From May this year ( as I understand it) vehicles registered in 1977 and earlier are now tax and MOT exempt, good news for me as I have a '77 VW T2, however, Im not convinced the MOT exemption is a good thing really, the idea behind it apparently is that classic cars are enthusiast owned and are more likely to be looked after better, Im not convinced , mine has had various MOT issues over the last 7 years of ownership, not through lack of care, but age related issues and Im sure over time there will be others that I can't pick up myself. Ill still get a voluntary MOT for piece of mind.
The road tax Im happy to not payit was £200 a year and I only cover 500 ish miles a year in it, conversely I drive 25k + in my own car and the road tax is £30 - crazy.
Last edited by JasonM; 20th January 2018 at 11:53.
Cheers..
Jase
Agree, I've a few classic cars and always on the look out for something new. I won't be buying anything without an MOT, or would expect a much cheaper price when buying something without an MOT...
And certainly agree on the road tax issue, I drive one of mine about 12 times a year so not paying for that is a bonus.
The classic car world is by & large puzzled as to the rationale behind this, or indeed the previous MoT exemption in place for a few years now (pre-1960).
It would be nice to think that every pre-1977 vehicle owner studiously maintains every such vehicle to Mot pass standards, but my own experience tells me otherwise.
I’m all for the road fund exemption but not requiring an MOT doesn’t sound like a good idea. There’s an awful lot of scrap out there masquerading as decent cars.
An an ex MOT tester of long standing I can only agree that exemption for any road vehicle is madness.
Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
I don't even agree with the 3 year year exemption for new cars, its very easy to go through tyres and brakes if you are doing high mileages.Originally Posted by benny.c
Cheers..
Jase
Does sound like a recipe for disaster.
I agree
MOT exemption is madness, if ever a car needed a yearly assessment of brakes alone its a classic car
It easy to account for emissions / lights / etc for older cars having the MOT
I cannot see any logic in this decision at all
Simon
Does it apply to motorcycles as well?
Pretty sure it does.
The only grey area is that the vehicle must not have been extensively modified in the last 30 years but there doesn't seem to be any specifics around this.
Cheers..
Jase
It ridiculous.
Classic car owners may be more careful than the average but very few have an inspection pit or a RBT, let alone the knowledge and experience of a qualified MoT tester.
We still MoT most of the old classics our customer's run, their logic being that they'd rather know about a problem ahead of time than at the point of failure.
They also punted an idea a few years ago for the MoT for all cars to be carried out every 2 years instead of annually as well. Luckily that was thrown out.
Having seen some real horrors over the years, coupled with a general misunderstanding that a fresh ticket means the car is ok for the next 12 months, I'm glad it was!
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...e-guidance.pdf
The word on the street is that the changes are so MOT regs can be harmonised across the EU. It certainly isn't for road safety or good sense reasons.
Last edited by Groundrush; 20th January 2018 at 13:15.
Thanks, thats useful.
Cheers..
Jase
As a classic car owner I’m totally against the MOT change. I agree with all the previous comments explaining why it should be retained for all cars.
The logic behind this is completely muddled, I find it incredible that such decisions can be made. MOT testing has been put in place for a reason and that reason is every bit as valid for a classic car, regardless of how mechanically adept and consciencious the owner is.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the insurance companies insist on a certificate of roadworthyness.........a bit like an MOT!
Paul
Just put my 1968 Type 2 though its first MOT in a few years, it had extensive repairs to the chassis including most of the rails and outriggers, though not all obviously needed replacement, we just did it for precaution and longevity, we also replaced the inner and outer sills on both sides.
After this was done, we sprayed sealant on the underside. I was surprised to learn that the MOT tester was unable to do anything other than a visual check as he is not allowed to disturb the underseal.
Now I know the work was done correctly, but it would have been easy to disguise substandard repairs if you wanted to.
It passed easil with no advisorys.
Personally I am against the exemption, and despite currently having 3 vehicles which would qualify, I for one will continue to get them tested whilst in my ownership.
Edit.
Think the 68 is not exempt due to engine and other mods.
When I did my AE course, I was told by the VOSA examiner that the MoT doesn't really make sense but it's not our job to question it, just to enforce it!
With regards to inspection, a tester may remove covers that DON'T require tools to do so. When inspecting corrosion, light pressure with a thumb and forefinger is used.
Changes to the test are always slow to happen but it does get modified every now and then.
My favourite regulation regards tyres. If you carry up to 8 humans in a vehicle, you're tyres can have a minimum depth of 1.6mm (still too low in my opinion).
If you drive a minibus that carries 9 or more humans, the MoT class changes so then, 1mm is deemed to be adequate.
The mind boggles!
Last edited by Dave O'Sullivan; 21st January 2018 at 09:54.
Living on the other side of the sea, but I fully agree. We have more or less the same rules and regulations. Bi-annual for older cars, the cut-off is 1960. Older cars don't have to be tested. My TR is a 11-59 car, but sold in March 60. Guess what, mine needs the bi-annual check.
A lot of classics suffer from standing idle. Brake cylinders (drums), hoses etc all perish and need replacement from time to time. Even when the car hasn't driven a single inch. Tires (date check the walls) and fuel hoses are very important. So yes, it is good to have 'm checked every one of two years.
Menno
They did look at a different MOT for older cars as one option but I suspect this was disregarded for cost reasons. You can still have a voluntary MOT. I shall be doing this, the last MOT for my 1972 Stag still showed some work, including welding, which was not noticed before.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
I was under the impression thst only pre 1960 cars dont need an MOT.
Sent from my [device_name] using TZ-UK mobile app
That was the case until May this year, its now 40 years old on a rolling basis.
Cheers..
Jase
MOTs on all vehicles are sensible, even ones which are new as already pointed out. However they are not the be-all and end-all of it. Good maintenance is still required.
A few years ago my beloved 90 (1989) cruised through it's MOT. I don't skimp on maintenance. 6 weeks later under braking on a corner, with the wife and dog in it, the rear axle decided to detach its self from the trailing arms. The tabs on the axle casing to which the arms bolt wear rusted through! Thankfully it happened on a quiet lane at 30.
Anyway might have expected it to have been picked up at the MOT, but I wonder because the 90 is well kept etc, was the assumption made such failures unlikely? This is not criticism of the MOT inspector at all, but might just suggest the governments assumption re well maintained classics might be flawed.
Utter madness to scrap the MOT.
funny enough I disagree with a lot of the opinions here ...
we have two 1950's cars so without MOt's for many years now and one of them only bought 3 years ago so no MOT and it was no worry and I wouldn't insist on one to buy something either as we didn't with that one. This will become the norm as it has with pre 60 after a few years as well.
I'm not bothered by the objections and am happy that the other 2 cars and my 2 bikes won't need one anymore either and don't get the fuss.
pre 60 has been exempt on tax and MOT for years and yet to hear of a significant problem occurring........Classic Car weekly have been running scare stories since this was announced (a cynic would say to pander to their advertisers)
but all vehicles still have to be legal and roadworthy and that's what we make sure they are as do most classic owners as they dote on their cars....
i'm more concerned by drug taking chavs driving fiestas etc. with no insurance and MOT being far more prevalent on the roads than a car club member pottering around in their classic drive to be honest....
Totally disagree with the MOT scrappage. The average classic car owner might very well be able and happy to keep his pride and joy in top nick but without a proper annual examination who can say how badly creeping rust is affecting the structural integrity of the car, not to mention exhaust condition, emissions etc. etc. etc.
Tax should, in my opinion, be totally scrapped and a few pence added to the price of a litre of fuel to compensate. That way the light users of the road surface such as people who have a 'weekend toy' are not punished and the heavy, high mileage users pay more, which I think is more equitable and would save an absolute fortune on admin. We've already junked the tax disc, now let's junk the whole concept of 'excise duty' and replace it with a tax on actual road usage.
Rob
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
