MOT Risk Index.co.uk

Renault Kangoo — MOT statistics 2024

The Renault Kangoo failed 45.8% of 56,323 first MOT attempts in 2024 ("first-time", excluding retests). Adjusted for the age of the fleet, its initial-failure ratio is 141.5 (100 = expected for its age profile). This vehicle fails its MOT about 42% more often than expected for its age.

MOT risk index 141.5, 95% CI 140.2–142.7 (100 = national average) 100 141.5 0 200
Index
141.5
100 = age-normal
Raw fail rate
45.8%
n = 56,323
Dangerous /100
18
national ≈11
Diesel − petrol
+3.6 pp
fail-rate gap
Rank
729 of 761
lower index = better

Age-adjusted peer: Peugeot Partner (index 145.6) — the two published results are 4.1 index points apart.

Renault Kangoo common problems: what actually fails the MOT

Steering stands out at 13.0 per 100 tests, against 5.6 per 100 tests across UK vans and pickups of the same ages.

higher bar = fails more oftenrate per 100 tests

Renault Kangoo common problems: what actually fails the MOT — 2024 UK MOT data

family vs national — matched to UK vans and pickups of the same ages — top component groups, per 100 tests. Legend: This family · National avg. Combined labels: family / national average. A gap here reflects how these vehicles are driven, used and maintained as well as how they were built — an MOT defect is a test outcome, not a breakdown.

Component-group comparison table

Each ratio carries a 95% interval. With 6 groups compared here, roughly one apparent difference in twenty is chance alone.

GroupThis familyCases behind itUK, same agesFamily / national
Lamps & electrical38.8142,13035.21.10×1.10–1.11
Brakes26.496,55422.11.20×1.19–1.20
Suspension21.879,80328.10.78×0.77–0.78
Visibility19.370,57516.31.19×1.18–1.19
Body & structure15.757,57315.11.04×1.03–1.05
Steering13.047,5375.62.33×2.31–2.35
Named defects — items per 100 initial tests, this family vs UK national average; this model measured on 366,181 tests, 2019-2024, national column 2024
What failedper 100 tests (this family)per 100 tests (UK average)ratio family / UKWhat to check
Rear registration plate lamp or light source…A rear registration plate lamp or light source missing or inoperative in the case of multiple lamps or light sources9.562.833.38×Try every light and switch — lamps are a top failure
Steering ball joint with excessive wear or free playA steering ball joint with excessive wear or free play7.541.226.17×Ask the seller about: A steering ball joint with excessive wear or free play
Transmission shaft constant velocity joint boot…A transmission shaft constant velocity joint boot missing or no longer prevents the ingress of dirt etc7.481.564.80×Ask the seller about: A transmission shaft constant velocity joint boot missing or
Brake pipe damaged or excessively corrodedBrake pipe damaged or excessively corroded6.341.414.51×Look underneath for rust or cracks around subframe and suspension mountings
Rear registration plate lamp or light source…A rear registration plate lamp or light source missing or inoperative in the case of a single lamp or all lamps4.380.924.76×Try every light and switch — lamps are a top failure
Spring or spring component fractured or seriously…A spring or spring component fractured or seriously weakened6.272.862.19×Ask the seller about: A spring or spring component fractured or seriously weakened
Windscreen or window damaged or seriously…Windscreen or window damaged or seriously discoloured but not adversely affecting driver's view5.732.362.43×Check wipers, washers and windscreen chips in the driver's view
Suspension pin, bush or joint excessively wornA suspension pin, bush or joint excessively worn8.004.871.64×Listen for knocks over bumps — worn joints show up on the test
Wiper blade missing or obviously not clearing the…Wiper blade missing or obviously not clearing the windscreen4.872.222.19×Check wipers, washers and windscreen chips in the driver's view
Tyre tread depth not in accordance with the…Tyre tread depth not in accordance with the requirements5.963.591.66×Check tyre tread depth across the full width

Named defects ranked by how much more often they appear than the national average — not by raw rate.

Renault Kangoo MOT advisories: what gets flagged

Brakes are highest at 56.1 per 100 tests; Steering is lowest at 6.2 per 100 tests — the gap is 49.9 per 100 tests.

higher bar = flagged more oftenadvisory items per 100 initial tests

Renault Kangoo MOT advisories: what gets flagged — 2024 UK MOT data
Advisory rates table
GroupAdvisories per 100
Brakes56.1
Tyres43.1
Suspension22.7
Non-component advisories10.4
Emissions & leaks6.5
Steering6.2

Advisories are wear the tester noted but didn't fail — what will need money soon.

Tyres, brakes and suspension: Renault Kangoo against cars of the same age

AgePartRenault KangooSame age, petrol and dieselDifference
3 yearsTyres6.524.172.35
3 yearsBrakes4.641.772.87
3 yearsSuspension0.880.630.25
4 yearsTyres7.244.542.70
4 yearsBrakes5.722.433.29
4 yearsSuspension2.231.211.02
5 yearsTyres7.655.062.59
5 yearsBrakes7.463.094.37
5 yearsSuspension4.632.192.44
6 yearsTyres8.195.542.65
6 yearsBrakes9.083.815.27
6 yearsSuspension8.193.724.47
7 yearsTyres8.045.952.09
7 yearsBrakes10.694.556.14
7 yearsSuspension11.775.686.09
8 yearsTyres8.256.311.94
8 yearsBrakes12.975.387.59
8 yearsSuspension14.567.786.78

Failing items per 100 initial tests, 2019-2024. The comparison group is every petrol or diesel car tested at the same age, so weight and drivetrain show up rather than fleet age.

If a vehicle like this fails, does it fail again?

A failure rate does not say whether a failure is a one-off or the start of something. This follows the same vehicles into their next ordinary MOT a year later — retests after a repair are excluded, because they follow a failure by definition. 2019-2024.

After this year's testFails next yearVehicles followed
It failed45.2%30,095
It passed38.9%144,387

A failed test raises next year's chance of failing again by 6.3 percentage points. The failure most likely to come back is lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment — 39.8% of those vehicles fail again next year. Some of this is the vehicle and some is the owner: a car that was let go once tends to be let go again. One caveat: a car that fails may be sold or scrapped rather than tested again, so these figures describe the vehicles that came back.

Adjusted for how much these are actually driven

The headline index adjusts for the fleet's age. Wear, though, follows mileage: a three-year-old taxi and a three-year-old garage queen sit in the same age band. These two rows compare every vehicle with vehicles of the same age, and then with vehicles of the same age and the same annual mileage, 2019-2024, on 364,468 tests. Both stand on the six-year corpus so they are measured on identical data — compare them with each other, not with the headline index above, which is measured on 2024 alone.

Standardised forIndexReading
Age only138.3fails more often than expected
Age and annual mileage134.3fails more often than vehicles driven as much
Share doing under 3,000 miles a year8.9%a normal spread of use

Mileage matters here: matching on how much these are driven moves the figure by 4.0 points — this fleet works harder than the vehicles it is measured against, so the age-only view penalises it — but it does not change which side of normal the vehicle sits on. One limit to keep in mind: mileage is partly a result of how often a car breaks down — one that spends weeks in the workshop covers fewer miles — so the mileage-matched figure can understate a real weakness. Tests with no usable odometer reading are left out of it.

How the Renault Kangoo compares with cars of its own age and size

Not against the whole fleet — against other light commercials tested at the same age, 2019-2024.

AgeRenault KangooSame class, same ageDifferenceTests
3 years27.22%19.86%+7.37 pp16,693
4 years32.05%22.84%+9.2 pp18,675
5 years35.22%25.33%+9.89 pp19,858
6 years38.83%28.78%+10.06 pp19,004
7 years42.29%32.18%+10.11 pp20,220
8 years46.21%35.43%+10.77 pp23,938
9 years48.42%38.19%+10.23 pp26,033
10 years50.5%40.62%+9.88 pp24,135
11 years49.52%42.89%+6.62 pp24,380
12 years49.97%44.74%+5.24 pp26,164
13 years50.07%45.94%+4.12 pp25,995
14 years50.3%46.74%+3.56 pp23,761
15 years50.45%47.29%+3.16 pp21,526
16 years50.67%47.46%+3.21 pp20,581
17 years50.67%47.38%+3.29 pp17,640
18 years51.44%47.29%+4.15 pp13,885
19 years52.67%46.7%+5.97 pp10,196
20 years51.8%45.88%+5.91 pp6,462

Raw first-time failure rates within each age, so fleet age cannot flatter either side. A positive difference means this model fails more often than its own class at that age.

How does the Renault Kangoo perform as it gets older?

The Kangoo at age 10 stands out at 50.4%, against 30.1% for all vehicles of the same age.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

How does the Renault Kangoo perform as it gets older? — 2024 UK MOT data

Chart axes: vehicle age, years · failure-rate scale 0–57%.

Takeaway: a 10-year-old Kangoo has roughly a 50% chance of failing its MOT; from about age 3 it stays above the national age curve.

Data table
AgeRenault KangooAll vehiclesGap
324.8%12.4%+12.4 pp
427.8%13.1%+14.7 pp
533.1%15.1%+18.0 pp
636.3%17.5%+18.8 pp
740.2%20.2%+20.0 pp
843.2%23.3%+19.8 pp
946.1%26.5%+19.5 pp
1050.4%30.1%+20.3 pp
1151.8%33.2%+18.7 pp
1250.3%35.7%+14.6 pp
1351.7%38.2%+13.5 pp
1452.7%40.4%+12.3 pp
1549.9%41.6%+8.3 pp
1645.8%43.1%+2.7 pp
1748.9%43.1%+5.7 pp
1848.4%43.9%+4.5 pp
1951.2%43.5%+7.7 pp
2049.9%41.0%+8.8 pp

Is a Renault Kangoo ULEZ compliant?

The share of classifiable 2024 Renault Kangoo MOT tests likely ULEZ compliant by first-registration date is 46.1%.

Based on 56,172 classifiable initial MOT tests. This describes the tested fleet, not a specific car. MOT data do not record Euro class, so likely compliance is inferred from fuel and first-registration date. For the only authoritative answer, check the registration with TfL's official ULEZ checker.

higher = larger share likely compliantinferred from fuel and first-registration date; not a recorded Euro class

Age-band estimate from classifiable initial MOT tests
Vehicle age at testLikely ULEZ-compliant shareTests
Under 3 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 41
3–5 years100.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 7,178
6–7 years100.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 4,904
8 years100.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 3,410
9 years57.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 4,009
10–14 years14.3%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 18,831
15–17 years50.6%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 8,310
18 years44.3%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 2,600
19 years0.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 2,303
20+ years0.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 4,586

Renault Kangoo petrol vs diesel: which ages best

Diesel is highest at 48.2%; Electric is lowest at 24.4% — the gap is 23.8 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Renault Kangoo petrol vs diesel: which ages best — 2024 UK MOT data
Fuel split table
FuelTests% failingGap vs best
Diesel41,57448.2%+23.8 pp
Petrol10,69144.6%+20.2 pp
Electric4,04524.4%+0.0 pp

Chart sample sizes: n=42k · n=11k · n=4,045.

How dangerous are Renault Kangoo MOT failures?

Major defects stand out at 106.7 per 100 tests, against 52.8 per 100 tests nationally.

higher bar = fails more oftenrate per 100 tests

How dangerous are Renault Kangoo MOT failures? — 2024 UK MOT data
Severity table
SeverityThis family /100National /100Family / national
Minor29.2214.222.05×
Major106.7352.752.02×
Dangerous18.3311.151.64×

Chart values: Minor 29.2 · Major 106.7 · Dangerous 18.3.

Per 100 tests on this family. National average: Minor 14.2 · Major 52.8 · Dangerous 11.2 per 100.

Does the month of a Renault Kangoo MOT matter?

Jan is highest at 47.0%; Dec is lowest at 44.9% — the gap is 2.1 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Does the month of a Renault Kangoo MOT matter? — 2024 UK MOT data

Chart scale: 27%–48%.

bars: Renault Kangoo · dashed: all class-4 cars

Month-by-month table
MonthRenault KangooAll vehiclesGap
Jan46.98%31.12%+15.9 pp
Feb46.89%29.99%+16.9 pp
Mar45.37%28.26%+17.1 pp
Apr46.63%29.78%+16.9 pp
May46.13%28.79%+17.3 pp
Jun44.96%28.15%+16.8 pp
Jul46.6%29.33%+17.3 pp
Aug46.94%29.2%+17.7 pp
Sep45.29%28.19%+17.1 pp
Oct46.05%30.34%+15.7 pp
Nov46.63%30.58%+16.1 pp
Dec44.91%29.33%+15.6 pp

Takeaway: the spread between best and worst month is 2.1 percentage points — booking month barely matters for this family. Seasonality partly reflects registration-date clustering, not weather.

Before reading the shape: most of it is not about cars. Britain changes its registration plates twice a year, and 18.9% of these cars were first registered in March with another17.1% in September — 36% in two months against the 17% an even spread would give. An MOT falls due three years after first registration, so the buying calendar becomes the testing calendar. That shapes how many cars are tested each month — not how often they fail: the busiest months here are not the worst ones, so read the failure line on its own and the volume behind it separately.

