NO MORE MOT's?

[Jack]

The point about any modification is very important as this needs to be interpreted in law and by insurance companies. These days it can mean not using a manufacturer's certified part or even not fitted by a maunufacturer's certified mechanic. It is obviously rediculous when it comes to older cars; but there was a push by manufacturer's to push this through EU legislation.
I think in the UK an MOT tester has never been prosecuted for passing an unfit vehicle as it is understood the certificate does not consitute roadworthiness. There have been some rogue testers who have been prosecuted but that was really for fraud.

VOSA does police the system, and instead of prosecution, typically they find the rogue traders and remove their licence to issue an MOT cert. They have published policies on these things. It does happen quite a bit, they take a car which has just come out of the garage with a cert and put it back on the ramps and retest it. Obviously some things are open to a bit of interpretation, but failing to spot obvious safety issues that are clear fails can put the tester personally in hot water. In most cases an MOT tester losing their ability to issue an MOT cert probably puts them out of a job.

Vehicles are one lucky area where the dreaded standards and CE mark debate seems to have been kept at bay - for example a car is sold as standard with a CE mark in the EU, but if you fitted any modification whatsoever to it, like a pattern part, then it no longer holds the CE mark because it has been modified. Insurance companies seem to be ok with people doing that, and declaring their modifications, but in many other industries if you modify or interfere with the complete system then you can find organisations like the HSE make life very difficult.

Jack.

[Forumadmin]

Read your MOT!

Warning: A test certificate is not evidence that the vehicle in in a satisfactory condition.

Let alone roadworthy....

[Leo Bolter]

It may be of interest to members of this forum to see what the LE Velocette Motorcycle Club folk are thinking about this proposal.
If so, go to:

http://www.leveloclubforum.org.uk/viewt ... 933#p21933

[Jack]

A thread rises like a Phoenix from the flames, and today's news seems particlarly relevant.

Unless the BBC has got it wrong (which I am pretty sure it does occasionally) the MOT is not happening from 18th November 2012 for pre-1960 cars. That includes all Jowetts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18146326

I am very unsure, now this is really happening, whether it is a good idea or not. It will, however, help us in not forgetting when all the MOTs are due for some of the half a dozen vehicles we now have in the family!

Thoughts? Concerns? Anyone seen any reliable info on what happens now? Time for me to get on ebay and find a pre-1960 campervan to replace the Bedford (MOT due this week)?

Jack.

[AlanBartlett]

To be honest I'm not so keen on the idea of getting rid of the mot, as for me its another opportunity to check that my car is still legal and roadworthy, also to check on things I may have missed on my mot preparation, and another set of eyes to double check my own findings, though there isn't much to be tested on my vehicle. As a younger driver it gives me a bit of confidence knowing it passes in another persons mind legal inspection.

[Jack]

To be honest I'm not so keen on the idea of getting rid of the mot, as for me its another opportunity to check that my car is still legal and roadworthy, also to check on things I may have missed on my mot preparation, and another set of eyes to double check my own findings, though there isn't much to be tested on my vehicle. As a younger driver it gives me a bit of confidence knowing it passes in another persons mind legal inspection.

I think I agree. Whilst it is nice not to spend £50 every year (on top of everything else) keeping a vehicle legal, having a good MOT tester can be useful - someone that every year will give you a bit of advice after the test, even if it passes with no advisories (as I am sure most of our cars do, partly due to good maintenance, partly due to simplicity) on safety or other work that may have been done to the car.

Sadly I think it moves us towards a position where cars are either in the hands of confident experts, who know what they are doing to the point an MOT has no value for them, or to a point that enthusiastic amateurs pay garages a lot of money to make 100% sure that their cars are safe, and end up paying the same amount for an inspection of similar type every year. The difference now is that the safety inspection that a non-expert owner requests is covered by VOSA, so there are clear standards, a system of policing, and a system for complaint. If you just asked a garage to give the car a once over, who knows whether they decide to generate a load of work for themselves, release an unsafe vehicle back to you, or their version of safe is very different to yours. For all its failings, and no doubt everyone has an example of an error made or an unscrupulous garage, the current MOT system isn't all that bad.

What worries me is that we might see a lot of new buyers coming to pre-1960s cars that are interested only in saving £50 a year on the MOT, having free road tax, and not putting in the required work/money to make sure that their vehicle is safe. If you are hit by a car doing 60mph because its brakes have failed, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference to you whether it is a Javelin or a car brand new off the forecourt - no doubt the consequences for the driver may be different, but after all they are responsible for their own actions.

We might just (as a result of the above a little bit, but also the hassle and other paperwork) see an increase in demand for vehicles like the Javelin vs 1960s cars though, so perhaps this is good for the value of our cars.

Jack.

[Jack]

Interesting scenario occurs to me - you can't transfer the numberplate on a car that doesn't have an MOT.

Many of our cars have very desirable numberplates, as seen on ebay listings they are often worth as much as the car itself in poor condition. Are we now going to see an explosion in the price of scrap old cars, which will be insured for the shortest possible time, a tax disc claimed, and then the numberplate transferred to a brand new vehicle and the vehicle scrapped? An unintended consequence perhaps - I wonder how the DVLA intend to get around this one.

Jack.

[Keith Andrews]

We have a maybe different structure in NZ for 'custom' plates
The std plates are issued to a car, regist by the owner with Government agency
Custom plates are sold by a private company and are owned by the owner for use on a partular car.
So when one comes to sell trhat car, the plates (and registration) can be sold with the car , or put on hold by the orginal owner, and the car re regist with std plates.

This is not fall proof thu...on rare occassions the ownership of the plates has not been transfered thru the registration has....and..in NZ...if a driver commits an offence, the driver cant be ided or found the owner becomes responsable for the fine... An anomoly that is in the fine print (well more than that) when the purchase the custom plates in the 1st place....so really , not an issue.

[ian Howell]

I understand from an MoT Examiner that there is no reason why an owner should not opt to have an MoT test even though it will no longer be mandatory.

This should give those of a similar opinion to George Garfield, Alan Bartlett and myself, the 'second opinion' to give that extra bit of confidence that we have done a good job in maintaining our vehicles. I have used the same MoT tester for over 20 years and I know he does a thorough job, having failed my 'modern' cars on several occasions for reasons that I would not have spotted.

For those who remember Wakefield, you might realise that my 'Project' would apparently now qualify as acceptable for road use - NOT my intention I hasten to add, but even more food for thought!

Incidentally, my friend who owns a vintage Humber tourer took it for its MoT following a complete rebuild - to VERY high standards I may add. The Examiner said 'You know more than I do about these and if you say it's OK that's good enough for me'. He then logged the vehicle onto the DVLA computer, waited the mandatory 40? minutes, and then issued the certificate. So much for a second opinion!

[Keith Clements]

Some countries/states only do vehicle inspection on transfer of vehicle ownership. Most pre 60 cars do very few miles and most are garaged at night. However, I do agree that having it up on a lift does reveal some issues that need attention that you might not detect by driving, looking, listening and smelling. Keeping rust boxes off the road was the main reason for the MOT and it has probably succeeded in that. The pre-1960 cars have succumed by now. I would hope that on the road inspections by police, insurance clauses and other measures should suffice in maintaining the roadworthiness of vehicles as much as the MOT currently does for pre-1960 cars.

[ian Howell]

Mr Penning said : -

"Owners of classic vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road'.

How? MoT? AA Inspection? Insurer's inspection (at what cost?). Personal statement (with what qualification?) Club Inspection (again, with what qualification?

The sting may yet be in the small print!

[AlanBartlett]

Though they might be exempt from the MOT test, are they going to allow you to get it tested even if doesn't need the test, volutarily? Or will you be turned away because of the rule?

[robert lintott]

In today's Times is a small para---page 7-- announcing that as of 18/11/12 vehicles made before 1960 will no longer need an MOT test . Note the word "made" which should mean that cars registered in early 1960 may have been made in 1959 and are exempt--no Jowetts unfortunately .

One hopes the pre 1960 owners will all welcome this and continue as before to recognise that the "TEST " does
nothing to absolve owners from responsibility for ensuring their cars are roadworthy. Anyone who wants the local garage to give their pre 1960 car a check over can still do so without entering the world of the DVLA, and probably for less than £54 !

This retreat from the Vintage and pre 1960 Classic arena is good news . Bob Lintott

[AlanBartlett]

I don't think its that much of a retreat, as I think its push towards something else, I was talking to a friend about this and how its trying to bring us up towards eu regulations, now isn't there limits to the classic car usage in some countries. I just hope this isn't just the first step towards it in this country!

[robert lintott]

For Alan Bartlett, Our position has to be that the MOT does not absolve the owner from responsibility for the state of his vehicle , it is not a 12 month passport of safety, just a snapshot on a day . More modern cars doing say 20k miles a year normally need new tyres ,brakes and even steering joints sometime in the year having passed an MOT. Up to 3 year old cars will often do 60-100 K with no test at all.

Where will it lead is your question. Unfortunately , if there is a desire to restrict the use of pre 1960 cars a determined legislator will draft the relevant laws regardless of whether these cars have an MOT, he will not be impeded by the removal of the MOT . However removal of the MOT would make it more difficult to include , in the testing of pre 1960 cars, a requirement to meet say the current emission standards (which has been mooted in the past) simply because there will no longer be a test. There are other " Modern Standards " which have been aired before ( lighting, brake performance , etc ) all of which are less easy to enforce if there is no test.

As a hardened conspiracy theorist I have to say I don't think there is one on this occasion, time will tell!

In the end the way we look after and use our pre 1960 cars will be our strongest defence, are many of these cars are in irresponsible hands ? Bob Lintott