Stricter new rules around MOTs are being rolled out across the country next month and could see drivers facing a fine of up to £2,500 if they are caught breaking any of them. The new fines cover areas such as not having a valid MOT certificate in place or not reaching new MOT standards, particularly around failing to reach new emissions standards from diesel cars.
The new rules will start to take effect on May 20th, but the worrying thing is that most drivers are not aware of the forthcoming changes, nor are they aware of the massive increase in fines for non-compliance of the new rules that are coming into place.
At the beginning of this year, we reported on a series of new measures put into place as part of the new MOT system that could catch out drivers. Now the rules are set to become law; drivers aren’t entirely aware of the new fine print that could end up costing them a lot of money, which can be up to £2,500 in some cases.
One example is putting your car in for the MOT early. If you put your car in for an MOT before it is due, and the vehicle fails, you could face a hefty fine if you continue to drive the car, despite the fact that the original MOT certificate still has a period left to run. That’s because if the car doesn’t get through the tighter new MOT rules, then it will no longer be classed as road legal, regardless of an existing MOT certificate or not.
The new rules starting in May will also include points on the licence and even a driving ban for drivers who are caught breaking them, which is unprecedented. Quite how this will be policed has not been made clear by the Government, and the Police have not indicated whether they would chase evaders from breaking the new MOT rules.
New confusing defect types
The new, more complex MOT rules also include a new series of defect types – dangerous, major and minor. There are also more strict rules on emissions for diesel cars, while cars that are 40 years or older could become MOT exempt.
RAC spokesman, Simon Williams, said “rather than MOTs being a straightforward black and white system of pass or fail, the new defect types could create confusion for drivers and testers. Each tester will have to use their judgement as to whether a defect is dangerous, major or minor and this could lead to differences from one garage to another.”
The types could also confuse drivers, especially between the dangerous and major fault categories. In the current system, if a car has a fault that means it fails the MOT, then it must be repaired before being used again. But under the new test, a vehicle with dangerous or major fault will automatically fail.
And, a minor fault on a diesel car could end up being a major one simply because of the fuel type. Any minor defects will be listed on the MOT certificate alongside the existing advisory notices system for things that the driver may want to get fixed before they deteriorate.
The new MOT rules also include yet more stress for diesel drivers with the introduction of more stringent regulations around emission testing. A diesel car can face an automatic fail if there is any smoke emitted from the exhaust in some cases. The diesel particulate filters or DPFs will also be checked, and if these are missing or altered, then the car will automatically be failed.
Other harsher tests revolve around the lights on the car. Reverse, front fog, and daytime running lights have all now been included as part of the MOT test. Reversing lights were introduced on inspections from September 2009 while daytime running lights were first added to tests in March this year. Front fog lights were also added last month.
Other tests being introduced next month include:
You can sign up for a free text alert to remind you when your MOT is due which will tell you again if you haven’t had your car tested two weeks before the certificate runs out. You will need your number plate, mobile number or email address to sign up for this new service and avoid the chance of a fine for having no MOT in place.
What do you think of the new MOT rules? Are you as confused as we are about the changes? Do you think these fines are enforceable or will it go the way of the £75 million in missing road tax each year and very few fines? Let us know in the comments.
Yet another set of secrets !
Most changes in regulations these days seem to be quietly slipped in – in order to trick people into paying fines to boost the ‘tax take’.
Civil Servants think that putting something on a website is the same as publishing it. IT IS NOT. It’s merely placing it in the public domain – which is not the same thing. Publishing requires publicity (hence the name) but they don’t do that so fail to inform anyone. They seem to think people spend all day, every day searching for any new additions to millions of websites. Without proper publicity these rule changes should be delayed or banned altogether. (I worked in publishing so know the benefits of telling people.)
Thank heavens we have websites like petrolprices to highlight these issues to motorists!
once again the motorists are being used as a cash cow, no doubt the “greens” will love it, can someone please tell me where reversing lights should be fitted ?
reservinglights a new type of lighting?
Hi Terry, the error has now been corrected.
At the back?
seems to me to be the best place!!!
this will be challenged you cannot have rules in place that you make up your mind what is good and what is bad there has to be guidelines
Too late, rules like that have been in place for years. Policeman thinks your exhaust is too loud, PCN is issued. No DB meter, it’s just what they interpret…
This, due to all these extra standards and is something or is something not. Could in effect, due to how testers see things different, cause more descrepancy.than now, what to one is major another might not Agree, going to create, more reason for some garages to fail more things to make more money on repair, this might in general cause more problem than successes under the New Plans, What program is in place to Re upskill testers? To ensure they all Test the same way!!!
Is that even English?
Modern English; your lucky is isn’t phone text.
Just another way to squeeze more money from the motorists.
