Government MOT exempt discussion forum

Status
Not open for further replies.
I might be missing the point here, but if an MOT is now optional but we also have the option of a roadworthiness test, why not pick the latter? At least that will do away with the 20 minute wait between the test being completed and the computer allowing it to end.
 
That's interesting guys. Last week, I booked Hazel in for her MOT this coming Tuesday - which is now not required by law! - I'll still have it done though.
Another point worth considering is that an MOT 'officially' gives a car a roadworthiness certificate on that day. If you had an accident resulting from a failure on your car, would a recent MOT on balance improve your position?

It's not Law yet........ And an MOT only says your car was roadworthy at that moment in time, not even for when you drive off the forecourt! It's down to the individual to prove the safety of the car not an MOT.....
 
I booked Hazel in for her MOT this coming Tuesday - which is now not required by law! - I'll still have it done though.

I'd still take it, AFAIK the exemption doesn't come into force until next year.

Another point worth considering is that an MOT 'officially' gives a car a roadworthiness certificate on that day. If you had an accident resulting from a failure on your car, would a recent MOT on balance improve your position?

I think that it might help prove that the failure wasn't the result of long term neglect.
 
well seems no Mot needed for my old girl. I did have a notice from tester about a pinhole in nearside floor .so first bit of welding on the lady has to be carried out sigh. still I guess after 40 odd years thats not a bad record. i checked car before MOT and failed to see that! mind you I don't have a car lift. will still be getting am Mot myself of personal safety reasons. e.g. if i missed that hole ..i may miss something really important such as brake fluid leak!
I think its really down to insurance companies to press for testing some form or other or refuse insurance. that way a car will at least have some form of independent check once a year. can understand trying to keep costs down . perhaps an MOT garage in each district /area can agree with local car clubs for reduced yes fees ? lets assume all mot were say 50% off. then having loads of classic/hostorc cars pass through it portals a tester can keep on top of things. I can also see we nee dot get past astute where say blown light bulb results in a fail! ideally just note on test result saying need s replacement ought to be enough. so nearly all owners will toddle off and renew asap. ( always a few idiots though) but any accident can then have its certificate checked ..so if say a wiper blade failed was not replaced and police deem that it played a role in accident ..then driver/owner to face prosecution same an any other driving with no MOT.
 
Sparky went for his MOT on Saturday, and passed :)

The tester saw me trying to get a look underneath, so when he finished testing, he handed me the torch and said I could have ten minutes. :)

Richard
 
The tester saw me trying to get a look underneath, so when he finished testing, he handed me the torch and said I could have ten minutes. :)

Top man! It's so much easier to spot anything amiss when walking around under the car, instead of crawling around under it.
 
That's interesting guys. Last week, I booked Hazel in for her MOT this coming Tuesday - which is now not required by law! - I'll still have it done though.
Another point worth considering is that an MOT 'officially' gives a car a roadworthiness certificate on that day. If you had an accident resulting from a failure on your car, would a recent MOT on balance improve your position?
Hazel failed her MOT today :( (...to start with) due to insufficient brake force on the rear o/s footbrake. This is not something I had noticed & it makes you think....
Say I hit something/someone & could perhaps have stopped even 1m sooner if the brakes had worked at their best. This is something that I don't have the equipment to test & wasn't aware of the issue. The tester's equipment spotted this & it has been fixed (although I will now inspect the brakes again after a while to make sure they are adjusted correctly). If my last MOT was 10 years ago, would I have the same 'protection' from a claim, I wonder?
 
I think most owners would continue to have an annual MOT/inspection of some kind exactly for the reasons Phil mentions, most of us enjoy the cars without having the ability to sort out every tiny issue. If we are happy to pay to keep the cars running we want to know they’re safe!

Mick
 
I think we all need to write to our mps. It's a non partisan issue so there should be no resistance to at least listening. If you go to writetothem.Com they do the hard work for you and make sure the information that would make sure they respond is present and correct. If people don't complain they'll think it's absolutely fine.
 
don't think writing to MP's will change anything nor will combined club efforts.been quite a few responses to the consultation before hand and all reasons have bene explained why they came out with that outcome. even if we thing its wrong and common sense has failed ( when did MP's have any common sense?)
probably a way forward here is for members of clubs to have a part of that membership an agreement that every year ( while on road-so needs a bit of thought) we submit our cars to an independent tester for assessment for road worthiness. MOT or ? . if insurance companies whom have to pick up bills for any accidents also require it..ergo we have safe cars on roads.
would agree brake tests and steering plus body work corrosion are the three main areas that need a decent going over and with best will in world it can be easy to miss something if no facility to test or inspect fully. ( missed that pinhole corrosion in my footwell didn't I ! grrr) majority of historic.classic car owners are responsible adults and spend a lot of time and funds maintaining to best of ability. its the odd one or two that take short cuts or don't consider others on road that are the real risk. ..apart from other road users that is. I drive my car as if its made of glass. park well away from others but am aware its going to be that other idiot motorist you cant avoid that is the most likely way to cause damage to my car or worse..myself and family. I think its both a privilege and a pleasure to own and use a historic item.
though times are changing and with increasing emissions concerns and proposed lack of suitable fuel at future date. no doubt all our current cars will become worthless and museum pieces only. unless of course you are super rich..
 
I really don't see any mileage in clubs imposing rules like you suggest on their members.
If we start getting hammered on our insurance, then there would be a role for clubs to negotiate reduced rates for those who do get their cars tested. Anything else is pure conjecture and not something I personally intend to worry about.
 
I think all vehicles that can go at any speed on the public highways should be subject to an inspection. I know owners who complain when mot testers pull them for low brake pads i.e 2mm.

The crazy thing is I have a 1977 3500s which had been off the road since 1982. So it probably had 2 mots in its life. I am working through a long recommission list but could legally drive it on the road next year.

I will be putting my cars in for their annual mot. If nothing else it shows you have a safe car atleast once a year. Not all classic owners write down every pint of oil they put in there cars.

I am concerned and signed the petition. even careful owners miss things.
 
There are plenty of people in the various classic car groups on faceache who are over the moon because they stand to save fifty quid a year on the test fee. I would suggest that these are the people who will likely pay scant attention to the roadworthiness of their vehicles in case it costs them any money and these are the very people for whom the yearly test is most needed. o_O
 
around here it's about 30 at the cheapo ripoff places, 40 at most normal garages, and full price at the main dealers.
 
I would imagine that all these thoughts were repeated when the first exemptions were announced. Makes me wonder why there wasn't a two tier mot developed at that time. As it stands to reason that the older pre 60s cars are alot heavier and are not as good in the safety aspect as the later cars now being exempt. You can imagine the outcry that there would be if all of a sudden from 1960 -78 there was a totally different system in place. Even the slightest modification from standard is frowned upon these days but in most cases it's to improve the effectiveness of the vehicles. Although I do enjoy custom cars I also like originals. But the cost of keeping mp5b in original condition is extreme. Also very difficult to get most parts. So I do think that where upgrades/modifications are needed we shouldn't be penalised for it. I have several custom cars and pay extra for the insurance so I don't see the need that there needs to be a separate mot for these now being included in the exemptions as previously stated all pre60s don't have that now. Saying all this I feel that it's the owners responsibility for the roadworthyness of there own vehicles and to be honest I think we spend more care and attention to our older vehicles than many people who own newer vehicles. I'm not against a mot, I take all my pre 60s for mot even now. I have a family and they come to shows with me. I wouldn't want anything to happen them as I'm sure other would feel the same. So mots are very important. Just how far do we want to go with the compulsory side of it. Just my thoughts not trying to offend or upset anyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top