Historic cars MOT exemption

[Des]

I hear that older cars may no longer be bothered by the mot from next June, seems that only a tenth of pre '60 cars fail anyway, and they must confuse the hell out of younger testers. Consultation thing is still ongoing, and considering 1925, 1945 and 1959 as cut off dates.

Now if 1959 gets picked I envisage an awful lot of disgusting old chod to be disturbed from returning to nature, to barely crawl out of the woodwork under their own power, I'm thinking back to the days of hardboard floors, bedframe and woodscrew chassis repairs, window putty made structural with the addition of chickenwire, cutting brake linings from old workboots and suchlike (war winning) brilliant ingenuity that allowed for an inexpensive motoring experience before the blasted nanny state burdened us all with annual testing, good times ahead.

[warren t claim]

No MOT requirement+Free Tax+£90 a year insurance=WHOLESALE PLATE RAPEAGE.

[worldofceri]

I've heard about this. Would it mean all pre-1959 registrations would become non-transferable? That would get some folk hot under the collar.

 

Edit: Or what Mr. Claim says?

[warren t claim]

A 1958 Land Rover. Yesterday.

[Des]

And a '59 model

 

 

 

 

I suppose a VIC in place of an mot cert would see off plate rapists trying it on.

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

 

I am deeply suspicious of this proposal. I can't help but feel there are historic class car use restrictions on the horizon.

[Pete-M]

I think if they linked it with a VIC check for anything not on the road for a couple of years they'd stop the plate rape thing, not that that worries me in the least anyway. Most countries cars don't keep their same registration for long anyway.

[Dirty Habit]

 

I am deeply suspicious of this proposal. I can't help but feel there are historic class car use restrictions on the horizon.

 

Me too, I don't trust them. I am betting it will be "free tax" and "no MOT" with restrictions. If you want to be free of the restriction you will pay the same as everyone else. I think some other European countries impose restrictions on Classics such as "daylight hours" or within a certain distance......I could be wrong

[Pete-M]

Some other countries have great bonus schemes for older cars.

 

Can't win 'em all. Free tax is a bonus that was killed for most of us when Labour stopped it rolling.

[wuvvum]

The French have a system called "carte grise collection" which is basically a restrictive form of logbook for historic vehicles which exempts them from the MoT equivalent, but means they can only be used relatively locally (in the département of registration and contiguous départements, if memory serves - although you can get a special exemption to take them longer distances on a case by case basis. Sounds like quite a good system to me.

[coalnotdole]

The French have a system called "carte grise collection" which is basically a restrictive form of logbook for historic vehicles which exempts them from the MoT equivalent, but means they can only be used relatively locally (in the département of registration and contiguous départements, if memory serves - although you can get a special exemption to take them longer distances on a case by case basis. Sounds like quite a good system to me.

 

Sounds restrictive and bureaucratic to me, Why should anyone have to justify making a Journey before they travel simply because they own an older car? There is quite enough monitoring of citizens in this country already...

 

On the Mot Issue whats wrong with just carrying on MOTing everything? Young MOT testers should just have to learn the rules.

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

The French have a system called "carte grise collection" which is basically a restrictive form of logbook for historic vehicles which exempts them from the MoT equivalent, but means they can only be used relatively locally (in the département of registration and contiguous départements, if memory serves - although you can get a special exemption to take them longer distances on a case by case basis. Sounds like quite a good system to me.

 

Sounds restrictive and bureaucratic to me, Why should anyone have to justify making a Journey before they travel simply because they own an older car? There is quite enough monitoring of citizens in this country already...

 

Why not? AFAIK, if they want to be able to travel everywhere, they can just do a proper CT.

 

I am not bothered either way. There's hardly anything left from 1959 or before. However, if they are going to put in cut-offs, they'd better make them rolling because I can imagine myself in 30 years lamenting the complete extinction of Talbots from our streets.

[dollywobbler]

According to the Feds, the average mileage travelled by a classic car is 900 miles in a YEAR. On that basis, perhaps it is right to relax the rules. If they restrict use as in France, then maybe that's ok too, AS LONG as there's an option to proceed as before for people like me who quite like to undertake long journeys in older cars.

 

Harder to police it here of course, because we don't helpfully have department numbers on our reg plates...

 

A case in point for me is when I owned my 1955 Austin Westminster. During my ownership, the only time it was outside Cambridgeshire was for the journey home. Actually, there's a thought. Would kind of bugger up the whole 'buy and drive hundreds of miles home' scary roadtrip thing wouldn't it?

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

Random tangential observation: I was stopped by police in Bradford a few years ago (2006?) only because the ossifer found it strange that I was driving an oldish car registered to an address in Leicester (barely 100 miles away).

[Albert Ross]

Yet I know a guy that just bough a 1979 Land Rover Petrol SWB and drove it from the West Country to Aberdeen. I wonder how many coppers looked at it "out of area" and thought "fuck that...... too much paperwork".

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

Random tangential observation: I was stopped by police in Bradford a few years ago (2006?) only because the ossifer found it strange that I was driving an oldish car registered to an address in Leicester (barely 100 miles away).

 

I wonder how many cars remain in the area they were registered in once they've changed hands a couple of times?

[scaryoldcortina]

^ I think he means the police checked it and the keeper lived 100 miles away rather than "ooh, an AY plate - must be from Leicester"

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

Of course, I forgot they could do that! I pictured the copper checking each passing car with his I-Spy registrations book

[alf892]

I can't see why the MoT is such an issue - why not just have another class of test with less items (=cheaper?). I don't like the idea of restrictions. I use my old car to go anytwhere I feel like..........its a car after all......and I don't need anybody telling me I can't. Anyway an MoT exemption does not mean exempt from C & U regs so the crequired condition of the vehicle in use won't change.

 

Any restriction from the Authorities would be bad and once in place will only ever get tightened..............till some green twat will decide that only stuff with x emissions can be used daily/monthly whatever

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

^ I think he means the police checked it and the keeper lived 100 miles away rather than "ooh, an AY plate - must be from Leicester"

 

Correct, although it also happened to be a BC registration, which is a Leicester one (first owner had been from Loughborough).

[garbaldy]

Makes this little hoard worth a fortune then

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/857tpd/m.html ... 0766028467

[andrew e]

Am I alone in thinking no MOT is a bad idea? Stuff running round with no brakes, lights whatever "because it only does a few hundred miles a year". If a Zodiac ploughs into the driver's door of your Focus, its still going to cripple you?

[danthecapriman]

^^

Thats what I thought too, that and if/when it does happen it will be a really bad advert for us 'old car lot' and our pre historic polluting death traps!

 

I think the mot should stay for all cars, just have one specific for old cars. Like a mini mot test just for the basics, brakes, lights, structural rot etc. It already applies for some things like emissions anyway so just roll it out to include other things for cars of varying ages.

I suppose even if mots on old classics was stopped the owner is still responsible for the state of the vehicle, so if you get pulled or crash and the vehicle is in un roadworthy state you can still be screwed by the law, mot or not.

[Mash]

Am I alone in thinking no MOT is a bad idea? Stuff running round with no brakes, lights whatever "because it only does a few hundred miles a year". If a Zodiac ploughs into the driver's door of your Focus, its still going to cripple you?

 

I agree. Without wanting to sound too harsh, the vast majority of pre-1959 cars will be owned by "pre-1959 blokes", ie a lot of them are knocking on a bit (no offence lol!). There's an old giffer down the road from my parents who has a Super Minx but had a Triumph Mayflower before that which would have been eligible. I wouldn't trust the silly old sod to change an indicator bulb correctly, let alone keep his old car in full roadworthy order with no annual check.

 

Besides, sometimes when I take a car in for test, the guys spot something I might have missed, not having a four post ramp in my back garden.

 

Keep the MOT, do away with road tax and pay per mile on top of fuel - it's the only sure way that those that travel more, pay more. It's a bugger if you have a large, thirsty old P6 or something but you won't be paying 200 quid tax and probably not using it everyday either.

[Des]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-27

Look like it be fo' real.

[eddyramrod]

the owner is still responsible for the state of the vehicle, so if you get pulled or crash and the vehicle is in un roadworthy state you can still be screwed by the law, mot or not.

 

As I understand it from a mate who lives there, that's the situation on the Isle of Man, where MoT tests are not required after initial registration. But this info is secondhand and may possibly be inaccurate. Surely, if you're going to drive around in a car, you want it to be safe?

Ahem...

Which resulted in...

All being well, it goes in tomorrow for the new joints to be fitted (full set, top and bottom both sides).

[Guest]

If all these motors go through the MOT easily, what's the problem? It's only once a year.

[Negative Creep]

the owner is still responsible for the state of the vehicle, so if you get pulled or crash and the vehicle is in un roadworthy state you can still be screwed by the law, mot or not.

 

As I understand it from a mate who lives there, that's the situation on the Isle of Man, where MoT tests are not required after initial registration. But this info is secondhand and may possibly be inaccurate. Surely, if you're going to drive around in a car, you want it to be safe?

Ahem...

Which resulted in...

All being well, it goes in tomorrow for the new joints to be fitted (full set, top and bottom both sides).

 

 

 

OMG WIKKID STANCE SLAM IT INTO THE WEEDZ!!345!!!

[scooters]

It's only in consultation phase - it may not become policy.

 

I belive the most sensible thing to do would to be to MOT such cars to the test rules of 1980 - ie pre EFI in most cars.

 

I do not belive that there shold be any restrictions over distance etc - if a car is safe enough to drive 400 miles then it bloody well should be safe enough to drive 5 miles - the French have got this wrong and sorry but any experence of having to work with the DVLA/Insurance companies etc is so deeply depressing then any policy that gives the 'authorities' a greater excuse to fine people the result is that they invariably do.

 

The rolling historic vehicle car tax should however be reintroduced.

[danthecapriman]

the owner is still responsible for the state of the vehicle, so if you get pulled or crash and the vehicle is in un roadworthy state you can still be screwed by the law, mot or not.

 

As I understand it from a mate who lives there, that's the situation on the Isle of Man, where MoT tests are not required after initial registration. But this info is secondhand and may possibly be inaccurate. Surely, if you're going to drive around in a car, you want it to be safe?

Ahem...

Which resulted in...

All being well, it goes in tomorrow for the new joints to be fitted (full set, top and bottom both sides).

 

Wow! never seen that before!

Funnily enough I changed all ball joints, anti roll bar link pin rubbers and track rod ends on my granny a few months back as I noticed a few torn dust covers and perished rubbers. I saw them when checking the brakes over and changed them asap, glad I did now looking at yours!

The big ball joints were an absolute bitch to remove on mine though, bloody original rivited in ones!! New ones are bolt in!

 

This goes to show though that the mot is important, I used to be a mechanic and knew the mot pretty well (old mots though) yet I have still had my cars fail now and then, so if a trained or enthusiasts eye can still miss things then the average motorist will easily miss things. This then never gets seen as theres no longer an mot and eventually results in failure of the part. Imagine being out in your car, with the family, kids in the back - whatever, when an old, un mot'd car attempts to pull up behind you in traffic but cant stop as the old brake pipes suddenly let go! Not good! Its an awful thought but could happen if this goes ahead.