MOT exemption for forty year old jalopies from May 2018
Discussion
Perseverant said:
I think the original idea was to have a 25 year rolling exemption from tax but not the MOT test.
Well, yes, but the rolling 25yr was frozen at 1973 in the mid 90s. It was only brought back as rolling 40yr a few years ago.So, yes, it's been "tax but not MOT" for well over 20 years.
TooMany2cvs said:
Does it make a difference if they do?
Makes it a lot simpler to politely ignore things the tester believes are an issue, but aren't. Though I would assume a voluntary MOT is something you would have done by a place you have confidence in to understand the vagaries of old cars, so it wouldn't be an issue.
TooMany2cvs said:
Would they be things that you feel the "Reasons for Rejection" are overblown, or where the tester may be going free-range?
Either/or really. More likely where the tester is applying a higher standard than needed for the vehicle concerned. The DVSA themselves are pretty good about grandfathering stuff such that a car in the same specification as it was new should still pass an MOT.InitialDave said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Would they be things that you feel the "Reasons for Rejection" are overblown, or where the tester may be going free-range?
Either/or really. More likely where the tester is applying a higher standard than needed for the vehicle concerned. The DVSA themselves are pretty good about grandfathering stuff such that a car in the same specification as it was new should still pass an MOT.
t. The FBHVC publish a list of test centres known to be "oldie-friendly".TooMany2cvs said:
There's an easy solution to the second. Find a tester who isn't a tt. The FBHVC publish a list of test centres known to be "oldie-friendly".
They're generally not tt. The FBHVC publish a list of test centres known to be "oldie-friendly".ts when it comes to this stuff, just occasionally mistaken. If they're broadly ok otherwise, I'd be happy enough using them as a second pair of eyes and ignoring disagreements over unimportant bits.Like above, a few years back my Mercedes estate failed the MOT because the number plate lights weren't on. you have to turn the light switch on because the car has running lights which come on as soon as you start the engine. Still just the sidelights at first click, but I can understand the tester being confused.
My Rover p6 was failed on its MOT last year due to Nearside side lamps not working....the tester obviously hadn't read the handbook or it would have realised that moving the switch up put on the offside parking lights only and the sidelights all came on when the switch was down....passed on everything else though.....and hell it was just a retest fee when I pointed out their mistake..
InitialDave said:
The DVSA themselves are pretty good about grandfathering stuff such that a car in the same specification as it was new should still pass an MOT.
That's provided the date they have for the car is correct! A lot of cars were and are described in their V5s as first registered in 1921 because that was the date of the Roads Act that gave us the cardboard logbooks. It even said "date of first registration under the Roads Act of 1921" When the data for pre-1921 cars was transcribed on to the computer the 1921 date was the date they used, but we do now have a "date of first use" - intended for imported or re-registered cars but just as usteful for the old stuff.That is relevant as there are (or were) a couple of pre-1921 dates at which the MoT manual showed changes in requirements. e.g. brake retardation changed at 1910 and 1915 so my 1912 car was originally tested to the later rules which did include provision for two-wheel brakes but specified a value the brakes had to meet - the earliest cars (pre-1910) just had to have "efficient brakes" without any indication of how that could be assessed.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff