no more MOT for pre 60 cars

[Neil MG]

How do we tax them then ????

Guessing its a V5 logbook and insurance prentation at the post office then!

Great news for the Classic car scene

Or on line, just the same as before. No change at all regarding tax disc. The database must have a manufacturing date or it wouldn't be able to identify the zero duty cars.

[ampwhu]

pukka news. i means the value of pre 1960 cars will increase...... mine will be worth more!

[charlie_morris_minor]

Well I think it's great!

It will help promote older cars and reduces a lot of red tape and a test that was less and less applicable.

As for the condition or road-worthiness of cars I see that it will make little difference. I host our branch mechanics days and I can say that whether a car has an MOT or not is absolutely no indication of it being safe. Most of the posts on this forum about brakes, lighting or suspension problems relate to cars that hold a current MOT!

Let's not forget that it is our legal obligation to make sure that our cars are roadworthy, regardless of MOT.

It will increase the value of older cars because the annual running cost has now been reduced by about £40 or more. It will also generate interest in older cars, which is good for all of us.

As for comments referring to not needing to fix cars properly that have been off the road, anyone driving such a car is very (more) likely to be stopped and prosecuted. It is no more legal to do that now than it was before, having (zero duty) tax and insurance does not mean you can legally drive an unsafe car.

I think there is a lot of knee jerk reaction to something that will in fact be of great benefit to owners of older cars. I can understand those people that have a post 1960 car (of the same design) being a bit miffed though. I have several classics and three will qualify, which is a good start!

Neil I do not agree I can not see an insurance company taking the word of an owner that their car is road worthy so an owner will need to get an independent check and document to state the car is road worthy.. I can not see a garage doing that for free. The insurance company will want it from an "approved" garage and they will not do that for free so they will charge me for that.. I can not see that coming out at less than £40.. if I am wrong i will be the first to put my hands up and say i was wrong.

[mike.perry]

Perhaps an MMOC official should discuss the matter with Footman James to find out their attitude to the new legislation, and then inform the membership.
Otherwise owners could wait until their insurance is due and then find out that there is some stipulation which must complied with.

[morris van]

Some one told me that if you sell a pre 1960 car it will have to sold with 12 months MOT,then the new owner does not have to MOT it as long as they have it only when its sold.I bet there will be pre 1960 cars being pulled up to see if the cars are roadworthy.

[JOWETTJAVELIN]

I bet there will be pre 1960 cars being pulled up to see if the cars are roadworthy.

Yeah.So what happens when 24 year old Plod pulls me and tests my brakes but finds them 'defective' because they aren't the same as those on his Astra patrol car?

[Dean]

Mixed feelings on this decision. The idea of reducing the motoring costs is okay, but then I liked the MOT for my own peace of mind. Nothing like a fresh pair of eyes giving the motor a once over. I think I'll still send it to my local garage for an annual inspection.

[chesney]

Maybe a more efficient system would be a yearly compulsory service whereby you are given advisories rather than fails, so if you have a massive hole where the passenger seat should be, that's an advisory. Thereby, all faults are available for the plod and if you want to sell/buy the car, faults are known.

[bmcecosse]

Great news ! I hope it will be a 'rolling' rule moving on each year? Otherwise - anyone got a spare pre 60 V5 for a Traveller????

[chrisd87]

I'm of two minds on this one really. On the one hand, I'm not much of a fan of regulations, &c., and to be honest the safety aspect doesn't really bother me. However, I already have visions of the baying mob demanding that "something must be done" after a brakeless A30 runs into a bus queue.

[Neil MG]

I'm of two minds on this one really. On the one hand, I'm not much of a fan of regulations, &c., and to be honest the safety aspect doesn't really bother me. However, I already have visions of the baying mob demanding that "something must be done" after a brakeless A30 runs into a bus queue.

But what is stopping the brakeless A30 running into the bus queue with an MOT? Driving with no brakes is illegal regardless of this new ruling.

I think that any sensible person will continue to check or have their vehicle checked. The less sensible are a risk to themselves and others regardless of this ruling. Does anyone really think that this will lead to a significant increase of illegal classic car drivers?

[IaininTenbury]

Indeed, the long term implications of this could be disasterous to us all, not just the bus queue! (says he as the owner of a brakeless and un MOT'd A30!

Will pre 1960 cars be more desirable? Hmmm, I doubt it. Ok you save £40ish a year, but given the choice between a '59 Minor MOT exempt and a '61 model with new MOT at the same price, its an interesting dilemma. Personally, the one thats been looked over thoroughly recently would seem a safer buy than one that hasn't had an MOT for x number of years.

Overall, a very disapointing and badly thought out idea, by folk who have little conception of the range of classic motoring. It may make sense for the city bloke with the prewar sports car who has it maintained by a specialist and uses it 4 times a year but as a trader, I've seen plenty of shockers, on the road scraping through a test each year where the owner has little idea that he should have been spendign a four figure sum on bodyshell repairs, and not a new interior...

The most dramatic one being a '58 convertible with a new mohair hood and leather interior where the oner complained that the doors didn't fit too well and could they be adjusted. Yes, you guessed, it was disaster of patches upon patches and plated over sills with little strength. How bad it would have been if they hadn't have spent a couple of hundred each year having it patched for the test, who knows. In an accident it would have just folded up....
In (thankful) contrast, my own '53 convertible was picked up on a very wobbly bottom trunnion that I hadn't noticed this year. The tester suggested a good greasing might take out someof the play, but I assured him it would be changed as soon as I drove very carefully back to work. The days of seeing Minors with a front wheel tucked up in the wing on a road junction may well return. There's plenty of owners who have no idea where the brake reservoir is, never mind how to use a grease gun, or even what a grease gun is....

As well as disapointing and badly thought out, I also ought to add, rather worrying. Wether the A30 v bus queue scenario ever happens, (I like the way it has to be an A30 on a Minor forum btw!), we now have a distinction between very old cars and the rest of the road traffic. How long before we can only go out on weekends to organised shows etc. There's similar legislation in other countries and this is a step in the direction towards this. Not wanting to sound panicky or be a doom mongerer, but its my livelyhood as well as a hobby thats being messed about with here...

[IaininTenbury]

I'm of two minds on this one really. On the one hand, I'm not much of a fan of regulations, &c., and to be honest the safety aspect doesn't really bother me. However, I already have visions of the baying mob demanding that "something must be done" after a brakeless A30 runs into a bus queue.

But what is stopping the brakeless A30 running into the bus queue with an MOT? Driving with no brakes is illegal regardless of this new ruling.

I think the point being made is that a regular MOT test would find an impending cause of brake failure before it occurs, not that someone will deliberately drive with no brakes. Perished hoses, rusty pipes and leaking wheel cylinders all get spotted before they get serious,in an ideal world. How often does the average owner, check every metal brake pipe for corrosion or chafing etc?

[drivewasher]

you wont have to deal with MOTers that dont have a clue about cars, like one that tried to fail my car as he couldnt open the passenger door from the outside, he obviously hadnt realised that minors dont have central locking...

[/quote]

I do wish folk would stop bashing testers with duff info!

ALL doors on any car must be able to be OPENED from OUTSIDE when they are unlocked. As long as you can physically unlock them with or without central locking thats fine. The front drivers and FRONTpassengers door must be able to be opened from inside the car.
Nothing to do with central locking at all
look here: http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/d ... guides.htm

[AntB]

Indeed, the long term implications of this could be disasterous to us all, not just the bus queue! (says he as the owner of a brakeless and un MOT'd A30!

Will pre 1960 cars be more desirable? Hmmm, I doubt it. Ok you save £40ish a year, but given the choice between a '59 Minor MOT exempt and a '61 model with new MOT at the same price, its an interesting dilemma. Personally, the one thats been looked over thoroughly recently would seem a safer buy than one that hasn't had an MOT for x number of years.

Overall, a very disapointing and badly thought out idea, by folk who have little conception of the range of classic motoring. It may make sense for the city bloke with the prewar sports car who has it maintained by a specialist and uses it 4 times a year but as a trader, I've seen plenty of shockers, on the road scraping through a test each year where the owner has little idea that he should have been spendign a four figure sum on bodyshell repairs, and not a new interior...

The most dramatic one being a '58 convertible with a new mohair hood and leather interior where the oner complained that the doors didn't fit too well and could they be adjusted. Yes, you guessed, it was disaster of patches upon patches and plated over sills with little strength. How bad it would have been if they hadn't have spent a couple of hundred each year having it patched for the test, who knows. In an accident it would have just folded up....
In (thankful) contrast, my own '53 convertible was picked up on a very wobbly bottom trunnion that I hadn't noticed this year. The tester suggested a good greasing might take out someof the play, but I assured him it would be changed as soon as I drove very carefully back to work. The days of seeing Minors with a front wheel tucked up in the wing on a road junction may well return. There's plenty of owners who have no idea where the brake reservoir is, never mind how to use a grease gun, or even what a grease gun is....

