Historic and Classic MOT

I can see why they think it's a good idea, but it seems a bit futile in reality. It must be easier for everyone if all cars have an MOT?

Who's paperwork are they looking to cut down on anyway - the motorist or the government departments? Cutting departmental paperwork by 0.6% won't make any difference to anyone.
 
I don't mind the MOT test, it should pick up on anything I've missed which in my case could be alot. I don't want a sympathetic tester either, I want any problems sorted ASAP.
 
This covers a lot of early Rovers and I wonder how many vehicles in total :|

Saving the motorist money, hmmm, how will they replace their lost revenue? :roll:
 
Here in ireland cars over 30 years old dont need nct,and tax is 52 euro p/a , its a rolling system too,people dont tend to use classics here as everyday cars and insurance companies want to see a modern insured before insuring your classic,it all works well anyhow,rich
 
happy days said:
I don't mind the MOT test, it should pick up on anything I've missed which in my case could be alot. I don't want a sympathetic tester either, I want any problems sorted ASAP.
Click to expand...


Yep ,I am the same ,that is the point of an MOT to make sure the car is roadworthy ,the last thing you want to do is drive a car that is held together with P40 and cobwebs !!!
 
but you dont need an mot test for this ,just take your car to be serviced to a garage,unless its cheaper to mot and retest it , possibly?rich
 
An MOT test is £50 or less and retests are free if the repairs are done quick enough. I'd have thought a service would be at least £100 if not £200 plus parts.
 
something smells fishy around it. I cant understand how the federation of historic vehicle clubs supported it.....
 
It will be the thin end of the wedge - I bet restrictions will be coming into force over the next few years.

We won't be able to drive classics on weekdays, or more than 50 miles from home, etc. Just wait & see.... :(
 
There seems to be no sense in this and dealers will be able to sell some right old tat
Why are the Govt concentating on issues that don't matter like this and gay marriage when there are more important matters needing attention?
 
5yrs ago this was my plaything for a while, totally original and a history file so thick you could break an ankle if you fell off it.

DSCF1579.jpg


It had an mot, I blew the engine up on collection, but the engine wasn't wonderful when I got it. I changed the engine and then got a fresh mot. When up in the air the words moulded into one of the rear tyres "for works truck use only" was not visible due to the position of the wheel in the arch, but the following week I checked the wear on the brake shoes and found it. So self testing will enable any old bodge. I've seen aluminium sheet beaten flat into a laminate and substituted for brake pads, rear brake pipes disconnected and beaten flat to stop leakage, I could go on and on. How has this been accepted.



John.
 
It all seems a little pointless really doesn't it. The mot serves a purpose, a purpose for all vehicles regardless of age
 
A mate of mine has a few pre-1960's cars (of course all Rovers), only one of which is currently on the road. A recent discussion is how if they decided to sell up, what would happen if any of these got into the wrong hands. The point is that they all need mechanical and structural work, and no police are going to do a stop road-side MOT test on any car. Just think about the car that's behind you, that could be driving with the handbrake as the only working brake, or the one in front is so rusty it could split in two at any moment. And yes there is always insurance and the police if something bad does happen, but by that time, it's too late.

The other thing that we're going to see is ringers. We already see it with later cars, that were made before and after the start of 1973 - for TAX reasons, so what's to stop this happening to cars such as the P4 and P5 (and of course other classics too) - in fact it's easier to do it with one of those, as there is no MOT test, you don't have to worry about the chassis number as it therefore isn't going to be checked. A numberplate and V5 in your name will do just nicely.

Of course, as Jim and the article says, this is just the minority. But - how large is this minority? In relation to this, what about 'rolling restorations' where owners have lists of jobs to be done to their cars - but if the lists include important work, how much driving on the road is going to be done, before these jobs are completed? For example, if rear brakes are seized in the off position, the majority would sort them out ASAP, but as for the mentioned minority, well the fronts still work, and the rears don't leak so what is the big deal...

Phil Robson said:
It will be the thin end of the wedge - I bet restrictions will be coming into force over the next few years.

We won't be able to drive classics on weekdays, or more than 50 miles from home, etc. Just wait & see.... :(
Click to expand...

Looking at the present, that sounds like something of the future, potentially - we'll then be forced to make our beloved cars into trailer queens, they'll also become reduced in value, and some businesses who cater for classics will have to either change their ways and go modern or go bust. We can only hope that this is not the case, it will be just too saddening if it is.

And all of this is just so that it can save some people a small amount of money and time.

I'd like to apologise for this rant; you can probably tell that I am against this decision by the government. :roll:

Adam.
 
I think I agree with you Adam. But there are a few oddities about. What about a Veteran car - since we're in Rover Land it had better be a Rover 6 hp (1908?). Even if it were working perfectly to manufacturers specification and had all the MoT's in the world, I wouldn't want to see that mixing it in a London rush hour!

So perhaps the real answer would be to give all pre '73 (or whatever year you want to specify for free tax?) a test that covers braking ability - pass and you can use on the road, fail and you own a trailer queen - and structural integrity. Then put a limit of - say - 2,000 miles a year verified at each test. If you want to do more miles than that, then it is a daily driver and gets tax and proper MoT's.

What think you?

Chris
 
I think that is a valid and workable idea Chris, but nothing will change for buttercup as a daily runner :D do think that a rolling tax exemption should run from 30 years, surely a vehicle would have paid its dues by then :roll: GREEDY GOVERNMENTS :roll: cant blame just one of them there all the same underneath :LOL:
Think I read somewhere that most of Europe have rolling tax exemption on classics or did I dream that, must have been a good dream if i did :LOL:
 
chrisyork said:
So perhaps the real answer would be to give all pre '73 (or whatever year you want to specify for free tax?) a test that covers braking ability - pass and you can use on the road, fail and you own a trailer queen - and structural integrity. Then put a limit of - say - 2,000 miles a year verified at each test. If you want to do more miles than that, then it is a daily driver and gets tax and proper MoT's.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I think that's a terrible idea. The big worry with this MOT exemption is that it will be followed by restrictions in allowed use. By introducing a limit like you suggest, it would only be a matter of time before the government holds up the figures, claims that only x number of vehicles register as daily drivers and that the scheme is too costly to administer for such a small number. Before you know it, all pre 1960 cars would be limited to 2000 miles a year.

More to the point, if a car is unsafe to do more than 2000 miles a year without testing, how can it be considered safe to drive 1000 miles? Or 2000 miles over 5 years? Personally I'd be far more trusting of a car in regular use than one that only gets driven on sunny weekends.

I think we're worrying far too much about how other people will abuse the exemption. It's not going to make a jot of difference - those with a responsible attitude will act with care, having their cars tested if they don't feel able to make the right judgements themselves, while the unscrupulous will carry on as they do already. Nobody's going to replace a bald tyred mk5 Escort with a Rover P4 to avoid paying for an MOT test.
 
Willy Eckerslyke said:
I think we're worrying far too much about how other people will abuse the exemption.
Click to expand...

But they are my real concerns.
For the time being, I think a lot of people are happy to accept it because it saves them from red tape, but what happens in 10 years' time when the exemption has been in place for long enough to allow 10 years' worth of neglect to set in? How will that affect the standard of classic cars being sold through the specialist websites? In future, cars currently being sold as spares/repair can and will be sold as "running, needs TLC". And we're not talking about lightbulbs and windscreen washers here; what manner of terminal and potentially lethal problems could be wantonly and legally ignored by an irresponsible owner intent on doing the motorway speed limit, as is his right?

Furthermore, what about the insurance situation? Being under 25 for a few years, I had to get modern insurance on the Rover. That won't be allowed in the future. And specialist classic insurers will be in the dangerous position of having to insure cars of completely unknown and unregulated condition. Does that mean premiums are going up? Probably. But what are the alternatives: independent insurance inspections, photographic proof of major component integrity, a "vehicle functionality standardisation assessment"? Isn't that just more of the red tape this initiative is supposing to avoid?

And that doesn't even touch on the legal issues. I spent nearly 3 years working on complex driving negligence cases. Who is at fault in the event that a defective component in your pre-1960 car "causally and directly led to the accident in which the Claimant suffered personal injury (or death), damage and loss"? Would you have the right to claim ignorance when the defective component could have been identified by MOT testing? Would this class as uninsurable loss? Is it your legal responsibility to maintain the car? And to what extent without formal training?
How many classics are going to be randomly pulled by Mr Plod for inspection? And how can they do you for a dangerous vehicle without a standardised set of objective criteria? The Road Traffic Act doesn't extend to that.

If that's the future we have to look forward to, it suddenly seems like a lot less hassle to reform the MOT test to take into account the original equipment and performance (front-to-rear brake imbalance with bendix systems for example) of pre-1960 vehicles, and continue to test for major component integrity.

You know it makes sense!
Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top