They should be doing more to stop people on Mobil phones.
The gorvernment are guilty of giving the motorist roads that are unfit for
For purpose full of pot holes causing damage to every vehicle on the road.
I didn’t know Mobil did phones 😉
they should stick to oyil and fewl !!!
Bob, you’ve missed an error in a previous post:
RONM … “we more to failure”
and there are more below:
Mark Smith … “see things different”
C. Stanford … “taking money of the motorist”
Gwendoline griffin … “fed up of .. ”
Go on … point ’em out and enjoy yourself!
If you replied to all the spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, you’d be here forever!!
must be a new venture – lol
you always get the tosser who cant contribute a sensible comment ,starts to nit pick at the guys that do
When grey areas are deliberately put into motoring laws it proves they are there for revenue raising purposes only.
My car was lasted MOT’d in December. Does this mean if I got stopped by the Police in June I could be fined for not heeding to the new changes? Plus if I was to take it in earlier to make sure it is compliant, I’m guessing I’d be fined again?
NO your MOT cert is valid until it falls due but if the cops find a defect you can be fined.
Yes the MOT is Valid until date of expiry… But if you get stopped for a roadside vehicle check 5 minutes after you leave the MOT station you can still be prosecuted for defective vehicle parts. as modern cars are getting more complicated i think that there should be some sort of better training for the police, i had a police roadside teser say my tyre had below the legal limit a couple of years ago. but as the tyre had raised tread blocks on the outer edge he did not know that the minimum dept applied to the inner part of the tyre. he was measuring the sypes on the raised tread block and i had to go to an MOT testing station to get it checked, this was less than 70 miles after the MOT.
i agree with other posters the MOT should be done by a separate test station that does not do any repair work, this way you “”Should”” get a fairer test. but if the police do not give any credence to a valid MOT then is there really any point in making the MOT harder to get through??
the thing is, the MOT regs are different to the legal regs that the police use. for an MOT for example, a tyre must have 1.6mm of tread on 3/4 of the tread area of the tyre with visible tread on the rest. the police/law however, says you must have a minimum 1.6mm on the CENTRE 3/4 of the tyre with visible tread on the rest! (that info came from a traffic cop, who’s brother works in an MOT station!)
The whole system is a farce
You mean scam. Surely?
As of 3 days ago, my local MOT testing station had not received any copies of the new rules
Many young people with families will suffer more from this system because the MOT becomes more subjective and that gives garages more opportunities to squeeze money from the owners. Older people with newer models probably won’t see much of s problem. I remember only to well with a family how hard it was to face those unsure times when your car went for that test.
I am a retired law lecturer but even so I am missing the point regarding old fails and new dangerous/ major faults. Presumably both = failure and so need to put right?
Unless dangerous requires immediate attention and major means you have to get it fixed before your current certificate runs out.
The dangerous rule applies already
Just how this will be enforced by an already under resourced police service. We no longer see traffic police officers on the roads and this has led to an appalling drop in driving standards across the country.
yet another way of milking the motorist, I am sick of it, should bring back the horse and cart, no m o t and no tax
Don’t you believe it! They’ll tax horse emissions!
You’ll need to carry a shovel and a bag to pick up horse emissions as they occur!
In Great Yarmouth there are tourist horse and carriage rides along the seafront road.
The carriages have to be fitted with canvas bags behind the horses to catch dung to stop it fouling the road. The bags are known locally as horse nappies.
You’ll have to get a vet’s certificate to prove the horse is fit to be on the road…!
Hooves pumped up to the correct pressure.
Exhaust emissions may be a bit doggy.
It’s a pity, we the public, can’t give the roads an MOT. The government and councils would fail BIG time. We are sheep when it comes to being ruled. We allow the few powerful people in this country enforce whatever they wish upon us. Lambs to the slaughter. Baa baa baa baa
Thank you for highlighting this. I agree that the majority of motorists aren’t aware of these changes. However, if it gets failures off the road then all the better.
Including off the road for triviata, just because it’s in a vehicle’s design, to the march of the authoritarians with their Tick Box clipboards.
Before we more to failure by testers whose opinions may differ at different places we MUST do two things. Remove MOT testing from garages and repair shops etc and replace them with proper dedicated test stations that DO NOTHING BUT TEST. These must be totally independent of the motor trade, something more akin to HM Customs, the Tax office etc so no private for profit operators.That would remove any dubious garages failing vehicles to drum up work and the staff and all staff could be trained to a particular standard.
Many district /Unitary councils will do MOTs and they are , of course , independent.
This will also help LAs with their finances.
Beware! That used to be true of the London Borough of Redbridge until a few years ago when they also became a Ford Service Station! I’m sure there must be others.
