https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/how-the-new-mot-defect-categories-will-work/

How the new MOT defect categories will work

Today (20 April 2018) marks 1 month to go until the MOT changes come in on 20 May 2018.

I know most of you will be well prepared for the changes, and understand how they will work. However, there's been some misinterpretation in the media about how the new defect categories will work - particularly what will be classed as a dangerous defect.

So, I thought it would be helpful to give a bit more background on the defect categories – explaining what is and isn’t changing.

The legal requirements

For a vehicle to be driven on Great Britain’s roads there are 2 main legal safety requirements for the vehicle. It must be roadworthy and for most vehicles of a certain age, it must have a valid MOT. Whilst they're connected, they're not the same thing, and they both have to be met independently.

So, even if a vehicle is roadworthy, it may not necessarily have an MOT (it isn’t automatic – it needs to go to a garage and get one!). And similarly, just because a vehicle has an MOT, it doesn’t automatically mean it’s roadworthy.  It may have a defect that has come about after the MOT.

I'd like to remind you that this won't be changing on 20 May 2018, vehicles will still need to meet these 2 requirements.

‘Major’ and ‘dangerous’ defects

Currently, a vehicle will either pass or fail its MOT. Testers can then mark defects they believe are dangerous, and make the vehicle owner aware.

From 20 May, the implementation of the new directive will pre-define what is considered as ‘dangerous’. Defects that are failure items but aren’t deemed as ‘dangerous’ will be called ‘major’ defects.

So, after 20 May, defects that are dangerous will be set out for you, and the new ‘major’ term introduced for all other failures.

What ‘dangerous’ defects will mean for motorists

Moving to pre-defined dangerous defects will bring consistency to what is recorded as dangerous. So, we’ve taken the opportunity to make the wording on the MOT failure documents clear in reminding motorists that driving a dangerous vehicle is illegal.

While the majority of your customers would never drive a dangerous vehicle until it’s made safe, we know not everyone will behave responsibly. And, while it isn’t your responsibility to try and physically stop them from driving the vehicle, it’s important you provide them with clear advice that they do have dangerous defects.

This all applies whether the vehicle has a current MOT or not. A dangerous vehicle should never be driven on the road.

An early MOT will still be sensible

Some people have interpreted the changes to mean that a vehicle shouldn’t be brought in for an MOT early. This isn’t true.

We’ll still encourage motorists to not leave their MOT until expiry, as leaving it late increases the risk of the vehicle being used without an MOT or being unroadworthy.

'Minor' defects and advisories

The other new category from 20 May is ‘minor’. This is where there’s a defect on the vehicle – but it isn’t serious enough for the vehicle to fail. Like the major and dangerous defects, they are also pre-defined for you.

And, like the current MOT test, we'll still have advisories. These are very similar to minor defects but rather than a component already being defective, they indicate a component will become defective soon.

Recording defects

We’ve also made changes to the online MOT testing service to try and make it simple for garages to record the new defect types after 20 May.

For most defect areas (for example tyre tread depth) the defect is considered as only one level of severity (major or dangerous). The tester will just pick that the defect is present, and the MOT testing service will automatically include the level (major or dangerous) in the result.

However, for some defect areas (for example, hydraulic brake fluid leaks) there might be defects at more than one level, based on the severity of the defect. Where that’s the case, the wording of the defect describes the difference between major or dangerous.

You should assess which set of words the defect on the vehicle best matches. Then, the MOT testing service will automatically include the level (major or dangerous) in the result.

Launching a training environment

As we mentioned in my previous blog post, we’re launching a training environment (or prototype area) into the MOT testing service with the post 20 May changes in place.  We'll let you know when it's available.

I’d encourage you to have a look at this when you’re logged into your profile before these changes come into effect.

Finally, if you do see any stories with incorrect information on the changes, please let us know in the comments below.

 

175 comments

  1. Comment by david b posted on

    All these new mot checks we are being told to carry out, for some forced to pay for new emissions equipment and STILL no mention of a price fee increase from DVSA

    Reply
  2. Comment by chris wanless posted on

    many motor cycles in standard form have rear indicators less than 24cm apart

    Reply
  3. Comment by Graham posted on

    No test class on new style certificates

    Reply
  4. Comment by mark posted on

    do we not fail shocker bushes for wear now, but can fail a spring missing how the hell would they drive it to a testing station with a spring missing

    Reply
  5. Comment by mark posted on

    are the dvsa getting the picture nobody wants these changes or assesments

    Reply
  6. Comment by Stephen posted on

    So NO Broken or Incomplete Coil Springs,, why?? Aren't these a road safety issue

    Reply
    • Replies to Stephen>

      Comment by Keith posted on

      shows fractured spring but would you get away with using that as it depends where you look up the meaning of fractured as we all know the means of a word in mot speak is not as it the real world at times.

      Reply
    • Replies to Stephen>

      Comment by dave posted on

      its just under springs , it is their but doesnt say coils

      Reply
  7. Comment by Nick posted on

    Somebody has been listening,the defect for the steering rack boot has now been added,still can't find reason for rejection for Mil not working as in manual.

    Reply
    • Replies to Nick>

      Comment by Bert posted on

      its under the emissions section

      Reply
    • Replies to Nick>

      Comment by dave posted on

      its in the emission section, so it fails if the light is on EVEN IF IT PASSES THE EMISSION TEST ,barmy

      Reply
    • Replies to Nick>

      Comment by castrolrob posted on

      go onto the mot forum for a correct answer to this query,essentially its unenforceable I.e.pass and advise for the light not working at all with the added bonus that before much longer you aint gonna be able to advise!before this gets moderated the reply concerned comes from your own standards team....

      Reply
    • Replies to Nick>

      Comment by Marcus W posted on

      You'll find the Mil RFR under emissions.

      Reply
    • Replies to Nick>

      Comment by david b posted on

      MIl lamp is in the emissions section nick- took me ages to find it also

      Reply
  8. Comment by Nigel posted on

    There is no provision for brake hoses deteriorated not excessively or slightly ,just damaged . I don't recall seeing may hoses damaged but do see a lot slightly perished which would be an advise or perished with cord showing which we mark down as a dangerous failure .

    Reply
  9. Comment by will posted on

    where in the new manual does it say that a tester can use an assistant during the test if they think it necessary even though the testing station uses optl method of testing. This is clearly stated in old manual cant find it in new manual

    Reply
  10. Comment by John staines posted on

    After 45 years in the motor trade I have decided to stop being a NT. Why change an established system & why do prices for exams /training end in 99 pence as if it's a bargain deal?

    Reply
  11. Comment by Eddy posted on

    Just been on the new site.Oooo dear what a mess everything been change round into different categories.Too many changes in one go.

    Reply
  12. Comment by marcus posted on

    hi just looking on new site but cant see any thing for steering steering rack gaiter insecure or is missing as stated on site same thing as

    Reply
    • Replies to marcus>

      Comment by Stephen posted on

      Marcus, If you type in the search box, the missing items appear. However I do agree with you there are lots of items missing and readly available until you use the search engine thing

      Reply
  13. Comment by David posted on

    Thanks for making something that works fine into a minefield old ticket easy for everyone to understand new ticket totaly awfull no test class why m1 n1.Have tried the trial of the style test with failure items we have alist of common fialure items for instance7994 no reserve travel handbrake guess what it dose not work.Also when you changed the ticket style the system crashed halfway through the day what are our chances come the 20th May

    Reply
    • Replies to David>

      Comment by steve posted on

      when in the day when we wrote out mot tickets it was one sheet of paper now if you do a prs you get about seven sheets of paper i think that all the mot garages in Great Britian must use a forest a month but if it works then some one always wants to mess it up so it dos not .

      Reply
  14. Comment by Shaun posted on

    Just checked out your new manual, maybe I'm being blind but I couldn't see a flow chart for seatbelt requirements.

    Reply
  15. Comment by David posted on

    Can DVSA tell us how many testers have now stopped doing tests, since all this lot started,if I worked in a large main dealer I would have had my name taken off the list of testers, no advantage of been a mot tester over another technician who doesn’t test, really glad I am getting to retirement age , this lot is getting far too much hassle, and why as a tester do I need to care about data protection , I was supposed to be checking the safety of a car, not been an unpaid environmentalist and police officer , roll on next year to see what damage can be done then, when we leave the EU

    Reply
    • Replies to David>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      The number of testers is broadly static at the moment David.

