Rolling mot exception ending?

[Rustybullethole]

Boss just told me this just now though he does chat some shit. Anyone know owt?

[Rustybullethole]

Exemption. By phone decides it’s smarter than me and corrects my spellings

[sierraman]

What the one for classic cars? 

That was a diabolical idea, I’m sure there’s lots of classics that are maintained well above the standard but I’d imagine there’s a shit load that are run by idiots who shouldn’t be on the tools.

[Rustybullethole]

Yes. And yes. 

[Rustybullethole]

Although it’s was ideal for keeping a vintage lorry in my council parking space legally and using as storage once they pull my garage down.

[St.Jude]

I know they were consulting on the idea to end it last year. I don't know what the out come was.

[sierraman]

Probably regaled this story before but a year or two ago I saw a Stag at a show, it was a complete nail, every year it had failed on corrosion, endless warnings about the structural integrity. I’d fully expect that to still be on the road assuming it’s not fell in half. It works on the assumption all classic car owners are mechanically competent, the purpose of the test was to get all the crap off the road like bad welding jobs, severe corrosion, leaking brake pipes, fucked brakes etc.

[BorniteIdentity]

On the basis there's nothing in the news, nothing on the GOV website and nothing anywhere I can find about it - I'm calling horseshit.  

I've never quite decided whether I like the idea or not, and I'm not about to make my mind up quickly either.  But I doubt VERY much that there's an imminent change to legislation.

[St.Jude]

21 minutes ago, sierraman said:

Probably regaled this story before but a year or two ago I saw a Stag at a show, it was a complete nail, every year it had failed on corrosion, endless warnings about the structural integrity. I’d fully expect that to still be on the road assuming it’s not fell in half. It works on the assumption all classic car owners are mechanically competent, the purpose of the test was to get all the crap off the road like bad welding jobs, severe corrosion, leaking brake pipes, fucked brakes etc.

Exactly this.

I remember someone, I don't know where they said this (could be here?) but they saw a Morris Traveller and the whole wooden structure was rotten. They were looking at it, owner comes out thinking they're admiring it. Person points out the rot and how it's not safe, the retort was "Well it's MOT exempt so it's fine". Not to mention the number of people selling these cars as "MOT exempt" like it's a good thing that no one is marking your homework.

My Lada, for example, is MOT exempt. So I could be driving it around without a bother right now, even though the floor at the bottom of both A posts is rotten, and that's only the rot I know about!

[trigger]

I haven't heard anything but as long as tax exemption doesn't stop then it doesn't bother me, I've seen so many classic cars with cracked tyres or other damage to know that mot exemption is a bad idea. 

I've just had to replace a load of wheel cylinders and brake shoes on the Victor where it's been sat without much use lately with them all leaking over the shoes, how many other classics will be driving about in the summer with dangerous brakes? 

[Tickman]

Just now, St.Jude said:

Exactly this.

I remember someone, I don't know where they said this (could be here?) but they saw a Morris Traveller and the whole wooden structure was rotten. They were looking at it, owner comes out thinking they're admiring it. Person points out the rot and how it's not safe, the retort was "Well it's MOT exempt so it's fine". Not to mention the number of people selling these cars as "MOT exempt" like it's a good thing that no one is marking your homework.

My neighbor had a Morris traveller that went to a local MOT place about 10 years ago, he pointed out that one of the bits of wood was on its way out and was told that it wasn't structural. When questioned about this the response was none of the wood was structural.

never went back to the same garage.

[BorniteIdentity]

4 minutes ago, trigger said:

I haven't heard anything but as long as tax exemption doesn't stop then it doesn't bother me, I've seen so many classic cars with cracked tyres or other damage to know that mot exemption is a bad idea. 

 

I think this is mostly how I feel.

It's worth reiterating (in the absence of Junkman RIP in pieces) that just because you don't have to have an MOT test - you're still under the same obligation to maintain your car to a roadworthy standard.  Failure to do so is a fine of up to £2500 and 3 points.  

I think most people understand that just because they don't have to have an MOT, their car still has to be safe.  Put it this way, I'm yet to find anyone who thinks they can run whatever they want because they don't need an annual, 1 hour inspection.

 

It is a contentious issue, and I think all of us here would admit that it's infinitely easier to daily a 40 year old car NOW than it was when we passed our driving tests.  I would personally set a limit of how many miles you can do a year (say 1,000) with a mandatory brake inspection and roller test.  

[Rustybullethole]

Kind of the same as 3 year exemption on new cars hey, lot of them driving around with dangerous defects and at greater speed. Not sure on it either though was looking forward to exploiting the loop hole to keep the council off my back. If only all could be relied upon to keep their motors safe none of this would be an issue.

[wuvvum]

It's brakes that worry me the most.  Dodgy electrics I'm not so concerned about, structural corrosion is (unless it's really rotten) unlikely to manifest itself unless and until the vehicle is involved in a crash, at which point it's the driver of the rotten car who will experience the consequences.

Brakes though are one area where a lot of people seem to be clueless.  Rusty brake pipes and leaking wheel cylinders are potentially lethal, for other road users as well as the owner of the classic.  In a single-circuit braking system if a pipe lets go you've got nowhere left to go except the handbrake.

I know a lot of classic car owners do give their cars a good going over on a regular basis and do know what they're looking for, but I also personally know a few who are either clueless or don't give a shit.

[N19]

The Capri goes in for an MoT annually even though I could claim exemption.

Just like the mask exemptions, just because you can, doesn't mean you should... 

For the sake of 40 quid, getting an experienced nt to go over the car and do a proper brake test etc, it's a bargain. Not to mention the "verbal advisories" which you get that aren't in the MoT but which someone will notice. 

[BorniteIdentity]

4 minutes ago, N19 said:

The Capri goes in for an MoT annually even though I could claim exemption.

Just like the mask exemptions, just because you can, doesn't mean you should... 

For the sake of 40 quid, getting an experienced nt to go over the car and do a proper brake test etc, it's a bargain. Not to mention the "verbal advisories" which you get that aren't in the MoT but which someone will notice. 

I think I'm going to have the MOT without it going on the database.  Because I'm a difficult swine who can be, at times, contrary for the sake of it.

I'd like to know that the car is as safe as it can be, without some nerd saying "oooh did you clean up the brake pipes 14 years ago" when I decide to sell up.

[Six-cylinder]

26 minutes ago, BorniteIdentity said:

It is a contentious issue, and I think all of us here would admit that it's infinitely easier to daily a 40 year old car NOW than it was when we passed our driving tests.  I would personally set a limit of how many miles you can do a year (say 1,000) with a mandatory brake inspection and roller test.  

I feel it is the later part of the eighties before driving an "old car" loses little in terms of comfort and convenience to modernish cars. I am happy in summer driving about in a 1976 Allegro or 1984 Metro, but I still like to shift into slightly more modern cars for the winter to protect them and my comfort.

I like the 40 year MOT rule. It that enables me to move cars around without automatically breaking the law or paying for them to be transported. I much prefer to put the MOT fee towards having a car serviced than having it checked.

[sierraman]

I think it gives a car a bit more credibility when you come to sell it if it’s got a valid ticket on it. Of course there’s always going to be dodge pots in the same way there’s always going to be some dickhead that decides to badly install a boiler himself or rewire a house with some old two core he’s found in the garage. 

[Rustybullethole]

All good points as to be expected from this fine forum. Having driven old snotters for all nigh on 30 years of driving I won’t lie and say all my vehicles have been maintained without cost being an issue though I have learnt lots along the way and know to keep an eye on my clappers. Tyres and brakes not to work ignored! I’ve had shit go wrong of course, it’s happens. For that reason having an outsider test your classic makes sense if the worst happens.

Shall concur that as usual. My boss chats bare bungle and is to be on the ignored.

*edit. Example ‘don’t keep me waiting’ here I am sitting in my van waiting around for him who’s half hour away, still am getting paid for doing fa which is a rare treat.

stay safe

[willswitchengage]

I would guess that part of the problem is that this rolls towards more complex cars where there is a genuine interest in MoT success with airbag, ABS, seatbelt inspections etc. On older vehicles there is so little to inspect the MoT has reduced value.

Personally I would argue that the tax exemption is also a candidate to go in the bin. True, classics aren't used much but the current system does encourage replating crime (the Land Rover community being a big fan of this) and imho VED more broadly should be replaced with higher fuel duty - therefore actively encouraging people to drive less, more economically and more efficient vehicles. The current system just encourages people to drive post-2001 diesels because the Government stupidly gave out effectively free VED for 20 years which is too politically difficult to change.