Good idea remove those that may be corruptable from the equation.
everyone and everything is ‘corruptible’ in a society where onerous laws make no sense
This happens in Japan and your insurance and road Tax is paid at the same time hence everyone has road tax and insurance great system
Perfect Motoring, and hopefully everyone abides by the rules!
In Germany they have government test stations they have no road tax as this is included in the insurance which are all good ideas
Sorry but that’s wrong, I pay tax every January for my car, its based on my emissions and vehicle type, its not included in the insurance,
Also google gtu tüv, it’s probably the biggest german mot provider and it’s nothing to do with the government, it’s a private company
you pay road tax, or road fund licence? which is supposed to be for upkeep of roads, which are now very defective, so obviously that money is going elsewhere? where does the MOT fee go to I wonder [obviously the garage gets a small propotion]?
It’s VED …vehicle excise duty goes into general tax , no longer dedicated road fund
And then makes our cars defective from potholes and effectively have our cars confiscated until it fixed
No such thing as road tax.
This seems like common sense to me but our governments don’t have common sense just useless qualifications on a bit of paper.
Start with the Government
There were so many mot stations in the USA that thay closed them down and the police can stop any car if it’s not up TO standards. I do think that for exsamble if a number plate light not working Does NOT MAKE A CAR UNSAFE TO DRIVE. .WHAT NEXT IF YOU HAVE A RADIO DOES IT HAVE TO WORK OR RECIVE A CERTAIN CHANNEL. We have Mot stations ripping drivers of by saying things Need doing.that Don’t.and large companies at that.
Its illegal to drive a vehicle with defective lights, read the Highway Code.
highway code is NOT law though. the highway code is ‘best practice’
as for defective lights, some of the worst offenders around here recently have been MARKED police vehicles!
….Depends if it says a driver “Should” or a driver “Must” do something, its based on good practice AND legislation…
But, the Highway Code is advisory not the Law.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability.
The “MUST NOTS” in the high way code are LAW and highlighted in red
No vehicle inspections on Vancouver Island BC until you sell your car.
Most garages would go out of business. They rely on MOTs for trade.
I’m in Spain where all MOT tests are carried out by government stations that do not do repairs. Please don’t go blaming the EU for everything, sometimes it’s daft UK gov., rules that brexiteer lemmings think they want to escape.
I voted Brexit; but think the idea of a government run MOT station is the solution so don’t go blaming brexiteer lemmings for not wanting this
As I’ve just said above, not all those who voted to leave are lemmings, but sadly there are an awful lot who have jumped on the bandwagon of blaming the EU for all the ills of this world and who can see no good in the EU at all.
I am pleased that you do not appear to be one of them.
Why is it sad, obviously you weren’t a Brexiteer, this is a discussion about new MOT rules, not a platform for non brexiteers to get on their soap box to express their political opinions, that’s why you have thumbs down as well Dry your eyes and get over it !
Ah! the will of the people person, all 35% of those who voted. Unions need a higher % than that to move their lunch breaks forward.
This is not the place to air your political agenda unless it’s relevant to the topic and your sour grapes about losing the UK from the EU because of Brexit is totally off topic. In fact it’s a little childish and pathetic.
I think most MOT stations here are practically just drive through, couldn’t believe some vehicles passed. It’s what makes me wary of buying a car here, that and the way the maniacs drive them.
If there were dedicated MOT test stations that did NOTHING BUT TEST then when a vehicle failed and wasn’t allowed to be driven, it would have to be towed/ taken by brake down truck to a garage to have the necessary work done.
That’s fine. It would eliminate garages that usually carry out extra work unnecessarily just to get extra work
No it’s not fine. It means that the punter would have to pay to have the car transported from the test centre to the garage – would you be prepared to pay that? I bet it wouldn’t be classed as “breakdown cover” on RAC or AA.
I’m sure the system would remain as it is now. If you have an appointment for an MOT or repair then you are allowed to drive to and from the MOT station or garage/repair centre. You would be fined if you were off route, traveling at a time when you don’t have an appointment or if you stopped to buy a drink. I’ve done this several times, all information can be found on various government websites. Of course, if it was a dangerous fault you would have to get it picked up on a tow truck or trailer but that is pretty obvious.
Many people are unaware of this, although it’s open to abuse – I once sold a car with no MOT to someone who immediately got on the ‘phone to a garage local to him to book a test, which he would cancel once home. I don’t imagine the police would be fooled if stopped on the 30 mile drive home. Also, it is already illegal to drive a car that fails an MOT even if it has a current certificate. If a fault is found then by definition the vehicle is unroadworthy and you can’t even deny knowing that.
All this information is available on the Gov website, along with the testers manual, which is very useful for those of us who maintain our own cars to ensure a first time pass.
Your car could be driven with a limed amount of miles ie to home via garage and return garage for work etc.i should think 40 miles would be sufficient. Assuming the testers are happy that the vehicle is “safe” for a limited amount of use.
The problem with that is because of the high cost /investment of setting up such a testing only operation is extremely high and they would have to do a very large quantity of tests to break even . Because of this the cost passed on to the motorists would be more than that charged now .
That will be a long time coming, with the big players digging their heels in. QF, HF and the like seem to make most of their profits from MOT failures.
That would put thousands of garages out of business,ex garage owner I take it you are not in the trade
With you all the way and I used to test but did it perfect or people could get hurt
Just as they do in the Netherlands then.
That is exactly hot it works in Northern Ireland, you go to a government MOT centre for all motorbikes and cars for MOT, light to large commercial vehicles for goods Vehicle Test and minibus to coaches for PSV. Have a number plate light bulb out = FAIL and no free retests. It’s not mechanics, but civil servants who work in them and they are trained on what they need to know to perform the test. Very harsh underpaid people at times. Booking in advance can be in as little as a week, but has at times been required to be done 8 months in advance (when upgrading test centres some years ago caused a massive backlog and required emergency legislation to allow people up to 6 months post expiry to drive as long as test booked).
Some local councils can undertake MOT’s. They have no vested interest in passing or failing a car. Its added revenue for teh Borough Councils and a “true” MOT.
For many years I have only used a dedicated MoT test station in my locality. It does not seem to be short of business (it’s a commercial concern and has operated for many years) and they seem to be very reasonable in their judgments. True, they charge more than the likes of KwikFit, but that alone tells you that such firms aim to recoup any test fee discount via relatively liberal test failures. Look hard enough and you should be able to find a dedicated test centre.
Totally agree, I always take our car to an MOT test station only..That gives you a fair test with no profit on items that need to be fixed..As for new rules it’s the Government again trying to get motorists to buy new vehicles boost the economy because now it’s the second hand market that’s doing any selling as announced on the news today.
I totally agree, but if the car must not be driven if it fails, how do you get your car from the test station to the repair garage? The rules must continue to allow for this, otherwise we would have to pay for a lorry to transport it!
So You are happy for a dangerous car to be driven on the road. I guess that the new levels of failure would take this into account. OK in daylight to drive without a side light, but not a wheel about to fall off.
The current rules do state that a car can be driven to a place of repair without a valid MOT certificate.
It can also be driven to a test centre without a valid MOT certificate for the purpose of being tested.
If it failed the test in a “dangerous” manner (i.e. wheel about to fall off) then it wouldn’t be allowed to leave the test centre in the first place unless it was on back of a recovery vehicle.
As several people have said – an MoT failure does not mean that the vehicle is unsafe to drive. e.g ‘A diesel car can face an automatic fail if there is any smoke emitted from the exhaust in some cases.’
Also it is high time the government took into account the ability to afford to pay for these higher costing repairs and mot. All these extra costs and potential £2500 fines will simply make more and more low paid workers drive without any MOT and already in the UK every morning, noon and night the police are detecting more and more drivers who cannot afford the huge rise in car insurance, now this government are thinking up more ways to put more money into the UK treasury. What angers me is the terrible state of all the UK’s roads full of pot holes and I feel all these extra mot tests is just a big scam by the government to raise money. Now they want to persecute only diesel drivers. What about petrol cars that also polute. Many petrol cars have higher exhaust emissions than the newer diesel models. I suggest the government employ fully qualified mechanics that are trained to carry out the new more stringent mot tests and they are employed to be mystery customers that can go and book an mot and secretly check the mot testing stations are not picking up extra bogus faults with your car to drum up extra profits. If they catch any crooked garage owners doing this then the owners should be fined heavily to act as a deterrent. Now if the garage always perforns the MOT honestly then I would hope the garage would be rewarded with more repeat business for future repairs and the servicing of your car.
Fully agree RONM
Yes absolutely like the Controle Technique in Europe.
In northern Ireland we still have proper dedicated mot test centres . Only fair way to test vehicles.
Great put 1000’s of small garages out of business.
why? Garages will still get the repair work, and if they were doing MOT’s at cost, then they wont have lost any profit!
This will never happen, governments do not want to run another department when private enterprise does the job adequately.
I totally agree in taking MOT Stations away from your everyday garages, n having dedicated MOT Stations who knows the rights and wrong’s within the MOT Law. As you can take any vehicle to any MOT place and it fails on whatever, but you can equally take the same vehicle to another MOT place and it would Pass, without the work being done.
So what would be the correct procedure within the new
Problem now with new rules, how are you going to get your car fixed as it is illegal to drive it from the testing station. Stupid rules made by stupid people
The point in the article is that if a car fails test, it cannot be driven on the public roads.
So if it fails at a Council test station how do you get it to a repair garage please?
