It is illegal to sell an unroadworthy car. So do any of these constitute unroadworthy:
1. Brakes with only 1mm of friction material.
2. Exhaust with loose baffles
3. Airbag light on
4. Windscreen cracked so as to be an MOT failure?
Indeed what would be the reaction of an MOT tester to the above.
|
1) If the linings were visible without dismantling, yes, this would be a fail.
2) If the exhaust is not leaking, and is doing a "reasonable" job of silencing, this would pass
3) SRS light isn't included in the MOT
4) As you've said, this would fail an MOT
|
|
I don't think it's illegal as such to sell an unroadworthy car, only illegal to try and pass it off as roadworthy. I'm waiting for someone to trailer away an old classic. It's not only unroadworthy, it won't even run and the brakes are non-existant. Someone with more expertise than me wants to restore it.
|
|
Ooh, we're intrigued. What is it?
|
Its a 2001 62k Civic (new shape) 1.4 manual with 1 months MOT left and a list of faults as loing as your arm, inc
1. Brakes with only 1mm of friction material.
2. Exhaust with loose baffles
3. Airbag light on
4. Windscreen cracked
|
Not at all. That Civic is in showroom condition with FHSH, garaged since new and maintained to within an inch of its life.
But back to the original question, "unroadworthy" and "MOT fail" are, surely, not necessarily the same question. In the event of a crash in a car with the airbag lights on, and injury to occupants, the insurance co might well successfully argue that they need not pay out. And I understand that the new MOT regs make ABS lights a fail from (?) December.
Cliff, yes, I understand that it is legal to sell an unroadworthy car without an MOT certificate.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 25 Aug 11 at 11:25
|
>>And I understand that the new MOT regs make ABS lights a fail from (?) December.
ABS lights have been a fail for a long time - mMOT stations usually have a chart telling them what to expect from each type of car - i.e., ignition on, light lights for 10 seconds then extinguishes if all OK, remains on if there's a fault.
SRS lights though - I don't know if they are going to be included in new test regs.
I think there's a general tightening of the rules coming soon. This morning, as my MB went through its test, I was chatting with the tester, and was told that my car wouldn't meet the new diesel smoke regs.
Last edited by: Number_Cruncher on Thu 25 Aug 11 at 13:02
|
Sorry, SRS - all these TLAs mised up under my fingers. A bit of a google suggested that SRS would be a fail following the new regs.
Did he give you an advisory on your smoke?
|
No, it passed comfortably now, so there was no advisory notice.
I will, however, have to go underneath and fit some new brake pipes, as it got an advisory on them. It's a pain of a job, because to get access, the rear subframe needs to come out. Beastly job!
|
>> Ooh, we're intrigued. What is it?
>>
It's only a 1964 mark 1 Triumph 2000. I ran it as a daily driver for 10 years, until finally it failed the MOT because basically the whole structural shell has rusted so thin that there is nothing left to weld to, and as the tester said, it is "weakened" rather than holed.
It is basically a wreck, but if someone seriously wants to buy it and put the time into repairing it, I am I think perfectly entitled to sell it even though unroadworthy.
Of course if I had offered it for sale one month before expiry date, knowing all the above but not telling the buyer, it would undoubtedly have been both unroadworthy and illegal.
|
|
Selling a car with or without an mot does not seem to make any difference.Take a look at an Mot test certificate near the bottom of the page,"Warning;A test certificate is not evidence that the vehicle is in satisfactory conditon".Also future mot tests will include operation of mil lights for airbag and engine and a test of the 7-pin trailer socket (if fitted).hth
|
What constitutes unroadworthy - Number_Cruncher
