MOT's pre 1960's cars
Discussion
Simple question - but firstly and for the record, I strongly believe all car's should be MOT'ed, it can't do any harm for a competient MOT inspector to take a look at any car (second opinion) - how many people have a ramp at home and get to properly inspect their car without getting it MOT'ed (my garage always let me have a good look underneath while the car is up in the air!
So - Cars pre 1960 no longer need to be MOT'ed, if you were to take a pre 1960's car for an MOT and it were to fail (it would then be noted at the DVLA as an MOT failure) could you then still drive it and sell it as MOT exempt?
What would happen to the new owner if they were then caught driving an MOT failure, when they thought they had bought an MOT exempt car?
Sorry if this subject has been covered before
So - Cars pre 1960 no longer need to be MOT'ed, if you were to take a pre 1960's car for an MOT and it were to fail (it would then be noted at the DVLA as an MOT failure) could you then still drive it and sell it as MOT exempt?
What would happen to the new owner if they were then caught driving an MOT failure, when they thought they had bought an MOT exempt car?
Sorry if this subject has been covered before
Black VXR said:
Simple question - but firstly and for the record, I strongly believe all car's should be MOT'ed
Not meaning to offend, but that's a rather simple dumbed down view on it.Many ex military machines (tanks, ATV's and so on) don't require and MoT to be used on the roads. And nor to most vintage agricultural vehicles either. It's been this way for donkeys years. So "no MoT" isn't exactly something new.
Black VXR said:
, it can't do any harm for a competient MOT inspector to take a look at any car (second opinion)
The trouble is, for an MoT inspector to inspect any vehicle for an MoT they have a set of pre-set and dictated tests and inspections to carry out, along with certain standards that need to be met, such as braking force and emissions.Therefore it is not possible to MoT a vehicle, just "by taking a look".
Remember - the key point here is. 'You are no longer legally required to have your vehicle inspected for an annual MoT.' But the vehicle still needs to be road worthy and safe. If you are stopped or in an accident and the vehicle isn't in a safe road worthy condition, then you will be just as guilty.
And lets face it - why the f
k can't you get your vehicle voluntary inspected?? Remember the only change is the legal requirement for an MoT inspection. This does not mean that you can't have the vehicle inspected independently and maybe even pay for a 'safety report' of the inspection. It is you FREE CHOICE to do so, you are just not legally forced too.Black VXR said:
- how many people have a ramp at home and get to properly inspect their car without getting it MOT'ed (my garage always let me have a good look underneath while the car is up in the air!
Then don't be a lazy bugger and take it a place with a ramp then 
Sometimes you have to wonder if the mass populace of the UK are actually responsible adults or not.
Black VXR said:
So - Cars pre 1960 no longer need to be MOT'ed, if you were to take a pre 1960's car for an MOT and it were to fail (it would then be noted at the DVLA as an MOT failure) could you then still drive it and sell it as MOT exempt?
What would happen to the new owner if they were then caught driving an MOT failure, when they thought they had bought an MOT exempt car?
Sorry if this subject has been covered before
The MoT test no longer has a provision for MoT'ing pre 1960's vehicles. Therefore it cannot be MoT'd, pass or fail.What would happen to the new owner if they were then caught driving an MOT failure, when they thought they had bought an MOT exempt car?
Sorry if this subject has been covered before
If you can find a garage to perform an inspection of safety check and produce a report with the findings, then this would be supporting evidence that the car was well maintained (assuming the report was good).
But as said above, if you are stopped or involved in an RTA/RTI and your pre 1960's car isn't in sound road worthy condition, then you are just as guilty as if it had been MoT'd 11 months earlier, but was now not in a sound safe road worthy condition.
The onus is on the owner - your are the one responsible for ensuring the car is safe to use on the road. Nobody else is. This is true of all cars, be it a 2 month old one, a 10 year old one, or indeed a pre 1960's classic.
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 2nd August 11:24
Riley Blue said:
niagra said:
I'm just guessing, but I reckon that as the car is pre 1960, nothing will get recorded on the system.
Surely a record of the test being carried out will exist on the system. Wouldn't that therefore mean as it's recorded, either a pass or fail certificate is issued?300bhp/ton said:
The MoT test no longer has a provision for MoT'ing pre 1960's vehicles. Therefore it cannot be MoT'd, pass or fail.
