40+ year old cars exempt from MOT?
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
V6Pushfit said:
You are now fully Road Legal
Only if the car really is roadworthy...Despite being in favour of the exemption I agree with the point that any car coming off a period of SORN or your pre-SORN barn find should go through an initial test. Even for the owner that seems pretty logical to establish a baseline even if they never get tested again.
I've re-taxed 2 cars now, both qualify for exemption, both are MOT'd, neither has given me the option online to declare VHI, I did one from the reminder and one from the V5C reference to see if if made a difference, looks like the system works better if you don't have an MOT, so now the question is if you keep the cars MOT'd will it ever ask the question about exemption ?
mk1coopers said:
I've re-taxed 2 cars now, both qualify for exemption, both are MOT'd, neither has given me the option online to declare VHI, I did one from the reminder and one from the V5C reference to see if if made a difference, looks like the system works better if you don't have an MOT, so now the question is if you keep the cars MOT'd will it ever ask the question about exemption ?
No, because there's no point.All the declaration does is say "Yes, I know there's no MOT showing, but I don't need one to tax it because... [X]"
It's not some kind of magic. It simply says to DVLA's computers (or Mrs Miggins in the PO) "Don't hand it back for lack of ticket."
b2hbm said:
Yes, that's the real point that everyone skips over and despite the changes in MoT requirements there's nothing changed about the car being roadworthy. The cops can still pull you up if you've got a light out, do a check on the car and if there's something wrong, you're nicked.
I don't necessarily that it's being skipped over. It's more a case that leaving the responsibility with the owner doesn't work and never has.That's the reason the MOT was introduced in the first place and the reason why approaching 30% of cars fail the MOT. I'm not aware of anyone being prosecuted for their car failing the MOT, no matter how "unroadworthy" it was.
With the mandatory MOT all cars are roadworthy at least once a year, and of course beyond that in reality. Equally importantly there's only twelve months for them to get into an unroadworthy condition.
The thought that cars dragged out of a barn after twenty years, and/or "restored" by unskilled amateurs, will now be on the road, makes me shudder.
TooMany2cvs said:
No, because there's no point.
All the declaration does is say "Yes, I know there's no MOT showing, but I don't need one to tax it because... [X]"
It's not some kind of magic. It simply says to DVLA's computers (or Mrs Miggins in the PO) "Don't hand it back for lack of ticket."
So that leads back in to the discussions on other forums (other forums are available All the declaration does is say "Yes, I know there's no MOT showing, but I don't need one to tax it because... [X]"
It's not some kind of magic. It simply says to DVLA's computers (or Mrs Miggins in the PO) "Don't hand it back for lack of ticket."
) as to if vehicles aren't declared VHI because they are kept MOT'd or you tick the box saying it's 'substantially changed' will (at some point) the DVLA come knocking to see if the vehicle qualifies to keep it's current registration as we all know there are plenty of cars out there that have been modified outside of the 8 point registration criteria.mk1coopers said:
So that leads back in to the discussions on other forums (other forums are available ) as to if vehicles aren't declared VHI because they are kept MOT'd or you tick the box saying it's 'substantially changed' will (at some point) the DVLA come knocking to see if the vehicle qualifies to keep it's current registration as we all know there are plenty of cars out there that have been modified outside of the 8 point registration criteria.
Oh, gawd. I thought that stupidity and paranoia had been put to bed? ) as to if vehicles aren't declared VHI because they are kept MOT'd or you tick the box saying it's 'substantially changed' will (at some point) the DVLA come knocking to see if the vehicle qualifies to keep it's current registration as we all know there are plenty of cars out there that have been modified outside of the 8 point registration criteria.I have just tried out the new system as I have been away in France for 2 weeks and I think it is a disaster waiting to happen, I have taxed 3 of my cars that have been in the garage for over 5 years and not moved they can now be used on the road legally the cars are in perfect condition but how many owners will do this and their cars or not?
Edited by RONV on Thursday 24th May 14:18
I have just tried out the new system as I have been away in France for 2 weeks and I think it is a disaster waiting to happen, I have just taxed 3 of my cars that have been in the garage for over 5 years and not moved they can now be used on the road legally the cars are in perfect condition but how many owners will do this and their cars or not? 
Edited by RONV on Thursday 24th May 14:19
Edited by RONV on Thursday 24th May 14:20
TooMany2cvs said:
mk1coopers said:
So that leads back in to the discussions on other forums (other forums are available ) as to if vehicles aren't declared VHI because they are kept MOT'd or you tick the box saying it's 'substantially changed' will (at some point) the DVLA come knocking to see if the vehicle qualifies to keep it's current registration as we all know there are plenty of cars out there that have been modified outside of the 8 point registration criteria.
Oh, gawd. I thought that stupidity and paranoia had been put to bed? ) as to if vehicles aren't declared VHI because they are kept MOT'd or you tick the box saying it's 'substantially changed' will (at some point) the DVLA come knocking to see if the vehicle qualifies to keep it's current registration as we all know there are plenty of cars out there that have been modified outside of the 8 point registration criteria.lowdrag said:
TooMany2cvs said:
mk1coopers said:
So that leads back in to the discussions on other forums (other forums are available ) as to if vehicles aren't declared VHI because they are kept MOT'd or you tick the box saying it's 'substantially changed' will (at some point) the DVLA come knocking to see if the vehicle qualifies to keep it's current registration as we all know there are plenty of cars out there that have been modified outside of the 8 point registration criteria.
Oh, gawd. I thought that stupidity and paranoia had been put to bed? ) as to if vehicles aren't declared VHI because they are kept MOT'd or you tick the box saying it's 'substantially changed' will (at some point) the DVLA come knocking to see if the vehicle qualifies to keep it's current registration as we all know there are plenty of cars out there that have been modified outside of the 8 point registration criteria.RONV said:
I have just tried out the new system as I have been away in France for 2 weeks and I think it is a disaster waiting to happen, I have just taxed 3 of my cars that have been in the garage for over 5 years and not moved they can now be used on the road legally the cars are in perfect condition but how many owners will do this and their cars or not?
I wonder how many cars are being taxed as a tester, without actually being insured for road use...? Continuous insurance fines form a line over there, thanks.I will save two mot’s a year and at least a day each to prep and get tested. But I still think this is all wrong:
I’m am thinking of buying a 1969 car that had been off the road since 2003. I saw it a year ago since which the owner has done a ‘body off rebuild’ in his shed but the standard is appalling and like he’s got poor eyesight and no engineering experience. Basically it’s a cock up - and it needs redoing properly. It’s just been offered to me again now he’s ‘finished’. I’m interested as the price is low and the nuts will be easy to undo again. I said I would buy if it carries an MOT at least to establish a standard of road worthiness at the start but the answer was predictably ‘it doesn’t need it, so I’ve taxed it and declared the age so it’s all ready to go’.
Why on earth haven’t they required a current MOT at the time of retaxing to prevent previously laid-up basket cases being road legal? When they look back at the stats in a year or so they will probably find that there are five times as many qualifying cars re taxed than they thought ever existed - made up by the barn find stored laid up basket case parts cars that are back on the band wagon - and the road.
I’m am thinking of buying a 1969 car that had been off the road since 2003. I saw it a year ago since which the owner has done a ‘body off rebuild’ in his shed but the standard is appalling and like he’s got poor eyesight and no engineering experience. Basically it’s a cock up - and it needs redoing properly. It’s just been offered to me again now he’s ‘finished’. I’m interested as the price is low and the nuts will be easy to undo again. I said I would buy if it carries an MOT at least to establish a standard of road worthiness at the start but the answer was predictably ‘it doesn’t need it, so I’ve taxed it and declared the age so it’s all ready to go’.
Why on earth haven’t they required a current MOT at the time of retaxing to prevent previously laid-up basket cases being road legal? When they look back at the stats in a year or so they will probably find that there are five times as many qualifying cars re taxed than they thought ever existed - made up by the barn find stored laid up basket case parts cars that are back on the band wagon - and the road.
Look, there's no sense in trying to push water uphill, now is there? Like it or not, we have the new legislation so just get used to it. No law is perfect, and all we have done in return to the same state as 1959 before the MOT was introduced. Except that our cars aren't everyday cars, they are used sparingly, and the DVLA statistics garnered from MOT results show that the majority of our cars don't do 1,000 miles in a year. Many don't even move except to the MOT station and back. People weren't complaining like this when the pre-1960 rule came in, and all they have done is bring it more up to date because of European legislation. Just let it lie. Having a piece of paper that says your car was legal on 1/365th of the year seems pretty pointless to me.
lowdrag said:
Look, there's no sense in trying to push water uphill, now is there? Like it or not, we have the new legislation so just get used to it. No law is perfect, and all we have done in return to the same state as 1959 before the MOT was introduced. Except that our cars aren't everyday cars, they are used sparingly, and the DVLA statistics garnered from MOT results show that the majority of our cars don't do 1,000 miles in a year. Many don't even move except to the MOT station and back. People weren't complaining like this when the pre-1960 rule came in, and all they have done is bring it more up to date because of European legislation. Just let it lie. Having a piece of paper that says your car was legal on 1/365th of the year seems pretty pointless to me.
I get that but the whole ethos of the MOT is safety and your point is more relevant to a 3 year old car. It’s the old death traps that will be the problem as there will be unmaintained s
te on the roads having serious accidents which will no doubt lead to a review of all this and a change. lowdrag said:
People weren't complaining like this when the pre-1960 rule came in
Oh, they were...lowdrag said:
and all they have done is bring it more up to date because of European legislation. Just let it lie.
Not quite.The EU legislation said "No blanket age exemption, must have an originality test". (It allows for a minimum age exemption of 30yrs - but that's unchanged.)
The UK said "OK, we have to change the pre-60 blanket to include an originality test". That bit fits with the Roadworthiness Directive.
What the UK also said, off its own back - which was nothing to do with the Roadworthiness Directive - was "Oh, and we might as well bring it forward from 1960 to rolling 40yr... And that's the bit that's causing all the shouting.
Anyway, as you're in France (IIRC), I hear that the CT is also getting similar shouting, because it's had to get tougher to meet the RD...?
V6Pushfit said:
lowdrag said:
Look, there's no sense in trying to push water uphill, now is there? Like it or not, we have the new legislation so just get used to it. No law is perfect, and all we have done in return to the same state as 1959 before the MOT was introduced. Except that our cars aren't everyday cars, they are used sparingly, and the DVLA statistics garnered from MOT results show that the majority of our cars don't do 1,000 miles in a year. Many don't even move except to the MOT station and back. People weren't complaining like this when the pre-1960 rule came in, and all they have done is bring it more up to date because of European legislation. Just let it lie. Having a piece of paper that says your car was legal on 1/365th of the year seems pretty pointless to me.
I get that but the whole ethos of the MOT is safety and your point is more relevant to a 3 year old car. It’s the old death traps that will be the problem as there will be unmaintained ste on the roads having serious accidents which will no doubt lead to a review of all this and a change. I'll reiterate;
Firstly, owning an old MoT exempt car is not a cost saving measure. No old car is anything like as cheap to own and run as a modern car, even allowing for repairs and MoT costs. In the modern world we are used to cars that cruise at 80mph and still do 45-50 to the gallon. Many pre 1978 cars will barely manage 30mpg even at 40mph. There is highly unlikely to be a tidal wave of old death traps reappearing on the roads as a cost saving measure on the part of penny pinching owners
Secondly, the exemption doesn't give you cart blanche to drive something not fit for the road. Get stopped by the police in a car with obvious defects and you'll be issued with a rectification notice. If you have an accident because your car isn't fit for the road you're insurance won't pay out. I imagine insurance companies will be looking at incidents involving MoT exempt vehicles very very closely to see if they can avoid having to pay out.
Thirdly, I've heard quite a few comments deriding the abilities of car owners to maintain their vehicles, which is a bit unfair. I've owned my classic Land Rover since I was 17, it's been in my family since before I was born and I'm pretty handy at maintaining it, with a record of successful MoTs to back this up. I prepare for testing and maintain all four vehicles we own, having had enough of the shortcomings of garage professionals.
warch said:
I've heard quite a few comments deriding the abilities of car owners to maintain their vehicles, which is a bit unfair. I've owned my classic Land Rover since I was 17, it's been in my family since before I was born and I'm pretty handy at maintaining it, with a record of successful MoTs to back this up. I prepare for testing and maintain all four vehicles we own, having had enough of the shortcomings of garage professionals.
You're clearly not the "target" for comments about maintenance ability, but equally you can't attribute your skill to other classic car owners. If all classic car owners, or all car owners in fact, had your mentality and ability there wouldn't be a need for independent inspections.
Quite clearly this isn't the case, hence the introduction of mandatory annual inspections and the argument against removing them.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff