Peugeot 207 2012: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2012 Peugeot 207 include Drive shafts — Joints (front) (~3.1× peers) and Individual direction indicators (rear) (~3.0× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (5,783 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Drive shafts — Joints (front): about 3.1× more often than similar cars
  • Individual direction indicators (rear): about 3.0× more often than similar cars
  • Exhaust system (rear): about 2.5× more often than similar cars

Common faults

These are MOT failure patterns that show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars of the same class, age band, and mileage in the same test year (leave-one-out peer comparison; whole model family excluded).

Statistical patterns from MOT defect codes — not manufacturer TSBs, recalls, or a diagnosis of any individual car. Fail and advisory patterns are kept separate.

Based on 5,783 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Drive shafts — Joints (front)

This failure pattern appears about 3.1× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 864 failed first-attempt tests; 14.9% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 864 failures · ×3.1 vs similar cars · 14.9% of failed first tests · Likely common fault pattern

Individual direction indicators (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 3.0× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 365 failed first-attempt tests; 6.3% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 365 failures · ×3.0 vs similar cars · 6.3% of failed first tests · Likely common fault pattern

No patterns met the strongest callout thresholds on this page; showing the highest-lift rows that still cleared the display floors.

# Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Drive shafts — Joints (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Drive shafts > Joints
Front 864 ×3.1 14.9% Likely common fault pattern
2 Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
Rear 365 ×3.0 6.3% Likely common fault pattern
3 Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
Rear 201 ×2.5 3.5% Possible elevated fault
4 Exhaust system
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
Any 241 ×2.1 4.2% Possible elevated fault
5 Registration plate lamp(s) (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)
Rear 231 ×2.1 4.0% Possible elevated fault
6 Registration plate lamp(s)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)
Any 370 ×2.0 6.4% Possible elevated fault

Only patterns that clear minimum sample and elevation thresholds are shown (at least 20 failures and 2.0× peer lift).

Wear patterns

These patterns look like wear or usage effects rather than model-specific design faults. Tyres, brake friction material, and alignment-related defects often track mileage and road use. They are not treated as a model design fault in our common-faults ranking.

# Pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Headlamp aim not tested (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamp aim > Headlamp aim not tested
Front 53 ×2.3 0.9% Wear / usage pattern — not treated as a model design fault

Advisories

Advisory items recorded on failed first-attempt tests that appear elevated versus peers. Advisories are not a fail rate — they flag issues noted at the test, often before they become failures.

# Advisory pattern Location Notes vs similar cars Share Confidence
1 Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
Rear 464 ×4.8 8.0% Possible elevated fault
2 Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
Rear 79 ×3.9 1.4% Likely common fault pattern
3 Track rod end
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
Any 74 ×3.0 1.3% Elevated vs peers
4 Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
Rear 280 ×2.9 4.8% Likely common fault pattern
5 Headlamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
Front 106 ×2.8 1.8% Elevated vs peers
6 Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
Front 219 ×2.5 3.8% Possible elevated fault
7 Headlamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
Any 55 ×2.2 1.0% Elevated vs peers
8 Exhaust system
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
Any 301 ×2.0 5.2% Possible elevated fault

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2012 Peugeot 207 on this page. Among 5,783 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Drive shafts — Joints (front) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 3.1× more often than peers; 864 observed failures; 14.9% of failed tests). Treat this as a pre-purchase checklist from DVSA open data — not a guarantee for any individual car.
Among failed first-attempt tests we surface patterns that appear more often than on similar peer cars. Top example: Drive shafts — Joints (front) (about 3.1× more often than peers; 864 observed failures; 14.9% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Drive shafts — Joints (front) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 3.1× more often than peers; 864 observed failures; 14.9% of failed tests). That does not prove a causal design fault — age, mileage, and usage still matter. Treat it as a pre-purchase check point, not a manufacturer TSB.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2012 Peugeot 207 include Drive shafts — Joints (front), Individual direction indicators (rear), Exhaust system (rear). These are elevated versus similar peer cars where lift clears our floors — not a full list of every possible fault on an individual car.
Advisories flag issues noted at the test and are not a fail rate. We show advisory patterns that look elevated versus peers among failed first-attempt tests, separate from common failure rows. Use them as early-warning checks, not as a pass/fail score.
This page highlights elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2012 Peugeot 207 (registration year) using UK DVSA open data for the selected test year. Patterns are ranked against similar age and mileage peers. It is a buyer checklist from MOT defect statistics — not a full service history or manufacturer TSB list.
No. MOT tests do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronic modules. Patterns here come from MOT defect statistics only and should not be read as engine or gearbox reliability scores.
PRS means the vehicle failed items that were fixed at the test station and then passed the same day. We count PRS as a first-attempt fail in headline rates so same-day repairs do not hide problems.

About this data

Universe. UK class 4 cars only; normal MOT tests (not retests); results pass, PRS, or fail; one first test per vehicle per calendar year.

PRS policy. PRS means the vehicle failed items that were fixed at the test station and then passed the same day. We count PRS as a first-attempt fail in headline rates so same-day repairs do not hide problems.

Peer baseline. We compare this model year with other class 4 cars of similar age and mileage in the same test year, excluding the whole model family so the car is not compared with itself (leave-one-out peer baseline).

Data years. Test years covered: 2024, 2025.

Limitations.

  • MOT tests do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronic modules — so this is not a full reliability score.
  • Common faults are inferred from MOT defect statistics, not manufacturer TSBs or recalls.
  • Matching on age and mileage reduces but does not remove every usage or maintenance difference between cars.
  • Pass rates and star scores appear only when those data marts are available; this page never invents them.

Display rules config: 1

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.