No MOT for 40 year old vehicles

[Paul Coleman 364]

I can't see this is a good thing, even though my Esprit would fall into this category... https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadworthiness-testing-for-vehicles-of-historic-interest

What are your thoughts? how can scrapping a road-worthiness test improve the safety of the vehicles on our roads?

[Buddsy 1,456 1 Vehicles]

We discussed this a few years back. I still think even the best person who really looks after their classic still needs the deadline of an annual MOT to get those little jobs done rather than leaving them on the back burner to do.

 

Buddsy 

[Barrykearley 5,357]

Even if this goes through - any car over that age I would mot every year anyway.

theres already a similar rule for older cars - but it's a nice idea to have an mot just for your own piece of mind

[ramjet 943]

I have driven cars over here with my job as a car cleaner and while I do not know all the ins and outs of your MOT system, there are some cars that I have driven which should not be on the road here.

We have no annual inspection of any type. Just a roadworthy certification if you sell the car. Which only lasts for 30 days.

[silverfrost 1,386]

Looking at the link and reading some of the suggestions put forward on that site for they are looking into, I find it hard to believe that they are going to be doing anyone any favours. I think as with most goverment things they will have an underline motive imo.  I still do not agree with the current legislation that cars less than 3yrs old do not require mots.  Yes back in the dark ages when we used to do probably less than 10,000 miles per year it was ok, but now quite a lot of cars do 100,000 miles per year.  Some of the cars up for their first mot are some of the worst deathtraps i have layed my eyes on, Slick tyres,no brakes,suspension falling off etc. 

[Paul Coleman 364]

From the government's document I quote...

This is mainly for safety reasons as the Impact Assessment shows that vehicles first registered between 1978 and 1987 (broadly 30-40 years old when the regulatory changes need to be made) fail 33.7% of MOT tests. For vehicles registered between 1960 and 1977 the failure rate is 25.3% and for pre-1960 vehicles is 14.8%.

Unless I'm reading this wrongly, it seems to somehow imply that by scrapping the MOT those vehicles which are currently failing at a rate of 25.3% will suddenly become safer - how does that work then? How am I supposed to check the efficiency of my brakes at home without a rolling road and how do I know if my headlamps are setup accurately, or that my emmissions are not horrendous. The last time I took my Daughter's Mini for an MOT one of the brakes wasn't working correctly and the CO was double the limit. Without all that expensive test equipment I would never have known.

 

[TAR 340]

It's the thin end of the wedge. Once they make this law they will be able to control how often you can use your car on the road. If its MOT exempt it will be classed as a historic vehicle and be limited to the number of miles it can be driven per year.

 

[Escape 594 2 Vehicles]

We have this rule in Belgium: any car over 25 years old does not need a yearly MOT. Only limitation is it can not be used as a daily driver (i.e. to/from work, school or for business purposes). As our MOT is very strict, it does make it a lot easier to keep classic cars on the road, that would otherwise fail because of things like original size tires no longer available or emissions and such. But there is talk of introducing a limited MOT (possible only every 2 years) for these vehicles.

Our MOT adds little to safety anyway, last time the brakes on my Range Rover weren't even checked because they couldn't be bothered to set up the rolling road for a permanent 4x4...

[silverfrost 1,386]

Filip,  Funny you should say that, the law must of changed in Belgium for the better, as going back many years now i sold my oldspitfire, nut and bolt rebuild and the chap was from Belgium, came over to the UK with a low loader buying up all the triumphs, I said to him why ? He said the law had changed and now everybody was buying all the old cars back as they could now use them on the road ! Did no really understand what he was going on about at the time but it makes sense now.

[ChrisJ 1,081 2 Vehicles]

2 hours ago, Escape said:

any car over 25 years old does not need a yearly MOT. Only limitation is it can not be used as a daily driver

Is that only if you don't MOT it?

My Excel is 26 years old, and I use it as my daily driver  Although I have to alternate it with my modern Peugeot as leaving the Peugeot on the drive for long periods unused would not be good for it.  

Stopping the requirement for MOTs would stop you being able to check if the car has been used regularly via the MOT History website - not a good move.

Edit

Question further down

Do you agree that an annual mileage limit should be imposed on VHIs exempted from testing?

From the Impact Assessment

"The purpose of the new proposals is to ensure only vehicles of genuine historical interest are allowed exemption from testing as these vehicles are more likely to be well maintained and
used less frequently."

As we know our cars benefit from being in regular use, so this is all the more reason to keep the MOT rather than drop it!
 

At the end of the Impact Assessment

Does implementation go beyond minimum EU requirements? YES

Doesn't this sum up everything that is wrong with the current situation.

 

[andydclements 486 2 Vehicles]

15 hours ago, Barrykearley said:

Even if this goes through - any car over that age I would mot every year anyway.

theres already a similar rule for older cars - but it's a nice idea to have an mot just for your own piece of mind

I'd be doing the same as Barry. I know the MOT is not proof it's a safe/roadworthy car but having an MOT pass does give some defense if necessary such as an accident where somebody claims it's because the car was defective or no maintained to  safe standard. As I say, it doesn't prove it's safe but it moves the onus to the other party to prove that it's unsafe.

 

What's the betting that even if it comes into law, some insurers still demand it via Terms and Conditions? I believe some might already demand it but mine for example is that more-encompassing requirement that the car is roadworthy.

[JayEmm 1,270]

I heard a while back some people were happy about the possibility of this simply because they could pinch the number plates off old cars. If memory served you had to have a car MOT'd/roadworthy to transfer the plate off it... or something. Never really looked into it.

I can see the benefit of a different MOT for classic vehicles, but not abandoning one altogether. The current MOT is a bit weird anyway, a general lack of common sense doesn't help it.

[silverfrost 1,386]

James you are right about the number plate they can only transfer a plate from a car with a current MOT.  So it may be easier in the future for people to pull plates for sale.   I just cannot see why they are even bothering with this, why try to fix something that is not broken 

[Loose Cannon 576 1 Vehicles]

A neighbour has a pile of rust that used to be a TR6, the twit let it rot with a £3000 number plate on it. He must be pleased to read this.

[JayEmm 1,270]

To be honest, most people these days don't run a car much more than 15 years old because "they're cheap"... even the 17/18 year olds I know are all clamoring over brand new cars on finance, with insurance incentives etc...

I am all for helping classic car owners... just not sure this is the appropriate way. I'd rather they move the free tax threshold to 25 years.

[silverfrost 1,386]

See this is another Reason why all this goverment car stuff is absolute bol....ks .    If you sell a car now even though the car has no tax disc anymore, say you sell it on the 23rd of the month etc, you loose the months tax as you cant claim back less than a month, but at the the same time the poor fellow who has just purchased your car from you also pays for the full months worth of tax as they do not tax for less than a month.   Given its all done online they are absolutly ripping the piss money wise and are coining it in on car tax.

Another gripe is also the sorn,  Why should you have to keep sorning every year ?  the roads are covered in those cameras now and police cars have the tech to read plates automatically as this is why you need no tax disc, so why should you have to sorn. ? As the sorn is also a grey area at the moment with people taking the dvla to court  over cases.  

All the UK is bothered about is trying to keep the numbers of cars of the road full stop, the road tax money goes in the slush fund pot, If they sorted the public transport out people would use it,   15 seconds and a trains classed as late in Japan. 

 

[Escape 594 2 Vehicles]

Dan, yes, the law changed mid-2013. As most laws in Belgium, it's rather complicated. Before, cars on a classic plate (beginning with 'O' for oldtimer) were exempt from MOT but could only be used on events (without a proper definition what constitutes an event), testdrives (there were obviously a lot of those), within a range of 25km from the owner's home and during daylight (this did make sense, as the headlights were never checked!). With the new law in 2013, the required MOT when changing owners became a lot more stringent, about the same as for newer vehicles. Which was not a bad thing, considering the cars could be used a lot more. As a result, the numbers of classic cars on the road rose. Which is probably why there are now considering introducing a specific MOT.

Chris, if you want to use your classic car as a daily, you need to keep it on normal plates and have an annual MOT. Like I do with my 27 year old Esprit. Roadtax still defaults to the minimum, a big advantage as larger engines are heavily taxed over here. Insurance costs more, as the car is expected to be used more and in busier commuter traffic. Mileage is still recorded on the vehicles carpass every time you have work done (service, tires, ...), but this is not always reliable.

Filip

[TAR 340]

Dan, you only need to declare SORN once now, it doesn't expire unless you tax the vehicle.

 

[silverfrost 1,386]

WooHoo  Cheers Tim thats fantastic news i am glad they came to their senses at last .   I thought the dvla website was out of date as have tried sorning mine as it still says sorn even after a year. ,  I even took a screenshot of the picture and dates just in case they tried to come funny in the future about not re sorning it.  Glad that is sorted and thanks for the info Tim much appreciated. 

[ChrisJ 1,081 2 Vehicles]

If you buy a car that is SORNed you have to re-SORN it in your name as it doesn't carry across owners.

@Escape - that's good to read that there is the choice.

 

[mikeeech 297]

I'm not sure my car will pass the eight point rule. This could be a real problem for older metal cars with new body shells. If these cars are not vhi's and over 40 years old will they require an mot? If they are not classified as vhi's then will they have to pass an mot that applies to new cars and so would fail?

[Mark Blanchard 1,382]

I think this could push up Insurance premiums as some people won't look after there 40 year old cars and will be driving around in death traps.  They crash into a third party and I can't see the insurance company paying out due to an unroadworthy car.

[Loose Cannon 576 1 Vehicles]

Well I for one think this is a fantastic idea, in fact my latest project may just be road ready in time for the new legislation, it's nearly done what do you think?

[march 579 1 Vehicles]

Bugger - just scrapped this one and it was just hitting it's 40th birthday - could have been driving it around the Devon lanes lanes leaving a trail of rust behind!

 

[swindon_alan 1,650 1 Vehicles]

I'm all for it. My 1960 model Matchless 500cc single bike was registered in December 1959. It doesn't need an MoT. There's no road tax either, registered as an historic vehicle. Insurance is peanuts. Stop complaining!