Renault Kangoo average mileage by age

At age 8, the middle half of Kangoos runs from 66,709 miles to 121,310 miles, against 90,981 miles as the median.

further right = more milesmedian is the typical car; band is p25–p75

Bars: Renault Kangoo · dashed: all class-4 cars — 2024 UK MOT data

Chart axes: vehicle age, years · odometer scale 0–158k mi.

Does high mileage mean more Renault Kangoo MOT failures at the same age?

Within the same age group, split by odometer (2024 MOTs), so this separates wear from age: at ages 10–14, 31.2% of those with under 40,000 miles failed first time versus 55.5% of those with over 140,000 miles.Inside this age group, higher mileage goes with more failures.

Does high mileage mean more Renault Kangoo MOT failures at the same age? — 2024 UK MOT data
Renault Kangoo: first-time failure by mileage within each age group (2024)
AgeOdometer% failing95% intervalTests
3–5<40k miles22.1%20.8–23.4%3,817
3–540-70k miles36.2%34–38.5%1,738
3–570-100k miles41.7%38.6–44.9%942
3–5100-140k miles36.9%32.9–41.1%528
3–5140k+ miles32%25.1–39.8%150 (rough estimate)
6–9<40k miles27.3%25–29.8%1,340
6–940-70k miles38.5%36.7–40.4%2,572
6–970-100k miles43.4%41.8–45.1%3,456
6–9100-140k miles46.1%44.4–47.9%3,093
6–9140k+ miles48.8%46.5–51.1%1,855
10–14<40k miles31.2%28.8–33.8%1,360
10–1440-70k miles43.3%41.3–45.2%2,461
10–1470-100k miles51.3%49.6–52.9%3,713
10–14100-140k miles56.1%54.8–57.4%5,831
10–14140k+ miles55.5%54.1–56.8%5,455
15+<40k miles37.4%34.9–39.9%1,453
15+40-70k miles43.8%42.3–45.3%4,014
15+70-100k miles50.4%48.9–51.9%4,334
15+100-140k miles52.9%51.4–54.3%4,692
15+140k+ miles52.8%51–54.5%3,236

line: median · band: middle half of the fleet (p25–p75)

Mileage by age (p25 / median / p75)
Agep25Medianp75Tests
313,81727,68249,4881,917
415,06030,29654,7212,060
525,86351,25982,0463,201
644,02368,35495,2132,466
756,83384,181113,0952,438
866,70990,981121,3103,410
975,516104,382136,8304,009
1078,265106,585137,5993,312
1184,881113,644147,0762,327
1267,208109,057144,4853,225
1378,013114,438146,8955,224
1480,282116,957150,7624,744
1560,28393,893133,0202,125
1654,11381,090122,3192,978
1760,05691,594127,5953,211
1867,68397,539128,9792,603
1967,65697,568130,3782,305
20+68,19895,702126,4224,589

A typical 8-year-old Kangoo has ~90,981 miles on the clock. Much more — ask why; much less — check for gaps in the MOT history.

Where in Britain the Renault Kangoo fails its MOT most

Kirkcaldy area is highest at 60.2%; Slough area is lowest at 34.6% — the gap is 25.5 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Where in Britain the Renault Kangoo fails its MOT most — 2024 UK MOT data
Toughest areas% failingvs model overall
Kirkcaldy (KY)60.17%+14.1 pp
Dundee (DD)57.74%+11.6 pp
Llandrindod Wells (LD)55.65%+9.5 pp
Huddersfield (HD)55.64%+9.5 pp
Hull (HU)55.11%+9.0 pp
Easiest areas% failingvs model overall
Slough (SL)34.64%-11.5 pp
Romford (RM)34.73%-11.4 pp
Twickenham (TW)35.23%-10.9 pp
Croydon (CR)35.67%-10.4 pp
Southend-on-Sea (SS)35.79%-10.3 pp

Why do areas differ?

For each external factor we correlate the area fail rate with the factor across postcode areas that have ≥800 tests of this family, then compare the bottom vs top fifth (quintile) of the factor. Correlation, not causation — factors travel together (the north is colder and often poorer; urban areas are denser and less salted). Road surface condition is joined now, for the 91 English areas the DfT publishes, and it explains nothing: the correlation with suspension failures is −0.01 and with body and structure failures 0.07. Potholes wreck wheels and tyres between tests, but by the time a car reaches the bay the road it drives on leaves no measurable trace.

In areas with the highest mot centre density this model fails 10.8 pp more often than in the lowest fifth (r=0.60, n=114 areas with ≥800 tests).

In areas with the highest urban share this model fails 8.2 pp less often than in the lowest fifth (r=-0.40, n=114 areas with ≥800 tests).

In areas with the highest frost days this model fails 4.2 pp more often than in the lowest fifth (r=0.38, n=114 areas with ≥800 tests).

Renault Kangoo Why do areas differ? — 2024 UK MOT data
Values shown in the quintile chart
FactorLow QHigh QGapCorrelation
MOT centre density38.7%49.5%+10.8 ppr=0.60
Urban share48.0%39.8%-8.2 ppr=-0.40
Frost days44.3%48.5%+4.2 ppr=0.38

Factors that only mean something combined

Some conditions are useless on their own and informative multiplied together. Frost days alone say little — Britain barely freezes. Salt tonnage alone says little — it tracks frost. Distance to the sea alone says little. Multiply the first two and divide by the third and you get an index of how hard an area attacks a car's underside, and it lines up with the corrosion defects we actually record. We built five such combinations and tested each against our own data. Three survived; two did not, and the failures are listed here on purpose — a proxy that was never checked is decoration. One survivor only survived on the second attempt: built from a crude stand-in for street parking it failed outright, and rebuilt from the census — terraced streets carrying more cars than they have driveways — it works, and carries information the salt index does not.

Composite area indicators, each tested against a defect rate we measure
CompositeBuilt fromTested againstrVerdict
Underbody corrosionfrost days × salt load ÷ (distance to coast + 1)share of tests with a corrosion defect+0.42holds (116 areas)
Tyre wearrain days × annual miles ÷ age at first tyre advisoryshare of tests failing on tyres+0.45holds (116 areas)
Overnight corrosionterraced housing × cars per household × frost daysshare with a corrosion defect+0.41holds (102 areas) — and adds signal beyond the first index
Deferred maintenancedeprivation × advisory-to-failure conversion ÷ labour ratecars repeating the same advisory−0.26fails (118 areas)
Powertrain stressengine capacity ÷ kerb weightsuspension, brake and emissions failures−0.16fails (22 models)

The deprivation result is the one worth dwelling on. The intuition that poorer areas defer repairs is strong enough that most people treat it as established. We tested it twice — once on raw failure rates (r = 0.04) and again, more fairly, on whether an advisory turns into a failure — and it did not hold any of the three times we tried it — on raw failure rates, on advisory-to-failure conversion, and again with deprivation measured properly inside each nation rather than England alone. We are closing it. What does predict local failure rates is the density of test centres, which is a statement about testing, not about cars.

All external-factor correlations (machine-readable)
Factorrn areasLow-Q fail %High-Q fail %Gap ppLow-Q factorHigh-Q factor
MOT centre density (per 10k vehicles)0.59811438.749.5+10.858.8
Urban share (0–1)-0.39811448.039.8-8.20.41
Frost days (days/year)0.37911444.348.5+4.211.438.1
Road-salt proxy (g/m²-yr)0.37611442.948.6+5.8219675.1
Distance to coast (km)-0.25611448.445.2-3.25.679.2
Terrain gradient (% grade)0.2496846.049.3+3.20.54
Income deprivation (score)0.1179543.545.4+1.90.10.2

Deprivation uses England IMD 2019 income score only (Scotland SIMD is a different scale). Salt proxy is a simplified NWSRG-style dry-salt sum from air Tmin; coastalness is distance from the area centroid to the nearest coastline.

Every dot is a postcode area — size = how many were tested there, colour = share failing. These figures are not age-adjusted: coastal and rural areas often run older fleets and salted roads, so higher raw fail rates do not automatically mean a worse local stock of this model.

Map labels: Scotland · N. England · Wales · London · S. West. Colour scale: 36%–55% failing.

Renault Kangoo survival: which cars are still on the road

By age 19 is well below the reference at 53.2%, against 100.0% at the ages 4–6 reference level.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Renault Kangoo survival: which cars are still on the road — 2024 UK MOT data

Chart axes: vehicle age, years · survival vs ages 4–6 · scale 0–105%.

Survival vs fail rate by age
AgeTestsSurvival vs ages 4–6Fail %
316,69387%27.22%
418,67597.4%32.05%
519,858100%35.22%
619,00499.1%38.83%
720,220100%42.29%
823,938100%46.21%
926,033100%48.42%
1024,135100%50.5%
1124,380100%49.52%
1226,164100%49.97%
1325,995100%50.07%
1423,761100%50.3%
1521,526100%50.45%
1620,581100%50.67%
1717,64092%50.67%
1813,88572.4%51.44%
1910,19653.2%52.67%

By age 19, only about 53% as many cars of this family present for MOT as at ages 4–6 (reference n≈19,179); survivors still fail at 52.7% vs 32.0% at age 4. Older cars that still appear are a selected subset — weaker ones have already left.

How many miles does a Renault Kangoo last?

100,000+ miles is highest at 40.3%; 200,000+ miles is lowest at 2.3% — the gap is 38.0 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

OdometerTests ≥ thresholdShare of sample
100,000+ miles146,80440.26%
150,000+ miles43,79412.01%
200,000+ miles8,3372.29%

Of 364,607 tests of this family with a usable odometer in 2024, 40.3% had reached 100k miles, 12.0% had reached 150k miles, 2.3% had reached 200k miles. This is a cross-section of cars still presenting for MOT, not a full birth cohort.

How many years is a Renault Kangoo likely to last?

Bought at age 5 is highest at 13.7 years; Bought at age 15 is lowest at 3.7 years — the gap is 10.0 years.

bigger number = longer remaining lifeyears on the observed survival curve

Age nowTypical mileage (p50)Expected years left
5—at least 13.7
8—at least 10.7
10—at least 8.7
12—at least 6.7
15—at least 3.7

estimateEstimate only — not a warranty: a typical 10-year-old example of this family has at least 8.7 expected years of further MOT-present life. The curve is observed only until age 19, so the true figure is likely higher.

Renault Kangoo faults that come together

Emissions & leaks + Speedometer stand out at 7.30×, against 1.00× if the faults were independent.

above 1.0× = more than expectedbelow 1.0× = less

Group AGroup BTogetherLift
Noise, emissions and leaksSpeedometer and speed limiter207.3× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems1724.13× (rough estimate)
Road WheelsTyres2783.98× (rough estimate)
Road WheelsSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems913.94× (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems1,2663.88×
Identification of the vehicleNoise, emissions and leaks1783.66× (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksRoad Wheels963.56× (rough estimate)
BrakesRoad Wheels3793.28× (rough estimate)
BrakesNoise, emissions and leaks4,5782.81×
Speedometer and speed limiterSteering262.8× (rough estimate)
BrakesIdentification of the vehicle5822.79×
BrakesSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems3,8722.77×
Identification of the vehicleTyres3452.73× (rough estimate)
BrakesSpeedometer and speed limiter322.72× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureNoise, emissions and leaks4,0782.7×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentRoad Wheels5382.68×
Road WheelsVisibility3392.67× (rough estimate)
Road WheelsSuspension3322.65× (rough estimate)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsSuspension3,9982.64×
Identification of the vehicleLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment9582.64×
Identification of the vehicleVisibility6022.63×
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsSteering2,8562.58×
Road WheelsSteering2352.57× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureIdentification of the vehicle4952.56× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleSuspension5762.55×
BrakesSuspension19,2572.54×
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsTyres2,0512.43×
SteeringSuspension14,4532.41×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSpeedometer and speed limiter492.4× (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksSuspension4,2232.39×
Body, chassis, structureSpeedometer and speed limiter262.39× (rough estimate)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems5,7632.37×
Identification of the vehicleSteering3892.36× (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksSteering3,0402.35×
Noise, emissions and leaksTyres2,3222.35×
Body, chassis, structureRoad Wheels2522.35× (rough estimate)
BrakesSteering12,9782.34×
BrakesTyres9,8982.34×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentNoise, emissions and leaks6,5252.3×
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsVisibility3,5062.29×
Body, chassis, structureSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems2,9642.29×
Speedometer and speed limiterVisibility292.25× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureBrakes14,1532.18×
Body, chassis, structureSteering11,1532.17×
SuspensionTyres9,9682.17×
BrakesLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment26,0062.14×
Body, chassis, structureSuspension14,9942.13×
Noise, emissions and leaksVisibility3,7662.1×
SteeringTyres6,9202.07×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentTyres15,0862.05×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSuspension26,5952.02×
TyresVisibility9,3832.02×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSteering19,0921.98×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentVisibility26,2151.96×
Body, chassis, structureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment21,3411.89×
BrakesVisibility14,4541.88×
Speedometer and speed limiterSuspension241.88× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureTyres7,3191.86×
SuspensionVisibility14,4931.74×
Body, chassis, structureVisibility12,2831.73×
SteeringVisibility10,4121.71×
Speedometer and speed limiterTyres17too few (rough estimate)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsSpeedometer and speed limiter14too few (rough estimate)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSeat belt installation check14too few (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureSeat belt installation check13too few (rough estimate)
Seat belt installation checkVisibility13too few (rough estimate)
Buses and coaches supplementary testsLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment11too few (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleRoad Wheels11too few (rough estimate)
Seat belt installation checkTyres9too few (rough estimate)
BrakesSeat belt installation check9too few (rough estimate)
Seat belt installation checkSuspension7too few (rough estimate)
Buses and coaches supplementary testsVisibility6too few (rough estimate)
Seat belt installation checkSteering6too few (rough estimate)
Buses and coaches supplementary testsSteering5too few (rough estimate)
BrakesBuses and coaches supplementary tests5too few (rough estimate)
Buses and coaches supplementary testsSuspension5too few (rough estimate)

