MOT exemption for forty year old jalopies from May 2018

[anonymous-user]

Heap hounds and jalopy junkies will recall that this was discussed last year. The Government has decided to exempt all vehicles aged forty and over from MoT tests with effect from May 2018. The reasoning is that such vehicles are relatively few in number, and tend to be (a) used rarely, (b) well maintained, and (c) sometimes hard to test using modern car standards.

I wonder if a slimmed down test might have been better: eg: no obvious structural horrors, lights and hooter work, but maybe that's not worth the admin hassle.

When buying an old car, I treat a current MoT as no more than some comfort about the rust level (and even then some MoTs seem a tad optimistic), but otherwise not very relevant.

[Sebring440]

Lovely (and very long) discussion about it here:

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=16...

[Norfolkandchance]

I've said it before but I think that not having your car tested in some way, by a second party is crazy.

I know someone who was looking for an older version of their car so it would be MOT exempt, to save money. But the MOT is supposed to check safety things, so she would have effectively saved money by not having safety related things repaired.

I wonder, for example, how many people would notice rust around a seatbelt mounting near the centre of the car, I don't often go underneath my cars. Certainly not annually. Even if I did, and then did spot the rust, might I be tempted to leave it for "a bit"?

I wonder if a BV's "safety check" service is a good idea to been done as a commercial venture? I'm not too bothered if my horn is a bit feeble or my number plate lights are inoperative, but it would be good to know if the trailing arms are in danger of coming off.

[TooMany2cvs]

Breadvan72 said:

I wonder if a slimmed down test might have been better: eg: no obvious structural horrors, lights and hooter work, but maybe that's not worth the admin hassle.

It was explicitly mentioned in the consultation response doc - they considered it, but decided it was altogether too much ballache.

[anonymous-user]

I have never understood the fixation that some have with getting a car that is exempt from VED. If you can't afford VED, you probably can't afford the running costs of an old car. Similarly, I would not see "no MoT needed" as a selling point
.
I am selling my bunch of ancient rubble piles, because of OMG lifestyle changes innit, but if I keep one I might still have it eyeballed once every year or so, just in case it has been eaten by mice when I wasn't looking.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 24th January 12:36

[brrapp]

Breadvan72 said:

I am selling my bunch of ancient rubble piles

Sorry for butting in on the thread, I don't have anything useful to say on the subject but are they in the PH classifieds? I'm afraid I'm addicted to ancient rubble piles and have been quite envious of parts of your collection in the past. Did you ever sell the Umm?

[anonymous-user]

Umm given to my brother for Christmas. Other shocking shonkers in the PH advert section.

[gforceg]

What might the implications for insurance be if the definition of road worthiness became a bit, er, fluid? Are the govt. just laying off the responsibility on the owners?

I would think most of the relatively few 40+ year old cars are owned by diligent types but a rolling grey market for 40 year olds could develop among the less scrupulous.

[TooMany2cvs]

gforceg said:

What might the implications for insurance be if the definition of road worthiness became a bit, er, fluid?

The definition of roadworthiness isn't changing, either for a tug or for insurance.

The only thing that IS changing is that you won't be able to get a bking for not having had Mr MOT sign it off within the last year. Just like pre-60 stuff for the last five years.

[RFC1]

I think its bloody great ! Nearest mot place is not exactly next door either.......

[Riley Blue]

RFC1 said:

I think its bloody great ! Nearest mot place is not exactly next door either.......

All it does is save you a few quid, your car will still have to be roadworthy, annual MOT inspection or not.