As well as disapointing and badly thought out, I also ought to add, rather worrying. Wether the A30 v bus queue scenario ever happens, (I like the way it has to be an A30 on a Minor forum btw!), we now have a distinction between very old cars and the rest of the road traffic. How long before we can only go out on weekends to organised shows etc. There's similar legislation in other countries and this is a step in the direction towards this. Not wanting to sound panicky or be a doom mongerer, but its my livelyhood as well as a hobby thats being messed about with here...

i'll correct you when you start being wrong, which, on the basis of this post, will be never.

very well illustrated and put across. this revision to the MoT requirements is literally an accident waiting to happen

[drivewasher]

As an MoT tester I'm torn between really. It all depends on the owner/presenter of any car be it 1950's or 3 years old.
The MoT test standards are very low, If you take brand new at say 100%, and unservicable at 0% then the MoT pass standards are around 20%
Good maintenence & servicing is about 80% thats what we as vehicle operators work to ( We operate Mini busses & Private hire cars) All our vehicles including our own personal ones would fly through an MoT test any day of the year (bar say a bulb failure on the day)
I have to wear 2 hats an MoT hat and a service hat. It does slighty annoy me that a tester can't remove covers or trims so if I can't see it I can't test it. So can you see what I mean if the very minimum standard can't be met on test day what's going to happen?
As I see it there are probably 3 kinds of owners. Those who look after or have thier cars looked after. Those who endevour to find ways around an MoT failure and see the test as a nuisance at best, and those who present "blind" It's the second ones that will take this news with glee

[kennatt]

Do you really think you and going to save £40..... I quarantee that the insurance co, will want an engineers report before issuing cover,they do now for certain vehicles like self converted campervans,Last one I did cost £70. And without an mot system,in the event of a claim they will insist on a report ,again costing you more than an mot,they are bad enough now with claims avoidance ,just opens a massive door for them.
I just had the same conversation with my MOT guy,he says that you would be suprised at the number of old,so called classics he sees which are absolute rot boxes, not all owners look after their car like some on here. One guy actually ran his grievence through to vosa when he got a fail for several botches on the underside of an mgb(Pop rivited patches) because he claimed they were non structural. In my view worst thing the daft gov have done,Its not even £1 a week saved

[Neil MG]

Indeed, the long term implications of this could be disasterous to us all, not just the bus queue! (says he as the owner of a brakeless and un MOT'd A30!

Will pre 1960 cars be more desirable? Hmmm, I doubt it. Ok you save £40ish a year, but given the choice between a '59 Minor MOT exempt and a '61 model with new MOT at the same price, its an interesting dilemma. Personally, the one thats been looked over thoroughly recently would seem a safer buy than one that hasn't had an MOT for x number of years.

Overall, a very disapointing and badly thought out idea, by folk who have little conception of the range of classic motoring. It may make sense for the city bloke with the prewar sports car who has it maintained by a specialist and uses it 4 times a year but as a trader, I've seen plenty of shockers, on the road scraping through a test each year where the owner has little idea that he should have been spendign a four figure sum on bodyshell repairs, and not a new interior...

The most dramatic one being a '58 convertible with a new mohair hood and leather interior where the oner complained that the doors didn't fit too well and could they be adjusted. Yes, you guessed, it was disaster of patches upon patches and plated over sills with little strength. How bad it would have been if they hadn't have spent a couple of hundred each year having it patched for the test, who knows. In an accident it would have just folded up....
In (thankful) contrast, my own '53 convertible was picked up on a very wobbly bottom trunnion that I hadn't noticed this year. The tester suggested a good greasing might take out someof the play, but I assured him it would be changed as soon as I drove very carefully back to work. The days of seeing Minors with a front wheel tucked up in the wing on a road junction may well return. There's plenty of owners who have no idea where the brake reservoir is, never mind how to use a grease gun, or even what a grease gun is....

As well as disapointing and badly thought out, I also ought to add, rather worrying. Wether the A30 v bus queue scenario ever happens, (I like the way it has to be an A30 on a Minor forum btw!), we now have a distinction between very old cars and the rest of the road traffic. How long before we can only go out on weekends to organised shows etc. There's similar legislation in other countries and this is a step in the direction towards this. Not wanting to sound panicky or be a doom mongerer, but its my livelyhood as well as a hobby thats being messed about with here...

I think the point about the '58 convertible is very valid, but also as an example of why no MOT might be a good thing. If it wasn't for the bare minimum of bodging each year it would probably be where it belongs - off the road.

[Neil MG]

BTW it's also my livelihood and I think it's great for the business!

[tomas.geoghegan]

The BBC states no MOT for vehicles manufactured before 1960.

My Minor was first registered on 23/02/1960.

The chassis number is MA2S3803262

Is there any way of establishing if my car was manufactured before 1960?

The first chassis number of 1960 was 790007 so yours was built in '60

A have a 1957 thats been off the road for 10 years now, looks like theres no need to fix it up properly and if i was so inclined could drive it in an unroadworthy state now. Ridiculous ruling.
Saying that, for those who do still intent to look after their cars you wont have to deal with MOTers that dont have a clue about cars, like one that tried to fail my car as he couldnt open the passenger door from the outside, he obviously hadnt realised that minors dont have central locking...

Hi there
My chassis number is 788006 1960 model does this mean my car is MOT excempt.
Thanks Tomas