MoT or NoT

[BobCD]

I'm wondering what PHers reaction is to the following line of conversation I had with a guy in our village.

He explained that he was getting his daughter's Hillman Minx MoTed. Of course, I said that it didn't need an MoT. He replied that he wanted proof that it was roadworthy, that if she was involved in an accident, the other party's insurer could claim that his daughter's car wasn't roadworthy because it didn't have any MoT and that therefore she was liable by default.

Has anyone had any experience of an insurer taking this line? Do PHers get an MoT anyway for that reason? What is your feeling about such a situation?

[mobile chicane22]

FWIW I think I would get one done if nothing else to ensure there were no major issues with the car

[Virtual PAH]

MOT doesn't mean it's roadworthy except for when the MOT was done, so for any car you have an onus to ensure your car is roadworthy MOT'd or not every time you use it on the road.

Not sure what happens if an exempt car goes on to fail a voluntary MOT, is it then no longer exempt and can't be used on the road until it passes? Perhaps to avoid that scenario ask for a safety check by an MOT tester, think they call it a mock MOT or something, who will look for anything that would fail an MOT without it going on record as a fail. Though then if it is unsafe do they have a duty to report it to the DVSA so it can't be used until an MOT is passed?

A right can of worms if so.

[droopsnoot]

Virtual PAH said:

Not sure what happens if an exempt car goes on to fail a voluntary MOT, is it then no longer exempt and can't be used on the road until it passes?

I would expect that it's still exempt, but the owner now knows that there is a problem with it and would need to get it fixed. Whether it can be used on the road would depend on what the problem was - if it fails on a headlamp bulb being out, that would make no difference to driving it during the day, but if it fails on significant corrosion or a tyre with exposed cords, then it's a problem all the time. Just like a car that isn't exempt, really.

[FarmerJim]

My vintage Alvis is exempt but I still get it tested from to time just to check it is OK. You need to find a tester who knows how to work with old cars.

[vixen1700]

Mine's MoT exempt, but I wouldn't want to be out on the road without a valid MoT.
I think any responsible drivers would do the same.

[Hippea]

I have two MOT exempt cars, both do a few thousand miles a year. No real logic to this but I get them MOT'd every other year

[catso]

I have 2 MOT exempt vehicles (1 bike, 1 car) and I consider it a blessing - not only the money saved but the hassle of booking/taking it for the test.

That said, I look after my vehicles, make sure everything works etc. and have never had one fail an MOT.

[restoman]

The guy in your village is talking absolute rubbish -an MOT done one day doesn't prove that car is roadworthy on another day.

[ARH]

FarmerJim said:

My vintage Alvis is exempt but I still get it tested from to time just to check it is OK. You need to find a tester who knows how to work with old cars.

Most MOT testers are OK with testing older cars, but you need to know the rules yourself to make sure you don't end up with a fail for something silly like no seat belts. Chances are you will also need to be there to tell them how to operate stuff like windscreen washer pumps, or headlight dip switches on the floor.

[OutInTheShed]

I think a lot of people with older bikes don't bother with an MOT, but it's easier to know a bike is OK IMHO.

With a car, I'd want the underneath looking at regularly and some things like brake balance may not be obvious until things get out of shape?

An MOT only says your car was OK on test day. A toy car might have issues due to lack of use. Maybe only weeks after the test?

There is maybe another angle to the OP, my judgement might be fine IMHO for a car that I drive, but if the main driver was my daughter, I might value a second opinion.

[2172cc]

My car has been classed as historic since 2021 and I've not MOTed it since then. Ok course I maintain it to the best of my ability and I'm on top of most obvious things but if I was to get it tested and it was to fail on say emissions due to the twin carbs running a bit rich, does that mean it is classed as NO MOT and comes up red on DVLA making it then illegal to drive?

[Rumdoodle]

I use mine quite a lot and need it to be all present and correct. Frequent use and booking it in for service or repairs at least twice a year ensures that, so I don't MOT it. If I sell it, I'll probably put a ticket on it so it doesn't deter a buyer.

[Super Sonic]

Virtual PAH said:

Not sure what happens if an exempt car goes on to fail a voluntary MOT.

An exempt car doesn't require an MOT, I believe if it fails it is still exempt.
If it fails on something that makes it unroadworthy, it must not be driven as it is unroadworthy. This applies regardless of MOT pass or fail. If it fails on a dangerous fault, it must not be driven. Not because it has no MOT, but because it is dangerous. You can be prosecuted for either. Most insurance companies make it a condition that your car must be roadworthy, so if the MOT fails means your car is unroadworthy, the insurance is invalid.
Im neither an MOT tester or a lawyer.

[Mr Tidy]

If I owned an exempt car I'd still get it tested now and again for some peace of mind knowing that I hadn't missed anything.

[Doesitdrive]

vixen1700 said:

Mine's MoT exempt, but I wouldn't want to be out on the road without a valid MoT.
I think any responsible drivers would do the same.

Yep, got half a dozen, always tested before using especially after sitting and getting running.

It also helps when selling them.

[Doesitdrive]

Super Sonic said:

Virtual PAH said:

Not sure what happens if an exempt car goes on to fail a voluntary MOT.

An exempt car doesn't require an MOT, I believe if it fails it is still exempt.
If it fails on something that makes it unroadworthy, it must not be driven as it is unroadworthy. This applies regardless of MOT pass or fail. If it fails on a dangerous fault, it must not be driven. Not because it has no MOT, but because it is dangerous. You can be prosecuted for either. Most insurance companies make it a condition that your car must be roadworthy, so if the MOT fails means your car is unroadworthy, the insurance is invalid.
Im neither an MOT tester or a lawyer.

My understanding is if it fails it is not exempt, A failure on last test before exemption invalid exemption but thinking that way ain't a bad thing.

I mot mine before use.

[InitialDave]

I would get someone who understands older cars to do what is functionally an MOT, but off the books, reporting to me rather than the DVSA.

[stevemcs]

We had someone ask the same question today, we advised an mot but without logging on, that way the result would be the same but nothing official, then if it passed with flying colours we could not it officially- yes it works out twice as expensive but it cuts out people going through mot history and wanting money off

[ARH]

stevemcs said:

We had someone ask the same question today, we advised an mot but without logging on, that way the result would be the same but nothing official, then if it passed with flying colours we could not it officially- yes it works out twice as expensive but it cuts out people going through mot history and wanting money off

But if you do an MOT without logging on and it does not need an MOT why do an official MOT? Surely the first inspection would be enough to prove there is nothing wrong?