Jump to content

Wot no MOT? Never mind...


SORNagain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just got the tax disc renewal for my car and just happened to notice this sentence at the bottom of the page:

"From 18th November 2012 vehicles manufactured or registered before 1st January 1960 will no longer need an MOT."

Surely they will need some form of test to ensure they are road worthy? If not it's surprisingly 'hands off' in this age of the nanny state...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the owner of a 1958 Series II, the news of no requirement for an MOT test brings divided blessings. An MOT certificate only states that the vehicle met the criteria required at the time of testing. The onus for maintaining the vehicle's state of roadworthyness has always been on the driver regardless. So nothing has changed bar a saving of £50 and an 18 mile round trip. That said, I do think having the vehicle checked by a competent engineer/mechanic who can advise of any nasties is always a good thing, and as such, my tame Mechanic, who is also an MOT tester, can advise me of anything that needs doing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VOSA say an MOT is no guarantee of mechanical safety or roadworthyness - it's just to check cars meet with current "road safety and environmental standards".

Don't think there was a car made before 1960 that was either safe or environmentaly friendly, so they might as well give up checking them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been discussed before, generally I can see no good reason why this has been done, not a lot of cost saving and for the politicians not likely to gain them much in the way of votes. So why has it been done?.

From a practical stand point, responsible owners will either get the vehicles tested anyway or if they have enough knowledge and ability check the vehicle them selves. I can easily see insurers wanting some form of test doing before offering cheaper insurance.

A potential problem is someone with a vehicle in the shed / hedge that has been there for years, if they can get it started, take out insurance they can then drive it on the road, common sences says the vehicle should have a full check over first but this isn't legally needed now so in my opinion it is just about certain some one will do this and discover the vehicle has a serious fault as they plow into another vehicle and cause a serious accident. What will happen after that will be interesting to see, a U turn and bring back testing would involve political people admiting they were wrong, the other option would be to ban all older vehicles from the road as they are obviously to dangerous aren't they............ It wouldn't be to difficult to get this through parliment, being able to wheel out a few grieving parents allows people to whip up a lot of support for things that don't make sence when you think more, bills then pass on a knee jerk reaction. The dangerous dogs act and the last few firearms bills are classic examples of this, both achieved nothing practical (except to people who wanted to be legal) and both where bought in to prevent things that were already covered if existing laws had been applied.

Sorry if this all sounds cynical but a lot of people with power have there own plans and will create situations that will allow them to then achieve there own plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Just shifts the liability elsewhere I guess. I can see many people getting an MOT anyway.

Small point – it doesn’t shift the liability anywhere. A current MOT is not a guarantee of roadworthiness – it’s down to YOU to ensure your vehicle is roadworthy at all times. An MOT is an independent inspection, once a year, that your vehicle is required to have (or not). Nothing more. It’s an elementary mistake that a lot of people (including motoring journalists who really should know better) make.

It wouldn't be to difficult to get this through parliment, being able to wheel out a few grieving parents allows people to whip up a lot of support for things that don't make sence when you think more, bills then pass on a knee jerk reaction. The dangerous dogs act and the last few firearms bills are classic examples of this, both achieved nothing practical (except to people who wanted to be legal) and both where bought in to prevent things that were already covered if existing laws had been applied.

This didn’t even need to go through parliament, it’s a statutory instrument. So even less democratic accountability. But yes, you’re correct, the danger is from knee-jerk reactions – witness the shower that is firearms legislation in the UK, and the dangerous dogs act. Both of which did nothing but punish law-abiding people and had zero impact on the people who were actually causing the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect it's because the spotty herbert in Kwik-Fit doing an MOT would not even recognise what is good or bad on something older than a Mk1 Mondeo, and maintaining the multiple layers of MOT rules (and training people on them) is a right pain. I wonder if the rules will roll along to newer vehicles or the date will remain fixed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any responsible owner, does check hir or her vehicle, and maintains it. The MOT certificate, as previously mentioned is only valid at the time of issue, and is no guaruentee of roadworthiness. How many vehicles fail their first MOT at 3 years old?

I agree, there is no stopping someone insuring a 'barn find' that is pre 1960, getting a tax disc and driving on the road. Likewise not having insurance, tax and a MOT on a vehicle post 1960 hasn;t stopped alot of people still driving either. In the grand scheme of things, this is actually quite a small issue as pre 1960 vehicles are only a small part of the total vehicles on the road.

The onus as always is on the driver to ensure that the vehicle is roadworthy, regardless of whether it is pre 1960 or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets put this into context; Our old Fiesta just rolled in from France where it failed its MOT on left hand door handle and Inner CV boot. To get it through the UK MOT it would have failed on wish-bone bushes, rear suspention bush, rear shocks, rusty brake pipes and excessive hand brake movement. (The steering rack is getting there too). There was even a complaint that one brake light was slightly dimmer than the other!

So on average, an mot-exempt pre 60's vehicle is going to be safer than a 2000' car, legally driving around the south of France :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really want to put it in context I own a 1952 scammell explorer which is mot exempt and that weighs 13 tons , I maintain it well as it's my pride and joy .

I'm glad it's mot exempt because as fridge says if I took my scammell to Hgv testing station there is no way my 60 year old scammell will meet the modern standards of some 700 horse volvo / scania truck

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really want to put it in context I own a 1952 scammell explorer which is mot exempt and that weighs 13 tons , I maintain it well as it's my pride and joy .

I'm glad it's mot exempt because as fridge says if I took my scammell to Hgv testing station there is no way my 60 year old scammell will meet the modern standards of some 700 horse volvo / scania truck

Gary

I had the same situation when I owned WW2 trucks a few years ago - ruling applies to 'pre Jan 1st 1960 manuf. vehicles,over 3500kgs, used unladen & not for hire/reward. Obviously the claim stats. were favourable as the insurance was then (ten years up to 2005) absurdly low for such large vehicles. As a point of interest the EU has 'suggested' that pre 1980 vehicles could become MOT exempt in the future (info scourced from classic car publications).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you have to get an age related plate? It says something like 'first used or registered-declared manufacture 1558' on my V5 for my 88" S1. Which I hope/research shows is okay. It was first registered for the road in 1958, (as far as any one can tell), as 03CE42 or some such number. I have a 1958 plate now, but it was registerd Q732ATV in 1986.

I hope they take the form though, as that's simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they take the form though, as that's simple.

Yup it is that simple it is well known so if your Log book shows the relevant age that is it. The website for MOT exempt vehicles does not mention it so loads of people phoned in and blocked the lines.

As to pros and cons, most times I had my S1 MOT'd they told me I knew more about it then them and if I said it was good they would believe me so no loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy