What is checked on an MOT? My car is due 1 week bEfore my baby is due! I 
have a 7yr old Renault Megane Automatic.


Andrea (UK)

Andrea S wrote:


> What is checked on an MOT? My car is due 1 week bEfore my baby is due! I
> have a 7yr old Renault Megane Automatic.
> 
> 
> Andrea (UK)


This link might help you:

http://www.motuk.co.uk/mot_testing.htm

Chris

-- 
Remove prejudice to reply

"Andrea S"  wrote in message 
news:k_XTe.7639$k22.1706@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> What is checked on an MOT? My car is due 1 week bEfore my baby is due! I 
> have a 7yr old Renault Megane Automatic.
>


you can get an mot up to one month before the old mot expires and if it 
passes you will get an mot with up to thirteen months duration.

However, there is nothing to stop you having an mot done even earlier so 
that the mot occurs at a more convenient time.

The mot test covers many of the more important safety related items on a 
vehicle.  It is only relevant to the moment the vehicle is tested, i.e. 
something can fail soon after, which is why regular maintenance and 
servicing is particularly important.

If you want to check the vehicle yourself then there are various online 
lists, or look in a Haynes manual.

mrcheerful

"Chris Whelan"  wrote in message ...

> Andrea S wrote:
>
>> What is checked on an MOT? My car is due 1 week bEfore my baby is due! I
>> have a 7yr old Renault Megane Automatic.
>>
>>
>> Andrea (UK)
>
> This link might help you:
>
> http://www.motuk.co.uk/mot_testing.htm
>
> Chris
>

 Many thanks.

Andrea (UK)

"mrcheerful                                                                          
.."  wrote in news:BcYTe.104808$G8.17005
@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:


> you can get an mot up to one month before the old mot expires and if it 
> passes you will get an mot with up to thirteen months duration.
> 

This raises an interesting question - if it fails, are you then required to 
get it fixed before you can legally drive it again, even though your old 
MOT has not expired ?


-- 
Roger Shilcock

Roger Shilcock (nomail@uk.ibm.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : 


> This raises an interesting question - if it fails, are you then
> required to get it fixed before you can legally drive it again, even
> though your old MOT has not expired ?


No.

But if the tester flags it as dangerous, listen to him.

"Roger Shilcock"  wrote in message 
news:Xns96CBA9B8873DDshilcorukibmcom@32.97.166.131...

> "mrcheerful
> ."  wrote in news:BcYTe.104808$G8.17005
> @text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
>> you can get an mot up to one month before the old mot expires and if it
>> passes you will get an mot with up to thirteen months duration.
>>
> This raises an interesting question - if it fails, are you then required 
> to
> get it fixed before you can legally drive it again, even though your old
> MOT has not expired ?
>


You should do, and there is the possibility that you might be done for 
driving a vehicle with a prosecutable defect, but most police stops just ask 
for the mot etc. so as long as you can produce and don't mention the fail 
there is unlikely to be a problem, but really you should just get the stuff 
fixed and the retest done ASAP, after all there is no real excuse not to get 
the defects fixed straight away.  I am a bit disappointed when one of my 
vehicles fail for something I DIDN'T know about, as it means that I have 
missed it myself.

mrcheerful

"Andrea S"  wrote in message
news:QeYTe.10582$fb.3037@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> "Chris Whelan"  wrote in message ...
> > Andrea S wrote:
> >
> >> What is checked on an MOT? My car is due 1 week bEfore my baby is due!
I
> >> have a 7yr old Renault Megane Automatic.
> >>
> >>
> >> Andrea (UK)
> >
> > This link might help you:
> >
> > http://www.motuk.co.uk/mot_testing.htm
> >
> > Chris
> >
>  Many thanks.
>
> Andrea (UK)
>
>

I would take it in for the test a couple of weeks early. This gives you time
to go around getting estimates, tyres or whatever is needed without the
pressure of not having an MOT.

I would also get your partner to take it in for the test if poss, some
garages see a woman coming through the door, and they see a licence to print
money. It shouldn't happen, but it does.

Steve

The message <BcYTe.104808$G8.17005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
from "mrcheerful                                                        
                 ."  contains these words:


> you can get an mot up to one month before the old mot expires and if it 
> passes you will get an mot with up to thirteen months duration.


Provided you remember to take the old certificate with you and make sure
you wave it at them early enough.

-- 
Skipweasel.
In the beginning was the word.
And the word was Aardvark.

"Guy King"  wrote in message
news:3130303034323739432075A903@zetnet.co.uk...

> The message <BcYTe.104808$G8.17005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
> from "mrcheerful
>                  ."  contains these words:
>
> > you can get an mot up to one month before the old mot expires and if it
> > passes you will get an mot with up to thirteen months duration.
>
> Provided you remember to take the old certificate with you and make sure
> you wave it at them early enough.
>
> --

oh yes, theres nothing worse after handing the customer thier new
certificate for them to say " oh ive got this old certificate with some time
left ".........arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!

When the new computerised system comes in I presume the police will know
that the vehicle has just failed it's MOT from a computer check.



"mrcheerful ."  wrote in message
news:QeZTe.104870$G8.1656@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Roger Shilcock"  wrote in message
> news:Xns96CBA9B8873DDshilcorukibmcom@32.97.166.131...
> > "mrcheerful
> > ."  wrote in news:BcYTe.104808$G8.17005
> > @text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> >
> >> you can get an mot up to one month before the old mot expires and if it
> >> passes you will get an mot with up to thirteen months duration.
> >>
> > This raises an interesting question - if it fails, are you then required
> > to
> > get it fixed before you can legally drive it again, even though your old
> > MOT has not expired ?
> >
>
> You should do, and there is the possibility that you might be done for
> driving a vehicle with a prosecutable defect, but most police stops just
ask
> for the mot etc. so as long as you can produce and don't mention the fail
> there is unlikely to be a problem, but really you should just get the
stuff
> fixed and the retest done ASAP, after all there is no real excuse not to
get
> the defects fixed straight away.  I am a bit disappointed when one of my
> vehicles fail for something I DIDN'T know about, as it means that I have
> missed it myself.
>
> mrcheerful
>
>
>

reg wrote:

> "Guy King"  wrote in message
> news:3130303034323739432075A903@zetnet.co.uk...
>> The message <BcYTe.104808$G8.17005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
>> from "mrcheerful
>>                  ."  contains these words:
>>
>>> you can get an mot up to one month before the old mot expires and
>>> if it passes you will get an mot with up to thirteen months
>>> duration.
>>
>> Provided you remember to take the old certificate with you and make
>> sure you wave it at them early enough.
>>
>> --
> oh yes, theres nothing worse after handing the customer thier new
> certificate for them to say " oh ive got this old certificate with
> some time left ".........arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!


So...

1) ask them first (have a checklist?)
2) Say 'Sorry sir, it's in the system now, can't do it'.

"PC Paul"  wrote in message
news:3V_Te.10994$fb.3454@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> reg wrote:
> > "Guy King"  wrote in message
> > news:3130303034323739432075A903@zetnet.co.uk...
> >> The message <BcYTe.104808$G8.17005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
> >> from "mrcheerful
> >>                  ."  contains these words:
> >>
> >>> you can get an mot up to one month before the old mot expires and
> >>> if it passes you will get an mot with up to thirteen months
> >>> duration.
> >>
> >> Provided you remember to take the old certificate with you and make
> >> sure you wave it at them early enough.
> >>
> >> --
> > oh yes, theres nothing worse after handing the customer thier new
> > certificate for them to say " oh ive got this old certificate with
> > some time left ".........arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!
>
> So...
>
> 1) ask them first (have a checklist?)
> 2) Say 'Sorry sir, it's in the system now, can't do it'.


1. we are talking about customers here, if i had a  for every one i asked
for before testing and they say no and then decide yes i did have after the
test, i wouldnt be posting on here id be sunning myself somewhere.

2. they are entitlied to thier time left you cant refuse or make any excuses
to issue one or not do a replacement certificate.

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:14:02 +0100, "TurboJo"
 wrote:


>When the new computerised system comes in I presume the police will know
>that the vehicle has just failed it's MOT from a computer check.
>

However that doesn't change the fact that it still has a valid one, and
is therefore no different (technically) in status from a car which has
not been taken for an MOT. Legally I don't think you could be
prosecuted.
-- 
Regards,  Chris    (Please take out my car to reply by email)     
----1961 Austin A40 Farina----1966 Triumph Herald Estate---
---1967 Riley Elf---1965 Hillman Minx---1969 Morris Minor--
-1972 Mini Clubman estate--1957 Standard 8--1979 Ford Capri
    ********** Please don't email in HTML! **********