Really? I thought you could still present a pre 1960 car for an voluntary MOT, and the date related provisions were still in the book (Emissions, Seat Belts, Washers, Indicators etc). It is however 11 months since I did the 12/50, but others in VSCC have seen their local garage man.davepen said:
Really? I thought you could still present a pre 1960 car for an voluntary MOT, and the date related provisions were still in the book (Emissions, Seat Belts, Washers, Indicators etc). It is however 11 months since I did the 12/50, but others in VSCC have seen their local garage man.
Interesting. I'll be at the MoT test station on Monday. I'll ask and try and clarify. 300bhp/ton said:
Riley Blue said:
niagra said:
I'm just guessing, but I reckon that as the car is pre 1960, nothing will get recorded on the system.
Surely a record of the test being carried out will exist on the system. Wouldn't that therefore mean as it's recorded, either a pass or fail certificate is issued?The DVLA requires an MOT on a pre-1960 vehicle if you want to carry out a registration transfer.
Therefore it must be possible.
https://www.gov.uk/personalised-vehicle-registrati...
Therefore it must be possible.
https://www.gov.uk/personalised-vehicle-registrati...
Edited by mph on Saturday 3rd August 13:25
300bhp/ton said:
The MoT test no longer has a provision for MoT'ing pre 1960's vehicles. Therefore it cannot be MoT'd, pass or fail.
That's incorrect, if I had a pre 1960 car presented to me for test, I'll have absolutely no problem in logging on the test, conducting the test and entering the test result. If there is no record of the VIN/registration number of the presented vehicle on VOSAs computer, a record can easily be made and the necessary brake testing weight can be sourced.Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 2nd August 11:24
300bhp/ton said:
Black VXR said:
Simple question - but firstly and for the record, I strongly believe all car's should be MOT'ed
Not meaning to offend, but that's a rather simple dumbed down view on it.Many ex military machines (tanks, ATV's and so on) don't require and MoT to be used on the roads. And nor to most vintage agricultural vehicles either. It's been this way for donkeys years. So "no MoT" isn't exactly something new.
Black VXR said:
, it can't do any harm for a competient MOT inspector to take a look at any car (second opinion)
The trouble is, for an MoT inspector to inspect any vehicle for an MoT they have a set of pre-set and dictated tests and inspections to carry out, along with certain standards that need to be met, such as braking force and emissions.Therefore it is not possible to MoT a vehicle, just "by taking a look".
Remember - the key point here is. 'You are no longer legally required to have your vehicle inspected for an annual MoT.' But the vehicle still needs to be road worthy and safe. If you are stopped or in an accident and the vehicle isn't in a safe road worthy condition, then you will be just as guilty.
And lets face it - why the f
k can't you get your vehicle voluntary inspected?? Remember the only change is the legal requirement for an MoT inspection. This does not mean that you can't have the vehicle inspected independently and maybe even pay for a 'safety report' of the inspection. It is you FREE CHOICE to do so, you are just not legally forced too.Black VXR said:
- how many people have a ramp at home and get to properly inspect their car without getting it MOT'ed (my garage always let me have a good look underneath while the car is up in the air!
Then don't be a lazy bugger and take it a place with a ramp then Sometimes you have to wonder if the mass populace of the UK are actually responsible adults or not.
Black VXR said:
So - Cars pre 1960 no longer need to be MOT'ed, if you were to take a pre 1960's car for an MOT and it were to fail (it would then be noted at the DVLA as an MOT failure) could you then still drive it and sell it as MOT exempt?
What would happen to the new owner if they were then caught driving an MOT failure, when they thought they had bought an MOT exempt car?
Sorry if this subject has been covered before
The MoT test no longer has a provision for MoT'ing pre 1960's vehicles. Therefore it cannot be MoT'd, pass or fail.What would happen to the new owner if they were then caught driving an MOT failure, when they thought they had bought an MOT exempt car?
Sorry if this subject has been covered before
If you can find a garage to perform an inspection of safety check and produce a report with the findings, then this would be supporting evidence that the car was well maintained (assuming the report was good).
But as said above, if you are stopped or involved in an RTA/RTI and your pre 1960's car isn't in sound road worthy condition, then you are just as guilty as if it had been MoT'd 11 months earlier, but was now not in a sound safe road worthy condition.
The onus is on the owner - your are the one responsible for ensuring the car is safe to use on the road. Nobody else is. This is true of all cars, be it a 2 month old one, a 10 year old one, or indeed a pre 1960's classic.
