https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/making-it-easier-for-motorists-to-replace-a-lost-mot-certificate/

Making it easier for motorists to replace a lost MOT certificate

Replace a lost or damaged MOT certificate on GOV.UK

In 2018, more than 636,000 duplicate MOT certificates were issued in Great Britain. That’s about 2% of all MOT tests done each year.

Duplicates are issued when vehicle owners lose or damage the original, and need a new one – perhaps when selling a car.

The MOT team has been working hard to make that process simpler.

So we’re excited to launch a new service today (8 May 2019) that takes the stress out of losing an MOT certificate by allowing vehicle owners to:

  • view and save their MOT certificate as a PDF
  • print their MOT certificate

The replace MOT certificate service can be used 24-hours a day, 7 days a week.

What’s included

For now, people will be able to use the service to get duplicate certificates for:

  • motorcycles (class 1 and 2 vehicles)
  • cars and passenger vehicles (class 3, 4, 5 and 7 vehicles)

We’re making all certificates issued since 20 May 2018 available on the service – including both pass and fails.

We’ll be expanding the service to include certificates for lorries, buses and trailers later in the year.

What the service looks like

Check MOT history screenshot. Reads: This is a new service. Complete a quick survey to help us improve, then 'Back' logo, then CGSENOK, Volkswagen Saloon, Check another vehicle, Colour - Grey, Fuel type - Petrol, Date registered - 2 January 2004, MOT valid until 13 April 2020, Get an MOT reminder by email or text, If you think the MOT expiry date or any of the vehicle details are wrong, contact DVSA. MOT history, Check mileage recorded at test, MOT expiry date, defects and advisories, and view test certificate. Date tested - 13 April 2019, PASS, Mileage - 81,154 miles, MOT test number - 9999 9999 00, Expiry date - 13 April 2020, Test location - View test location, View certificate. Date tested - 23 June 2018, PASS, Mileage - 61,154 miles, MOT test number - 9999 9999 01, Expiry date - 23 June 2019, Test location - View test location, View test certificate.

The new service is part of the overall MOT history service that you may already be familiar with. Like the rest of the MOT history service, it works on mobiles, tablets and PCs.

The option to view the certificate appears alongside the test record in the vehicle’s MOT history.

To view the certificate, the user needs to type in the 11-digit reference number (without spaces) from the latest vehicle log book (V5C).

The MOT test result and certificate are available as soon as you’ve finished recording the result in the MOT testing service.

You can still provide duplicate certificates

Although motorists are now able to get a free duplicate of their MOT certificate online, MOT centres will still be able to provide this service for people who need it.

You’ll still be able to charge up to £10 for a duplicate certificate.

You can still provide duplicates to any customer who has a right to one. As proof they can give you either:

  • the vehicle registration and 11-digit reference number from the latest vehicle log book (V5C)
  • the test number from the original certificate (although it is less likely they’ll have this if they’ve lost it!)

Issuing 636,000+ duplicates

We knew from feedback from motorists that there was a need to make obtaining duplicates easier – having to physically go to garages was seen as a real burden.

Longer term, we want to help motorists understand that they don’t need the paper certificate most of the time. But in the meantime, we were hearing that there needed to be a better way of getting a duplicate.

Protecting motorists from unofficial websites 

We know that several online businesses charge people for unofficial MOT certificates.

None of these companies has a licence or any other form of permission from us to produce these look-a-like certificates.

Our new service will mean that people can access duplicates, free of charge, from the official government website.

We’ll then be able to take action against those unofficial sites – and the online availability of correct certificates should reduce the demand for these unofficial ones.

Try it out

You can check out the new service for yourself by entering your own vehicle’s registration and 11-digit reference number from the latest vehicle log book (V5C). Simply go to www.gov.uk/replace-mot-certificate

You also might want to encourage your customers to give it a try when they phone you and ask for a duplicate certificate.

Other things we’re working on

We’ve been doing lots of work to improve our guidance and services to make your job easier.

This includes working on developing a guide for MOT managers on how to manage an MOT centre. We’ll get the industry’s feedback on this before we launch it.

We’re also making improvements to the risk rating system to focus on the higher risks. We’ll tell you more about these changes in the coming months.

We’re also planning to make some further changes to the MOT inspection manuals following your feedback. So keep sending us your thoughts as they are vital and help us to develop and improve our products and services.

86 comments

  1. Comment by NOOR HUSSAIN posted on

    Does everyone understand that computerised mot system existed since 2004/2005 when it was rolled out

    Reply
  2. Comment by Hooters posted on

    Dear Julia,

    In The Name of Road Safety.

    Recently, I tested a car who’s nearside rear tyre valve was (under DVSA definition) clearly ‘Dangerous’ but in this case, dangerous because of deterioration through perishing. It was neither ‘Damaged’ nor ‘Misaligned’ the only fail-options appropriately available. I failed the car as having a damaged [ ] valve.
    Was I wrong to do this or should I have issued a VT20, (a de-facto roadworthiness certificate) with a ‘dangerous’ marker?

    Reply
    • Replies to Hooters>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi
      You are correct, the valve is damaged due to ‘deterioration'.

      Reply
      • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

        Comment by richard posted on

        Obviously you haven't met Mr & Mrs Pedantic. I'm sure every garage has a customer that disagrees damaged & deterioration are two separate things, including myself to be honest.

        Reply
      • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

        Comment by Graham posted on

        Deterioration is different to damage, else why do you have both fails on brake hoses. Deteriorated needs to be added, my local VE would pick me up on this. The most common failure for valves is deteriorated! Please add it!

        Reply
        • Replies to Graham>

          Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

          Hi Graham
          In terms of testing, the failure item is 'damaged' and this also applies if it is deteriorated.

          Reply
          • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

            Comment by richard. posted on

            Yet we have a registration plate advisory as deteriorated, but most I see are damaged (cracked or smashed) ,this isn't deterioration. I seriously think some of the wording needs looking at. We had flexible brake hoses ,when the manual changed as just damaged & we managed to get that changed to deterioration as well, so why not tyre valves & a few other items ?

      • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

        Comment by Nigel posted on

        Most people would consider damage and deterioration as two separate things me included. Yet again we have to try and decipher what you mean in the way the manual is worded surely it would so simple just to add badly deteriorated/perished as well to the manual otherwise your going to some testers marking it as a failure and others as pass and advise. And then you have another situation with tyres whats the difference between a badly perished tyre and a tyre that is torn that can sometimes be difficult to make a decision on as according to the manual a perished tyre would need to have the cord or ply showing to fail whereas a torn tyre dosent.

        Reply
  3. Comment by steve posted on

    with high level brake lights if its say on the dash display
    Center Brake light

    would you consider it to be a fail because it must be connected

    Reply
    • Replies to steve>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Steve
      As the dash display is showing a fault, it would be assumed that it is connected. This would result in a failure, unless there was clear evidence without dismantling. that it was disconnected - in which case would be pass and advise.

      Reply
      • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

        Comment by Lonewolf posted on

        Does the high level lamp not come under the non obligatory stop lamp advisory then?

        Reply
        • Replies to Lonewolf>

          Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

          Hi
          The requirements are dependent on age which are listed in the manual, either 1 or 2 stop lamps etc.

          The manual states Additional stop lamps, over and above the mandatory requirements, must be tested. However, if you aren't sure if they are connected, you should give the benefit of the doubt.

          Reply
          • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

            Comment by Lonewolf posted on

            Whether connected or not, by your own admission it's a non obligatory lamp. This creates a conflict of testable items, additional lamps must be checked but if they're non obligatory should they be an RFR? If we fail the vehicle for a centre stop lamp not working and it is then removed the vehicle then passes but is effectively in the same condition.

          • Replies to Lonewolf>

            Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

            Hi
            Mandatory requirements are for 1 or 2 stop lamps, depending on the age of the car. Additional stop lamps must be tested but if you aren't sure they're connected, you should give the benefit of the doubt.

          • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

            Comment by lee b posted on

            Julia

            If there is a warning on the dash indicating it is not working, would this not be enough to justify an advise, The warning could be because it has been disconnected. Just because it was fitted as standard and worked at some point and wired through the vehicles electrical system at some point, would not justify a failure ???????(in my opinion)
            Either way as an additional lamp that is not working,would you not give the benefit of doubt to the customer

          • Replies to lee b>

            Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

            Hi Lee
            Please see the reply to you above.

          • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

            Comment by lee b posted on

            What are the age requirements for a high level stop lamp ??????

          • Replies to lee b>

            Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

            Hi Lee
            There are no age requirements in respect of a high level stop lamp. The manual clearly states that additional stop lamps, over and above the mandatory requirements (1 or 2 depending on the age of the vehicle), must be tested. If you aren't sure if they are connected, you must give the benefit of the doubt.

          • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

            Comment by Jay posted on

            Well surely by the wording of that, any stop light over the mandatory requirement is classed as non-obligatory so this advisory covers it? I personally have been using this advisory if the central brake light isn't working at all, or the 50% defects if there is some light sources working. If I am wrong for doing this then fair enough, but if I am then I have to wonder why the advisory is there in the first place as it seems pretty meaningless.

  4. Comment by richard posted on

    I'm starting to see vehicles coming through from last year with Minor's listed & surprise surprise they've not bothered rectifying them.

    Reply
    • Replies to richard>

      Comment by Steve Mason posted on

      Like wise, only this year some of the minors have progressed to failures.

      Reply
      • Replies to Steve Mason>

        Comment by richard posted on

        "Minor No significant effect on the safety of the vehicle or impact on the environment.

        Repair as soon as possible."

        Only they are using Minors as an advisory.

        "Advisory It could become more serious in the future.

        Monitor and repair it if necessary."

        Reply
    • Replies to richard>

      Comment by Jay posted on

      Well it is not really surprising, a lot of motorists go away with the mot certificate and barely even look at it, as long as it has passed for that year that is all they are concerned about.

      Reply
  5. Comment by castrolrob posted on

    "having to go to garages was seen as a real burden"rolf!!!you aint seen nuffin yet!judging by the amount of motors I see with tickets that expired 6+mnths ago yet are obviously in daily use it aint just going to a garage for a duplicate that's seen as a burden,actually getting it done at all is rather obviously considered far more inconvenient!as for letting em know that you don't actually need the ticket cos its all online?NEWSFLASH-THEY ALREADY KNOW!about the only time they ring us is when they cant tax it and ask us for a duplicate.when told"heres your duplicate of your expired test"they get snotty cos they seem to think that cos they cant find a valid ticket online we shud be providing one over the phone.

    Reply
  6. Comment by Paul posted on

    Agreed the coil spring RfR needs to be left as it is, if it is broken it is a RfR in my opinion, let us keep this simple there are enough grey area's..

    The MOT testing service is alphabetically/numerically and the Inspection manual is numerically/alphabetically aligned.
    A significant step in the right direction would be to consolidate both.
    Spelling/grammar is important as is the aforementioned.
    Numbers should be able to be pulled out very quickly in an environment where time matters and the MOT needs to be communicated to the vehicle presenter efficiently.

    Reply
  7. Comment by Andy posted on

    Seriously how can we charge for a duplicate ticket when they can get it free we would loose customers,we loose some most weeks when we say our charge is £50 , a set minimum fee should brought in I have just laid out another £5000 on emission machine crypton 800 with a flimsy temp probe

    Reply
    • Replies to Andy>

      Comment by Chris posted on

      Totally Agree with that one mate. Ours isn't a year old and we're on our second oil probe. I had to buy two so at least we have a spare. I wonder how cheap these machines will be when everything goes electric.

      Reply
  8. Comment by S Scott posted on

    Is there any reason why i can't scan & print my certificate before i lose it ?

    Reply
  9. Comment by mark posted on

    in this years assessment there is a question about slight corrosion on flexi ferrulls there is no correct answer as it should be pass and advise please someone correct me if i have read the question incorrectly

    Reply
    • Replies to mark>

      Comment by Graham posted on

      Or just pass with no advise, as advisorys are meant for things that are getting close to, yet havent quite yet reached point of fail. If we advised everything underneath that was slightly corroded, we would have a list aslong as your arm. Remember the customer only has 28days to complain about an mot, so a slight bit of corrosion isnt going to get excessive in 28 days. Yes it may get bad in 1 year but thats why cars should be serviced aswell. Then advise these things when they are in for service. MOTs are about today, not the next year. Search the blog for ' Giving the right advice ', this clears up dvsa advise on advisorys

      Reply
      • Replies to Graham>

        Comment by Mark posted on

        I think you missed my point I agree what you are saying but the mot defects list doesn't give you that option it says major or advice it doesn't say pass,which it's says in the question or do we just ignore it all together what I am saying is the answers too the question are wrong

        Reply
      • Replies to Graham>

        Comment by dave bs posted on

        items regarding corrosion is 3 months

        Reply
        • Replies to dave bs>

          Comment by Graham posted on

          Yes, i stand corrected. I had in my head prescibed area corrosion etc 3 months, everything else 1 month. But yeah i suppose brake hose / pipe corrosion would come under the 3 month rule. I see alot of mots that are over advising surface corrosion, my point is, unless its gets close, its not worth advising. Maybe make a note if under neath is a little corroded but dont fill an advise sheet listing each individual suspension component / prescribed area that is slightly corroded. And yes mark i did misunderstand your question, seems the assessment questions are written by the same kind of people who came up with the new manual. I had one last year. (Middle brake light isnt working, you know its connected, pass or fail.) You can never know a middle brake light is connected or not, what if the wire has been cut further down the loom, or unplugged from ecu. The only way you can fail a middle brake light is if it is working, but less than 50%, otherwise pass and advise

          Reply
      • Replies to Graham>

        Comment by bert posted on

        for corrosion the customer can complain up to 3 months after I believe

        Reply
        • Replies to bert>

          Comment by mark posted on

          we are talking about corrosion on a flexi ferrul not structure

          Reply
  10. Comment by Steve Mason posted on

    I was under the impression that certificates had to be signed by the person who inspected the vehicle for it to be a legal document?

    Reply
    • Replies to Steve Mason>

      Comment by richard posted on

      The definitive document is online, we've issued duplicates before if the original tester has been holiday.

      Reply
    • Replies to Steve Mason>

      Comment by lloyd chalke posted on

      Good point !!!

      Reply
    • Replies to Steve Mason>

      Comment by bert posted on

      an MOT garage can do a duplicate for any vehicle on the road, doesn't have to be the same tester or garage that carried out the test in the 1st place, if there was any problems then it would still be down to the original tester

      Reply
    • Replies to Steve Mason>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Steve

      Although the certificate that you hand the vehicle presenter needs to be signed, the master record is the electronic one and provides the legal record of the MOT result. We advise that a duplicate certificate issued at a VTS is still signed, however the digital version stored on the Mot history service doesn’t require a signature.

      Reply
  11. Comment by Roy posted on

    How would I go about refreshing my status as an MOT tester after a 5 year break?
    Obviously I still have my smart card but can't log into the new system.

    Reply
  12. Comment by Richard ex SVE posted on

    With regard to the test fee which has not seen an increase for many years, rather than set a maximum fee why not simply remove the maximum fee and leave it to ‘market forces’ this would allow garages to recoup the extra costs that have increased in the last ten years or so and if a particular vts is too expensive then the customer is free to go elsewhere?

    Reply
  13. Comment by Simon Harper posted on

    Bit confused as to the new audi vehicles, where, when you put the hazards on, the sidelights stop working, surely they should stay on even though the hazards are on as well. Had this conversation with my mot tester and we came to the conclusion that they were fine but, the mot manual suggests that the sidelights should be on when the ignition is off, nothing about going off when hazards used, only talking about the front ones, the rears stay on whatever.
    Anyone else had this.

    Reply
    • Replies to Simon Harper>

      Comment by Nigel posted on

      Section 4.2.2.If position lamps are combined with direction indicators, position lamps should switch off when the relevant direction indicator is flashing.Nothing to say ignition has to be on

      Reply
      • Replies to Nigel>

        Comment by Graham posted on

        If its a design feature then you cant fail. Look at the fai criteria at start of manual. (You are therefore expected to use your knowledge, experience and judgement to assess if the condition of a component has reached the stage where it's obviously adversely affecting its functionality or likely to adversely affect the roadworthiness of the vehicle.)

        Reply
    • Replies to Simon Harper>

      Comment by Phil posted on

      Usual one, ECE lighting regulations allow this as when hazards are on a warning of car position is given so no sidelight required, the MOT procedure sometimes does not take updated ECE rules into account, similarly the MOT trailer test board is a waste of time using LEDs that flicker when plugged in to some cars when a proper bulb board works perfectly

      Reply
  14. Comment by Ian posted on

    Well all I can see is that the DVSA have removed another revenue source from the Mot Station owner. We have invested considerable funds in the Mot Scheme! We will obviously not sell a duplicate in the future.

    Reply
    • Replies to Ian>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Ian
      We are conscious of that, but we felt it was important to increase the range of services available to the motoring public. We are keen to promote our digital services such as Mot history so that motorists can easily access their vehicle's details. This is key to ensuring motorists play their part in keeping their vehicle safe to drive. Many motorists have asked for the facility to print duplicate certificates online. But we believe that many motorists will continue to ask their garage for one.
      We also know a number of fake 'duplicate certificates' are produced by third party companies. We believe that they will be affected most by this new service.

      Reply
  15. Comment by andy posted on

    why cant you fail blue lights to front of vehicle. also why has the diesel database not been put onto the emissions computer to stop people defacing/removing emissions plate

    Reply
  16. Comment by Mr Chris Astbury posted on

    Another nail in the coffin into the profitability of running a small Mot station , letting the public access certificates .
    It’s time the test fee was £65 .
    Because doing it properly is not cost effective

    Reply
    • Replies to Mr Chris Astbury>

      Comment by richard posted on

      Totally agree.This is the thanks we get after being thrown from pillar to post by DVSA in the last few years.And asking us the front line testers to try it out,what for?To top it off,wanting us to encourage customers to try it out when they phone asking for a duplicate.We go to work to earn a living,not to reject money from customers.

      Reply
  17. Comment by Mal Singh posted on

    Hi All
    I had have been a driving examiner for about 7 year for the old DSA now left for health reasons. Now testing and a AE. I have been wondering about the wording on Advisory we give on items. Often these are ignored by vehicle owners. Some may not even done and forgotten about. Some may be never looked by the owners and could be marked as Dangerous.
    Would it be better if we called Advisory " Warnings". In my view its a more stronger word and could in the long run have positive effect on road safety.
    Let me know what you think.

    Reply
  18. Comment by castrolrob posted on

    why would I wanna try the service for myself?im an mot tester,i can print one out any time I like!was this what was killing the recall listings on the mot history for the last couple of days?

    Reply
  19. Comment by glenn posted on

    Still no VTS contact telephone on the MOT/Refusal certificates.
    Can this be looked into, please?

    Reply
  20. Comment by M D Manzoori posted on

    Well done. This makes life much easier for those who need a copy, regardless of reason.

    Reply
  21. Comment by mr robert j wilson posted on

    Is there any sign of a mot fee increase this year, OVERHEADS ARE UP EVERY YEAR, not so the mot fee, austerity seems to be forever in the MOT TRADE.

    Reply
    • Replies to mr robert j wilson>

      Comment by Camelot posted on

      Fee increase is overdue - some 9 years. Since the last fee increase dvsa have taken away computer systems, stationery, training and now potentially £6m from the motor trade for duplicate certificates. Everything else has gone up by at least rpi. It’s going to be goodbye to independent stations that don’t run the system as a loss-leader to increase workshop sales.

      Reply
  22. Comment by greg posted on

    Recently had to pass and advise on a tow bar where the mounting brackets had corroded to less then 50% of its normal thickness as there is fail criteria for vehicle chassis and tow bar fracture but not corrosion.

    Reply
    • Replies to greg>

      Comment by Kevin posted on

      I would have failed that on a tow bar component so worn it’s likely to fail making my Failure a (Dangerous)

      Reply
  23. Comment by richard posted on

    I noticed yesterday when I went to go and enter retest details of failures that had been repaired , when I looked at the brake readings at the bottom it said "None", now I've never noticed this before & was quite alarmed that maybe somehow it wasn't registering the brake readings after I had imputed them originally.

    Reply
    • Replies to richard>

      Comment by bert posted on

      the only way no brake entry could have been added is if the failer of brakes not tested was added, otherwise its impossible to go to next stage to finalise the results

      Reply
      • Replies to bert>

        Comment by Richard. posted on

        I'm aware of that, just a bit disconcerning when it said brake results "None" after logging in for a retest.

        Reply
  24. Comment by Martin posted on

    Regarding security login I suggest that if an mot tester logs on to the system using their memorable info rather than their smart card, the manager should receive a message. They can then ask the tester why they are logging on that way particularly if the card is not missing/stolen etc.

    Reply
  25. Comment by trevor posted on

    why have you stopped letting us know the MOT expiry date when we log in the vehicle details, also does not state what class of test or colour on printed test sheet.

    Reply
    • Replies to trevor>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Trevor
      The Mot expiry date missing from the 'confirm test' screen is a bug and will be fixed soon.

      Reply
  26. Comment by Mohammed daud posted on

    Hi there,
    I have been a class 4,5,7 mot tester for just over 9 years, & have also worked for D. V. S. A. Most recently as a V. S. A
    For 4 months But unfortunately due to health reasons I had to resign from the post.
    Referring to the section on coil spring condition in the manual I would like to suggest that you add the old wording for clarity. if it is broken at an extreme end & doesn't affect the functionality of the spring & it locates correctly, it is not a defect & should not be failed. I have noticed some council, taxi testers fail coil springs that are within the above mentioned criteria, I believe this is only because in the new manual it states spring fractured =major fail.
    If you could add my suggestion in there somewhere I'm sure it would clear up any ambiguity, after all we are testing to minimum standards.
    Please let me know what you think.
    Regards.
    Mohammed daud

    Reply
    • Replies to Mohammed daud>

      Comment by Olivia (DVSA) posted on

      Thanks for your feedback, I'll pass this onto the MOT team.

      Reply
    • Replies to Mohammed daud>

      Comment by richard posted on

      How much do you class as broken or complete ? I think they tried this a while back but it was such a grey area it was reinstated, id rather it was left as it was ,fractured/broken,as then there is no ambiguity.

      Reply
      • Replies to richard>

        Comment by Mike Williams posted on

        I agree Richard if it fractured its fractured.

        Reply
      • Replies to richard>

        Comment by Phil Avery posted on

        I totally agree leave as is

        Reply
    • Replies to Mohammed daud>

      Comment by Simon Harper posted on

      If its broken even at an extreme end it still should be a fail as it won't operate as it should.

      Reply
    • Replies to Mohammed daud>

      Comment by MartiN posted on

      If it is broken it is defective end of story !

      Reply
    • Replies to Mohammed daud>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Mohammed
      We could add vehicle class and colour to the VT29 but we're not sure of the value, particularly as the tester would know the colour as the vehicle would be in front of them. With the class, they should have checked it before they registered it for test. The purpose of showing make, model and colour on the vehicle test screens was to help highlight to testers if they were testing the wrong vehicle or entering results against the wrong vehicle.

      The coil spring reason for rejection was changed as part of the EU directive implemented in May 18, we have no plans to change it.

      Reply
  27. Comment by KW posted on

    When will it be possible to produce a duplicate V5? The MOT Cert has very little use these days as it's very easy to see online.

    Reply
  28. Comment by Baz posted on

    All good stuff, would have been better if you had given a link as you advise that we should check it out (the new service).

    Reply
  29. Comment by Roy Peverall posted on

  30. Comment by Martin posted on

    Are you planning to write the manual in English and remove "Doesn't/Isn't " etc. I am surprised "Ain't" is missing.
    Are you also going to correct the appalling grammar and spelling mistakes?
    If our thoughts are so vital why do you not act on them sooner we are still having to put mot's on unsafe vehicles due to omissions in the manual.
    The old system was not perfect by any means but it was much better than what we have now.

    Reply
    • Replies to Martin>

      Comment by Olivia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Martin, thanks for your comment. We continually review the content of the manual and we will be updating it again soon. Throughout the manual on GOV.UK there is the option for you to say whether the section was useful or not, if you do spot any further grammar or spelling errors you can report the section to us there.

      For quite some time, research suggested that writing using contractions (such as doesn't) helped people to read more quickly. However, some new research has shown that this can sometimes be misread as the opposite of what it actually means. So, we're going to be replacing 'doesn't' with 'does not' and so on throughout everything DVSA publishes. You should see these changes over the coming months.

      Reply
      • Replies to Olivia (DVSA)>

        Comment by Martin posted on

        Thank you for the reply Julia
        I have been reporting spelling/grammar errors since day one of the new manual so this is good news.
        The coil spring RFR needs to be left as it is, if it is broken it is a RFR let us keep this simple there are enough grey area's without reintroducing this one.
        I look forward to the improved manual and a reduction in my blood pressure.

        Reply

Leave a comment

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

By submitting a comment you understand it may be published on this public website. Please read our privacy notice to see how the GOV.UK blogging platform handles your information.