40 years Rolling MOT exemption is Go!

[Felly Magic]

It is happening, and will get widespread, esp as insurers will do anything to bumrape you, and get out of coughing up if there is a prang, classic insurance is going to be the next money maker for the insurers, cheap premiums will come to an end before we even realise, esp as insurers are now declining more and more modern classics even at 25+ years old. Soon, if you don't have a ticket, you will spot a clause in the microscopic print that says no ticket, no payout, just watch, esp as more and more cars will suddenly qualify

[Eddie Honda]

The insurance thing hasn't happened with pre60 motors though or those newer vehicles being run on one of the various mot exemption schemes

 

^^^^ This. It isn't and hasn't happened to pre80 motors in Ireland. My premium on a 1978 car went down 15 yoyos this year.

[Eddie Honda]

Chicken wire, a bit of filler and a tin of hamerite should see that right.

 

Edited for AA Book of the Car 1st edition.

[Fabergé Greggs]

Holy smokes! The cheery news of a wacky bit of optional legislation has given birth to the most depressing thread of ever.

 

According to this thread my 1972 car will no longer be allowed to be driven on the road or be anywhere near insurable. Thanks for the heads up guys, I'm going to sell everything and get a Leaf on finance.

[AlabamaShrimp]

^^^this

 

Fuck me this thread has been nowt but moaning that this that or the other 'death trap' will be driving around/for sale/killing kitten and nuns.

 

Sod all changed and Tbh sod all will change when it actually comes in. Why aren't you seeing this as a good thing that'll save some people alot of money?

 

Yeah it might cost some testers some jobs but think how many more cars it'll save from a slow death in the infamous barn due to minor problems.

[Felly Magic]

Some of you aren't seeing the broader implications of this. Say for instance the owner of a classic has absolutely no mechanical knowledge, which there are many out there, and they don't have a clue that the brakes on their vehicle are shot to hell, or badly adjusted, and something happens, and they stamp on the anchors, and the vehicle swerves and hits some innocent bystander, and suddenly all hell breaks loose, the classic would be forensically examined, and boom, the owner is suddenly on serious charges for having an unroadworthy vehicle, or potentially much worse. Is that really worth the £50 or less 'saving' a year? The answer is no, there is no valid argument actually for any vehicle to be MOT exempt when you think about it, any vehicle, no matter who owns it, if not adequately checked regularly by competent people is a potentially lethal weapon. This is just yet another foolhardy loophole which will be exploited to the maximum by those unsavoury types who want to make a fast buck flogging things that are beyond hope, and are really only fit as donors, but are suddenly road legal and worth a few bob. Common sense R.I.P

[83C]

Sadly however, my Leyland Tiger won't be MoT exempt when it turns 40 in 7 years time.

Poor form to quote myself, but since I posted the above I've found out that my Tiger will be exempt. According to an email that I have a copy of for the DVSA, despite it being a heavy commercial because it's not used in revenue-earning service it will be eligible for the zero rate of tax and no MoT.

 

The MoT doesn't bother me as the Tiger is given a full drivers check before any run out (as it would be if it were a revenue-earning PSV) which roughly equates to checking everything that an MoT tester would apart from the parts that require a lift or pit. Those bits got checked twice by a qualified PSV mechanic in 1500 miles over the course of the last year, as well as at MoT time. About the only difference no tax or test will make to me is that the £400-odd both cost over the year can be put back into keeping the Tiger roadworthy instead.

[Eddie Honda]

The answer is no, there is no valid argument actually for any vehicle to be MOT exempt when you think about it, any vehicle, no matter who owns it, if not adequately checked regularly by competent people is a potentially lethal weapon.

That is absolute bunkum.

 

There are valid arguments for exemptions and they have been made many times over.

 

I'm 100% positive* that the scenario you outline above never happens with MOT'd vehicles.

[AlabamaShrimp]

Some of you aren't seeing the broader implications of this. Say for instance the owner of a classic has absolutely no mechanical knowledge, which there are many out there, and they don't have a clue that the brakes on their vehicle are shot to hell, or badly adjusted, and something happens, and they stamp on the anchors, and the vehicle swerves and hits some innocent bystander, and suddenly all hell breaks loose, the classic would be forensically examined, and boom, the owner is suddenly on serious charges for having an unroadworthy vehicle, or potentially much worse. Is that really worth the £50 or less 'saving' a year? The answer is no, there is no valid argument actually for any vehicle to be MOT exempt when you think about it, any vehicle, no matter who owns it, if not adequately checked regularly by competent people is a potentially lethal weapon. This is just yet another foolhardy loophole which will be exploited to the maximum by those unsavoury types who want to make a fast buck flogging things that are beyond hope, and are really only fit as donors, but are suddenly road legal and worth a few bob. Common sense R.I.P

But the no brake thing can happen to any car for any number of reasons. As has been said before a test is only good at the exact moment it's being done.

[SiC]

It is all bollocks basically. Insurers don't care and take your money. They only care when it costs them money and they have to pay out - i.e. a claim.

 

MOT or no MOT if it is simple claim then it's quick payout. Complex then they'll fight their corner because it could save them money.

 

Don't underestimate how much time cost in (business) monies.

[quicksilver]

Exhibit A in the argument against MOT exemption. Check out this old crock's MOT history for some grim reading. The giffer is clearly bodging it just enough to scrape through each test so let him get away without an MOT and he'll do nothing to it and just keep driving it until it falls apart. I dread to think what it looks like underneath and wouldn't really want it to stay on the road without any form of roadworthiness test, but if he can nurse it through the next MOT in a week or so he'll be home and dry after that.

 

[Eddie Honda]

1800 miles 2014/15, then less than 800 2015/16.

 

1500 E-series. OMGFASTNFURIOUS.

[sierraman]

That Maxi sounds like a right bag of shit. 'Inadequate repair' crops up a lot. What's he doing brazing patches on or something?

[Lankytim]

OK, an MOT is simply a snapshot of a vehicles roadworthyness and that vehicle could develop a fault on the drive home....but... what happens after 2,3...10 years of no MOT? Something will fail sooner or later, be it a brake flexi, inner tyre wall, you name it.

 

I like to think I know my way around a car but I've been caught out with unexpected MOT fails plenty of times.

 

I think the legislation is simply relying on the fact that as a percentage of the total motors on the road there will be very few exempt vehicles to have accidents to start with.

[quicksilver]

That Maxi sounds like a right bag of shit. 'Inadequate repair' crops up a lot. What's he doing brazing patches on or something?

Stuffing it with chicken wire and newspaper probably. Looks like the only maintenance it ever gets is fixing the things that fail the MOT. I particularly like the 2006 entries where it failed on excessive corrosion and then failed the retest on the same areas being inadequately repaired

[SiC]

If the repairs he's doing are bodges and not actually helping the structual strength of the vehicle, rather than MOT exemption is a problem, does this not signify that MOTs are not effective?

 

Cause if he's bodging it with plates, filler and chicken wire and it's still passing an MOT then it doesn't mean it's safe just because it has that ticket on it. If anything, he will no longer have to do that and thus it'll be easier to see that it's not safe just by looking underneath.

[DodgeRover]

Inadequate repair could refer to someone spot welding new repair panels together as per original construction rather than seam welding?

Without seeing it in depth it's impossible to say

[forddeliveryboy]

Some of you aren't seeing the broader implications of this. Say for instance the owner of a classic has absolutely no mechanical knowledge, which there are many out there, and they don't have a clue that the brakes on their vehicle are shot to hell, or badly adjusted, and something happens, and they stamp on the anchors, and the vehicle swerves and hits some innocent bystander, and suddenly all hell breaks loose, the classic would be forensically examined, and boom, the owner is suddenly on serious charges for having an unroadworthy vehicle, or potentially much worse. Is that really worth the £50 or less 'saving' a year? The answer is no, there is no valid argument actually for any vehicle to be MOT exempt when you think about it, any vehicle, no matter who owns it, if not adequately checked regularly by competent people is a potentially lethal weapon. This is just yet another foolhardy loophole which will be exploited to the maximum by those unsavoury types who want to make a fast buck flogging things that are beyond hope, and are really only fit as donors, but are suddenly road legal and worth a few bob. Common sense R.I.P

I've a strong feeling that more than a few types with little mechanical knowledge exploit the MoT as an excuse to avoid having to pay anyone to actually service their car, who wait for failure before finding the cheapest quote for repairs.

[DodgeRover]

Having spent time in Aus where most states don't have any annual roadworthyness testing you didn't see much rotted out stuff on the road, even in the wettest areas. Nor did you see the amount of stuff running about of tyres with the cords hanging out that you do here

[barefoot]

Tbh, my biggest worry is that my bay might be seen as being 'xtensively modified', and bunged on a q plate from which there is no return. It has the original carb, but exhales through a four into one exhaust and has the front lowered using dropped spindles.

I am not a scene twat, the back was sagging and I only had the front lowered to even things up and the extractor exhaust is there to to replace the original eager German horses that have been lost to piston slap and endplay over the last thirty odd years.

There are many, many bay owners with Subaru and 911 engine conversions who will doubtless be shitting themselves much more violently than I am, but its something for me to keep my eyes on

[DodgeRover]

You wouldn't be having problems with the 8 points rule with just drop spindles, so I guess you could always rolling road it and tune* it until it produces no more than 15% more HP than stock and get a photo of the engine and print off of HP at that point, then you could in good faith tick the not extensively modified box give me free tax/ MOT exemption, with proof to back it up if you got called on it.

Whatever happens after that point who knows.

[Guest Hooli]

So how do we register for this free tax/MOT exemption then?

 

The gov site still says 1960 currently.

[SiC]

May 2018 iirc. Also need to be registered as Historic tax class.

[Guest Hooli]

Which needs an MOT to change the tax class. I'll leave my Bonnie SORN a bit longer then.

[Lankytim]

When I tried to SORN my buggy the site just taxed it instead. The MOT exemption must be automatic.

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

Some details have emerged. (PDF)

 

The gist:

 

"Most vehicles manufactured or first registered over 40 years ago will, as of 20 May 2018, be exempt from periodic testing unless they have been substantially changed". The link details exactly what 'substantially changed' means, but it all looks reasonable to me. 

[Junkman]

This looks suspiciously sensible considering it's from the government.

[bub2006]

Only 11 years or so for the ovlov. Yet i echo junkmans statement. Very simple rings alarms

[danthecapriman]

Sounds pretty sensible and straight forward to me.

[barefoot]

You wouldn't be having problems with the 8 points rule with just drop spindles...

 

 

But I suspect that;

 

"Axles and running gear – alteration of the type and or method of suspension or steering constitutes a substantial change;" 

 

would include dropped spindles?