact wording?

It failed last week on a bald tyre, since changed, remember? What then?

The vehicle is roadworthy, and there is a test pass dated barely ten months ago.

No, I'm asking YOU to support YOUR claims.

Assuming it's a required light, that would be a C&U fault, whether it's been in for a test or not.

Can you honestly envisage a situation where a driver wuoldn't notice a set of slicks? Although is is possible,on some cars that the inner portion of the tread could be bald enough to be illegal without it being readily apaent on approaching thevehicle.

If you so wish, about 95% of the vehicles being driven have some defect which could make them illegal either under C&U or by reason of some recent material defect. Are you 100% certain that yours is not one of them?

I've not had a failure ticket in my hand in over four years, and if I had, it would be (a) over a thousand miles away from where I am at this moment, and (b) shredded, replaced by the pass certificate.

He stopped you for a moving traffic offence, additional to what caused the MOT failure. That has now been rectified. If the vehicle has been failed at test and not subsequently had that failure cleared, then the vehicle is being driven without a valid MOT. Since the system went electronic, the paper is purely a reminder for your convenience. The official record is held at DVLA,and shows that the car is considered unfit to drive. *That* is the record that the police and VOSA traffic officials check. The same way that, now, the police won't normally ask you for your insurance cover note, as they know whether or not the vehicle is insured, and who is permitted to drive it.

Which has been superceded by the failure.

Can you prove otherwise?

Yes if the faults not corrected

Still unroadworthy as the lights are defective

No, it's contravening the c&u regulations. It still has a valid MOT.

No, there's no provision in the law for the failure to invalidate an MOT.

Hmm. Perhaps regular sympathetic maintenance would pay off in the end?

Personally I like to have my MOTs fall at a time when I can do something about it. Like school holidays. Or for my daughter's car, university holdays, when there's an outside chance she'll be home long enough for me to do at least a pre-MOT check.

It came at a very busy time of year when I needed it on the road 100% of the time. I had it retested while I was on holiday. It gets all the maintenance needed but I couldn't afford even the day off for the test.

John Williamson gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Hello? F*ck, yes...

s'ok. I've found one now.

And it carries no such wording. The relevant bits are...

Well, they reckon they do. I was pulled last week and the guy asked over the radio whether I was on the list of permitted drivers.

Mind you, the whole thing was a charade to justify breathalysing me - poor soul was *so* disappointed when I wasn't over the limit. Not even on the scale, actually.

Blind driver on a dark night?

I stand corrected.