Is this the beginning of the end of private car ownership in the UK?
Considering the fact that about 5% of crashes are due to vehicle defects and that this didn’t change when the MOT test was introduced ie MOT tests have no effect on road safety it is dfificult to see why the fuss about having a test cert.
I an NOT saying that defects don’t matter just the procedure does not affect outcomes.
It is also interesting to note that driver errors cause 90% of crashes but we test the driver once a lifetime.
Er IIRC vehicle defect accidents in the 1950’s were about 13% pre MOT and fell to ~3% fairly quickly.
An MOT certificate only means that the vehicle passed the MOT test on the day it was issued
Quite Right. A few years ago I had an MOT failure from worn front brake pads. The garage replaced them and the vehicle then passed. 2 days later my brakes failed and I crashed, on investigation it was found the pads had been fitted back to front i.e. metal to metal (ps didn’t think it possible) Cost the garage a small fortune in fines and compensation. Just shows mistakes can and do happen. Don’t believe your car is safe just because it has a valid MOT it means nothing.
How come it took 2 days for the brakes to fail. Pads fitted backwards would have instantly failed to work and the noise enough to wake the dead!
This is a good point from Keith – the brakes would have behaved terribly when retesting and on the road. It makes no sense
On the contrary. metal to metal would have caused “snatch” and possible wheel lock, ie too efficient.
Are these changes we read about a couple of months ago? I remember that the EU was reviewing vehicle testing
Just another way to penalise motorists & criminalise diesel drivers. Oh and make yet more money out of us .
And of course the cost of the M.O.T will go up to cover the cost of the extra work involved.
It has always been the case that testers can use their judgement, testing should only be carried out by government testing stations. Last year I was assured by one tester that my brake discs needed changing as there was a slight amount of rust on the edge of the discs. Of course there is it is where the pads don’t touch the disc. I applied a micrometer to the discs and they were well within limits
I get fed up of people not bothering with the MOT or insurance, The paper disk should come back, and diesel drivers shouldn’t be penalized
His idea operates across Europe and is a good idea; and I voted Brexit!
When your car’s tax runs out, they send a hit squad (couple of blokes in a van), they don’t shoot you, they just stick a big yellow sign on your window to shame you in front of the neighbors. Then fine you. If you don’t pay up the come back with a wheel clamp.
In my opinion, they ended the tax disc so we motorists wouldn’t have that visual reminder of when our tax expires; and so fine us. I keep a record of tax, mot and insurance in my sun visor.
I’d like to see a new disc come in to use, with two or three different colours for tax, mot, insurance.
“Reverse, front fog, and daytime running lights have all now been included as part of the MOT test.” Really? From https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/urban-myths-of-the-mot-test/:
“The check of rear fog lamps only applies to the one mandatory rear fog lamp that must be fitted to the centre or offside of the vehicle. Therefore, a nearside rear fog lamp is not testable and can’t be failed…”
My understanding is that front fog lights are also optional so not testable. However, there may be some circumstances where a light may be deemed dangerous, e.g. broken glass,and result in an advisory.
The MOT test was first introduced in 1960 and was originally a basic test including brakes, lights and steering check which was to be carried out after the vehicle was ten years old and every year thereafter. Over time introduced checks of windscreen wipers and washers, direction indicators, brake lights, horns, exhaust system and condition of the body structure and chassis, before we know it the nut behind the wheel will need to be checked as an integrated part of the MOT test failure of will led to the nut being crushed along with the vehicle
I had a similar experience with a Peugeot 206 it failed its MOT because the nearside fog light didn’t work. The light cluster was showing a fog light and a reversing light an exact duplicate of the offside cluster. However on investigation the back place was blanked of for the fog light and no wiring loom existed. The MOT was granted
I think things like front fog lights will join the ranks of ‘if its fitted, its a testable item’
how no reversing lights working makes a car dangerous on the road baffles me. they were more of a convenience thing and very useful, but NOT a safety issue.
I was in a queue at some traffic lights many years ago. The light truck in front of me suddenly showed it’s reversing lights. I beeped my pathetic (Austin Maestro) horn at him but he then started moving back. I had nowhere to go and the moron crunched the front of my car. At least with the reversing lights I had some warning time to try and attract his attention. PS, he noticed he was in the wrong lane at the lights and clearly didn’t understand mirrors/common sense.
It’s back to taking money of the motorist yet again whilst I agree that unsafe non insured cars should be removed from the road responsible motorists as usual being penalised.
