Failed MOT
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Conor on 23 Dec 2008 13:19 In article <uE94l.28511$Zz2.13235(a)newsfe30.ams2>, Corporal Jones says... > That's good, nothing life threatening wrong with it or I would not drive > So fucked brakepipes and a balljoint that can fail, which would result in complete loss of steering and suspension on one side isn't life threatening? -- Conor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
From: Brimstone on 23 Dec 2008 13:31 Conor wrote: > In article <bsedna_zhLwJtMzUnZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone > says... >> Adrian wrote: >>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, >>> sounding much like they were saying: >>> >>>> As long as the Tester hasn't issued a notice prohibiting the >>>> vehicle from the road you can still drive it. >>> >>> ...is the wrong answer... >> >> So the correct answer is? >> > It is a defective vehicle. Regardless of the MOT status, it does not > meet the minimum legal requirements for roadworthiness. > Having now read the list of defects and the comments on the link below I'd agree. http://www.mottest.net/mot/mot-failure-question/
From: Corporal Jones on 23 Dec 2008 13:32 Conor wrote: > In article <uE94l.28511$Zz2.13235(a)newsfe30.ams2>, Corporal Jones > says... > >> That's good, nothing life threatening wrong with it or I would not drive >> > So fucked brakepipes and a balljoint that can fail, which would result > in complete loss of steering and suspension on one side isn't life > threatening? > So brake pipes that have the potential of failing in the future ditto the ball joint, not threatening to me, just glad to have the warning. -- Corporal Jones "I don't like it up me"
From: Ret. on 23 Dec 2008 13:35 Conor wrote: > In article <bsedna_zhLwJtMzUnZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone > says... >> Adrian wrote: >>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, >>> sounding much like they were saying: >>> >>>> As long as the Tester hasn't issued a notice prohibiting the >>>> vehicle from the road you can still drive it. >>> >>> ...is the wrong answer... >> >> So the correct answer is? >> > It is a defective vehicle. Regardless of the MOT status, it does not > meet the minimum legal requirements for roadworthiness. And would undoubtedly render the insurance invalid as all insurers require you to maintain your vehicle in a roadworthy condition. If the vehicle has failed an MOT it is clearly not roadworthy! Ret.
From: Corporal Jones on 23 Dec 2008 13:39
Brimstone wrote: > Conor wrote: >> In article <bsedna_zhLwJtMzUnZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone >> says... >>> Adrian wrote: >>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, >>>> sounding much like they were saying: >>>> >>>>> As long as the Tester hasn't issued a notice prohibiting the >>>>> vehicle from the road you can still drive it. >>>> ...is the wrong answer... >>> So the correct answer is? >>> >> It is a defective vehicle. Regardless of the MOT status, it does not >> meet the minimum legal requirements for roadworthiness. >> > Having now read the list of defects and the comments on the link below I'd > agree. > > http://www.mottest.net/mot/mot-failure-question/ > Having read the link I would agree with that as well. Oh well just have to refrain from driving over Xmas, good excuse to hit the bottle and get the wife to drive in her car if we want to go out till I can get it sorted -- Corporal Jones "I don't like it up me" |