Pre 1960 MoT/ nasty rust/ sale! Your thoughts...

[Flatinfourth]

I have a very rusty little 1954 car here, which is about to be sold/ auctioned off by it's owner. If it were a later version of the same car, it's potential new owner would have at least a slight safety net from the MoT test, but not so for this earlier car. The floor is all patches-on-patches, filler applied over rust and undersealed, quite a nasty looking thing,corroded to such an extent that the only way forward is properly renewing the entire sills,floors and crossmembers, as there is nothing to fix a lesser repair to!

Having spoken to VOSA this morning, they tell me that they are powerless to control this situation, and they tell me that even if I put the car to an Mot test and it fails, as the fail can be disregarded.

I am fairly confident looking at the fresh black colour underneath that this car was snotted up either by or for a "classic car dealer" before my client bought it.

Is it not too much to ask that if a car, any car is put to MoT, that a fail actually requires rectification, or am I missing something....?

Opinions please!!!!

[TooMany2cvs]

Well, whether or not it has or needs an MOT, it's still illegal to use because it's unroadworthy.

As for the dealer - SOGA rights apply.

[Flatinfourth]

[quote=TooMany2cvs]Well, whether or not it has or needs an MOT, it's still illegal to use because it's unroadworthy.

As for the dealer - SOGA rights apply.[/quot

Exactly my point, the roadworthiness issue, but the MoT fail can be disregarded by the owner, according to VOSA yesterday it apparently has no value and a limited life with them, and they also inform me that their vehicles that we all now see everywhere have no entitlement to stop any private car unless there is an evidence of something hanging off.

When I suggested that on the basis of what they'd said then all that was required for me to bring out my 1951 80" Land Rover that hasn't seen a road since 1980 something was an application for a free tax disc the chap agreed that that was indeed the case, but it did seem a little odd...

[dryden]

In these over-regulated nanny state times we live in, surely any freedom is worth fighting for! But, if we win our freedom, we must have the common sense to use it wisely.
Anyone purchasing a pre 60 car will ether have an idea of what they are getting into, or have someone look at it that has, dealers have a responsibility here to ! If a 50s car is really that bad that it is dangerous, it would probably look it, and would get pulled. I feel that we should treasure this de-regulation, and not alarm government agencies with what-if scenarios.

[tortop45]

Pre 60 cars with no MOT,s ok, but with in 4 years cars made on or be for 1988 will no longer need one also,Its all comming from the EU.

[MJK 24]

tortop45 said:

Pre 60 cars with no MOT,s ok, but with in 4 years cars made on or be for 1988 will no longer need one also,Its all comming from the EU.

Have you got a link to further info on this?

My daily driver was made in 1985 and the idea of not having it MOT'd is ridiculous. It did 11,000 miles last year.

[TooMany2cvs]

tortop45 said:

Pre 60 cars with no MOT,s ok, but with in 4 years cars made on or be for 1988 will no longer need one also,Its all comming from the EU.

Wrong.

There is a standardised MINIMUM definition of a "Historic vehicle" - minimum 30yo, "mostly original spec" - which must be met for MOT exemption. Countries can choose to have stricter definitions than that - and the UK has no public plans to bring it for'ard from 1960. The one thing that'll have to change is that the current exemption doesn't include the "mostly original" restriction, so modified cars now can be MOT-free, but will have to be MOTd.

[mph]

dryden said:

In these over-regulated nanny state times we live in, surely any freedom is worth fighting for! But, if we win our freedom, we must have the common sense to use it wisely.
Anyone purchasing a pre 60 car will ether have an idea of what they are getting into, or have someone look at it that has, dealers have a responsibility here to ! If a 50s car is really that bad that it is dangerous, it would probably look it, and would get pulled. I feel that we should treasure this de-regulation, and not alarm government agencies with what-if scenarios.

Exemption from the MOT for a handful of cars is hardly a cry for freedom ! To my knowledge no-one lobbied for this and most of us think it's a bad idea.

The point is many owners (and even dealers) don't have the basic expertise to assess the condition of a car. If they did no car would ever fail the MOT.

Why should anyone purchasing a pre-1960 car be expected to have more knowledge than someone purchasing a car of any other age ?

[TooMany2cvs]

mph said:

Why should anyone purchasing a pre-1960 car be expected to have more knowledge than someone purchasing a car of any other age ?

Because Joe Public doesn't buy a 1950s car for cheap sensible transport. Only people who actually care about cars do - and the very nature of 50+yo cars means that there are constant bits of tickling needed.

Mind you, when the Harris video of his '50s 2cv, bought from a guy who's a well-known enthusiast and specialist trader in older vehicles, clearly shows MOT-fail levels of play in the kingpin, which would have given only too obvious shaking through the steering...

[Flatinfourth]

It's a fact that we are well past the first play station generation, and a whole lot of people understand nothing abut anything practical, and assume that health and safety rules have them cocooned. I make a specific point of trying to explain to new owners of classics that for instance an XK150 that will do twice the motorway speed limit will also lose ALL its brakes if no one notices that a leaky brake is draining the fluid down. This often comes as quite a surprise...

[mph]

TooMany2cvs said:

Well, whether or not it has or needs an MOT, it's still illegal to use because it's unroadworthy.

As for the dealer - SOGA rights apply.

I feel you're missing the point.

The car is obviously not roadworthy and it's being used. Quoting the SOGA won't make it roadworthy.

Removing the MOT requirement from pre-1960 cars has put the onus onto unskilled, unqualified, and in some cases uncaring, owners and/or dealers.

Your assertion that all classic car owners are competent mechanics with adequate facilities to carry out structural inspections is flawed. It's just not the case.

How anyone can think that removing an annual safety inspection carried out by a qualified person with certified equipment is a good thing is beyond me.

[TooMany2cvs]

mph said:

I feel you're missing the point.

No, I'm not.

mph said:

The car is obviously not roadworthy and it's being used.

Illegally.

mph said:

Quoting the SOGA won't make it roadworthy.

No, but it does give the buyer comeback against the dealer.

mph said:

Removing the MOT requirement from pre-1960 cars has put the onus onto unskilled, unqualified, and in some cases uncaring, owners and/or dealers.

And how many post-'60 cars are utterly unroadworthy by the time they limp towards their next MOT? Just think how many owners of late '90s chod regard the MOT as an unreasonably unattainable high-point of vehicle condition, if not as the sole maintenance their car actually requires.

At least with pre '60 stuff, there's a reasonable assumption that the owner is actually _interested_ in their vehicle.

mph said:

Your assertion that all classic car owners are competent mechanics with adequate facilities to carry out structural inspections is flawed.

I didn't say they were.

mph said:

How anyone can think that removing an annual safety inspection carried out by a qualified person with certified equipment is a good thing is beyond me.

Nor did I say it was.

[Flatinfourth]

The point is, surely that the nasty little rusty thing in question has almost certainly failed it's MoT by now - whic means that a VOSA enabled tester has deemed it unroadworthy, possibly even dangerous. That inspection should in my opinion obstruct any further use of that car until it is repaired - the fact that the MoT testers and VOSA are now powerless is in my view insanity

[b2hbm]

Flatinfourth said:

The point is, surely that the nasty little rusty thing in question has almost certainly failed it's MoT by now - whic means that a VOSA enabled tester has deemed it unroadworthy, possibly even dangerous. That inspection should in my opinion obstruct any further use of that car until it is repaired - the fact that the MoT testers and VOSA are now powerless is in my view insanity

Without getting into the "should we still have an MoT or not ?" debate, if the car has been subject to a test and deemed unroadworthy, then as far as I can see it isn't legal to use until it's repaired, whether it needs an MoT certificate or not.

The onus has always been on the driver to ensure whatever he/she uses is roadworthy and that hasn't changed. I agree there will be drivers who don't even know which end the engine is at, but the basic premise is still that if you're driving a car, you're responsible for making sure it's safe to use. Not knowing what you're doing isn't a defense.

Any further action, such as MoT stations impounding or taking away the car is a step too far and open to misuse or even corruption.

If an MoT tester feels sufficiently strongly that something is unsafe yet the owner insists on driving away, then all he/she has to do is to inform the owner, fill in the appropriate comments and then simply ring the cops before the car leaves. Traffic cop pulls the car over, job done. Owner fined, car towed away ?