The MOT is becoming a total farce. Not even the testers, let alone the public, know what the rules are supposed to be. It leaves the field wide open for anyone unscrupulous to take advantage of. It’s a minefield of discrepancy and uncertainty, and from what I can see, the only beneficiaries will be less than honest garages (taking advantage of the motorist), and the government (taking advantage of the fines). I think it’s about time the whole system was dropped. After all, what justification can there possibly be for cars over 40 years old becoming exempt; and yet, that is suggested.
cars over 40 years old will only be driven for a handful of miles a year as a rule. but I agree the MOT is becoming a farce. it was about roadworthiness originally. now you can fail for all kinds of silly things which do NOT affect roadworthiness at ALL. id rather drive in a car which has high emissions readings than a car with very poor brakes, for example. yes emissions need to be checked, but its NOT really a reason to call a car unroadworthy or dangerous. emissions wont cause you to run a pedestrian down. faulty brakes or tyres however stand a very high chance of it happening
The non MOT older cars don’t need an MOT but the driver can still be prosecuted if the vehicle is unfit to drive. Insurance companies might get involved too? I’m sure most classic car owners would like the reassurance of an MOT anyway, they can still get them tested.
I am giving up driving, as it is way to expensive to run a car nowadays, and I have a super little Fiat 500 from 2009,. and only 14000 and a bit miles on the clock, and even with so little use I can’t afford it, as I am a disabled pensioner, my money has been reduced by PIP and even though my car is my only way to go from A to B to C I will have to stop. I am buying a disabled scooter or buggy – a hell of a lot slower but I really need it for the odd hospital trip or shopping, so what’s the point now the MOT is becoming more stringent!
News Flash! The government are now introducing stringer tests on Mobility scooters
Has trading standards been consulted, who will protect motorist from being ripped off by garages using the new rules as an excuse to make more money?
It seems like “THEY” have got to make cars safer for the thieves, uninsured , banned ,drunk and mobile phone drivers which can’t be stopped despite all this technology in cars
If I get a fail how can I get my car home to repair it.
The law already allows you to drive a car to and from an MOT without a valid certificate in place, as long as it is a reasonably close test centre and you are pre-booked if you are on the way there.
And to & from a place of repair also.
From my understanding you don’t you get a massive fine and there is potential for government to say if it’s a facetious fault car could be crushed as dangerous much the same as with tax
What have I got to worry about? If I look after my car, ensure worn out parts are replaced, and keep it roadworthy and environmentally ‘friendly’ then the new test will not bring any problems. I agree with concerns about subjective decisions but if I use reputable garages and as just stated, look after my vehicle, then the likelihood of having a problem is very low.
And what about the things you carnt see not everyone has mechanical knowledge
What rubbish reporting this is…. it has been and will continue to be an offence to drive any vehicle on the road that is not fit… MOT’d or not. the only changes are those that make it clear any tampering with the exhaust systems on Diesels puss oil leaks now will be a part of the MOT. So as far as i can see there are no changes and no reason to highlight a fine system that already existed.
Hi Keith, if you look at the government breakdown of the changes made to the MOT inspection you can see that there are numerous changes, not just the DPF change. Have a look: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-changes-from-may-2018-guidance-for-mot-testers/mot-inspection-manual-changes
Having been a garage owner I know that the MOT test is very subjective depending on the tester and until the government gives testers a better idea of how to use discretion when testing vehicles of different ages, then the system will always produce adverse comment from both the trade and the motorist. We stopped doing MOT’s for this reason as a way of showing our customers that we were not biased towards “finding” work from MOT’s.#
If you think these latest rule changes are complicated, then have a look at what the government is introducing for Classic cars, where even a simple engine change could make your car illegal to use on the road. Again it is a situation where politicians are meddling in things they do not understand
i had an advisory for 3 consecutive M,O,Ts the next year i mentioned to the testor and manager of the station after they had passed my car with NO faults,they assured me if the advisory faults were there they would have failed my car,when i told them were the tests were carried out the reply was ONLY TRING TO MAKE MONEY FROM MOTORISTS
These new rules are a farce as many have stated a revenue raiser. If we have to drive on substandard roads that physically are causing damage to a vehicles tyres, wheels, suspension, exhausts, emission sensors etc the list is endless and the cost of repairs huge, then these new rules are a waste of time. We all know that you can purchase a new car(Diesel) say today and the government can bring out NEW STRINGENT MEASURES for emissions of said Diesel within about a week after your nice new shiny Diesel purchase, it can then fall foul of the NEW EMISSIONS TESTS come your first MOT in three years time but your car could still be omitting the very same emissions as the day you bought it. We also know that you can ensure your car is MOT every year on time every time, but there is that one time you have your MOT drive out of the MOT station and your suspension breaks 100yds from the building that just gave you a clean bill of health. No one knows that metal fatigue is there by just a visual inspection alone, with the poor condition of today’s highways these type of faults are not uncommon and they are not a case of shoddy workmanship by the MOT inspector. We also know that these NEW differing standards of faults are very much open to interpretation by different inspectors at even the same MOT station let alone a different MOT inspector at a different MOT station 2 miles away. This brings peoples (MOT INSPECTORS) judgments in Question so opens them up to possible prosecution by insurance companies for passing an unsafe vehicle or the failing of a safe vehicle that shortly after an MOT PASS has a lone vehicle accident causing death and or thousands of pounds worth of damage to a Home for argument’s sake but if the direct cause was found to be a failure of the MOT INSPECTION?. There are hundreds of scenarios if not thousands but this is the wrong steps to be taking, (in my opinion) opening the system up to abuse and fraud and just innocent negligence by millions of motorists who are not aware of the rule changes, therefore creating a revenue stream of unknown proportion if it somehow is even enforceable. I thank you for your indulgence in listening to my rant!
totally agree. ive seen cars pass an MOT, be driven outside after passing, then whilst the car is sat parked outside the MOT station ‘BANG’ and a suspension spring has snapped!
The MOT states that the car is in a roadworthy condition at the time of test. Once you drive out of the testing station it is just a piece of paper it is not a guarantee of a roadworthy car for a whole year.
I knew somebody that had car (car 1)= should have failed the MOT but the garage took a part from another car (car 2) to get the MOT and then removed it and put back on car 2. So although the first car now had a MOT it was not roadworthy. Proves the point that it literally is the MOT at the exact time of the test.
Having the right bit of paper now rules everything without you are nothing
It is not even a piece of paper now. You haven’t received a piece of paper for several years apart from the emission test results.
I once took my car to H******* for an MOT on a half price voucher and it failed. I took it to my usual place A**** and they passed it. They said the other garage had pulled a rubber cover off a ball joint. I went back to H******* to remonstrate. They told me to f*** o**. Checking their web site I found that it was ‘normal’ practice for them to introduce faults to fail cars so they could pick up easy work. The appeals procedure is expensive and would not result in them being prosecuted for fraud. Dont go to H******* for an MOT.
we had the same problem with H**fords . Told the headlight was too high and failed, The wheel just needed to be turned as adjust to weight in the car. Never go to H again so overall it has lost out on any type of work
I’ve actually had 3 half price MOT’s from my local Halfords for the last 3 years running and it’s passed every time, they also fitted a stop/tails bulb and didn’t charge for the bulb either. So I guess it’s down to the individual garage how honest they are.
Well the MOT guidelines say that the cars wheels need to be in a staright ahead position to test the headlamp aim so it’s either a fail or a PRS if it’s too high
It’s difficult to find an mot station (and a garage for that matter) these days that one can really trust.
I do remember many years ago that my car failed it’s MOT due to a torn rubber gaitor. When I got the car back home I found that the rubber had been pierced by a screwdriver or similar object. I went back and pointed out that I would be reporting him to the local authorities and although I didn’t, he was not in business for much longer, probably due to poor reviews.
The only time my car has ever been damaged (bumps/scrapes) was in garages! No good complaining as they will always deny.
Went to H****** for an MOT many years ago and they tried to fail a brand new master brake cylinder., On being told it was brand new they backed down & decided the problem was the rear brake drum needed adjusting,, presumably they didn’t even look under the bonnet at the cylinder or they’d have seen it was bright & shiny on an old car.. A year before I’d taken it to K****** who didn’t realise I was watching while they bunny hopped it round their hanger -like garage with the hand brake on till the brake drums were red hot & then said they were binding & would need all replaced. Found a little local garage after that who are very fair, they do make the occasional mistake but not deliberately
You still should’ve reported them for the test they carried out
More EU C**P, everyone ought to view the TV documentary programme 10 BILLION by Professor Steven Emmens, this guy is spot on regarding environmental change and the solution.
Far removed from the idiots in EU and our own Politicians who don’t have a clue or the Will to tackle real issues.
@ billy brexitboy,
It’s new UK gov rules not EU rules. Also in EU they have MOT stations that are not repair garages. Much more sensible and real protections for the motorist in EU than silly UK.
Well our leaders could not lead leemings over a cliff. They demonise diesols more and more but modern ones throw out less than petrol ones. They make the MOT harder but then may exempt one 40 years old well I have one thats just had its 40th the brakes work sometimes brake pipe rusty and other defects but it will not matter as it may become exempt!!!! Bloody hipocrites all.
Modern diesels are not less polluting than modern petrol engines. Diesels were once thought to be better because they produce less CO2. But they missed the fact that DIesels produce far more toxic emissions such as NOx and HC. Those types of emissions kill people. Thats why there is pressure to move away from Diesels
“Those types of emissions kill people. ”
Absolutely no evidence for that and you will never see it on a death certificate: http://euanmearns.com/mortality-from-diesel-car-pollution-in-the-uk/
All these years of using diesel and they only just found they pollute?
This is far more to do with making money than anything else. Cheap diesel fuel for business and expensive petrol for the people, who believe the politicians. But go on, lap it up with an over sized spoon, if the BBC and the news papers say so, then it’s so; right?
A few years ago the oil industry changed the makeup of diesel fuel, adding something like 20% bio diesel (and god knows what else) to all diesel at the pumps. This may have increased recently, I don’t know. The point I’m trying to make is, kick the bio out of diesel fuel and I’m sure you’ll get a different, much better result. If a different result is what your looking for.
Don’t have a problem with increasing the fines – if your car has no MOT then it has no business being on the road because it is not certified as being safe to be there.
Also while the old MOT might now become invalid if the new one is failed early, this change is only a technicality as even under the old rules, once you fail an MOT the car is unroadworthy, which is an offence in itself. Again, if you get caught driving an unroadworthy car, then you deserve all you get.
Not necessarily so. As an example, If 1 out of 2 number plate lights does not work it will fail, it doesn’t make the car unroadworthy.
It makes you a citizen that doesn’t integrate with ANPR however so could be dificult to trace.
If these tests are genuinely to improve health and safety on the road then I would be ok with that. I do however wonder how that can be the case if they are considering making cars 40 years old plus M.O.T exempt, making me wonder what the agenda is. Maybe trying to push another tax on mototorists through fines. My other issue is how will this impact on the cost of getting an M.O.T?
Cheaper to have plane by the looks of it. I think someone in the house of lords has a 40 year old Tank he wants to drive down the road. If the objective is to have a cleaner environment then why is a 40 year old car exempt when it will obviously cause more pollution! Whats next MOT for breading air.
Its exempt because it would have literally no chance of passing the MOT. Its too distasteful for them to ban cars that are considered classics.
“no chance of passing”???? I can assure you that all mine pass easily. There are obviously different regulations for older cars. Also they tend to be driven more carefully and far fewer miles per year.
i’m just glad I’m emigrating to aplace where they not only donl;t have mot’s.Theres not road tax, and no road insurance. Yout ake out insurance to cover you for health driving,etc at a fraction of the cost it costs here.
This is not a good country to live in now.
Where’s that then Noel? Sounds like a dangerous place to be on the road.
This is just like the readers letters section of the Daily Mail – what a bunch of moaners!
Takes a Daily Mail reader to know one
We are regularly advised by our local VW garage that our car will fail on a number of items.
When we take it to an independent test centre however it passes.- Funny that!
Yet again law abiding folks will get trashed and those who don’t care and never have will continue to ignore all rules never mind new ones.
Coincidentally just been to my local garage for an MOT… and found out that alongside the changes noted in the article, are several other little traps heading for the unwary… such as having aftermarket HID and DRL kits (instant fail), ECU remaps that include DPF and EGR valve deletes (instant fail), and much more. Whilst many of these checks are ultimately a good idea, the lack of awareness or advance notice of their introduction is quite startling – but then I guess HMGov are preoccupied with Brexit at all costs to save the party.
I also find it odd that a heavy polluting clapped out pre-1978 vehicle will effectively require nothing more than the owners opinion of roadworthiness. If the car looks okay, you do not have an accident and or invite Police attention, you’ll be fine. Bonkers.
Pre 1978 cars are now classed as “historic”. These vehicles are generally not used on a daily basis & are NOT clapped out. Most owners look after them properly & take more pride in them than most people who drive modern vehicles. I asked an MOT station some years ago when I was having an MOT done on one of my early 1960’s Rovers, to put a probe into the exhaust to test the emissions, even though it was exempt & he couldn’t believe how clean it was. At the time, he said it would have passed the test of a modern car. You’ll find that there are more 10 year old cars out there that are as you put it, clapped out, than pre 1978 classics.
How can an MoT station check if an ECU has been remapped ? They do not have the equipment or knowledge to do that. Also, aftermarket DRL’s ARE legal if fitted and wired correctly, so stop your scarmongering.
New Car sales are on the decline – best way to increase sales fail more older cars
Maybe the answer is rather than buy new cars buy 40yr old car instead…No MoT then..schimples.
Not sure what is being said. My car requires an MOT this month. Does that mean it has to be retested in May ?
no. once tested your current MOT will last for a year, as normal. just the new test is coming in on may 20th
No, your car would be tested at the new standard next year. However, if police stopped because they suspected your car was unroadworthy by the new standards they could take your car off the road the same as they could before.
And MOT certificate is NOT proof of roadworthiness. It never has been.
My car requires an MOT THID MONTH. The article infers that it would have to be reinspectex in May
The new regulations come into force on May 20th. So if your car requires testing before that date, it will be tested as normal. There is no requirement to have it tested again when the new regulations come into being.