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 2nd August 11:24
Firstly if I had wanted a debate about farm vehicles or tanks I wouldn't have posted in the vintage car section
As you clearly can't answer my question, why post, unless you simply have nothing better to do! I don't need a lecture on my responsibility or anyone else's in regard to driving a vehicle on the highway. The reason I support MOT's for vintage cars is that an MOT inspector (of course following out an inspection to a set of rules) is the only other person I trust to look at my cars (other than myself). Of course you need to pick your garage and if you were to take a vintage car to a large high street branded MOT chain you would of course (likely) not get best advice.
You might not guess, but I hate it when my posts are hijacked by foul language speaking incompetents.
srob said:
I I don't get the question. Surely if it fails, the car's not safe for use. It wouldn't have been safe without an MoT either, it's just you've been told.
It could fail for brakes being useless which is dangerous and the car's not safe or for a minor thing - number plate damaged, slight wear in a bush, when it wouldn't be dangerous. I think the question is the dividing line between these sort of things.
john2443 said:
It could fail for brakes being useless which is dangerous and the car's not safe or for a minor thing - number plate damaged, slight wear in a bush, when it wouldn't be dangerous.
I think the question is the dividing line between these sort of things.
All I meant is that the faults (whatever they are) will be there regardless of whether you have someone check the car over once a year, unless on the very off chance they develop on the morning of the MoT.I think the question is the dividing line between these sort of things.
People seem to be under some kind of misguided thought that an MoT is a licence to motor about for a year without making sure your vehicle's in a roadworthy condition, each and every time you use it.
If you don't have access to a ramp (as in the OP's case) I can't see how they can check that the vehicle is in a safe condition. I've never run a classic car, but have been involved with vintage motorcycles my whole life and they need regular checks, not just a "second pair of eyes" once a year.
srob said:
john2443 said:
It could fail for brakes being useless which is dangerous and the car's not safe or for a minor thing - number plate damaged, slight wear in a bush, when it wouldn't be dangerous.
I think the question is the dividing line between these sort of things.
All I meant is that the faults (whatever they are) will be there regardless of whether you have someone check the car over once a year, unless on the very off chance they develop on the morning of the MoT.I think the question is the dividing line between these sort of things.
People seem to be under some kind of misguided thought that an MoT is a licence to motor about for a year without making sure your vehicle's in a roadworthy condition, each and every time you use it.
If you don't have access to a ramp (as in the OP's case) I can't see how they can check that the vehicle is in a safe condition. I've never run a classic car, but have been involved with vintage motorcycles my whole life and they need regular checks, not just a "second pair of eyes" once a year.
This is from the FBHVC Newsletter this February. The last paragraph is most relevant to the OP, but as it also mentions other MOT-exempt classes of vehicle I thought I'd quote it all.
FBHVC said:
VOLUNTARY MOT TESTS
At the NEC show last November several members raised queries regarding the operation of voluntary MoT tests.
All testing stations were notified by Special Notice from VOSA that as and from the date of exemption for pre-1960 vehicles, these owners can apply for a voluntary test. These can be booked in the normal way and charged the normal fee (or lower if the garage is giving special offers) and garages cannot refuse to test them. Please notify the secretary if any garages are refusing to conduct a voluntary test.
Those few vehicles that have always been exempt from MoT, mainly specialised vehicles for which no manuals exist and fall outside testing protocols, are not eligible for voluntary testing. (These vehicles are listed on the V112 form, the Declaration of Exemption from MoT Testing.) However DfT have been under pressure from the EU and are starting to consider reducing the approximately 30 types of exempt vehicles (most of which are now built on modern truck/bus chassis) down to only those machines with specially tailor made layouts i.e. extremely low volume production.
Any voluntary test should be conducted as previously practiced and the normal pass or failure notification will be issued together with ‘advisories’ if appropriate. It therefore follows that an electronic record will be held on the VOSA database, which the enforcement teams of VOSA and the Police may interrogate. It is plainly not acceptable for owners to ignore a failure and continue to use a vehicle without correcting a known fault and use an excuse of: “Well, I need not have had it tested anyway”. Good practice is to resubmit for a retest after the rectification of a failure fault.
At the NEC show last November several members raised queries regarding the operation of voluntary MoT tests.
All testing stations were notified by Special Notice from VOSA that as and from the date of exemption for pre-1960 vehicles, these owners can apply for a voluntary test. These can be booked in the normal way and charged the normal fee (or lower if the garage is giving special offers) and garages cannot refuse to test them. Please notify the secretary if any garages are refusing to conduct a voluntary test.
