Anybody know about MOT tests?

[Gern]

I bought a car last September which had just got a new MOT from the dealer valid until October this year. On my way home, I got a warning light on my dashboard about the brakes. I thought I'd play it safe so I booked an independent garage to carry out a fresh MOT a week later.

They failed the car on five major faults with four advisories and a notice saying there was a manufacturer's recall. I took it back to the original dealer asking him to either take back the car or carry out repairs and get a new MOT certificate. He refused saying the certificate he originally supplied was valid for twelve months and therefore the car was safe to drive.

I spoke to Citizens advice, the DVSA and the local court where I am suing the original dealer. None of them could or would tell me what my legal position is.

I got a letter from the court today saying that the dealer is sticking to his defence that his original certificate is still valid. I tried to clarify my situation by contacting my local Police station. Oddly enough, they couldn't or wouldn't tell me and referred me to the Government website pages about MOTs. There's nothing on the first 3 or 4 pages - I'm probably not going to live long enough to go through all 3000 pages and their drop-down menus! - either.

So my question is this. Could I be prosecuted if I drove this car today knowing that the latest MOT I have is listing it as failed? (Yes. I have checked the Governments MOT history page, and the latest fail certificate is shown.)

I know ignorance of the law used to be no excuse, but where do I stand if the legal system itself is ignorant?

Oh the joys of motoring! I'm going to take a mechanic as a minder next time I go looking for a car - or maybe invest in a set of roller skates!

[Stefee]

My understanding of MOTs is that the vehicle was in the stated condition AT THE TIME OF THE TEST but is not a guarantee of its condition when you leave the testing station.
What was the time gap and mileage difference between the 2 tests? If a short time and/or negligible distance could the 5 major faults have reasonably manifested themselves between tests or were they already there and missed/ ignoredx?
I would think the 2nd test results would overule the first test but I am not sure.
Are you a member of the RAC or another motoring organisation or have car/home insurance cover where you may have recourse to free legal advice?
Lastly my job before retirement was to inspect vehicles mainly prior to purchase although some were post purchase technical examinations for a major motoring organisation which you may wish to consider - obviously at a cost.
Good luck.

[colin m]

I’m no expert but I think Stefan is spot on
’At the time of the MOT’ is the thing to consider here.
The brakes may have been low (were there any advisories on the last test) but still met minimum standards required.
Hence, a pass was issued.
so, could you be prosecuted driving the car today ? That’s tricky. If a new MOT certificate has been issued as a fail, then the car doesn’t have a current MOT, that’s how I see it, so no, you can only drive it to a place of repair.

[PaulTRose]

And dont firget everything is electronic these days......you drive it and it will show up on police anpr cameras as 'no mot'......and no mot will probably have impact on insurance

[Gern]

Stefan: There was only a week between the tests and less than 30 miles driven. I agree that maybe a fault could have appeared in that time span, but not a total of five faults and four advisories. I agree it seems sensible that the latest MOT should be the one that counts but why can't I get an answer to what I think is a straightforward question? I did request a further test to be carried out by the DVSA but they refused on the grounds it would cost too much.

I am in the AA so I guess it might be worth a phone call on Monday to ask them, but my insurance company has no idea and will not tell me if they consider my insurance to be valid. I'm guessing it wouldn't be if I had to make a claim, they'd just turn round and say "No MOT, no insurance".

Colin: I agree with you, which is why I haven't used the car since the last test. But it is at the heart of the dealer's defence in my court case, so it is important for me to know.

Paul: That's a good point, but I still don't understand why no-one can give me a definitive answer.

[Nicko]

I'm not a certified tester, but I've been in the trade (motorcycle) for quite some time and can confirm that as Paul says, with the current electronic recording regime, there is no margin and the most recent failed test will overrule any previous test pass no matter when it was issued. Its something that is very frustrating for owners who bring a vehicle in for test during the 30 day period prior to the expiry date and get a fail. You can now no longer carry on using the vehicle and get it fixed at some point before the original expiry date because the most recent recorded test takes precedence. The only way to get around this is to pay your chosen mechanic to carry out an unofficial test where they don't log your vehicle into the DVSA system.

Regarding your original query, the problem here is that there is quite a lot of interpretation left to the discretion of the individual tester. Two different testers working at the same establishment could in theory give different answers with regard to Pass/Advise/Fail depending upon how they have interpreted the wording. This coupled with the non-invasive nature of the test plus the frequent changes to the definitions provided by the DVSA means that it would be very difficult to pursue a claim against the original garage unless you had been able to give the vehicle to a DVSA inspector the moment it came away from the original test.

Hope that helps.

Nick.

[Gern]

Nick: What you say about the latest MOT taking precedence tallies with my assessment, but I'm still at a loss to understand why not one of the Authorities I've dealt with is willing or able to confirm it.

The fact that the MOT results can be interpreted in different ways by different examiners surely makes it impossible to take any dealer to court if a vehicle fails within a few days of purchase. How do I now prove I am entitled to return the vehicle if the only proof I have that it is "not of merchantable quality" and "not fit for purpose" under the terms of The Sale of Goods Act and the Consumer Rights Act is an interpretation of the rules by a mechanic?

So now, as and when my case goes to court, it's likely to be dismissed along with the £200 I had to pay to bring the action. If that's the case, why didn't any of the Authorities tell me it was unlikely that I would win? If they had, I would have just cut my losses, got the repairs done and got a clean MOT - then sell the heap for whatever I could get.

It's no wonder people are angry all the time if this is what passes for justice today. I should have listened to Bob Heinlein all those years ago. He said "The Law bears the same relationship to Justice as Religion does to God. ie None to speak of".

OK guys. Thanks for all your comments and help. We're supposed to get wiser as we get older. Guess that's summat I still got to work on.

[Nicko]

Probably the nearest you might get to some satisfaction is to report the establishment to the DVSA - and the name of the tester will be on record although they might have been put under pressure to issue a pass (probably happens more than you might think) - and hope they carry out a spot inspection or mystery shop type test and they fall foul of that... in the meantime I hope you can put it all behind you and get back to the relatively frivolous enjoyment we get from tinkering with bits of plastic....

Nick

[Tim Marlow]

Just another angle to consider….
What is the service history like on the vehicle? If it has a full history it certainly shouldn’t have major MOT failures. Part of a service is to identify anything that will fail by the next service and so be identified as an advisory. In addition, anything dangerous found at service would mean the car shouldn’t be returned to the owner until that was fixed. It could also be the servicing garage is at fault as well.

[Jim R]

Regardless of the MOT surely the issue is the car developed a fault within 30 days. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says that if a car, new or second hand, bought from a dealer (not a private sale or at an auction), develops a fault within 30 days the buyer is entitled to return the car for a refund.
I may be wrong but that's my understanding.

[Gern]

Nick: I did report the original test centre to DVSA. Like I said, they wouldn't carry out an investigation due to the cost involved. But you are probably right. Any MOT test centre will want to keep car dealers as regular customers so they will feel pressured to pass vehicles even if there is no form of coercion from the dealer.

Tim: Alas the dealer did not provide a service history so I had to rely on the MOT history website, and it's the MOT reports which are at the heart of my problem.

Jim: That was exactly my position. The dealer is obliged to take back the car if faults occur within 30 days. His refusal to either take back the car or carry out repairs is the reason I am taking him to court. I just have to hope that the court recognises the new MOT as evidence that the vehicle was faulty.

One thing no-one has mentioned. According to the DVSA, no dealer is allowed to sell a vehicle which has an outstanding manufacturer's recall notice. I get the impression, having looked at lots of car sales, that this regulation is largely ignored by dealers and not pursued by the authorities. Why have a law if it is not enforced?

[stillp]

Dave, have you spoken to Trading Standards about this? They're usually pretty hot on traders selling substandard vehicles.
Pete

[Gern]

Hi Pete. They were the first people I spoke to but all they did was clarify my position in terms of The Sale of Goods Act and my Consumer Rights. In theory, both of these give me the right to return goods even if they're not substandard. I'm going to try and speak to the Court tomorrow.

[stillp]

all they did was clarify my position in terms of The Sale of Goods Act and my Consumer Rights

Disappointing, but not really surprising. I had similar responses from several TC departments when I was trying to get them to do something about unauthorised copies of my employer's products. Problem is that they're all understaffed and overloaded, so they tend to do the easy stuff first.
Pete