[St.Jude]

5 minutes ago, willswitchengage said:

Personally I would argue that the tax exemption is also a candidate to go in the bin. True, classics aren't used much but the current system does encourage replating crime (the Land Rover community being a big fan of this) and imho VED more broadly should be replaced with higher fuel duty - therefore actively encouraging people to drive less, more economically and more efficient vehicles. The current system just encourages people to drive post-2001 diesels because the Government stupidly gave out effectively free VED for 20 years which is too politically difficult to change.

HERESY!!! BURN THE WITCH!!!!

[sierraman]

13 minutes ago, willswitchengage said:

I would guess that part of the problem is that this rolls towards more complex cars where there is a genuine interest in MoT success with airbag, ABS, seatbelt inspections etc. On older vehicles there is so little to inspect the MoT has reduced value.

Personally I would argue that the tax exemption is also a candidate to go in the bin. True, classics aren't used much but the current system does encourage replating crime (the Land Rover community being a big fan of this) and imho VED more broadly should be replaced with higher fuel duty - therefore actively encouraging people to drive less, more economically and more efficient vehicles. The current system just encourages people to drive post-2001 diesels because the Government stupidly gave out effectively free VED for 20 years which is too politically difficult to change.

I think 50mpg instead of 30mpg made that decision for most people.

[MJK 24]

Worlds worst idea.  Should be overturned ASAP.

Leave the free tax alone though, please!

[davocano]

MOT EXEMPT

[BorniteIdentity]

33 minutes ago, MJK 24 said:

Worlds worst idea.  Should be overturned ASAP.

Leave the free tax alone though, please!

A good Freedom of Information request would be "How many accidents have been caused by or involved a vehicle classed HISTORIC?"

Then we'd know what sort of problem - or not - it's causing.

[NorfolkNWeigh]

1 hour ago, wuvvum said:

It's brakes that worry me the most.  Dodgy electrics I'm not so concerned about, structural corrosion is (unless it's really rotten) unlikely to manifest itself unless and until the vehicle is involved in a crash, at which point it's the driver of the rotten car who will experience the consequences.

Brakes though are one area where a lot of people seem to be clueless.  Rusty brake pipes and leaking wheel cylinders are potentially lethal, for other road users as well as the owner of the classic.  In a single-circuit braking system if a pipe lets go you've got nowhere left to go except the handbrake.

I know a lot of classic car owners do give their cars a good going over on a regular basis and do know what they're looking for, but I also personally know a few who are either clueless or don't give a shit.

I might* have had a mate* who had a bent MOT on a 3.0 GXL Capri, it looked ok and had tread on the tyres.

When the front left hand side flexi burst under heavy braking going into a roundabout , I did ponder my decision for a couple of rotations. Luckily it didn’t hit anything.

[Talbot]

I was talking about this exact issue with a classic car dealer a while back, and we both agreed that it would make a lot more sense to have a "reduced" MOT test on classics.  Exemption isn't a good idea.

The test would be along the lines of "it it completely falling apart":  Whilst you might not check in exacting detail on the emissions, or be worried about a split wiper blade, the test could still check that the brakes do at least do something, that there isn't galloping rot in the body and that the suspension/steering isn't on the point of complete collapse.

Cost of about £25, and a 15/20 minute check over is all that is needed to ensure it's not a complete and utter death-trap.  Could even possibly be extended to every 2 years due to the likely lower mileage that a car of that age would see.

[Dick Longbridge]

The last time I took a Lambretta for MOT,  around a decade ago, the tester was bemused. He spent around three minutes shaking the headset, pulling the brake levers, testing the lights and looking around to check it hadn't been near Vietnam.

The result was muttering about the brakes being a bit shit, the lights being useless, the exhaust noisy and the fork springs being a bit weak. Within the next few minutes he'd written out the certificate 😅

[chaseracer]

1 hour ago, davocano said:

MOT EXEMPT

AY STRUKSHRAL MAYTE

[sierraman]

I don’t agree on a reduced test, it either meets the standards of roadworthiness set out by VOSA or it doesn’t and it gets a fail. A better way to my mind are notes on individual cars the tester can refer to. In most other countries the inspection where there is one is more frequent.