Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 20,625 tests analysed

MINI Hatch 2007: reliability & common MOT faults

9,029 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2007 MINI Hatch in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Catalyst emissions was the most common reason a 2007 Hatch failed its MOT — 24.7% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

56.2%

of 20,625 first tests (2025)

First tests

20,625

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

9,029

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

First-attempt and official-style rates among class 4 first tests of the year.

First-attempt pass

56.2%

of 20,625 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

63.9%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

20,625

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 18.0 yrs · median mileage 91,462 mi

vs 2024: +0.6 pp first-attempt

Note:

  • Class 4 cars · first MOT of the year per vehicle · P/PRS/F outcomes (2025 data).
  • PRS (fixed at the station the same day) counts as a fail in the first-attempt rate.
  • Raw outcomes for this cohort — not adjusted for age, mileage, or peer mix.
  • MOT doesn't test engine or gearbox internals.

Common faults

Failure patterns that show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars.

These MOT failure patterns show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars of the same class, age, and mileage.

Shares below are measured across the 9,020 of 9,029 failed first attempts (99.9%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Fuel cap/sealing device — 3.4% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 305 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 6.7× more often than on similar cars of the same age and mileage. That is what makes it unusual for its class, which is a different question from what is most likely to fail; the buying checklist ranks by that. The full ranked list is in the table below.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Fuel cap/sealing device
Body, chassis, structure > Fuel system > Fuel cap/sealing device
 Any 305 ×6.7 3.4% Strong
Sub-frame (front)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Front 340 ×6.7 3.8% Strong
Catalyst emissions
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Catalyst emissions
 Any 2,230 ×4.9 24.7% Likely
SRS malfunction indicator lamp
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > SRS malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 463 ×2.6 5.1% Possible
Malfunction indicator lamp
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 1,032 ×2.3 11.4% Possible
Emissions not tested
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Emissions not tested
 Any 363 ×2.1 4.0% Possible

Only patterns that clear minimum sample and elevation thresholds are shown (at least 20 failures and about 2.0× more often than similar cars).

Note: Rates and comparisons are among first-attempt failed tests, not all MOTs. Patterns come from MOT defect codes — not manufacturer service bulletins, recalls, or a diagnosis of any individual car. Failures and advisories are listed separately.

Wear patterns

Usage and mileage effects that often track road use rather than model design.

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.

Pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Brake discs (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake discs and drums > Brake discs
 Rear 186 ×2.0 2.1% Wear
Note: These patterns are not treated as a model design fault in our common-faults ranking.

Advisories

Notes recorded at the test that appear more often than on similar cars.

Advisory notes recorded on failed first-attempt tests that appear more often than on similar cars.

Advisory pattern Location Notes vs similar cars Share Confidence
Catalyst emissions
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Catalyst emissions
 Any 137 ×12 1.5% Likely
Non catalyst emissions
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Non catalyst emissions
 Any 24 ×6.0 0.3% Likely
Macpherson strut (rear)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Macpherson strut
 Rear 24 ×3.9 0.3% Elevated
Cable (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages > Cable
 Rear 42 ×3.6 0.5% Possible
Pipes and hoses (front)
Steering > Power steering > Pipes and hoses
 Front 142 ×3.4 1.6% Possible
Sub-frame condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Sub-frame > Sub-frame condition
 Front 72 ×3.3 0.8% Likely
Sub-frame (front)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Front 1,058 ×3.2 11.7% Strong
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Rear 82 ×3.2 0.9% Likely
Note: Advisories are not a fail rate — they flag issues noted at the test, often before they become failures.

If you are buying one

What this year's MOT record means for the decision in front of you.

Nothing separates this year from the Hatchs either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2007 Hatchs, commonest first.

Other Hatch years worth knowing about

Newer cars always pass more often, so a plain "best year" list would just rank by age. These are the years that beat or miss the trend their own neighbouring years set — the only age-adjusted signal this data supports.

Year vs the years either side First-attempt pass (rises with newer cars) First tests
2010 Hatch +1.9 pp better 65.3% 29,511
2011 Hatch -1.7 pp worse 66.4% 28,014
2009 Hatch -1.3 pp worse 60.4% 24,970

What to check on a 2007 Hatch

The items that failed 2007 Hatchs most often, as a share of the year's failed first attempts. This is what goes wrong, not what is unusual — the table further up the page covers that.

  • Catalyst emissions — recorded on 24.7% of failed first attempts
  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 20.8% of failed first attempts
  • Malfunction indicator lamp — recorded on 11.4% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp aim — recorded on 9.2% of failed first attempts
  • Rbt (sp) — recorded on 5.5% of failed first attempts

Every figure here is a first-attempt MOT rate from DVSA open data for this model line. MOTs do not test engine or gearbox internals, so this is a pre-purchase checklist, not a full reliability score.

FAQs

Short answers about how to read this model-year guide.

Catalyst emissions was the most common reason a 2007 Hatch failed its MOT — 24.7% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 56.2% of 20,625 first MOTs on the 2007 MINI Hatch passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 63.9%. Among 9,029 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Fuel cap/sealing device appears more often than on s…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2007 MINI Hatchs most often at the first attempt were Catalyst emissions (24.7%), Position lamp (front) (20.8%) and Malfunction indicator lamp (11.4%) — each as a share of the year's failed first attempts. That is what goes wrong on the car. It is a different question from which patterns are unusual for the class, which the common-faults table an…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Fuel cap/sealing device (3.4% of those tests; 305 observed failures; about 6.7× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Fuel cap/sealing device shows up more often than on similar cars (3.4% of those tests; 305 observed failures; about 6.7× more often than similar cars). That does not prove a design fault — age, mileage, and how the car was used still matter. Treat it as a pre-purchase check point, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2007 MINI Hatch include Fuel cap/sealing device, Sub-frame (front), Catalyst emissions. These patterns show up more often than on similar cars after we filter out sparse noise — 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 appear more often than on similar cars 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 MOT failure patterns for the 2007 MINI Hatch (registration year) using UK DVSA open data for the selected test year. Patterns are compared with cars of a similar age and mileage. It is a buyer checklist from MOT defect statistics — not a full service history or manufacturer service-bulletin 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.

About this data

How this page is built and what it can (and can't) say.

These figures come from UK MOT open data for this model year. We surface common failure patterns against similar cars — not a full reliability score, and not a pass/fail verdict on any individual vehicle.

2024 2025

What we include

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

Same-day repairs

PRS means the car 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.

How we compare

We compare this model year with other Class 4 cars of similar age and mileage in the same test year. This model family is left out of the peer group so the car is not measured against itself.

What this does not cover

  • MOTs do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronics — this is not a full reliability score.
  • Common faults come from MOT defect stats, not manufacturer TSBs or recalls.
  • Age and mileage matching reduces — but does not remove — differences in how cars were used and maintained.
  • We never invent pass rates, star scores, or ranks when those data marts are missing.

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

Check any vehicle’s MOT history

Full MOT history, mileage records, and reliability insights for any UK vehicle.

Run a free check