New mot rule

[Spyder fan]

Jon,
I do need to keep an eye on things, the anti roll bar and damper issue was something that could happen to any of us with the state of the roads at times. I should have checked the suspension after such a heavy pothole battering, but it was late at night when I got home and work was the following day followed by 2 weeks away, the next time I drove the car was a few weeks later for its MOT, so that was a bit of good fortune perhaps.

The MOT history site is a very useful tool to get a feel for if a car has been maintained as fastidiously as a seller claims. If advisories keep appearing for the same items year on year, then it?s a good haggling point or a clue as to whether to walk away.

[jono]

My Plus 2 is booked in for annual MOT tomorrow.

I've decided there is too much uncertainty over 'modifications' and what constitutes a material modification (mine has lots of minor ones but is a cumulative view taken?). For peace of mind I will re MOT and see how the law develops over the coming 12 months.

I could just see an insurer arguing over a minor mod and saying that it should not have been MOT exempt in order to avoid a claim.

?45 is a small price to pay for certainty IMHO

Jon

[MarkDa]

I've been looking at insurance policies and thaey seem to be saying that MoT needed when 'required by law' - so shouldn't in itself be a problem for a compliant car.
Having said that I will probably get one even if I declare mine as HVI.

[jono]

Yeah but the questuion still at large is what constitutes a 'compliant car'

You self certfiy that so it's the individual who decides that the car is not sufficiently modded so as to be compliant - that's the bit that concerns me and I would like to see some interpretation of that develop over the next 12 months.

In the meantime I will pay my ?45 and sleep tight

[MarkDa]

Agreed - which is why I used that word.
If one has any doubts then continuous MoT is the way to go.
It also helps demonstrate roadworthiness although JonB will beg to differ!
To be fair the certificate does say it only relates to condition on the day.
Which is why advisories are worth following up on if one needd to demonstrate regular maintenance.
Mind you I did wait three years before replacing a slightly iffy number plate!

[661]

I just MOT?d my +2 this afternoon, I know it?s modified and as such not strictly eligible for MOT exemption/ opt out, but the peace of mind that it gives me year on year to know that a knowledgeable tester has poked and prodded at all the safety items and given the all clear far outweighs the hassle of arranging and attending the test and the cost of ?52.50.

I use a local garage to me called Hankham Motor works near Pevensey Bay, very knowledgeable and classic friendly.

They are indeed very good. They also do air conditioning recharging........if interested

[JonB]

I went onto the Footman James site to see what their advice is regarding MOT exemption as I am insured through them. MarkDa has it pretty much spot on - in the event of a claim, not having an MOT on an exempt car is not relevant. Instead, they will get an engineer to examine the car to determine if the accident you are claiming for was likely to have been caused by inadequate maintenance:

In the terms and conditions of any insurance policy, there will be a clause which states that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy condition. In the event of an accident that leads to a subsequent claim, the vehicle will be inspected by an engineer. During this inspection, the engineer will advise whether the incident in question was caused due to unsatisfactory maintenance of the vehicle or not.

The full text is here: https://www.footmanjames.co.uk/news/wor ... into-force

I read that as meaning they would inspect the damaged car irrespective of MOT exemption on the vehicle.

[69S4]

It's the gap between roadworthy and MOT pass worthy that's going to be the concern. They're two circles that only partially overlap and with the over 40's get out clause available I wonder how many of us will stick to the letter of the MOT regulations after Sunday.

Flouncing off in a cloud of MOT exempt tyre smoke when it fails on chassis corrosion, seized brake callipers and a collection of tyre sidewall bulges is one thing, but when you're told its failed because your LED numberplate bulb is not type approved or some other technicality and there's no retest slots for a month are you really going to spend two minutes fixing it and then leave the car in the garage in self imposed exile for weeks.

You could take it somewhere else for another full test but then you run the risk of it failing on something else that the first tester missed.

[jono]

Just got back from the garage - that's me MOT'd for another year

I would not trust what the insurers say as they're expert wrigglers and great with weasle words. I think an MOT is cheap risk management at ?45 at least for the next 12 months while the dust settles.

Jon

[MarkDa]

I don't think we have the option of flouncing off if we don't like the test result.
If we get a fail then we've got to fix as the car will be registered unroadworthy on the great DVLA computer.
On balance I think a certificate is good insurance against the insurance companies?