      Reply
  16. Comment by Harry posted on

    The definition of organisation, in the on line dictionary is,
    "An organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business"
    Can we have the business name, back on the certificate please?

    Reply
    • Replies to Harry>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      Yes, see lower comments. At the moment it is printing AE, but we are looking to revert to trading name.

      Reply
  17. Comment by Dave bs posted on

    had a look at new test environment, just a new system to get use to. but I think a lot of customers will be angry / confused by the pre defined dangerous, instead of reason for rejection, major shouldn't be a problem though. but I can see us spending extra time explaining it to the public

    Reply
    • Replies to Dave bs>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      I'm sure you are right - some motorists may not like being told their car is dangerous. But - for many it will be seen as helpful information.

      Reply
      • Replies to Neil Barlow (DVSA)>

        Comment by Dave bs posted on

        agreed its just a new way for everybody to get used to, so lets just get on with it

        Reply
        • Replies to Dave bs>

          Comment by mark posted on

          how long you been testing dave its a lot of change to me after 33 years

          Reply
          • Replies to mark>

            Comment by Dave bs posted on

            only 8 years since june 2010

          • Replies to mark>

            Comment by Dave bs posted on

            only 8 years, only ever delt with the computerised systems unless on contingency testing

  18. Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

    Following some of your comments, we’d just like clarify the position:

    The defects that have been recognised as dangerous are all pre-defined. There will not be the option to mark other defects as such.

    If a vehicle does fail an MOT (be that for major and/or dangerous defects) then, as now, its current MOT will still be valid until expiry. However, as now, it will still not be legal to drive if it is ‘unroadworthy’.

    Reply
  19. Comment by mark posted on

    just had a look at the new training format and manual god my head is hurting more sleepless nights to come thanks dvsa my last year me thinks

    Reply
  20. Comment by Philip posted on

    If its not broke don,t fix it why change a perfectly good system new certificates very confusing

    Reply
  21. Comment by Stephen posted on

    Had a go with the new system. Not Impressed. Couldn't find Exhaust had to use search engine. Fuel lines, exhaust mounts and related items not in the Emissions where you'd expect to find them... NOOOO But in the chassie and body and structure section WHY
    There's more items missing and hidden away, Talk about time consuming. The search engine will break down with over use

    Reply
    • Replies to Stephen>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      The defects are structured in the same way as the new manual - which follows the way the directive is set out.
      Because we know that is a different structure from the one used now, we have put a lot of work into the search engine to make that effective at finding defects, which can be much quicker than following a structure.

      Reply
  22. Comment by Pete posted on

    Just having a read through the new manual , which I'm not a lover of the layout by the way. Is it right the the RfR for a 'brake hose having insufficient room to move resulting on it fouling on any part', been removed? As I can't find it even if I use the search option.

    Reply
    • Replies to Pete>

      Comment by Doug (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Pete,

      Yes, this is no longer a specific RfR. The new RfR’s focus on the damage caused to the pipe or the imminent risk of failure.

      Reply
      • Replies to Doug (DVSA)>

        Comment by Mark posted on

        What if it's fouling but not damaged yet but will be damaged soon

        Reply
      • Replies to Doug (DVSA)>

        Comment by Nigel posted on

        Just noticed also no provision for brake hose ferrules corroded and brake hoses deteriorated ie perishing. Most of the brake hoses we see have perishing near the ends which we mark as advisories and failure if the reinforcement can be seen.

        Reply
  23. Comment by Nish posted on

    We need someone from DVSA to reply to the feedback for the new certificates. The borders and numbering on the previous certificates made it clear and concise for the reader. Also the Garage name is not printed, the full names of the partners or sole traders NOT the Garage name which makes it confusing.

    Reply
    • Replies to Nish>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Nish

      Thanks for pointing this out. We are picking up with the development teams how we can correct the printed name and other items such as the appearance of the certificates. We will update you when this is done. In the meantime, we can assure you that the MOT certificate is still valid and the information matches that on the VT9 displayed in your reception area.

      Reply
  24. Comment by Renno London posted on

    If the main items were in boxes it would be easier to read.
    There is no Test Class on the cert.
    Organisation is not the persons name.

    Reply
  25. Comment by Dave Moyle posted on

    Certificate is not as clear as the old one
    Should have test stations Contact number on it so retest can be booked
    and the vehicle class!

    Reply
    • Replies to Dave Moyle>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      The design is based on feedback from motorists. We didn't find that motorists found the number and class helpful in the research we did - but we will continue to review as we get more feedback from motorists.

      Reply
  26. Comment by john posted on

    just carried out mot on a people carrier checking the tyre valves as you do and guess what YES your right it burst this IS a safety item so getting rid of it on the new test in may is a foolish idea This is safety checking reverse lights not !!!!!

    Reply
    • Replies to john>

      Comment by Dougie (DVSA) posted on

      Hi John,

      Thanks for your comments. Tyre vales are not part of the new directive, therefore are not included. Your point has been noted for future consideration.

      Reply
  27. Comment by Stephen posted on

    The new certificates, look like someone just made them up on there own pc. What about a bit of colour or bring back the old certificates. Customers are baffled at these new ones..

    Reply
    • Replies to Stephen>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      It really needs to be black and white (as before) so garages don't need to buy colour printers.

      And we have done a lot of work with motorists on the new certificate design to make, in particular, defects stand out and type faces to be larger. We will, of course, listen to feedback as we go along and amend if needed - but I suspect most of current reaction is whilst people get used to it.

      Reply
  28. Comment by Nominated Tester & AE posted on

    I think most testers accept change and adapt to it, It seems the new document layout is causing concern though. Did it go through a process of evaluation with the public and garages as it is causing obvious concern and confusion with all. As clear a as mud to everyone so far who has seen it.

    Reply
  29. Comment by Harry posted on

    The New certificate Definitely requires the Trading business Name and Telephone number instead of the entity name.
    We are a partnership AE and the lengthy partnership names then followed with the tester name is too complex.

    At the end of the day the customer only requires the business name and testing station number

    Reply
    • Replies to Harry>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      Agree. We will be fixing the cert to display the correct name.

      Reply
  30. Comment by Ian posted on

    The new layout of certificate is ok but 2 points,
    Under testing organisation it seems to have my full name not the name of the test station I would have thought this was a breach of the data protection laws.
    No phone number so customers can reach us.
    Will these issues be sorted out.

    Reply
    • Replies to Ian>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      Agree - we should be displaying trading name rather than the AE. We will be fixing that.

      On the phone number - we hadn't had feedback from motorists that they found this useful on the certificate, but we will continue to review feedback.

      Reply
  31. Comment by Joe Johnson posted on

    Having read the new draft MOT inspection manual I have spotted a mistake on page 4 in the lighting section. Your diagram 1 still refers to the RFR 2 or 3 which you have used in the old manual and is no longer used (this is the hatched section for containing the cut off) can I have some bonus points on my MOT SAR please.

    Reply
    • Replies to Joe Johnson>

      Comment by Joe Johnson posted on

      I see it is still showing on the new manual that was released on the 27th of April

      Reply
      • Replies to Joe Johnson>

        Comment by Dougie (DVSA) posted on

        Hi Joe,
        Well spotted. The drawing will be amended in due course.

        Reply
  32. Comment by terry moore posted on

    please why is the testing organisation space, my full name ??
    should this no be garage/testing stn name. plus contact no missing.
    not helpful for customers at all.!!!!

    Reply
    • Replies to terry moore>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Terry
      Thanks for pointing this out. We are picking up with the development teams how we can correct the printed name and other items. We will update you when this is done. In the meantime, we can assure you that the MOT certificate is still valid and the information matches that on the VT9 displayed in your reception area.

      Reply
  33. Comment by Damian posted on

    Are manual advisories being removed still or will these remain as they are useful for certain things, for instance plastic undertrays on underside of vehicle or engine covers.

    Reply
    • Replies to Damian>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Damian

      Advisories will remain as they they indicate a component will become defective soon.

      Reply
  34. Comment by KC posted on

    The new changes to 40yr old vehicles not requiring a current MOT will open a large can of worms, people with such vehicles are clapping there hands, we restore classic vehicles and I have listened to some of the comments, we see some real horrors and do you think they will keep them in road worthy condition when they don't need to spend money on them, not on your life,or somebody else if one of these has a collision, all vehicle should require an MOT there is no argument then.
    The quick fit boys will also have a field day with the new Major and Minor system, they will tell the customers that they must have the vehicle repaired on site and pay there extortionate prices, where are we going !!!!!!!!

    Reply
    • Replies to KC>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      For the historic vehicles, whilst not what this blog was about, I do understand your concerns. We will continue to feedback to DfT and ministers what we see on these types of vehicle.

      On whether some garages choose to take advantage of the new dangerous marking, you may be correct that some will. And, as always, we will be interested in any feedback from garages doing this so we can investigate. However, as you will have read in the blog, the change to dangerous marking will be more consistent than now in terms of where it is used. And, of course - more clearly marking to a motorist that a car is dangerous to use must be a good thing.

      Reply
  35. Comment by M Awan posted on

    I have noted this and brought it to the attention of DVSA by e mail and telephone. Was told that they are aware of this but can not tell me how long it will take to correct the problem

    Reply
  36. Comment by plum posted on

    phone number missing is a biggy for me.currently rubber stamping and hi lighting it in, not ideal

    Reply
    • Replies to plum>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      Out of interest is that on pass or fails? Is this something your customers are asking for - or something you are doing because you believe of use to them? Thanks.

      Reply
  37. Comment by terry moore posted on

    please put back garage name address and phone no for customers use! please

    how many pages to print now!! add a line of advisory information or two and 2 pages are printed, lets save paper guys

    Reply
  38. Comment by david b posted on

    why is there no relevant information on the failure sheet to explain to customers the re test procedure?
    customers do not read our site poster nor can they be bothered to visit the website link which you have put on the failure sheet.

    can this information be put on the failure sheet please? it then is there in black and white and saves us testers time having to explain to customers the correct procedure following a failure

    Reply
  39. Comment by Steve posted on

    I understand that if a vehicle fails the test due a dangerous defect it shouldn't be driven on the road but does that failure certificate actually invalidate an existing MOT? ie if the test is done early but the vehicle fails and then driven on the road is the current certificate still valid so the driver can't be prosecuted for not having a MOT?

    Reply
    • Replies to Steve>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Steve

      If a vehicle does fail an MOT (be that for major and/or dangerous defects) then, as now, its current MOT will still be valid until expiry. However, as now, it will still not be legal to drive if it is ‘unroadworthy’.

      Reply
  40. Comment by Richard posted on

    Big concerns, testing organisation listed as the three partners who own the business and not company name and phone number, for customers to contact, meaning loss of customers .Not very happy needs to be rectified.

    Reply
    • Replies to Richard>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Richard
      Thanks for pointing this out. We are picking up with the development teams how we can correct the printed name and other items. We will update you when this is done.

      Reply
      • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

        Comment by Joe Johnson posted on

        Hi Julia, I am a MOT tester who also teaches at a college, I wondered if you will be updating the videos for the latest changes (or re doing them entirely) as they are great resources for our level 2 MOT examiners course

        Reply
        • Replies to Joe Johnson>

          Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

          Hi Joe

          There are no plans to update these currently but we will keep you updated on this site.

          Reply
  41. Comment by Andy posted on

    Despite being told we were getting the training on the 20th April, it's still not working. When will we get to see the new "enviroment"? We are less than a month away now, this is cutting it a bit close.

    https://training.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/

    Reply
  42. Comment by john rowan posted on

    the entity name is a problem, hope this can be amended quickly.

    Reply
    • Replies to john rowan>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi John
      Thanks for pointing this out. We are picking up with the development teams how we can correct the printed name and other items. We will update you when this is done.

      Reply
  43. Comment by Mike Williams posted on

    The training environment which should have been available on the 20/04/18 is still not working, it would have been useful to have been told there is a problem. without having to call Swansea.

    Reply
  44. Comment by Jason posted on

    The old certificate was much better than this new one. Most of the driving public will just end up more confused than before !! Looks more like someone trying to justify their job.

    Reply
  45. Comment by Bosch posted on

    New certificate is confusing at many levels last certificate fine they could’ve used the same layout make the font a little bigger. Job was a gooden. But 🤔

    Reply
  46. Comment by Alan Greenwood posted on

    Effective communication! Thank you.

    Reply
  47. Comment by Stephen Driver posted on

    We noticed there was no telephone number on the new certificates for the garage .

    Reply

Leave a comment

We only ask for your email address so we know you're a real person