MOT Consultation
Discussion
Keep it stiff said:
Is there any recent info as to the outcome on the consultation on the probable extension of MOT exemption?
The last I heard, a couple of months' or so ago, was that an imminent announcement had been postponed due to election purdah.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/extend...The last I heard, a couple of months' or so ago, was that an imminent announcement had been postponed due to election purdah.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 3rd July 20:30
TooMany2cvs said:
Keep it stiff said:
Is there any recent info as to the outcome on the consultation on the probable extension of MOT exemption?
The last I heard, a couple of months' or so ago, was that an imminent announcement had been postponed due to election purdah.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/extending-first-mot-date-to-4-yearsThe last I heard, a couple of months' or so ago, was that an imminent announcement had been postponed due to election purdah.
TooMany2cvs said:
With respect, if you visited the link, you'd see that it said "We are analysing your feedback
Visit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback."
So there is no update. The results of the consultation have not yet been announced.
Just a little clue for you, this is in the classic cars section.Visit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback."
So there is no update. The results of the consultation have not yet been announced.
TooMany2cvs said:
With respect, if you visited the link, you'd see that it said "We are analysing your feedback
Visit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback."
So there is no update. The results of the consultation have not yet been announced.
Jesus fVisit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback."
So there is no update. The results of the consultation have not yet been announced.
king titty christ!Pull your head out of your arse and read the OP!
oakdale said:
TooMany2cvs said:
With respect, if you visited the link, you'd see that it said "We are analysing your feedback
Visit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback."
So there is no update. The results of the consultation have not yet been announced.
Just a little clue for you, this is in the classic cars section.Visit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback."
So there is no update. The results of the consultation have not yet been announced.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadwo...
Same result, though - still analysing.
My question was not intended to create angst guys!
I hope that the potential to change the MOT exemption date does not become a casualty of the changed political climate. I know there are plenty of people that feel the 1960 date should be retained, my preference is to see it aligned with VED exemption. It remains to be seen then as to if an outcome of the consultation is going to surface at all.
I hope that the potential to change the MOT exemption date does not become a casualty of the changed political climate. I know there are plenty of people that feel the 1960 date should be retained, my preference is to see it aligned with VED exemption. It remains to be seen then as to if an outcome of the consultation is going to surface at all.
Keep it stiff said:
I hope that the potential to change the MOT exemption date does not become a casualty of the changed political climate. I know there are plenty of people that feel the 1960 date should be retained, my preference is to see it aligned with VED exemption. It remains to be seen then as to if an outcome of the consultation is going to surface at all.
TBH, the cut-off date is not the greatest problem - the actual live issue is that the UK is currently in breach of EU roadworthiness directives, when it comes to exempting older vehicles without considering their originality. As far as age goes, the UK is free to set any cut-off over 30yrs. Or, indeed, no exemption.TooMany2cvs said:
... Or, indeed, no exemption.
My vote would be for no exemption, if it's on the road it should be road worthy.I guess garages should be free to decide whether they have the skills to MOT real cars, I suspect that in practice most classic owners are somewhat selective anyway about who they trust with their cars.
a8hex said:
My vote would be for no exemption, if it's on the road it should be road worthy.
Which is a different thing to having a current MOT, of course. Pre-60 cars still have to be roadworthy, as do <3yo ones.a8hex said:
I guess garages should be free to decide whether they have the skills to MOT real cars, I suspect that in practice most classic owners are somewhat selective anyway about who they trust with their cars.
<nods>Modern garages have no 'Common Sense' when it comes to MOT ing Older cars, for example The Local Morgan dealer failed the wife's morgan coz the pedals did not have rubber 'anti slip' covers on the pedals - However all older Morgan pedals have the 'Morgan logo' embossed into the pedals which thereby 'roughens up' the exposed steel and provides the MOT required 'anti slip' - DUH!!!!!!!!!!
When I tried explaining this to the tt in the garage who'd failed the car - We were escorted off the premises and told not to return!!!!!!
I then took the car to my local garage - the same day - and it passed - you work it out???
When I tried explaining this to the t
t in the garage who'd failed the car - We were escorted off the premises and told not to return!!!!!!I then took the car to my local garage - the same day - and it passed - you work it out???
S47 said:
Modern garages have no 'Common Sense' when it comes to MOT ing Older cars, for example The Local Morgan dealer failed the wife's morgan coz the pedals did not have rubber 'anti slip' covers on the pedals - However all older Morgan pedals have the 'Morgan logo' embossed into the pedals which thereby 'roughens up' the exposed steel and provides the MOT required 'anti slip' - DUH!!!!!!!!!!
When I tried explaining this to the tt in the garage who'd failed the car - We were escorted off the premises and told not to return!!!!!!
I then took the car to my local garage - the same day - and it passed - you work it out???
It's all down to interpreting and understanding the regulations. As long as we have humans carrying out MOTs we will have these discrepancies. When I tried explaining this to the t
t in the garage who'd failed the car - We were escorted off the premises and told not to return!!!!!!I then took the car to my local garage - the same day - and it passed - you work it out???
Little Pete said:
S47 said:
Modern garages have no 'Common Sense' when it comes to MOT ing Older cars, for example The Local Morgan dealer failed the wife's morgan coz the pedals did not have rubber 'anti slip' covers on the pedals - However all older Morgan pedals have the 'Morgan logo' embossed into the pedals which thereby 'roughens up' the exposed steel and provides the MOT required 'anti slip' - DUH!!!!!!!!!!
When I tried explaining this to the tt in the garage who'd failed the car - We were escorted off the premises and told not to return!!!!!!
I then took the car to my local garage - the same day - and it passed - you work it out???
It's all down to interpreting and understanding the regulations. As long as we have humans carrying out MOTs we will have these discrepancies. When I tried explaining this to the t
t in the garage who'd failed the car - We were escorted off the premises and told not to return!!!!!!I then took the car to my local garage - the same day - and it passed - you work it out???
DVSA said:
Information
Vehicles with a smooth brake pedal pad which from manufacture did not incorporate grooves or the fitting of an anti-slip material should not be subject to rejection. The provision of a pedal rubber which is itself an anti-slip material is not regarded as a reason for rejection if the design pattern is worn smooth.
https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/m...Vehicles with a smooth brake pedal pad which from manufacture did not incorporate grooves or the fitting of an anti-slip material should not be subject to rejection. The provision of a pedal rubber which is itself an anti-slip material is not regarded as a reason for rejection if the design pattern is worn smooth.
So, apart from it just being the brake pedal - the others can be as smooth as you like - if that's how it left the factory, then it's not a fail. Unless the Morgan dealer were suggesting this was some chavtastic mod, then the problem isn't a tester not using common sense when it comes to applying MOT rules, but a tester not actually knowing the test rules.
I think it was the MOT tester wanting to sell us some expensive Rubber covers B4 the MOT re-test which we would have had to pay for again - fking main dealers.
I was disappointed by the Morgan dealers attitude, you would clearly expect them to be much more interested in the brand than normal Tintop dealers. who often try this type of scam
We told all the others in local Morgan club about this - all were disgusted - however we then found out that they all took their cars to the Factory for servicing! thus NEVER using this RIP off merchant, we plannned to do this next service, But the whole incident left a nasty taste and she sold the Morgan soon after - SORTED
king main dealers. I was disappointed by the Morgan dealers attitude, you would clearly expect them to be much more interested in the brand than normal Tintop dealers. who often try this type of scam
We told all the others in local Morgan club about this - all were disgusted - however we then found out that they all took their cars to the Factory for servicing! thus NEVER using this RIP off merchant, we plannned to do this next service, But the whole incident left a nasty taste and she sold the Morgan soon after - SORTED
I think it was the MOT tester wanting to sell us some expensive Rubber covers B4 the MOT re-test which we would have had to pay for again - fking main dealers.
I was disappointed by the Morgan dealers attitude, you would clearly expect them to be much more interested in the brand than normal Tintop dealers. who often try this type of scam
We told all the others in local Morgan club about this - all were disgusted - however we then found out that they all took their cars to the Factory for servicing! thus NEVER using this RIP off merchant, we plannned to do this next service, But the whole incident left a nasty taste and she sold the Morgan soon after - SORTED
king main dealers. I was disappointed by the Morgan dealers attitude, you would clearly expect them to be much more interested in the brand than normal Tintop dealers. who often try this type of scam
We told all the others in local Morgan club about this - all were disgusted - however we then found out that they all took their cars to the Factory for servicing! thus NEVER using this RIP off merchant, we plannned to do this next service, But the whole incident left a nasty taste and she sold the Morgan soon after - SORTED
a8hex said:
My vote would be for no exemption, if it's on the road it should be road worthy.