[Craven]

In returning a vehicle that has been off the road for some time and has an expired MOT, one of your first move in renewing the Road Fund Licence is to get a MOT certificate. You can legally drive to a prearranged MOT without a current MOT but you must have insurance cover.
It has never been an insurance requirement to have a MOT certificate or the above could not happen.
With regard to accident damage insurance companies employ a LOSS ADJUSTER who, as the their title describes, job is to reduce the claim to an absolute minimum and will use any means at their disposal to do so, how else could they justify their fee, which will of course include vehicle condition.

[69S4]

I don't think we have the option of flouncing off if we don't like the test result.
If we get a fail then we've got to fix as the car will be registered unroadworthy on the great DVLA computer.

That's the point I was making. If it fails on something it'll be recorded as unroadworthy even though the reason for failure might be something trivial to fix. If you fix the fault and use the car before the retest or even don't take it back at all where does that leave the exemption. Is a non retested failure for ever? It's one thing to have to have it tested and either have it pass or fixed before use - as the system is at the moment. Come Sunday though you can self certify it's roadworthy. Change the bulb and hit the road. I don't need a certificate, it's exempt.

If you choose to have the car MOT'd are you legally bound by the results or for exempt cars does it have the status of an optional safety check. The insurers might take a dim view if the test uncovered a serious fault such as rust holes and you then hit something but there are plenty of technical fail items that don't render a car unroadworthy.

[JonB]

During this inspection, the engineer will advise whether the incident in question was caused due to unsatisfactory maintenance of the vehicle or not.

..which means to me that the cause of the incident has to be concluded to be unsatisfactory maintenance by the engineer, before your claim is dismissed. For example, my insurer would find it hard to argue that a defective number plate bulb caused a day time accident. Although, there is much greyness and interpretation at play here!

Don't forget that they said they get an engineer's inspection anyway, and so the MOT status isn't a factor, unless it is a legal requirement; which it isn't as of Sunday - provided the keeper of the vehicle declared it so.

Put another way - if you had an MOT and your headlights were defective at the time of a night time incident, the MOT would not protect you against dismissal of your claim and this is the crux of my argument - that the existence of an MOT doesn't influence your insurance situation, therefore legally not having an MOT due to exemption won't either.

Having said all this, it is down to the individual to decide whether or not to carry on with MOTing his/her car, and I am not attempting to influence that decision - just trying to discuss it.

[MarkDa]

Glad that we're saying much the same thing with regard to uncorrected defects.

From Sunday the test changes - there will be dangerousn major and minor defects as well as advisories.

Chapter and verse here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ot-testers

Minors don't fail the car so the wrong type of bulb may be ok to drive away and fix sometime.
Major is a fail and must be repaired - could be at home and return before existing MoT expires.
Dangerous - can't drive vehicle, so must be fixed there or trailered elsewhere.

I pretty confident that even if you self cert exempt as soon as you have a test done then the results are binding.
So a fail means car is legally unroadworthy.

Majors have to be repaired 'immediately' so you can drive home or to a garage, you will probably be legal going home then to prearranged repair or retest; much tbe same as now. But anything else risks a ticket from plod and wrath from insurance company.

Back to JonB's point in the past MoT cert didn't mean a car was roadworthy but not having one was taken as unroadworthy.
It's perhaps a bit greyer now but I reckon that assessors all look more closely at self cert than tested.
As I say I'll probably get tested for peace of mind.

[69S4]

Minors don't fail the car so the wrong type of bulb may be ok to drive away and fix sometime.
Major is a fail and must be repaired - could be at home and return before existing MoT expires.
Dangerous - can't drive vehicle, so must be fixed there or trailered elsewhere.

Don't know if you saw the various reports that BBC Breakfast was doing from an MOT place this morning about the changes. At one point they asked the manager of the garage what would constitute a dangerous fault. He said 'a bald tyre'. Not surprising really as it was a branch of Kwik Fit they were filming in but, if true, that would seem rather draconian. I'd have imagined you'd have to get to the level of Nissan Navaras snapping in half with rust or Vauxhall Zafiras catching fire on the inspection ramp before it'd be too dangerous to remove from the test centre.

The Breakfast presenter did say that you could take a dangerous category fail away for repair but who'd believe a journalist these days.