MoT scrapped for pre-1960 classics: what do you think?

17 replies [Last post]
James Elliott
James Elliott's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-03-11

Clearly a lot of people disagree with the Government's plan so I have started one of those epetition thingies to oppose it.

The petition reads:

The Government has announced its intention to scrap the MoT for all pre-1960 vehicles from November. This petition recognises the critical importance of an annual inspection of all older vehicles by a qualified third party and calls for the hopelessly unsuitable current MoT not to be abandoned, but to be replaced with a mandatory, more appropriate annual basic safety check for all classic and historic vehicles of more than 25 years old.

If you are so minded you can sign it here.

n/a
martin thaddeus
Offline
Joined: 2012-05-23

Hello Chaps

 

This can only be a bad idea.  And how does it work with regard to insurance?  We are all familiar with the notion that if we drive out cars when unroadworthy our insurance is pretty much void.  But the normal standard which allows us to judge what is and isnt roadworthy is the jolly old mot.

Could I find a rotton old junker, get it running and drive it home?

Ok, so older cars need some degree of leeway from the inspector, but having estsblished a national standard -why dispense with it?

And while most of us are responsible, I have seen too many old cas which have been bogged up to turn a profit.

 

Regards Martin

 

THADDEUS

TimGee
TimGee's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-08-22

I don't see the "this must be a bad thing" argument at all.

1) Owners will still be responsible for making sure their vehicles are roadworthy, so it's not like it's a free-for-all: no classic owner is going to want to neglect  their pride and joy.  And as pointed out above, it's a stipulation of car insurance that the vehicle is properly maintained.  Why would this change?

2) The MoT is not, and never has been, a guarantee of a vehicle's condition and safety performance.  It says this on the certificate.  It is merely an assessment of a vehicle on a particular day.

3) The new measure doesn't prevent you from having your car tested.  Those who are concerned can simply carry on doing what we've all been doing since the test was introduced.  The rest of us can breathe a sigh of relief at not having to have a strained annual conversation with someone who's probably never seen a beam axle and needs to be asked to check his manual to confirm that my car does not, in fact, need a rear fog light or a screenwasher, etc etc.  Oh, and that's a Jackall hose, not the brake hose..... :-)

martin thaddeus
Offline
Joined: 2012-05-23

Hello Again

In my experience of bodywork repair, there is always going to be some judgement required and having to pass mot inspection gives us a standard to work to.

It is far too easy to take a 'that will do' attitude to this sort of work, even for the most honest and well meaning of bods.

We all know that the mot certificate is no guarantee, but if you have work carried out on your car the mot is the best standard we have to measure its quality by. 

The MOT system is not perfect and as cars improve there will need to be some adjustment for older models, but overall it works for eveyone, its cheap and we have a good national network of inspectors working to an agree national standard, - Why dispense with it.

THADDEUS

austin
Offline
Joined: 2011-03-14

DavidChaps wrote:

It gets worse, just been talking to a relative in what I call the "robbing classics of their identity" business and he calls "cherished numbers" .

He is very happy tonight at the prospect of no longer needing to get a pre 1960 car through an MOT before he can "rob" the number to sell to the owner of a new BMW.  His words, "great news, this'll open up a world of possibilites...".

David C

If he knows his stuff he should be really upset, current legislation is that you cannot transfer the number from a vehicle that is MOT exempt. Which is why the majority of the pre 1960 commercial vehicles all still have the orginal numbers.

For me this is the best bit of the whole situation.


59Impala
59Impala's picture
Offline
Joined: 2012-05-03

TimGee wrote:

I don't see the "this must be a bad thing" argument at all.

1) Owners will still be responsible for making sure their vehicles are roadworthy, so it's not like it's a free-for-all: no classic owner is going to want to neglect  their pride and joy.  And as pointed out above, it's a stipulation of car insurance that the vehicle is properly maintained.  Why would this change?

2) The MoT is not, and never has been, a guarantee of a vehicle's condition and safety performance.  It says this on the certificate.  It is merely an assessment of a vehicle on a particular day.

3) The new measure doesn't prevent you from having your car tested.  Those who are concerned can simply carry on doing what we've all been doing since the test was introduced.  The rest of us can breathe a sigh of relief at not having to have a strained annual conversation with someone who's probably never seen a beam axle and needs to be asked to check his manual to confirm that my car does not, in fact, need a rear fog light or a screenwasher, etc etc.  Oh, and that's a Jackall hose, not the brake hose..... :-)

 

At last someone who talks some sense. Nobody as yet knows what form the exemption will take yet they 'know' what will happen. Let's wait and see. As has been said an MOT is really only valid on the day of issue and there are testers who don't have much of an idea about older stuff or just want to fail your car anyway (I know, i've encountered them). A friend in Holland told me that a few years ago their version of the MOT was dropped for what they call 'Oldtimers'. The Dutch population hasn't been slaughtered by ancient Opels, old cars can still be used and all is well. Here we're given something (for a change) and all we do is moan and whine about it. Still that's the British for you. 

Nuno Granja
Nuno Granja's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-12

It's not my country laws, but I couldn't agree more with James Elliot opinion on the CSC July issue.

 

nuno granja