What is the law about MOT failures of exempt cars?

[Stag About Town]

Cars like the Stag are exempt from tax and MOT but I know many owners submit their cars for voluntary MOT. If a car fails, obviously the problem should be fixed, but by law is the owner obliged to take it for a re-test or can he just get it fixed and carry on using the car without a re-test? It will still meet the requirement to maintain it in a roadworthy condition as long as the problem has been fixed. I am thinking of a situation where the repairs may have taken longer than the re-test period.

[Tdafforn]

Pretty sure you are legally required to retest.

[Paul Kelley]

If your car is unroadworthy then that is illegal and would invalidate your insurance. An MOT failure would equal an unroadworthy vehicle, ergo it is illegal to have it on the road. If you chose to make it roadworthy, either yourself or by a professional, but not have it re-tested then it would be legal - provided the work was properly done of course. That should answer your question directly.

BUT - I would say that this should be all academic as logic says that if you chose to 'check' your roadworthiness via an MOT in the first place then common sense (I know, not at all common...) says get it fixed and re-tested and passed. That way, for the sake of a test fee, you're not endangering yourself or anyone else and your insurance is valid.

[richardthestag]

MOT failure = unroadworthy

Driver is always responsible to ensure that the car they are driving complies with legal standards

There are some knuckle dragging cretins out there who struggle with this and they are #1 reason why I do not agree with MOT exception

[RobinLegin]

Simple - if our old cars need fixing, we should fix them. The MOT is a check on road worthiness at the time of the MOT only. We often find fault between MOTs and we fix them.

[Paul Kelley]

Agreed Robin. The driver is responsible to ensure the car is roadworthy every time it is driven on public roads. The MOT has the advantage of checking things not readily detected by many owners, but it cannot substitute for regular checks on 'everyday' things like tyres and lights. If the driver suspects something may be wrong, e.g. wandering steering, then it's their responsibility to get it checked by a competent person.

[gbb483]

My local garage gives the car a once over, highlights where it may have a problem with an MOT, but no paperwork gets filled in.

[StagJonno]

My local garage gives the car a once over, highlights where it may have a problem with an MOT, but no paperwork gets filled in.

Why mess about - there's no VAT on the MoT, plus it provides documentation of a level of diligence which helps in the event of a claim, a "discussion" with Plod or a future buyer.

[DJT]

Interesting reading: https://classicsworld.co.uk/news/mot-exemption-rethink/

If 1 in 5 of classics presented for a voluntary test are failing, what is the percentage of unroadworthy vehicles among those not tested?

As far as I am aware, if an exempt vehicle is presented for an MOT and it fails, it comes under the rules of a normal vehicle and cannot return to the road until it passes another MOT. That would seem sensible to me.

[wilf]

Never stopped having "proper" MOTs on mine - a second pair of eyes will spot things I might have missed.

[flying farmer]

Never stopped having "proper" MOTs on mine - a second pair of eyes will spot things I might have missed.

Took my Stag engine Estate for an MOT last week as I was selling it, I get all my cars MOT'd annually anyway.

When on the shaker it picked up play on the NS track rod end that could not be felt when the car was jacked up, as it was then on the unworn bit of the joint. As it happens I had a spare track rod end in stock so was able to swap it that night.
When I first got my TR over 30 years ago there was a guy in the local group who had been involved in a fatal accident in his SAAB. He had a tyre under the legal limit and it invalidated his insurance even though the police said it did not contribute to the accident (dry road)
The insurance paid out to the victims widow and he spent the next 7 years drinking away his wages as he knew he would eventually be bankrupted as the insurance company wanted their money back. IIRC he eventually owed the insurance company £82,000 by the time it came to court. Many of my friends were buying 3 bedroom semis for around 22- 24 thousand at that time.

That is the reason I think MOT exemption is a really bad idea.
Neil

[Paul Kelley]

Totally agree with you Neil. An unroadworthy vehicle is in effect an uninsured vehicle. For the sake of a £55 fee it should be a no brainer for anyone with a classic car to get it done, regardless of the wrong-headed exemption - which is probably down to extra admin costs needed to process different standards such as emission levels for classics.

[Goldstar]

Totally agree with you Neil. An unroadworthy vehicle is in effect an uninsured vehicle. For the sake of a £55 fee it should be a no brainer for anyone with a classic car to get it done, regardless of the wrong-headed exemption - which is probably down to extra admin costs needed to process different standards such as emission levels for classics.

But an MOT doesn't excuse you from the requirement to have a roadworthy car. The tyre story proves exactly that point. He would have had an MOT but still his car was unroadworthy so he was at fault. I get the point that an MOT may pick up things you might not find but even with an MOT you are responsible for the roadworthy condition of your car. I'll get mine done when it comes round but won't use it as an excuse for overlooking the maintenance needed for it to be roadworthy

[Stag About Town]

My original question was not about whether or not to have an MOT test, there are some that will have it done and others that won't. That is their choice. My question was simply what does the law say or is it ambiguous on this point. Obviously any test, MOT or one of the "Roadworthiness" tests that some garages offer, are only a snapshot of the condition on that day. I remember one time very soon after an MOT when a furious motorist behind nearly rammed me because my stop light switch had failed. I do check all lights frequently knowing that earthing problems are not uncommon but I still got caught out.

[DJT]

Just watched Wheeler Dealers resurrecting a Van Den Plas 1500 (posh Allegro). Being nosey, I checked it’s status on DVLA. The car is currently taxed, but has no MOT. Mike and Elvis finished the car then drove it to the Cotswolds where it was sold. Looks like it was presented for an MOT last November where it failed on a host of safety related items, including brakes which Elvis reassembled. These defects may have been rectified, but why has it not been tested again? Is it being used illegally?