Defects in «Noise, emissions and leaks» and «Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems» appear together 3.88× more often than chance (1,266 co-occurrences in the same test; lift≥1.3, n≥500).

Lift = how many times more often both groups appear on the same test than if independent. A pair is listed from 5 tests with both faults; the lift is shown from 20, and called above chance only when its 95% interval excludes 1 (see rough estimates).

Is low mileage better for a Renault Kangoo?

Cars driven under 5,000 miles a year is well below the reference at 34.3%, against 51.6% for cars driven 8,000–12,000 miles a year.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

BandFail %Tests
<5k miles/year34.33%41,097
8–12k miles/year51.56%67,873
Gap (low − normal)-17.23 pp—
By fuel and age

Diesel

AgeLow-use fail %nNormal fail %nGap pp
523.561,21432.844,284-9.28 pp
628.741,04436.154,686-7.41 pp
729.881,12140.225,209-10.33 pp
833.661,22446.726,627-13.06 pp
935.631,33350.417,503-14.77 pp
1038.951,29954.427,260-15.47 pp
1137.841,36155.417,138-17.57 pp
1239.51,56256.047,519-16.54 pp
1340.681,77056.097,602-15.41 pp
1442.391,93255.896,372-13.49 pp

Petrol

AgeLow-use fail %nNormal fail %nGap pp
720.4237732.3534-11.93 pp
824.0392842.86140-18.83 pp
924.511,52237.44227-12.94 pp
1028.012,09947.2339-19.18 pp
1131.473,36851.15477-19.68 pp
1234.964,60252.3652-17.34 pp
1337.065,01954.19740-17.13 pp
1440.435,18954.92701-14.49 pp

At matched ages 5–14, cars averaging under 5k miles/year fail at 34.3% vs 51.6% for 8–12k miles/year — 17.2 pp lower (n_low=41,097, n_normal=67,873). In this family low annual use is associated with fewer MOT fails, not more — the ‘garage queen’ penalty is not visible in overall fail rates. Diesel alone: 36.0% low-use vs 49.6% normal (-13.7 pp).

Which Renault Kangoo engine is best?

diesel 1.2–1.5 is highest at 103.9; petrol 1.8–2.0 is lowest at 50.8 — the gap is 53.1 points.

below 100 is betterabove 100 is worse100 = normal for this model at that age

Engine bands against this model's own failure rate at the same ages
FuelCapacityvs own age normRaw fail %Tests
petrol1.8–2.0 litre50.825.89%112 (rough estimate)
petrol1.5–1.8 litre82.941.59%44,727
diesel1.5–1.8 litre88.642.53%1,077 (rough estimate)
petrol1.0–1.2 litre91.946.52%24,399
petrol1.2–1.5 litre98.950.52%7,084
diesel1.0–1.2 litre99.650.56%180 (rough estimate)
diesel1.8–2.0 litre103.452.82%8,840
diesel1.2–1.5 litre103.947.42%267,315

Splitting this model by fuel alone hides the thing that actually differs. Within the same badge, the diesel 1.2–1.5 runs at 103.9 against this model's own age norm while the petrol 1.5–1.8 runs at 82.9 — a spread of 21 points between two cars that share a name.

Read this one with more care than the rest of the page. Age is held constant, but who buys which engine is not: the largest capacity in a range is often a performance or executive variant that is garaged, cherished and lightly driven, while the smallest is frequently a fleet or entry car worked hard from new. The gap below is real in the test records; how much of it is the engine and how much is the owner, this data cannot separate. Bands under 100 tests are not shown; bands under 5,000 tests are rough estimates.

Best year for a Renault Kangoo, and the years to avoid

Build year 2017 is highest at 108.1; Build year 2020 is lowest at 87.6 — the gap is 20.5 points.

below 100 is betterabove 100 is worse100 = normal for this model at that age

build year vs the same model at the same age · 100 = as expected

Renault Kangoo build year vs the same model at the same age · 100 = as expected — 2024 UK MOT data
Renault Kangoo by build year, tests 2019–2024. Below 100 is better than the model's own age norm.
Every build year with its confidence interval
Build yearvs own age norm95% CIRaw fail %TestsVerdict
202087.682.2–92.925.16%4,102better
201998.795.1–102.230.09%9,651no different
2018106.5103–11034.51%10,159worse
2017108.1105.1–111.236.76%13,256worse
201698.896.6–10136.16%21,459no different
20159896.1–10039.35%25,616no different
201499.197.1–101.242.89%20,961no different
2013102.8100.5–105.247.02%15,092worse
201299.697.6–101.547.45%21,594no different
2011103101.5–104.550.56%35,899worse
2010104.2102.6–105.751.95%32,984worse
200997.595.3–99.749.04%15,048better
200889.888–91.645.2%21,670better
200796.194.4–97.848.65%25,374better
20069795.1–98.849.35%21,506better
2005101.899.9–103.852.25%20,144no different
2004101.399.3–103.352.28%18,243no different
2003102.9100.5–105.353.27%12,993worse
200298.395.5–101.150.97%9,443no different
200110298.1–105.953.59%4,908no different
2000105.299.1–111.455.9%2,025no different
199910289.4–114.754%463no different

The best build year here is 2020 and the weakest is 2017. Comparing build years sounds simple and is not: within a single year of testing, a car's build year and its age are the same number, so a naive comparison of years is a comparison of ages wearing a disguise. Each year below is measured against the same model at the same age in other cohorts, across six years of testing — 11 of 22 years come out distinguishable from their own model's age norm.

Two limits worth knowing before you act on this. Age, test year and build year are locked together by arithmetic, so the test-year effect is taken from the observed national failure level of each year rather than estimated — it is an adjustment, not a solution.

