MOT exemption - recent UK Gov Consultation

[Matt Elan]

The recent UK gov consultation on exempting historical vehicles from the MoT test has reached the conclusion that vehicles qualifying for historic tax will not need to be MoT tested - basically a 40 year old rolling exemption. See:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... c-interest

So all Elans and Plus 2s will not need an MoT test along with any other car or motorbike which is not excessively modified and was built before 1978.

Looks like the exemption comes into force in May 2018. There has been some controversy over the issue with various stances taken re safety etc. but the consultation looks to have done the figures and decided that while there is a small additional risk of accidents it is acceptable.
So its a little less bureaucracy for classic cars and bikes which I think is a good thing.

[rcraven]

I disagree and don't think the proposed change is a good idea.

[richardcox_lotus]

It doesn't stop an owner from getting an MOT. I was concerned and thought going to a 2-year test regime would make more sense. Just wait until someone gets knocked over & the Daily Mail gets the story

Regards
Richard

[William2]

I think I will still get mine done annually just for piece of mind.

[EPC 394J]

I think I will get mine done too. But just not having to pay for the bureaucracy should reduce the price considerably shouldn't it?

[Elanconvert]

you can always take it for a 'pre-mot inspection' which would do the same job.....if you can find a friendly garage...
I am wondering how the insurance companies will react to this.....many [most?] classic car insurers insist on mot in order to iprovide cover.....but if it's not a legal requirement....???

fred

[billwill]

I think I will get mine done too. But just not having to pay for the bureaucracy should reduce the price considerably shouldn't it?

Not necessarily, without a max fee fixed by the Government, garages might charge MORE for doing a similar test.

[mark030358]

What a stupid idea....

I'm sure that most on here keep their cars in tip,top condition, however sometimes you just can't see hidden problems.

Is one future fatal accident worth it? I really don't think so..

Cheers

[Elanconvert]

there will be nothing to stop anyone volunteering their car for mot test...every month if you so desire...and you will still be able to drive it around if it fails......[inless the tester declares it unroadworthy of course]....

and yes the daily mail would jump on an incident involving a classic car without an mot......even if mechanical or structural failure was not a factor.......

I suspect that a valid mot certifcate would boost sales potential....

fred

[Orsom Weels]

Personally I think it's utter madness to have no road worthiness check at all, I was hoping for some sort of basic test for safety items at least.
Recently, I have been looking for a pre war car. I have looked at several now, all owned by enthusiastic & genuine owners & described as in 'excellent' or 'perfect' mechanical condition. None had been near an MOT station since 2012, when they last HAD to have an MOT, & all had at least one very serious safety issue which put not only the driver & passengers of that car in danger, but other road users as well. The issues were mainly around steering & braking, which I know were not up to much when new, but truly, some were seriously bad, with one having over a half revolution of steering wheel movement before anything happened at the wheels, & then only one side moved until the other 'caught up', even at about 20 mph the owner had difficulty keeping the car on the road at all, leave alone his side of the road, & another which only seemed to have a brake working on the O/S/F, as every time the brake pedal was touched, the car leaped across the road into the path of oncoming traffic. Both owners thought this was quite acceptable, & what you should expect from a classic car !
I have seen steering ball joints with so much play they were about to fall out all together, tyres that were so cracked tubes were starting to squeeze out, non or only partially working brake systems, seats that had completely fallen apart or collapsed to the point where there was no support for the driver when trying to press pedals, fuel leaking all over the place & all sorts of other worrying problems. Most of the cars had been used regularly & had been MOT'd when last the law still required it, so the issues had arisen in 5 years & very few miles.
Add now the possibility of some of the sixties rot boxes capable of quite high speeds being able to legally return to the road with no inspection what so ever & the mind boggles !

Regards, Tim

[miked]

In general I agree with the MOT as it can catch persons who don't do checks. I personally would not take my car for one unless it was an insurance condition..
I am on my 5th DAY of my father's camper that he should not have bought. Private, SOLD as seen. Holes in chassis, crap brakes, strut tube 30mm out of clamp. FULL MOT.
Whilst this may be an exception, I watch these guys like a hawk and only go to one i trust and lets me supervise jacking and going on the ramp. I have stories of damage when I was asked to sit in the office. Again maybe exceptions.
Damage to A frames. Jacking the driver floor. Balancing an Elise in the middle on wrong points. A guy that was doing an MOT on my plus two for the 4th time telling me that the computer says it should not be a fixed heat but drop head. Had to phone VOSA to tell him how to work the computer.
It is stressful beyond belief for me. I have my own lift and will happily be the judge of my car. Only thing I like is the brake testing which I would pay for if I doubted my brake efficiency.
Maybe controversial statement but that's my opinion. Pre 1960 stuff is exempt anyway.
Mike

[rgh0]

As i understand it in Japan cars need more and more inspections as they get older not less.! They eventually get to the point that you have to largely dismantle the car for the inspection.

However on the other hand in Australia my state Victoria does not require an annual MOT equivalent test but the neighboring state of NSW does have annual testing. The accident rate due to car defects is the same extremely low rate in both states so the testing appears to achieve nothing.

Greater safety would be achieved putting the money spent on testing into other road safety initiatives aimed at reducing the more significant causes of road incidents such as driver fatigue, drinks and drugs, speeding and inattention and in particular those issues caused by trucks which are over represented in the accident and injury data compared to their numbers on the road and distances traveled but those are harder to fix and doing an annual test at huge cost to the community is an easy way as a politician to appear as if you are doing something on road safety rather than do the hard work to make real beneficial improvements

go figure
cheers
Rohan

[G4ILN]

I too think that it would be a good idea to have an MOT certificate even though the vehicle is exempt from this requirement. I do have concerns about how the vehicle is jacked up on the body though.

Whenever I've sold a vehicle, I've always sold it with a year's MOT. It can help to prevent comebacks regarding the vehicle's condition, even though the certificate only relates to the time of the test.

I've heard it said by vintage car owners that when the tester enters the vehicle's details onto the computer it says that the vehicle is exempt and prevents the issue of an official certificate. That's purely anecdotal though.

I can see one advantage of the exemption. My Plus Two has been off the road for decades. At least I'll be able to road test it around my home before taking it for an (unnecessary) MOT. I'll be able to check that it runs OK and not suffer the embarrassment of having it breakdown en route to the test station or on their forecourt. Sad to relate, of all the vehicles I've ever owned the Lotus has ben the most unreliable by a long chalk.

[jimj]

A better safety test, rather than the cars, would be to test older drivers annually. With increasing life expectations the age could increase year on year. We could start with, say, people a year older than me. Obviously, add anyone who has their hat on back to front.
Coincidentally, my insurance documents came through today and I scanned them over breakfast. To remain insured the car must have a current MOT, (but only) IF APPLICABLE.
Jim

[trw99]

On balance I feel an annual test of some description should be applied to classic and vintage cars.

However, there is a larger problem looming, which is the recent announcement that the government has made the decision to increase the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, which means E10 petrol will be on the forecourts before long. I know some other countries already have it but I suspect that all classic cars will be affected to some degree.

Tim