"Chris Bolus"  wrote in message
news:j281i15jinvqhslbnht9fv4v3ep803p54b@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:14:02 +0100, "TurboJo"
>  wrote:
>
> >When the new computerised system comes in I presume the police will know
> >that the vehicle has just failed it's MOT from a computer check.
> >
> However that doesn't change the fact that it still has a valid one, and
> is therefore no different (technically) in status from a car which has
> not been taken for an MOT. Legally I don't think you could be
> prosecuted.
> --


you can, as the test only confirms that the vehicle met the minimum
acceptable standards at the time it was tested, it does not confirm that the
vehicle will continue to remain roadworthy for the next year, it is your
responsibility to keep your vehicle in a roadworthy condition.

all on the back of the vt20.

reg (reg@somewhere.fsten.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : 


>> However that doesn't change the fact that it still has a valid one,
>> and is therefore no different (technically) in status from a car
>> which has not been taken for an MOT. Legally I don't think you could
>> be prosecuted.

> you can, as the test only confirms that the vehicle met the minimum
> acceptable standards at the time it was tested, it does not confirm
> that the vehicle will continue to remain roadworthy for the next year,
> it is your responsibility to keep your vehicle in a roadworthy
> condition. 


Sure, but you couldn't be prosecuted for not having an MOT.

You could be prosecuted for the car not being roadworthy, but that would be 
the same even if the MOT pass was the week before.

mrcheerful
            . wrote:


>  I am a bit disappointed when one of my
> vehicles fail for something I DIDN'T know about, as it means that I have
> missed it myself.


Of that they are swinging the lead.

Last year my car failed on a bent wheel rim and scored valve on that
wheel. (I put the spare on for the retest) IMHO the valves weren't
scored and the rim wasn't bent. However I had thought the Tracking Rod
End had a bit of play and this wasn't mentioned at all.

This year I put the 'bent' wheel with the "scored" valve back on the
day before the test and took it to the local DofT vehicle testing
station for it's mot.

Sure enough nothing wrong with the wheel or valve but it did need some
welding which *surely* should have been an advisory last year.

Moral. You can't trust non DofT MOT stations and you can't *always*
trust yourself. (The 'dodgy' TRE is fine and yet I missed the rust)

However between us we must be doing something right 'cos in 15 years
I've never paid over £600 for a car and I've never had a dangerous
incident due to a car fault or otherwise.

Chris Bolus wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:14:02 +0100, "TurboJo"
>  wrote:
>
> >When the new computerised system comes in I presume the police will know
> >that the vehicle has just failed it's MOT from a computer check.
> >
> However that doesn't change the fact that it still has a valid one, and
> is therefore no different (technically) in status from a car which has
> not been taken for an MOT. Legally I don't think you could be
> prosecuted.


My understanding is that if you knwo about a defect and continue to
drive the car then you can get done under construction adn use
offenses.  For example, if you get stopped because a lamp is out on
your car and you say "oh yes it's been like that for weeks" then you
can be prosecuted.  If you say "I check every week and last time I
looked they were ok" then you can't be prosecuted but the police can
ask for the defective items to be retested by an MoT licenced garage
and get you to submit the recheck certificate to your local or chosen
police station.

Adrian wrote:


> reg (reg@somewhere.fsten.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
> >> However that doesn't change the fact that it still has a valid one,
> >> and is therefore no different (technically) in status from a car
> >> which has not been taken for an MOT. Legally I don't think you could
> >> be prosecuted.
>
> > you can, as the test only confirms that the vehicle met the minimum
> > acceptable standards at the time it was tested, it does not confirm
> > that the vehicle will continue to remain roadworthy for the next year,
> > it is your responsibility to keep your vehicle in a roadworthy
> > condition.
>
> Sure, but you couldn't be prosecuted for not having an MOT.
>
> You could be prosecuted for the car not being roadworthy, but that would be
> the same even if the MOT pass was the week before.


A useful, well reasoned reply! Who are you, and what have you done with
the real Adrian!

(danny_deever2000@yahoo.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
 were saying : 


>> Sure, but you couldn't be prosecuted for not having an MOT.
>>
>> You could be prosecuted for the car not being roadworthy, but that
>> would be the same even if the MOT pass was the week before.

> A useful, well reasoned reply! Who are you, and what have you done
> with the real Adrian!


Sensible answers to sensible questions.

Adrian wrote:

> (danny_deever2000@yahoo.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they

> Sensible answers to sensible questions.


You obviously don't get asked many sensibe questions then!

wrote in message
news:1126256708.009070.75400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
mrcheerful
            . wrote:


>  I am a bit disappointed when one of my
> vehicles fail for something I DIDN'T know about, as it means that I have
> missed it myself.


Of that they are swinging the lead.

Last year my car failed on a bent wheel rim and scored valve on that
wheel. (I put the spare on for the retest) IMHO the valves weren't
scored and the rim wasn't bent. However I had thought the Tracking Rod
End had a bit of play and this wasn't mentioned at all.

This year I put the 'bent' wheel with the "scored" valve back on the
day before the test and took it to the local DofT vehicle testing
station for it's mot.

Sure enough nothing wrong with the wheel or valve but it did need some
welding which *surely* should have been an advisory last year.

Moral. You can't trust non DofT MOT stations and you can't *always*
trust yourself. (The 'dodgy' TRE is fine and yet I missed the rust)

There's a degree of subjectivity about testable items which can't be
definitively measured. If for instance a headlamp is out of alignment, or
the emissions are out, it's measurable. But if, as I had last week, an amber
bulb is getting pale so that it looks like it's getting white, how pale is
pale? I got an advise, and I changed the bulbs, but in this case one mans
fail is another mans advise.

Steve

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:14:02 +0100, "TurboJo"
 wrote:


>When the new computerised system comes in I presume the police will know
>that the vehicle has just failed it's MOT from a computer check.


It will also mean that roadside cameras will be able to spot if you
are using your car bewteen it failing and the retest!

No more driving down the road to pick up the spares needed-you'll have
to walk!

Rather interestingly, the system also keeps a check on how long each
MOT tester takes when testing vehicles. If a tester is consistently
quicker than average the guys at the ministry will pay them a visit...

sponix

s--p--o--n--i--x wrote:


> Rather interestingly, the system also keeps a check on how long each
> MOT tester takes when testing vehicles. 


It keeps a check on times between log-ins, not quite the same thing.

John

(danny_deever2000@yahoo.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they 
were saying :


>> Sensible answers to sensible questions.

> You obviously don't get asked many sensibe questions then!


Not by you, true.

"shazzbat"  wrote in message 
news:dfrmkg$5vj$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
>  wrote in message
> news:1126256708.009070.75400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> mrcheerful
>            . wrote:
>
>>  I am a bit disappointed when one of my
>> vehicles fail for something I DIDN'T know about, as it means that I have
>> missed it myself.
>
> Of that they are swinging the lead.
>
> Last year my car failed on a bent wheel rim and scored valve on that
> wheel. (I put the spare on for the retest) IMHO the valves weren't
> scored and the rim wasn't bent. However I had thought the Tracking Rod
> End had a bit of play and this wasn't mentioned at all.
>
> This year I put the 'bent' wheel with the "scored" valve back on the
> day before the test and took it to the local DofT vehicle testing
> station for it's mot.
>
> Sure enough nothing wrong with the wheel or valve but it did need some
> welding which *surely* should have been an advisory last year.
>
> Moral. You can't trust non DofT MOT stations and you can't *always*
> trust yourself. (The 'dodgy' TRE is fine and yet I missed the rust)
>
> There's a degree of subjectivity about testable items which can't be
> definitively measured. If for instance a headlamp is out of alignment, or
> the emissions are out, it's measurable. But if, as I had last week, an 
> amber
> bulb is getting pale so that it looks like it's getting white, how pale is
> pale? I got an advise, and I changed the bulbs, but in this case one mans
> fail is another mans advise.
>
> Steve
>


I didn't really mean the silly bits like you mention here, but something 
important like a tyre or a balljoint.  I have a garage I trust completely to 
do a fair MOT, in fact I often take vehicles home with a pass and change 
stuff that is borderline, especially tyres, as what can just scrape through 
looks dodgy enough to need changing to me, especially if the car is in 
regular use.

mrcheerful

> What is checked on an MOT? My car is due 1 week bEfore my baby is due! I
> have a 7yr old Renault Megane Automatic.


Get it done now. You don't have to wait for the old one to expire. The last
thing you need is to go into labour 3 weeks early and be worrying about it!

Christian.

>
> My understanding is that if you knwo about a defect and continue to
> drive the car then you can get done under construction adn use
> offenses.  For example, if you get stopped because a lamp is out on
> your car and you say "oh yes it's been like that for weeks" then you
> can be prosecuted.  If you say "I check every week and last time I
> looked they were ok" then you can't be prosecuted but the police can
> ask for the defective items to be retested by an MoT licenced garage
> and get you to submit the recheck certificate to your local or chosen
> police station.
>

Your understanding is completely wrong.
Your knowledge of a defect has no bearing on whether or not you can be
prosecuted for it.

> >When the new computerised system comes in I presume the police will know
> >that the vehicle has just failed it's MOT from a computer check.
>
> It will also mean that roadside cameras will be able to spot if you
> are using your car bewteen it failing and the retest!
>
> No more driving down the road to pick up the spares needed-you'll have
> to walk!
>

That depends whether or not the vehicle has a certificate still in force or
not. Just having failed an MOT does not necessarily make the vehicle illegal
to drive.

> I didn't really mean the silly bits like you mention here, but something
> important like a tyre or a balljoint.  I have a garage I trust completely
to
> do a fair MOT, in fact I often take vehicles home with a pass and change
> stuff that is borderline, especially tyres, as what can just scrape
through
> looks dodgy enough to need changing to me, especially if the car is in
> regular use.
>

You mean to say you never check your tyres until after the MOT tester has
told you they are 'borderline'?

"SimonJ"  wrote in message 
news:dfsm9a$cr1$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
>> I didn't really mean the silly bits like you mention here, but something
>> important like a tyre or a balljoint.  I have a garage I trust completely
> to
>> do a fair MOT, in fact I often take vehicles home with a pass and change
>> stuff that is borderline, especially tyres, as what can just scrape
> through
>> looks dodgy enough to need changing to me, especially if the car is in
>> regular use.
>>
> You mean to say you never check your tyres until after the MOT tester has
> told you they are 'borderline'?
>


No, you misunderstand, I take customers vehicles for MoT on a very regular 
basis, I then have a list of stuff (or not) to fix, plus I service the 
vehicle, while servicing I often find things which although they are good 
enough to pass, they are not good enough to leave in service for an extended 
time.

mrcheerful

In article ,  
says...


> Sure enough nothing wrong with the wheel or valve but it did need some
> welding which *surely* should have been an advisory last year.
> 

Why? If its solid, no advisory needed.


> Moral. You can't trust non DofT MOT stations and you can't *always*
> trust yourself. (The 'dodgy' TRE is fine and yet I missed the rust)
> 

And you can't trust DofT test stations either.


-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

In article ,  
says...


> My understanding is that if you knwo about a defect and continue to
> drive the car then you can get done under construction adn use
> offenses.  


WRONG. If the defect is there you can get done. You don't have to know 
it's there.


-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

In article <c8mUe.105688$G8.98491@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 
mrcheerful                                                                          
.. says...


> No, you misunderstand, I take customers vehicles for MoT on a very regular 
> basis, I then have a list of stuff (or not) to fix, plus I service the 
> vehicle, while servicing I often find things which although they are good 
> enough to pass, they are not good enough to leave in service for an extended 
> time.
> 

Like brake pads down to <3mm for example.


-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

> Your understanding is completely wrong.
> Your knowledge of a defect has no bearing on whether or not you can be
> prosecuted for it.


However, the chances of actual successful prosecution are low, if they can't
prove you did know about it.

My brother got prosecuted for a broken brake light switch (lights always
on). He wasn't given the standard MOT failure docket to get signed off, it
just went straight to court.

He was found guilty, given an absolute discharge and police had to pay
costs.

Christian.

> > Your understanding is completely wrong.
> > Your knowledge of a defect has no bearing on whether or not you can be
> > prosecuted for it.
>
> However, the chances of actual successful prosecution are low, if they
can't
> prove you did know about it.
>

They dont need to prove that you knew about it, they only need to prove that
the defect was there.


> My brother got prosecuted for a broken brake light switch (lights always
> on). He wasn't given the standard MOT failure docket to get signed off, it
> just went straight to court.
>
> He was found guilty, given an absolute discharge and police had to pay
> costs.
>

He was extremely lucky.

>> My brother got prosecuted for a broken brake light switch (lights always
>> on). He wasn't given the standard MOT failure docket to get signed off,
it
>> just went straight to court.
>>
>> He was found guilty, given an absolute discharge and police had to pay
>> costs.
>
> He was extremely lucky.


I doubt it. The court would consider that the correct procedure in the event
of a single mechanical fault not known to the driver would be to issue the
MOT failure docket and have it signed off. They don't want their time wasted
by the police going straight to court for no reason.

Christian.