Renault Kangoo MOT repair costs

The MOT-failure repair budget per test runs from £133.16 to £253.00, against £54.85 for the test itself.

bigger number = costs morepounds per test, MOT-failing faults only

MOT repairs, budget
£133–253
per test, repairs only
The test itself
£54.85
statutory cap, unchanged since 2010
How the figure is built: chance of failing × typical price of that repair
ComponentFails per 100 testsTypical repairIts priceContribution
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment38.8 (nat. 18.09)Battery replacement (standard 12V lead-acid)£140£54.32
Brakes26.4 (nat. 11.25)Front brake pads (parts + labour, typical hatchback)£150£39.60
Suspension21.8 (nat. 15.36)Suspension coil spring (single corner)£180£39.24

Multiply how often each component fails on this model by what that repair usually costs, and you get the amount an owner should expect to budget per test for MOT-failing faults only — roughly £133 to £253, on top of the test fee itself. It is a budgeting figure, not a quote: the spread between a set of pads and a set of discs is most of the range.

Prices are modal quotes from a hand-kept catalogue of published UK garage guides — we do not scrape the booking sites, their terms forbid it, so this list is short and updated by hand with a source and date against each line. Each line prices one typical repair in that group, not a full remedy, and only groups our catalogue actually covers are counted. The contrast worth noticing is the second card: the legal maximum for the test has been £54.85 since 2010, while the repairs it uncovers have followed inflation the whole time.

For scale from a different direction: Warrantywise, which sees used-car warranty claims rather than test failures, puts the average claim at £2,052 across the ten highest-claim models it ranks and £539 for Honda, the lowest-claim make in its index (Warrantywise index 2026, 1.6 million claims, cars aged 3–15). Those sit an order of magnitude above the figures in this table, and the gap is the point: a warranty claim is a gearbox or an engine, which almost never fails an MOT, while the faults that do fail one are corrosion, lamps and tyres, which no warranty pays for. The two numbers answer different questions and neither replaces the other.

Renault Kangoo running costs for a fleet

Vehicles failing at age 10 stand out at 50.0%, against 33.0% at age 5, tested in the same year.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Fails per 100 at age 5
33
vehicles needing work
At age 10
50
other cars of this model tested at age 10 in 2024
Repairs per 100
£13,316
plus £5,485 in test fees
Off the road
1d
median; 37.48% cleared same day
Failure rate and typical odometer by age
AgeFailsMedian odometerTestsGap vs age 5
324.78%27,6821,917-8.3 pp
427.82%30,2962,060-5.3 pp
533.11%51,2593,201+0.0 pp
636.29%68,3542,466+3.2 pp
740.2%84,1812,438+7.1 pp
843.17%90,9813,410+10.1 pp
946.05%104,3824,009+12.9 pp
1050.42%106,5853,312+17.3 pp
1151.83%113,6442,327+18.7 pp
1250.29%109,0573,225+17.2 pp
1351.7%114,4385,224+18.6 pp
1452.68%116,9574,744+19.6 pp
1549.93%93,8932,125+16.8 pp
1645.8%81,0902,978+12.7 pp
1748.86%91,5943,211+15.8 pp
1848.37%97,5392,603+15.3 pp
1951.19%97,5682,305+18.1 pp

The number a fleet manager needs is not the failure rate, it is the year the car starts costing more. Between cars aged 4 and cars aged 5, both tested in 2024, the failure rate of this model is 5.29 percentage points higher — the steepest one-year step in this cross-section of different cars, and a natural planning point for replacement.

Repair spend uses the same modal prices as the section above, so it inherits the same limits: one typical repair per component group, not a full remedy. Downtime is the gap between the failed test and the passed re-test, which is the window a vehicle is legally off the road.

Renault Kangoo rust problems: where they corrode

Age-standardised corrosion susceptibility stands out at 5.63×, against 1.00× for the national age-standardised rate.

above 1.0× = rusts more than averagebelow 1.0× = rusts less

How it rusts
5.63×
4.31% of tests record a corrosion defect vs 0.77% typical — age-standardised
Salt Belt exposure
highest
percentile among the models published here, from its tests across 114 postcode areas

This Renault Kangoo fails on corrosion far more often than average once age is held constant, and its owners live in areas that are saltier than most for the models we publish.

Corrosion is the one failure mode that is as much about geography as about the car. We keep the two apart on purpose: a model can look rusty simply because it is popular in Scotland, and a model can look clean simply because it is bought in Surrey. Blending them into a single score would hide which of the two is doing the work.

Exposure is this model's tests weighted by an area corrosion index built from frost days, salt load and distance to the coast — the composite validated at r = 0.42 against corrosion defects we actually record. It is published as a rank, not a raw score, because every mainstream model skews towards low-corrosion areas for the simple reason that most of Britain's cars are in the south. Susceptibility is standardised to the national age profile, so an old fleet does not get labelled a rusty model.

Does a Renault Kangoo advisory become a failure?

Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment are highest at 36.6%; Road wheels are lowest at 1.0% — the gap is 35.6 percentage points.

higher = more likelypercentage is the observed transition probability

chance the same component fails at the next MOT, given an advisory now

Renault Kangoo chance the same component fails at the next MOT, given an advisory now — 2024 UK MOT data
Renault Kangoo, advisory → failure conversion by component group, chained tests 2019–2024. Chart labels and rates: Lamps & electrical 36.6% · Suspension 25.4% · Steering 23.6% · Body & chassis 21% · Brakes 20.5% · Tyres 11.1% · Noise, emissions, leaks 6.5% · Seat belts & restraints 6.4%.
Advisory today → failure at the next test, with how long you have
ComponentFails next timeTypical lead timeMiles of warningAdvisories tracked
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment36.6%12.1 months6,85811,569
Suspension25.4%12.1 months5,12537,439
Steering23.6%12.1 months5,14214,819
Body, chassis, structure21.0%12.1 months2,9719,152
Brakes20.5%12.1 months5,48684,573
Tyres11.1%12.1 months5,80175,600
Noise, emissions and leaks6.5%12.1 months4,39615,344
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems6.4%12.1 months4,3233,449
Identification of the vehicle4.7%12.1 months5,4306,432
Road wheels1.0%12 months6,3404,195

This is the question an advisory note actually raises, and it needs six years of test history to answer. We followed the same vehicles from one MOT to the next across 2019–2024 and measured how often a component that was merely advised came back as a genuine failure at the next test.

Read it as a budgeting horizon, not a prophecy: the most likely component above turns into a failure for about 37 in 100 cars, and the median gap is 12.1 months and roughly 6,858 miles. The rest were repaired, sold, scrapped, or simply held. Rows with fewer than 500 tracked advisories are not shown.

What will fail next on a Renault Kangoo?

Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment after a failure at age 9-11 are highest at 34.0%; Tyres after a passed at age <3 are lowest at 5.0% — the gap is 29.0 percentage points.

higher = more likelypercentage is the observed transition probability

Probability of each component failing at the next test, by age and last result
AgeLast testMost likely next failuresCars tracked
<3passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 11.6% · Visibility 10.2% · Tyres 5.0%6,160
<3advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 15.6% · Visibility 15.4% · Tyres 6.9%2,293
<3failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 21.1% · Visibility 16.0% · Tyres 9.8%3,001
3-5passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 14.0% · Visibility 10.9% · Tyres 6.8%19,655
3-5advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 19.0% · Visibility 14.3% · Brakes 9.1%11,024
3-5failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 23.5% · Visibility 16.2% · Brakes 10.7%16,153
6-8passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 17.4% · Suspension 11.1% · Visibility 11.1%16,727
6-8advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 23.1% · Suspension 14.9% · Visibility 14.8%13,871
6-8failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 29.9% · Suspension 19.9% · Visibility 18.2%24,873
9-11passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 18.7% · Body, chassis, structure 12.2% · Suspension 11.8%15,328
9-11advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 26.6% · Body, chassis, structure 17.5% · Suspension 17.0%15,790
9-11failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 34.0% · Suspension 22.0% · Body, chassis, structure 20.8%30,344
12-14passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 18.6% · Suspension 12.6% · Steering 10.8%13,167
12-14advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 25.9% · Suspension 17.3% · Visibility 15.8%14,499
12-14failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 32.0% · Suspension 21.5% · Brakes 19.4%26,832
15-19passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 18.2% · Suspension 13.7% · Steering 11.9%11,139
15-19advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 25.4% · Suspension 19.6% · Body, chassis, structure 17.0%14,936
15-19failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 31.2% · Suspension 22.9% · Brakes 19.3%26,873
20+passedBody, chassis, structure 17.9% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 16.5% · Suspension 12.7%850
20+advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 23.5% · Body, chassis, structure 23.3% · Suspension 20.1%1,311
20+failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 31.0% · Body, chassis, structure 24.8% · Suspension 24.1%2,164

The same chains, cut differently: given a car's age and how its last test went, which component most often causes trouble at the following one.

The pattern that repeats across every family: a failure at one test roughly doubles the chance of a failure on the same component at the next one, and an advisory sits about half-way between a clean pass and a failure. Age bands in years; probabilities are per car, not per defect item.

Renault Kangoo ownership: what six years of MOTs show

The ten-day re-test pass rate is highest at 59.0%; The later re-test pass rate is lowest at 3.5% — the gap is 55.5 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Fixed same day
37.48%
of failures re-tested
Fails /10k miles
0.654
miles actually driven
Clean streaks
24.67%
3+ tests, nothing noted
Odometer anomaly
1.964%
reading went backwards

Failing is usually a same-week event, not a disaster. Of 127,303 failures followed through to their re-test, 37.48% were repaired and passed the same day and 59.02% within ten days; the median gap is 1 day. 415,568 defect items were cleared in the process.

Per mile driven, not per year. Dividing failures by the miles that actually went onto the odometers between consecutive tests gives 0.654 failures per 10,000 miles, on a median of 5,107 miles a year across 72,514 chains. This is the number to compare between models — an annual rate quietly rewards cars that barely leave the drive.

Two populations hide inside one model. 24.67% of these cars strung together three or more tests with nothing recorded at all, while 41.64% carried the same advisory three times or more — the same fault, noted, ignored, noted again. When you buy used you are buying one of those two histories, and the MOT record shows which.

Odometer anomalies: 1.964% of 72,659 chains show a reading lower than the previous test, with a median drop of 14,189 miles. We call this an anomaly and not fraud on purpose — instrument swaps, imports, unit mix-ups and keying errors all land in the same bucket. Obvious typos (drops under 100 miles or over 90% of the reading) are already excluded.

Renault Kangoo safety recalls and how to check yours

DVSA recall campaigns stand out at 18.

bigger number = more recorded casescompare like-for-like scope, not sample size alone

recall campaigns launched per year

Renault Kangoo recall campaigns launched per year — 2024 UK MOT data
Campaigns launched per year for the Renault Kangoo. Source: DVSA vehicle safety recalls. Chart values: 2011: 0 · 2012: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2015: 0 · 2016: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2022: 0 · 2023: 0 · 2024: 0 · 2025: 2.
Most recent safety recall campaigns for the Renault Kangoo
ReferenceLaunchedVehiclesConcern
R/2025/25401/09/202515,240Rear Door Top Door Strikers
R/2025/03228/01/202518Rear door hinges
R/2021/04916/02/2021293RISK OF A FUEL LEAK IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT
R/2020/01428/01/202050INADEQUATE TIGHTENING OF THE REAR HUB NUTS AND POTENTIALLY THE CALIPER FIXING SCREWS ON TH
R/2019/27403/09/2019570THE STOP & START FUNCTION DOES NOT PERFORM CORRECTLY
All 18 campaigns
ReferenceLaunchedBuild datesVehiclesConcern
R/2025/25401/09/202515/05/2020 – 16/05/202515,240Rear Door Top Door Strikers
R/2025/03228/01/202518/10/2024 – 29/10/202418Rear door hinges
R/2021/04916/02/202101/02/2018 – 02/04/2019293RISK OF A FUEL LEAK IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT
R/2020/01428/01/202004/09/2019 – 11/10/201950INADEQUATE TIGHTENING OF THE REAR HUB NUTS AND POTENTIALLY THE CALIPER FIXING SCREWS ON TH
R/2019/27403/09/201905/12/2018 – 19/02/2019570THE STOP & START FUNCTION DOES NOT PERFORM CORRECTLY
R/2018/32504/12/201820/02/2018 – 14/04/20181INCORRECT WELDING OF THE CATALYTIC CONVERTOR
R/2017/11028/03/201708/11/2016 – 09/12/20167STEERING COLUMN HOUSING MAY CRACK
R/2016/11431/05/201623/11/2015 – 27/11/20153REAR LEFT HAND SEAT BELT MOUNTING MAY FAIL
R/2016/01622/04/201601/09/2009 – 30/09/2014194BENCH SEAT MAY MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT WARNING
R/2014/09628/08/201401/10/2012 – 14/05/2013772BRAKING EFFICIENCY MAY BE AFFECTED
R/2013/07328/06/20132,496FUEL PIPE PROTECTIVE COVER MAY DETACH & DAMAGE ENGINE
R/2012/00217/01/20122,243SEATBELT MAY FAIL
R/2010/02322/06/201001/04/2009 – 24/04/2009149BRAKING EFFICIENCY MAY BE AFFECTED
R/2009/11627/10/200934,403POSSIBLE LOSS OF POWER ASSISTANCE TO THE STEERING
R/2001/16110/01/200223/05/2001 – 30/06/20011,445DOOR SECURITY CONCERN
R/2000/13726/01/200123/12/1998 – 26/05/200014,046UNINTENTIONAL DEPLOYMENT OF AIR BAGS AND/OR SEAT BELT PRE-TENSIONERS
R/2000/13626/01/200123/12/1998 – 26/05/200014,046UNINTENTIONAL DEPLOYMENT OF AIR BAGS AND/OR SEAT BELT PRE-TENSIONERS
R/2000/10315/12/200001/04/2000 – 30/07/2000969RISK OF RAPID LOSS OF TYRE PRESSURE

DVSA lists 18 safety recall campaigns for the Renault Kangoo, covering roughly 86,945 vehicles in total. A recall is the manufacturer fixing a fault for free, so an open recall on your car costs nothing to clear.

Counter-intuitive, and measured on our own data: across the 25 families published here, more recalls go with a lower MOT Risk Index (r = −0.52). Heavily recalled models are not worse cars in the test bay — an active manufacturer removes the fault before it becomes an MOT failure.

Check whether a specific car has an outstanding recall — free, by registration — at DVSA's recall service. Source: DVSA vehicle safety recalls (check-vehicle-recalls.service.gov.uk), OGL.

Renault Kangoo inspection results in other countries

United Kingdom MOT stands out at 45.8%, against 26.0% nationally.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Same model, different national inspection regimes
CountryTestThis model failsNational averagePositionSample
United KingdomMOT (class 4)45.8%26.01%+19.8 pp56,323
NetherlandsAPK66%50.8%+15.2 pp13,059

The verdict is consistent across every regime where the difference is clear, which is the strongest form this comparison takes: independent inspectorates, different rulebooks, same direction of travel.

The exact faults Netherlands records — APK defect codes, 2024
CodeFaultRecordedType
210Tyre pressure not at the correct value2,463failure
497Number-plate light not working or missing1,899failure
205Tyre with insufficient tread1,891failure
178Driveshaft gaiter split, no longer sealing998failure
RA2Excessive leak of other fluids944advisory
516Dipped headlight incorrectly aimed921failure
391Wipers leave insufficient visibility841failure
AC1Tyre down to 1.6–2.5 mm of tread829advisory

Worth dwelling on how mundane the top of that list is: tyre pressure, tread depth, headlight aim. The Dutch APK records 1.85 defects per inspection against a much higher national failure rate than Britain's, and the reason is not that Dutch cars are worse — it is that the two regimes draw the line between "note it" and "fail it" in different places. Codes are the RDW's own; the English wording here is our translation of the Dutch original.

Britain is not the only country that inspects every car every year, and the Renault Kangoo is on the road in all of them. Each national regime writes its own rules, so the pass rates below are not comparable to each other — what does travel across a border is whether a model sits above or below its own country's average.

Rows with fewer than 500 inspections are not published. Sources: RDW open data — Meldingen Keuringsinstantie + Geconstateerde Gebreken + Gekentekende voertuigen (2024), CC0. Not an RDW endorsement.. Adapted; licences and full notice.

Renault Kangoo MOT: quick answers

Renault Kangoo MOT Risk Index stands out at 141.5, against 100 for a car with the same age profile.

below 100 is betterabove 100 is worse100 = normal for this model at that age

What is the Renault Kangoo first-time MOT pass rate?
54.2% of first attempts passed in 2024 (56,323 tests). This is the first-time figure: retests after repair are excluded. Basis: first-time, excluding retests.
Why does this number differ from other sites?
Other sites often report a pass rate that includes retests or counts all attempts. Our 45.8% figure is the first-time initial failure rate, using 56,323 primary tests as the denominator (first-time, excluding retests). The age-adjusted MOT initial-failure ratio 141.5 is shown separately because raw rates compare fleet age as well as cars.

Compare the Renault Kangoo with other cars

Peugeot Partner is highest at 145.6; Dacia Duster is lowest at 140.6 — the gap is 5.0 points.

below 100 is betterabove 100 is worse100 = normal for this model at that age

Same brand

All Renault MOT statisticsRenault Clio MOT statsRenault Trafic MOT stats

Similar risk

Dacia Duster (index 140.6)Dacia Sandero (index 144.4)Peugeot Partner (index 145.6)

Same size class

how Mercedes-Benz SLK compareshow Peugeot Expert compareshow Jaguar F-Pace compares

By build year

Renault Kangoo 1999Renault Kangoo 2000Renault Kangoo 2001Renault Kangoo 2002Renault Kangoo 2003Renault Kangoo 2004Renault Kangoo 2005Renault Kangoo 2006Renault Kangoo 2007Renault Kangoo 2008Renault Kangoo 2009Renault Kangoo 2010Renault Kangoo 2011Renault Kangoo 2012Renault Kangoo 2013Renault Kangoo 2014Renault Kangoo 2015Renault Kangoo 2016Renault Kangoo 2017Renault Kangoo 2018Renault Kangoo 2019Renault Kangoo 2020

By area

Renault Kangoo MOT failure rate by postcode area

By failure group

Renault Kangoo body, chassis and structure failuresRenault Kangoo brakes failuresRenault Kangoo vehicle identification failuresRenault Kangoo lamps, reflectors and electrics failuresRenault Kangoo noise, emissions and leaks failuresRenault Kangoo road wheels failuresRenault Kangoo seat belts and airbags failuresRenault Kangoo steering failuresRenault Kangoo suspension failuresRenault Kangoo tyres failuresRenault Kangoo visibility failures

Inspections abroad

Renault Kangoo in the Netherlands


Data details & how to cite

Scope: class-4 vehicles (cars), initial tests only, outcomes pass / fail / fixed-on-the-spot at the station (PRS counts towards the failure rate — the defect was present at arrival). Index = observed initial failures ÷ failures expected for this fleet's exact age profile, ×100; margin of error is a 95% confidence interval. Covers ALL generations together — a 3-year-old and a 15-year-old are very different cars; a generation split is on the roadmap. Dataset release dataset_release_id=dvsa-2024-v2, frozen baseline; headline claim_id=family-stats:renault-kangoo:dvsa-2024-v2. Full method: methodology.

Cite: MOT Risk Index (2026). Renault Kangoo MOT statistics 2024 (data release dvsa-2024-v2; downloadable dataset motriskindex-families-2024-v5, doi:10.5281/zenodo.22975051). https://motriskindex.co.uk/cars/renault-kangoo/ · Published 2026-07-30.