Cannot find anything to stand up Mail's assertion that fail is a fail and that you cannot present early and, dangerous items excluded, legitmately leave testing station with previous MoT valid.

I agree. DVLA seems to have quietly been pushing this line for a while, but I cannot find anything in law under which an MOT fail revokes a previous MOT certificate.

Obviously if the MOT finds a dangerous fault then the car should not be driven (but then it should not have been driven to the MOT either) - and there is plenty of C&U law to cover a relevant prosecution.

gov. uk had some very unhelpful text back in 2015. It was corrected in Feb 2016 but the myths live on.

https://www. motoringresearch. com/car-news/can-you-drive-your-car-after-an-mot-fail-if-the-old-test-hasnt-expired/

I'm very confused. You can't get your MOT done until your previous certificate runs out and I'm guessing that you can't get it done after it has run out. Does that mean you need to get it done exactly at the moment when it expires? Is there something I'm missing?

It's the Daily Mail, so it must be true?

Nothing's changed, if your car fails an early MOT for a dangerous fault then it's illegal to use it on the road. If it just fails, or gets advisories, then either get it fixed if it's a fail or deal with advisories as you choose.

What are the chances of getting caught on MOT technicalities, the honest motorist obeys the laws, but according to a well known insurance company advertising onTV, 1million drivers are on the road UNINSURED so I don't think these people are too worried about MOTs, Sorn ,Road Tax,Number plates or even bothering with a V5!

A policeman who lives near me said, quite openly, that 'they are too busy' (e.g. policing jokes on the interweb, etc) to go after someone who drives their car without a valid MOT (a neighbour 'forgot' to redo theirs for about 8 months and was happily driving it around my town, including past police camera vans and fixed ANPR cameras, no trouble.

I never see the point in politicians 'tightening up rules' (a 'crackdown') when the authorities (including the DVLA) don't enforce them even beforehand.

The law regards lack of MOT as an admin issue rather than danger. Lack of MOT carries a fine but no points.

You can get points for using the car in a dangerous condition. That seems sensible to me.

The problem is that someone then can keep driving their car without an MOT (assuming the DVLA and local Plod won't bother going after you for the fine, as seemed to be the case with my nearish neighbour) if:

Your car passed its last MOT and thus, officially has no 'dangerous' fail items, even if the next MOT was missed (deliberately or not) or;

The car failed its last MOT but had no 'dangerous' failure items, and so could be driven for a specified amount of time within the law, but not followed up after this expires.

In ANY of these two situations, especially if it went on for months or even years, a potentially dangerous fault could occur which could eaily put anyone travelling in the car or other road users at serious risk of harm.

In the case of my 'neighbour', the last MOT before the 'sabbatical' (June 2016) noted a nearly illegal tread depth on one tyre. What were the chances that in the intervening period between that MOT and, when he got round (or had finally been forced to) to putiing it in again (it hadn't been SORNed BTW) in February this year, that said tyre was dangerous?

As it turned out, he did replace the tyre before the recent MOT (no item about it) but it did fail on a dangerous item to do with the suspension, which could've been partially caused by the worn tyre (or the other way around), which could easily have caused a serious accident should either have failed catastrophically whilst on the move.

It doesn't say much for the system or its enforcement, never mind the car's owner (who is an Army officer, who should know better).

Too much of the MOT system relies on the honesty of everyone in my opinion. In my book, anyone without a damn good reason for not getting their car MOTed before it expires (you have a MONTH, after all) should have, their car impounded like in the US, and then within a certain period, then can pay (including all costs - impounding, storage, MOT and any work to get it through) to get it back, otherwise it goes (after inspection) to auction to recoup the costs or is scrapped, and the owner is fined the difference. Court case to follow if they don't pay.