Those few vehicles that have always been exempt from MoT, mainly specialised vehicles for which no manuals exist and fall outside testing protocols, are not eligible for voluntary testing. (These vehicles are listed on the V112 form, the Declaration of Exemption from MoT Testing.) However DfT have been under pressure from the EU and are starting to consider reducing the approximately 30 types of exempt vehicles (most of which are now built on modern truck/bus chassis) down to only those machines with specially tailor made layouts i.e. extremely low volume production.
Any voluntary test should be conducted as previously practiced and the normal pass or failure notification will be issued together with ‘advisories’ if appropriate. It therefore follows that an electronic record will be held on the VOSA database, which the enforcement teams of VOSA and the Police may interrogate. It is plainly not acceptable for owners to ignore a failure and continue to use a vehicle without correcting a known fault and use an excuse of: “Well, I need not have had it tested anyway”. Good practice is to resubmit for a retest after the rectification of a failure fault.
To widen the thread out a little, my tax disc reminder arrived this week, boldly typed was the statement 'this vehicle requires an MOT Test certificate'.
My car in question is a 1928 Vauxhall saloon, it sports its originality throughout including chassis and engine. As the vehicle was imported from New Zealand during 1991 it was obviously provided with its date applicable registration number plate. However, this is not enough for the DVLA when it comes to proof of a pre 1960 vehicle. I have had to obtain the original manufacturers build date sheets and send a copy of this to DVLA together with a V112G form.
Happy days indeed.
My car in question is a 1928 Vauxhall saloon, it sports its originality throughout including chassis and engine. As the vehicle was imported from New Zealand during 1991 it was obviously provided with its date applicable registration number plate. However, this is not enough for the DVLA when it comes to proof of a pre 1960 vehicle. I have had to obtain the original manufacturers build date sheets and send a copy of this to DVLA together with a V112G form.
Happy days indeed.
tog said:
This is from the FBHVC Newsletter this February. The last paragraph is most relevant to the OP, but as it also mentions other MOT-exempt classes of vehicle I thought I'd quote it all.
Hmmm, that sounds a little slippery. FBHVC said:
VOLUNTARY MOT TESTS
It is plainly not acceptable for owners to ignore a failure and continue to use a vehicle without correcting a known fault and use an excuse of: “Well, I need not have had it tested anyway”. Good practice is to resubmit for a retest after the rectification of a failure fault.
It is plainly not acceptable for owners to ignore a failure and continue to use a vehicle without correcting a known fault and use an excuse of: “Well, I need not have had it tested anyway”. Good practice is to resubmit for a retest after the rectification of a failure fault.
If it's only "good practice" to resubmit you have a situation where I take my pre-60's vehicle for an MOT, being a responsible owner and I want it checked over. It fails, let's say on a duff brakelight. I go home and fix the duff brakelight but can't be bothered to take it back because I know the brakelight is now working.
I've corrected the fault but the MOT record still exists that the vehicle failed.
Obviously this is a trivial example but it does seem a bit of a crazy situation.
This whole issue is one huge can of worms! I used to MOT test several vintage Sunbeams for a local customer. I'm talking 1920's cars here. Now, amongst other pecularites they had quite lightly spring loaded ball joints on the steering. On any more modern car the amount of free play in these joints would cause me to fail them immediately but the presenter (sice died unfortunately, he was a great bloke) was Europes leading authority on vintage Sunbeams and he would always say "they're fine". So what was I supposed to do? Fail it and, maybe, face a protest from the leading authority? Guess the answer!
But, no problem there, he was an honourable man and knew his stuff inside out as do most old car owners. But what worries me about this exemption is the "hippy" types who will buy an old Morris Minor because they believe it will last forever and then one day the chassis will break in half on the motorway and kill a few people. THAT is the problem with this exemption!
To go back to voluntary tests. As I understand it if it fails then it's a failure and shouldn't be used until repaired and re-tested. That is regardless of wether it needed to be tested or not.
But being realistic, come on, the test isn't that strict and on an older car a lot of the criteria don't apply anyway. If it's a decent car it should pass.
But, no problem there, he was an honourable man and knew his stuff inside out as do most old car owners. But what worries me about this exemption is the "hippy" types who will buy an old Morris Minor because they believe it will last forever and then one day the chassis will break in half on the motorway and kill a few people. THAT is the problem with this exemption!
To go back to voluntary tests. As I understand it if it fails then it's a failure and shouldn't be used until repaired and re-tested. That is regardless of wether it needed to be tested or not.
But being realistic, come on, the test isn't that strict and on an older car a lot of the criteria don't apply anyway. If it's a decent car it should pass.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff