Proportionality and necessity for a full MOT to be carried out for a delayed PG9 for One Tyre

Roland Barber made this Freedom of Information request to Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency,

An 8 wheel tipper driver is issued with a delayed PG9 for one tyre defect out of 8 wheels. No other defect is identified despite a full roadside inspection.

The examiner when issuing the PG9 then requires a full MOT to be carried out before the PG9 is removed.

This particular vehicle was subject to its annual MOT approximately 6 weeks prior to the issuing of the PG9.

Whilst accepting that if a vehicle's MOT was more than 6 months previous or, where the examiner issues an advisory notice for other defects, that a full MOT should be required prior to the release of the PG9, what is the rational behind the requirement of a full MOT for one out of eight tyres being defective where the MOT was less that 2 months earlier and, no other defects indicated. This would appear to be highly arbitrary and discriminatory.

This also appears not to be proportional as the defect was such that the vehicle was allowed to proceed and therefore, in the eyes of the examiner and the Categorisation of Defects Manual, road safety was not jeopardised.

Being aware of the proportionality tests of:
Did the action pursue a legitimate aim
Were the means employed suitable to achieve that aim
Could the aim have been achieved by a less restrictive alternative,
the question is, is a full MOT in these circumstances necessary and proportional.

Can you please provide me with a copy of any policy, guidance, memo or statutory documentation appertaining to when a full MOT as opposed to a partial MOT covering the specific defect re-examination in these and similar circumstances.

Yours faithfully,

Roland Barber

foi@dsa.gsi.gov.uk, Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

Thank you for your email.

If you are requesting information under:

· The Freedom of Information Act – we will normally respond within 20
working days

· Data Protection Act – we will respond within 40 calendar days

· Environmental Information Regulations - we will normally respond within
20 working days

foi@dvsa.gov.uk, Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

2 Attachments

     

     

  Information Access Team             T   0115 9366028

The Axis Building  

112 Upper Parliament Street   www.gov.uk/dvsa

NOTTINGHAM

NG1 6LP

 

 

Mr Roland Barber

by email: [FOI #438565 email]

 

our ref: IA/01057/17

 

date:8 November 2017

                                                                       

 

Dear Mr Barber

 

Information requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA)

 

Further to your request of 13 October 2017, I can confirm that we have
handled your request for information about MOT policy, within the terms of
the FoIA.

 

Your request and our response is as follows:

 

Q1. An 8 wheel tipper driver is issued with a delayed PG9 for one tyre
defect out of 8 wheels.  No other defect is identified despite a full
roadside inspection.

The examiner when issuing the PG9 then requires a full MOT to be carried
out before the PG9 is removed.

This particular vehicle was subject to its annual MOT approximately 6
weeks prior to the issuing of the PG9.

Whilst accepting that if a vehicle's MOT was more than 6 months previous
or, where the examiner issues an advisory notice for other defects, that a
full MOT should be required prior to the release of the PG9, what is the
rational behind the requirement of a full MOT for one out of eight tyres
being defective where the MOT was less that 2 months earlier and, no other
defects indicated.  This would appear to be highly arbitrary and
discriminatory.

This also appears not to be proportional as the defect was such that the
vehicle was allowed to proceed and therefore, in the eyes of the examiner
and the Categorisation of Defects Manual, road safety was not
jeopardised.  

Being aware of the proportionality tests of:
Did the action pursue a legitimate aim
Were the means employed suitable to achieve that aim Could the aim have
been achieved by a less restrictive alternative, the question is, is a
full MOT in these circumstances necessary and proportional.

Can you please provide me with a copy of any policy, guidance, memo or
statutory documentation appertaining to when a full MOT as opposed to a
partial MOT covering the specific defect re-examination in these and
similar circumstances.

 

 

Please find our response in the attached Annex A – a copy of the
operations instructions relating to your request.

 

DVSA is committed to helping you keep your vehicle safe to drive

 

If you have any queries about the information released to you, please
contact the DVSA press office at [1][email address].

 

If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request, you can ask
for an internal review by contacting Vasim Choudhary, Public Liaison
Manager, at [2][email address] or at the above address.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Rajan Dhawan

Public Liaison Team

 

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]