I guess garages should be free to decide whether they have the skills to MOT real cars, I suspect that in practice most classic owners are somewhat selective anyway about who they trust with their cars.
This attitude really bugs me. Not just the tone, but the fact that you haven't bothered to look up the basic facts. I guess garages should be free to decide whether they have the skills to MOT real cars, I suspect that in practice most classic owners are somewhat selective anyway about who they trust with their cars.
Pre 1960's cars have to just as "road worthy". The only difference is, there isn't an enforced check. Owners can optionally get their vehicles inspected or not. But either way, they must be "road worthy". And if they were involved in an accident and found not to be. They would be at risk of the same penalties as a person owning a 2 year old car that wasn't "road worthy" (such as through abuse or damage such as worn tyres or broken or damage suspension or bodywork).
300bhp/ton said:
a8hex said:
My vote would be for no exemption, if it's on the road it should be road worthy.
I guess garages should be free to decide whether they have the skills to MOT real cars, I suspect that in practice most classic owners are somewhat selective anyway about who they trust with their cars.
This attitude really bugs me. Not just the tone, but the fact that you haven't bothered to look up the basic facts. I guess garages should be free to decide whether they have the skills to MOT real cars, I suspect that in practice most classic owners are somewhat selective anyway about who they trust with their cars.
Pre 1960's cars have to just as "road worthy". The only difference is, there isn't an enforced check. Owners can optionally get their vehicles inspected or not. But either way, they must be "road worthy". And if they were involved in an accident and found not to be. They would be at risk of the same penalties as a person owning a 2 year old car that wasn't "road worthy" (such as through abuse or damage such as worn tyres or broken or damage suspension or bodywork).
I simply can't understand why anyone would be against the idea. I can't get my head around the idea that a car made in December 59 doesn't need checking while one made just after Christmas on the same production line does. To me exempting cars from checks doesn't make any sense.
I'm sure that you would want to ensure that your car was road worthy, but not having checks is bound, IMHO, to increase the number of cars that aren't.
a8hex said:
An enforced check by a qualified independent person just seems to me like a damn good idea.
I simply can't understand why anyone would be against the idea. I can't get my head around the idea that a car made in December 59 doesn't need checking while one made just after Christmas on the same production line does. To me exempting cars from checks doesn't make any sense.
I'm sure that you would want to ensure that your car was road worthy, but not having checks is bound, IMHO, to increase the number of cars that aren't.
I don't think there are many would argue. The question is more one of whether the average tester is capable of properly testing a car that's of very different technology and construction to the vast majority of cars.I simply can't understand why anyone would be against the idea. I can't get my head around the idea that a car made in December 59 doesn't need checking while one made just after Christmas on the same production line does. To me exempting cars from checks doesn't make any sense.
I'm sure that you would want to ensure that your car was road worthy, but not having checks is bound, IMHO, to increase the number of cars that aren't.
Would a false sense of security be given by passing something that's utterly, dangerously shagged, because the tester's not understood what he's looking for?
Would a perfectly good car be incorrectly blocked from the road by failing something that's in tippety-toppety condition, because the tester's not understood what he's looking for?
Any cut-off date is a blunt tool, always will be - and it gets cruder when you look at modified vehicles. Then there's the <ahem> flexible age vehicles of types that have spanned the cut-off. Look at things like Landies and 2cvs - they're made of meccano, and you can easily put something together that's nominally 50s, but is really just an 80s vehicle.
TooMany2cvs said:
a8hex said:
An enforced check by a qualified independent person just seems to me like a damn good idea.
8<----------------------------
I don't think there are many would argue. The question is more one of whether the average tester is capable of properly testing a car that's of very different technology and construction to the vast majority of cars.8<----------------------------
Hence my comment about test stations. I think a lot would not want to be involved in testing classic. A separate register of those approved to do so would be a useful thing for the classic community too.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff