Perth sheriff dismisses claim against MOT garage for engine timing belt failure during test

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] SC PER 79
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Mark Thorley

Carol Fox, 74, sought £5,000, the limit in simple procedure claims, from Halfords Autocentres Ltd on the basis that Regulation 14 of the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1981 imposed strict liability on them for any damage caused to her vehicle. The respondent disputed the claimant’s construction of the regulations and added that the test for professional negligence at common law had also not been met.

The case was heard by Sheriff Mark Thorley at Perth Sheriff Court, with Morton, solicitor, appearing for the claimant and Allan, solicitor, for the respondent.

Extremely rare occurrence

On the morning of 13 February 2025, the claimant and her husband Laurence Fox brought her Ford Galaxy to the respondent’s garage at Whitefriars Street, Perth for an MOT and interim service. After Mr Fox took the keys of the car into the respondent’s office, they returned home. Later that morning, the claimant received a call from the respondent asking whether there had ever been a timing belt change on the vehicle, which she was unable to answer. She was then advised that during the vehicle’s emissions test the engine had died. The vehicle was taken to another garage, where investigation revealed that the timing belt had failed, resulting in considerable engine damage that cost £7,773.92 to repair.

Both the claimant and her husband gave evidence, along with three employees of the respondent. The evidence of the respondent’s investigating manager Mr McCluskey was that it was up to the customer to make sure the vehicle was in order prior to the MOT and, standing the age and mileage of the car, the timing belt ought to have been replaced at an earlier stage. The evidence of the respondent was that a timing belt snapping during an engine rev test was an extremely rare occurrence in MOT examinations.

Under regulation 14(1), the authorised examiner “shall have the same responsibility for loss of or damage to the vehicle… in connection with the carrying out of the examination during any period while the vehicle is, in connection with the carrying out of the examination, in the custody of the authorised examiner.” The claimant submitted that, as Regulation 14(2) prevented contracting out of this liability, the implication was that strict liability was imposed, subject to the statutory exemptions in Regulations 14(3)(a) and (b).

The respondent submitted that an MOT prohibited the dismantling of engine covers, which would be necessary to see the timing belt. Regulation 14 confined liability to damage caused by the examiner and did not extend to failures arising from the inherent mechanical condition of the vehicle. As the tester did not have a power or duty to assess a timing belt’s condition, its failure was a latent defect, not damage incurred in connection with the examination. The MOT was a visual and functional inspection, not a diagnostic assessment of mechanical condition.

Contractual style standard

In his decision, Sheriff Thorley said of liability at common law: “Whereas I have preferred the evidence of the Claimant and her husband in relation to the evidence given at the point in time when the vehicle was dropped off, that does not in itself establish liability. I accepted the evidence that an MOT required to be undertaken prior to any service. There appeared to be no contradictory evidence to that. The MOT had to be undertaken as the vehicle was ‘presented’.”

He continued: “The Respondent was not entitled to examine internally the vehicle before undertaking an MOT test. The timing belt in particular was covered. Any check on the vehicle had to be visual and functional. Accordingly, taking into account the common law position here, I accepted that the examiner undertook a usual and normal practice and that the examiner did not do anything that no ordinary, competent, professional examiner would have done.”

Considering the type of liability imposed by the Regulations, the sheriff said: “The UK government’s own website in relation to issues of MOT testing makes reference in its Appendix to an examiner ‘whilst testing a vehicle smashes a brake light, causes the steering to become defective or inflicts other type of harm to the vehicle that did not exist at the time it was left in their possession for testing’. That is perhaps the essence of this case. Regulation 14 does not provide strict liability. Instead, it sets out a contractual style standard of responsibility comparable to what a reasonable person with similar facilities would bear, and continues to rely on principles of fault and causation.”

He concluded: “As was narrated in evidence, the frequency of occurrence of a timing belt snapping is extremely rare. There was simply no way that the Respondent could have become aware, in advance of the MOT, that there was an issue with the timing belt. They were entitled to believe that, standing there was a full service history, there were no issues with the timing belt. They were required to examine the vehicle as it was delivered to them. They did not undertake, nor could they undertake, an assessment of an internal component.”

Sheriff Thorley therefore found that there was no fault on behalf of the respondent, and granted decree of absolvitor.