General MOT in UK

[phoenix1]

Hi Guys. Has anybody seen the latest goverment proposal about vehicles over 30 years old being exempt from any MOT. As I say it is now only a proposal and may not be implimented , but watch out it could raise the value of a car even more. I would although if I was selling or buying a car I would still like the reassurance an MOT can give. .I own three classic cars with one pre 1960 but I still get it checked by an MOT inspector once a year just for my piece of mind.
Whilst I am on how good is everybodys handbrake.Although operating with the right number of clicks and feeling as though it's biting I still have to put it in gear to stop it rolling .

 

[IanEmery]

My car past its MOT test yesterday and I'm pleased to say with flying colours When the brakes were tested all four wheels locked up on service brakes on the rollers plus both rears locked on the handbrake test. Service brake showed a small imbalance, towards the near side, but there is no noticeable pull on the steering. I'd had some head scratching over some trouble with head and side lights but cleaning up the earths sorted everything out, so a clear bill of health ready for our local car show on the 16th July.

 

[fiat500]

Whilst I am on how good is everybodys handbrake.

Did you check that the actuator mechanism that slides in the backplate hasn't seized at its pivot point.

 

[BambinoClassic]

We have something in Australia that's on trial. A historic car ownership scheme. Essentially for cars older than 30, you can pay negligible annual insurance and registration costs. You join a historic vehicle club, that governs the program on behalf of the state road authority. Your MOT can be (but isn't always) a much more laid back process that can just be a simple assessment of road safety - lights, indicators, horn, seat belts all working.
Then you log the hours you drive and have an annual limit, essentially meaning it's not your daily driver but you can afford to register and run a hobby car with all the usual quirks. I love it, and though open to abuse it allowed me to run the kids to school in an old mini every now and again and love the feeling of working on and driving a classic car

 

[the hobbler]

That sounds to be a very sensible alternative being trialled in Australia, but most probably too simple, and sensible, for our law-makers to adopt---they delight in setting up a committee whose brief normally is to come up with the most complicated, and difficult to police, scheme that they can think of!
Personally, I am of the opinion that if the vehicle is going to be used on the Queen's highway it should have a proper annual inspection. Not as intense as an MOT, but still a check-over that will have the usual safety items (lights, brakes etc) checked as well as a good inspection of the underside of the car--including the body-work. Very few classic car owners have access to a pit or a ramp, therefore the underside of the car is very difficult to inspect, and as we all know (and have probably suffered!) corrosion will occur whether you use the car or don't. This alternative to an annual MOT was one of the options offered when the MOT question was put out to classic car owners over here in the UK----whether the government will listen to us is debatable, and highly unlikely.

 

[andydiver]

Sorry not sure I subscribe to this. An mot is not expensive in its own right and why would you wish to drive a car that fails? Indeed surely a good mot would add to any justification for lower insurance or tax.

 

[g8rpi]

Reading between the lines it sounds like this is more to make things easier for VOSA and the MOT stations. They won't have to word the testers handbook to allow for the differences in older cars. I assume most younger MOT testers don't know much about 30+ year old cars.
The Austrlian idea sounds good and is similar to how amateur built light aircraft are regulated.

Robert G8RPI.

 

[fiat500]

I would be very strongly opposed to any changes in the UK that restricted the use of a pre-1977 car in any way. Cars made before 1960 have been exempt from the need for an MOT for several years now; despite the widely expressed fears, such as those above, which I heard prior to the changes, I am not aware of any increase in the frequency of classic car accidents or of rises in insurance premiums. If the Government wants for once, to reduce red tape and to treat us as the responsible car enthusiasts that we are, I find it somewhat obtuse to find fault with the idea.

 

[Bigvtwin996]

MOT.. what's that then?
is it like Road Tax (Road fund licence I think is correct)

Is it something you modern 500 owners have?
Is it an optional extra? who sells them?

I really must add it to my "wanted" list if you are all talking about getting one, they may increase in price if everyone is after them, I'll have a quick look on ebay before too many other people catch on...

 

[fiat500]

Is it something you modern 500 owners have?

Good point. My partner drives around in a Fiat 500 with no MOT; granted it's only two years old, so exempt. I don't hear anyone with a sub-three year-old car voluntarily taking it for an MOT although after over 1000 days of careless driving, with limited maintenance, in theory a new car could be a death-trap.
There are already Classic Fiat 500s which are MOT exempt; I wonder how many of those have voluntary testing done?
However I do find it surprising that we can seriously modify these cars beyond their design limits, by fitting bigger and highly modified engines, uncertified brake modifications and skilled and careful as we are, we are allowed to do structural welding on the chassis and body without that work needing to be checked and certified by an engineer.
Not that I think any of that is necessary and I take it as an indication of how well served we are, as motoring enthusiasts, by an very effective political lobbying network and an atypically "laissez-faire" attitide from the governing bodies on the matter.
Also of note is the fact that some of the changes and proposals in legislation have happened because we are members of the EU. In fact, their recommendtion is that all member states permit cars made more than 30 (rather than 40) years ago to go free from testing.

 

[Bigvtwin996]

there was a big discussion a while ago with people putting running gear from say a Sierra Cosworth or Scooby Doo into a mk1 escort so basically getting classic insurance and no road tax... there were I believe talks of making such "modified vehicles" Q reg and unable to revert to their classics status even if changed back.... not sure what came of it but..

if you modify any car and the class it as "radically altered" (DVLA).. based on the following:
Body and chassis as one unit - original or new and unmodified 5 points
Suspension (front and back) - original 2 points
Axles (both) - original 2 points
Transmission - original 2 points
Steering assembly - original 2 points
Engine - original 1 points

If you have less than 8 points it's a Q plate..

So I was going to buy one of them later 500s for fun..
you know fit disk brakes and 126 hubs so I can use 98pcd hubs and have a better wheel choice with my flared arches.
Fit a 126 engine taken out to 695 with the 126 syncro box,
then add front and rear coil over suspension with adjustable wishbones
and a rack an pinion steering...

ohh how many points would I score??? errrrrr less than 8?

Any takers?

 

[andydiver]

When is a classic just an abused run around? The age of the car 30 or 40? All arbitrary. Time will roll on. So the status quo has been defended well for very old cars. But over time no way would I be happy to see someone drive a powerful range rover (any age) for example without an annual sanity check, they can be unstable at best and not that well built. . .the more modern the car the more careless the potential driver, they offer that sense of invincibility.

 

[Bigvtwin996]

I'm not sure what the solution is ...
the logic originally was that Classic car owners do tend to look after their cars, and the % was so small... and the majority do take care......
I do take my cars to the local garage for a check over... basically up on their ramps it's easy to see potential problems... but I don't have an official MOT....and I don't have to worry if it's not every 12 months... I can get away with 13 if I don't have time or they are busy...
I'm relatively std and will return it to std spc engine when I have time.. I have no need for speed...
I agree there are problems with the "Cheap" classic with no MOT used as really a daily driver.... Speedo disconnected... and probably doing 8-10k a year but insured for 3 (as said the Ranger Rover or such) and there will come a point when things have to change again...
I think heavily modified cars are a potential issue.. yes they can be done well, but my example of a Mk1 Escort with Scooby running gear.. is really still and Escort or a Scooby and should it be taxed, insured and registered as something different.
Also I have seen some "modifications" that really would worry me....
The points system is there, but who administers it? as are the other rules for Rebuilds etc..

just my thoughts...

 

[g8rpi]

there was a big discussion a while ago with people putting running gear from say a Sierra Cosworth or Scooby Doo into a mk1 escort so basically getting classic insurance and no road tax... there were I believe talks of making such "modified vehicles" Q reg and unable to revert to their classics status even if changed back.... not sure what came of it but..

if you modify any car and the class it as "radically altered" (DVLA).. based on the following:
Body and chassis as one unit - original or new and unmodified 5 points
Suspension (front and back) - original 2 points
Axles (both) - original 2 points
Transmission - original 2 points
Steering assembly - original 2 points
Engine - original 1 points

If you have less than 8 points it's a Q plate..

So I was going to buy one of them later 500s for fun..
you know fit disk brakes and 126 hubs so I can use 98pcd hubs and have a better wheel choice with my flared arches.
Fit a 126 engine taken out to 695 with the 126 syncro box,
then add front and rear coil over suspension with adjustable wishbones
and a rack an pinion steering...

ohh how many points would I score??? errrrrr less than 8?

Any takers?

People get away with this because the points system is only applied if you re-register a car or need a inspection. The points system is more to do with keeping an age related registration than monitoring condition. You can have a road tax exempt Q plate car if you have proof of age, this is not uncommon for ex-military vehicles. You don't even have to report changes other than engine or chassis/bodyshell replacement, fuel type, engine capacity, number of seats or colour to the DVLA. If you change the wheel plan, body type or VIN the vehicle may need inspection. Lots of people don't even bother with those. I'm sure there are hundreds of cars out there with engine serial number the don't match the records. But clearly to change the running gear on a Escort to a Subaru all you have to say is that the engine number and capacity has changed. For an even more extreme example Google "project binky" a Mini on Toyota Celica GT-Four running gear. If the Mini was registered an MOT'd or SORN when they started it's just "a different engine".
You do of course have to tell your insurance company.


Robert G8RPI.

 

[phoenix1]

I originally started this thread to see what peoples reaction would be .I have a friend with an mot garage and although he never tests my cars himself he is of the opinion that all cars should have some type of check even if its not a full mot test.I maintain three classic cars myself one is a 1959 frogeye and I hadn't had it checked over. Whilst I was in a car park at a very low speed a front wishbone collapsed something I had not noticed myself even though I had been under the car many times.It sometimes needs a trained eye to see such faults.We shal have to wait and see what they will decide. Bryan

 

[Bigvtwin996]

I think you have hit on the point that the MOT was supposed to sort out.. the Roadworthyness... and even with no MOT you could be facing a big problem if stopped or in an accident in a car deemed "Unroadworthy".
The same goes for telling your insurance about modifications, sure they accept them but in an accident they may deem them "Unroadworthy.. the onus is on the owner/driver to check them (assuming they are qualified to).
The problem is administering all of this will cost and.... there is only one place the money will come from..... it is always the thin end of the wedge.... and what would be the cost for an annual check.. probably the same as an MOT, then it would have to be done every 12 months and before the last check expired.. They could call it "Classic MOT".

 

[thepuddlejumper]

An MOT cert is only valid at the time of issue, if you get stopped a day or some months later or are in an accident and your vehicle is found not to be roadworthy you can't rely on your MOT to get you out of trouble. It has always been up to the individual to ensure their vehicle is roadworthy if they drive it on the public road, so there is no change. The good thing about the requirement of an MOT is that the not so responsible in our society have to get their vehicle up to a roadworthy state at least once a year. The government believe through statistical analysis vintage and classic car owners are responsible and they do keep their vehicles in a roadworthy state and see this as an opertunity to change the law. I believe we should keep the MOT for all as this will discourage less responsible people from acquiring classics to circumvent getting an MOTe Rey year.

Ralph

 

[fiat500]

I think the MOT test is a little bit onerous on most people who drive their classic cars to a few shows and use it on the odd weekend in summer. Even if they have a bit of a blast and clock up the odd big run, from what I see, most of them are lucky to do 200 miles a year and 700 to 1000 at the most. At that rate, an MOT every ten years would be proportional to the testing frequency of the average modern car.
There must be very few people who are so mean or calculating, that they would forgo the comfort, convenience, reliability and safety built into modern cars, and would buy a very old banger to avoid the cost and procedure of an MOT.
I suggest that if you want to avoid unscrupulous advantage being taken of MOT exemption, if not declared SORN, cars should be tested before they change ownership and must pass that test before being driven in new hands. There really should be a check when they are put back on the road having been SORN or unregistered for any length of time, such as after being restored.
Once an older car has passed into settled, long-term ownership, I find it hard to believe that it is possible for it to be used regularly without this forcing the owner to make a frequent input of maintenance and repair.

 

[Vitesse]

I have just looked at the MoT history of one of my moderns. It has down 2742 miles since August 2011. Can I claim an MoT every 10 years?

 

[thepuddlejumper]

I understand where you are coming from but older cars do rust and can therefore have structural problems, compared with modern vehicles. If you only use your vehicle for 200 miles a year where is the difference between this and the car being SORN for a few months. People do drive their vehicles without insurance and MOT's therefore some may see it advantageous to drive a vehicle that does not require any official checks to see if it is roadworthy. I find this subject very interesting and wait with interest at how and what the governments final decision is.

Ralph