Here's an example. Back in the 50s and 60s, it was not a requirement for cars to be fitted with seatbelts. However, where they were fitted, then they came under the MOT and had to be in good condition.

An excellent example. Front seatbelts were not required to be fitted until 1968 and another fifteen years passed before their use became compulsory. A 1966 car should still have failed if fitted with belts but showing corroded mountings.

The new MOT rules are a more strict than before. Any EML light that is activated is a FAIL. You need to ensure that all these warning lights go out and no tampering.

Yes get that, but my question is still how can something be failed if it is not a requirment in the first place.

It is like getting a fine for something that is not against the law

You're missing the point entirely.

Here's an example. Back in the 50s and 60s, it was not a requirement for cars to be fitted with seatbelts. However, where they were fitted, then they came under the MOT and had to be in good condition.

The same with your EML light. It may not have been a requirement to have one fitted, but where a manufacturer DID fit one, then it MUST function 'as intended' - i.e. it must come on with the ignition, and extinguish once the engine has started.

Yes but it now the law and only on post 65 cars. There is no requirment for a EML.

Edited by macski on 12/08/2018 at 21:26