... What I don’t understand is, why was I given false information at the scene by the officer.
Why when originally sending this did I receive a letter back saying if I could send supporting documentation to prove the defect has been rectified? Why the job form, signed by the mechanic with his company logo on it, my signature and the vans reg isn’t proof...
If you are still following this thread, what did the form the polce office gave you actually say? Did it say that you had to have the defect fixed by a MOT tester,
and did it also say that the number of the vehicle testing station had to be identified on it?
If the form
didn't say that the testing station number had to be identified, then I don't see why you can't argue that you
did return the form within 21 days, but that the police wrongly rejected it when they should have accepted it.
However, if the form said that you
did have to provide the number of the testing station then - despite what the officer may have told you - you're on somewhat sticky ground because you really should have followed the instructions on the form. If the instructions differed from what the officer had told you, your best course of action would have been to 'phone the police and ask them what you needed to do.
Obviously you can still argue in court that the officer didn't give you clear instructions as to what to do (and might have inadvertantly misled you) and that you tried your best in good faith to comply with the requirements, but that they hadn't been clearly communicated to you.
But I think it will come down to the wording of the instructions on the form.
By the way, I tend to agree with
@NewJudge. I wonder if your mobile mechanic is a bona fide MOT tester if he couldn't provide a testing station number?