[lowdrag]

As my E-type approaches 60, it is a car that can still be driven at 130 mph on the road should I wish to risk pain and penury with the BiB. It is well maintained, has never failed an MOT in 36 years, but does perhaps require an annual official once-over. Let's be honest; it doesn't get driven at those speeds any more, does about 1,500 miles a year at most, mostly at relatively sedate speeds, and has been modified with better brakes and suspension. So the lack of a MOT fazes me not. The XKSS has over 300bhp, is capable, if I use the long axle, of a theoretical 180 mph but would I dare to try it? Not on your nelly I would, unless I am perhaps at somewhere like Bruntingthorpe. We hit a heady 100 mph Sunday, risking life and limb, but if she sees three figures more than three times a year I must have been smoking illegal substances. No, I worry not for my cars, nor Escort Mexicos which since their values have exploded are too valuable to risk as well. But there must be some relatively modern tin out there which are less valuable and which therefore are less well maintained that people might risk. It's a conundrum, that's what it is. But those wise sages have pronounced, so there we go.

[gothatway]

I have a '59 Healey which I have had Mot'd every year even though it has not been a requirement for a few years. I do not have the facilities (or indeed the expertise) to do a thorough check of brakes and steering, while having a sympathetic tester check the car over gives me comfort. I also worry that in the event of an accident, with no MoT you'd start off on the back foot as far as insurers and the BiB are concerned.

[V8 Fettler]

Breadvan72 said:

I have never understood the fixation that some have with getting a car that is exempt from VED. If you can't afford VED, you probably can't afford the running costs of an old car. Similarly, I would not see "no MoT needed" as a selling point
.
I am selling my bunch of ancient rubble piles, because of OMG lifestyle changes innit, but if I keep one I might still have it eyeballed once every year or so, just in case it has eaten by mice when I wasn't looking.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 23 January 14:44

If you are mechanically incompetent then an annual inspection of some type is essential.

[rene7]

v8fettler
If you're 'mechanically incompetant' why on earth would you want to own/drive an unreliable classic car?????
IMO part of the joys of classic ownership are the regular checks & 'tweaks' necessary to keep the car running nicely.
I'll be happy when my classic qualifies for MOT exemption - one less sneaky government tax I'll be paying for my motoring

[Weslake-Monza]

I have a 40+ year old car and while it doesn't do high mileage I thrash the nackers off it. A lot of fast modern ste can't out-drag it from a roundabout leading onto dual carriageway and you don't read about their shame here!

I still plan on getting it MOT'd every year because while it is maintained to a high standard and always flies through the MOT (mmm, did need to adjust the back brakes one year) I don't have a roller brake tester. So, if the fronts are out of balance I'll recognise it but if the backs are out of balance or not doing as much as they ought to I can't tell. The brakes are non-standard so it does stop pretty sharpish and better than loads of moderns I've driven which makes it harder to tell if their performance is falling off.

I suppose I could just take it to an MOT station for a roller break test every year but the MOT tester does like to see my car and I like to think it's more interesting for him than his usual fare. One year I might even fit a hazard light flashing box to catch him out because he asks most years on purpose even though he knows its to old to have them.

[Old Merc]

The MOT can be a certificate of a job well done.I, like many here spent a year or more of hard work restoring a classic. The final act was getting the MOT and the tester finding it faultless. What a lovely car,he said, you have done a brilliant job.
Subsequent tests were just a formality as the car only covered about 1000 miles in the summer and was stored during the winter.Still worth doing though.

[roscobbc]

I wonder in the event of an accident irrespective of who's fault it might be will have insurers rushing to force some form of belated engineers inspection on the MOT exempt vehicle looking for a really easy get-out of paying a claim. And of course it will be a very easy 'get-out' won't it? - how will an ordinary mortal prove a historical record of regular safety checks. We are 'easy meat' for our insurers. I for one will be presenting my 1968 manufactured car for MOT tests for sure.

[TR4man]

If you have one of these 40 plus year old classics and you choose to put it through an MOT test and it fails, can you not drive it?

[RFC1]

Riley Blue said:

All it does is save you a few quid, your car will still have to be roadworthy, annual MOT inspection or not.

I disagree, it saves me a lot more than just a few quid. I have to allow a half day to take any of my cars for an mot. Thats working days, so if my 1970 Tuscan no longer needs this pre arranged appointment then thats fine by me.

Don't intend to drive around in a deathtrap either so self governance is key . Maybe not all see this in the same light ??