Today I.....

depronman said:
Totally agree. The issue is that quite a lot of common failures fall under the major category eg a broken road spring


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes, i understand what you mean, that some items could still be perceived as relatively minor, particularly if you have been driving the car with that fault for maybe 6 months without a problem and all of a sudden you're told your current mot is void, you can't drive the car home and you have to pay to have it transported to a garage. That wouldn't be nice or something you would want to hear 😫

Major or dangerous should mean just that and i suppose that's where the grey area does come into it, whether something is actually dangerous or major or not but I suppose you would hope that's been pre-determined by 'experts' more qualified than us👍
 
The concept of MOT fail with dangerous defect has been around a long time, there used to be a MOT failure certificate printed in RED for such cases!

Andy
 
Andrew said:
The concept of MOT fail with dangerous defect has been around a long time, there used to be a MOT failure certificate printed in RED for such cases!

Andy
Click to expand...
I have certainly started an interesting discussion. For a vehicle to fail an MOT, it has by definition got a ‘major’defect (otherwise it is minor or advisory). I understand that the vehicle tester defines whether it is a ‘dangerous’ or not.
in my case the car has failed on excessive play in a steering joint (track rod end). The advise is that it is not dangerous and the current MOT is valid until expiry. The Fail certificate is however uploaded immediately to the DVLA, so ANPR would show the car as not having an MOT?
 
Sootywg said:
I have certainly started an interesting discussion. For a vehicle to fail an MOT, it has by definition got a ‘major’defect (otherwise it is minor or advisory). I understand that the vehicle tester defines whether it is a ‘dangerous’ or not.
in my case the car has failed on excessive play in a steering joint (track rod end). The advise is that it is not dangerous and the current MOT is valid until expiry. The Fail certificate is however uploaded immediately to the DVLA, so ANPR would show the car as not having an MOT?
Click to expand...

The MOT history shows the expiry date of each previous MOT certificate and as long as you're within the expiry of the most recent one before the failure (for a non-dangerous fault) then the number plate should pass the the database check. Certainly the car in your profile picture shows in the tax/MOT status check as being in MOT until August 22nd, even though I can see the failure sheet from today.

By the way, after fixing it, don't get the car re-tested until 30 days or less prior to August 22nd (so at least July 23rd). Otherwise if it passes, the new certificate will only be valid for 12months from the date of the test, and you will lose the extension of the MOT validity until August 22nd 2023. I had this with my camper van, I took it into the garage and said 'service it today, MOT it tomorrow because tomorrow is the earliest I can present it to get 12 months from the date of the current expiry.' They MOT'd it that day :( Luckily for me it failed, and by the time they presented it again and it passed, it was inside that 30 days so I got the extension.
 
Well today I got the verdict on Audrey's AC and had some frustrating news:

Firstly, the Nissens (pattern but OK make) dryer arrived last week so last night the garage collected the car and got stuck into pulling the front end off today to replace it. All done; gassed it up and there was a serious leak at one of the unions - further investigation revealed the sealing surface of one of the ports is not flat and in any case the port has been drilled off-square!

So old dryer back on (it was only being replaced as a precaution while the cracked condenser was being replaced), then the garage gassed up the system and watched the pressure as the system warmed up. Pressure kept going up and up and up - something's wrong.....

They realised that the AC fan wasn't engaging - give the relay / control unit a tap and it'd kick in for a few minutes before stopping again. The real reason for the cracked condenser has become clear! New control unit on order - still no air con but I have the car back now. The parting comment was on how well the car was screwed together due to the multitude of fixings; they did say no wonder the book time for the job was 4 1/2 hours due to the sheer amount of dismantling / reassembly work.
 
depronman said:
I have been specifically told by two different insurance companies that if you knowingly drive a motor vehicle with a dangerous defect that your insurance cover would be null and void
It makes a lot of sense if you think about it
Click to expand...

There's no grey area whatever.

3rd party insurance (the legal minimum) is governed by the 1988 Road Traffic Act, along with minor subsequent updating. It is a specific condition of selling motor insurance that 3rd party cover continues for the period of cover as indicated on the certificate of insurance, regardless of whether the driver has a valid licence, or whether or not the car has a current MOT, and that is not negotiable. Before that, the 1960 Road Traffic Act (which first introduced the MOT) said essentially the same, as did the earlier acts, going back to the pre-war Road Traffic Acts

Insurance companies can withdraw that cover only by informing you in writing that your cover has been terminated, and demanding the return of your certificate of insurance.

Any insurance company who tells you otherwise is dishonest, and in breach of their right to sell motor insurance policies in the UK. This makes a lot of sense, precisely because it leaves no doubt as to the insurance company's obligation to provide the cover.

Optional motor insurance is a different matter.
 
steve_c said:
There's no grey area whatever.

3rd party insurance (the legal minimum) is governed by the 1988 Road Traffic Act, along with minor subsequent updating. It is a specific condition of selling motor insurance that 3rd party cover continues for the period of cover as indicated on the certificate of insurance, regardless of whether the driver has a valid licence, or whether or not the car has a current MOT, and that is not negotiable. Before that, the 1960 Road Traffic Act (which first introduced the MOT) said essentially the same, as did the earlier acts, going back to the pre-war Road Traffic Acts

Insurance companies can withdraw that cover only by informing you in writing that your cover has been terminated, and demanding the return of your certificate of insurance.

Any insurance company who tells you otherwise is dishonest, and in breach of their right to sell motor insurance policies in the UK. This makes a lot of sense, precisely because it leaves no doubt as to the insurance company's obligation to provide the cover.

Optional motor insurance is a different matter.
Click to expand...

Yes I know and understand that however the insurance Co can withdraw the fully comp elements. Apologies if I was not clear on this point

Paul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CrispyEdd said:
Drove in to work with aircon for first time since owning the car (16 months) and wow is it cold and effective. To anyone thinking of getting theirs going I recommend it, its not cheap to repair but worth it.
Click to expand...
Hi Edd. I've always had my CC on Auto but set about 21C. Looking at the remarks about failure maybe I should not have it on Auto but I'm sure I read once that not having it on can cause problems (things get seize up?).
 
Took my life in my hands and let (after a thorough briefing with photos and close supervision!!!) a tyre centre put my car on a lift 🙈
74081E8F-0089-4732-900A-AD13EEA53048.jpeg

I cannot remember being more anxious but they did things exactly as instructed and I now have two new tyres on the back. 😊
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top