no more MOT for pre 60 cars

[Hotroddickie]

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!

Couldn't agree more.
I spend a lot of my time in California where there is no MOT and as here 99.9% of accidents are caused by folks driving too close, too fast, talking on mobile phones ie the idiot behind the wheel not mechanical failure.
Classic lorries have been exempt for many years already can anyone site a case of an accident caused by an unsafe one?
A Minor with a few holes in the floor pan and a number plate light out is highly unlikely to cause an accident.
A car having an MOT is only safe when it is on the ramps in the test station, as soon as you drive it away, a master cylinder seal could go, a hand brake cable could snap or a leaf spring could crack.

With regards to insurance, another club I am a member of has discussed this with their insurance company whose stance was that they will not load premiums, they will not insist on safety tests, premiums are based on accident and theft statistics, if accidents suddenly increase yes we could start to see premiums go up.
I would be suprised if the accident rate goes up significantly with the relatively few pre-60 vehicles on the road but I could be wrong.

Richard

[chesney]

I can understand no MOT for pre-war cars

Now that's a good idea! The majority of pre-war cars have separate chassis, so they have a more rigid and fail-safe construction. Much more than something of a monocoque design that can be made weaker by serious rust. On most of the jeeps we've had over the years, the bodys are shot, but the chassis remain intact despite crashes, bodges (front bumper additions) and mods (one had a snow plough bolted to the middle). And they were all structurally intact. So (with brake and mechanical overhaul) they would be fine, whereas a minor with bodywork condition in a similar state would be unsafe on many levels!

[jagnut66]

Personally I think the only responsible thing to do when purchasing any car older than 1960 in future, unless you are buying a car to restore which is obviously going to need a trailer to get it home, is to insist that a voluntary MOT level check is carried out on your potential purchase before buying.
If a seller asks for you to pay for this then fair enough but if they refuse to this then walk away (or offer the price of a non roadworthy car for it!). At least then you have some peace of mind before parting with your hard earned cash, that the car you are buying is roadworthy and you are not being sold a pup / potential death trap (for you and others).
As has been said before on this site and in magazines such as Practical Classics, very few of us are mechanics / trained MOT assessors.
We are perfectly capable of missing things. How will you feel if you do plough into the proverbial bus queue, in part due to over confidence in your opinion of how safe / roadworthy any given classic is.
A test once a year may not be a guarantee that a vehicle is safe for the whole year, it is up to an individual to take responsibility for this, but it can be a very good pointer to where the flaws in your vehicle lie and what needs to be done to make it safer.
And how much is peace of mind worth?
It will also help safeguard our hobby against (what would be) unjustified future legislation restricting the use of our cars.
You may scoff but given Brussell's (and our own governments in the not too distant past) penchant for bureaucratic legislation, regulating our lives 'for our own good' it is not impossible!
Mike.

[kennatt]

[quote ]very few of us are mechanics / trained MOT assessors. [quote ]exactly the point of the mot ,to help out not to persecute, and if owners feel obliged to have a voluntary examination,for peace of mind.Whats the point of changing,if you don't want the car on the road its sorn 'ed(which it still will have to be for insurance regs) or mot'd or in the future voluntary exam, Just wait until some wreck comes out of a field,rotten through with no brakes and wipes out a bus queue.Think you've got restrictions now on use of classics just wait and see what comes of this. And being x plod, and knowing how the quota system works,If I was a young bucko back in the job, and knew that pre 60 cars needed no mot I would be pulling every one I saw and checking everything from steering to numberplate light,and I bet I would find enough con and use reg faults to satisfy my sergeant and keep him off my back

[jagnut66]

very few of us are mechanics / trained MOT assessors.

exactly the point of the mot ,to help out not to persecute, and if owners feel obliged to have a voluntary examination,for peace of mind.Whats the point of changing,if you don't want the car on the road its sorn 'ed(which it still will have to be for insurance regs) or mot'd or in the future voluntary exam, Just wait until some wreck comes out of a field,rotten through with no brakes and wipes out a bus queue.Think you've got restrictions now on use of classics just wait and see what comes of this. And being x plod, and knowing how the quota system works,If I was a young bucko back in the job, and knew that pre 60 cars needed no mot I would be pulling every one I saw and checking everything from steering to numberplate light,and I bet I would find enough con and use reg faults to satisfy my sergeant and keep him off my back
kennatt
Minor Addict

Another very good point. I've emailed my thoughts elsewhere but whether they'll appear in print I don't know.
I think a voluntary yearly MOT level test with advisories on 'what needs doing / should be done in the near future' would be a very good idea and if we keep any receipts / invoices, they could prove good ammunition should we have to defend our hobby and it's usage against some future government legislation.
It would also prove that any future unmaintained classic related fatalities were down to the actions of the individual, not the attitude of the whole classic car (bus / lorry) movement.
Mike.

[Neil MG]

very few of us are mechanics / trained MOT assessors.
Another very good point. I've emailed my thoughts elsewhere but whether they'll appear in print I don't know.
I think a voluntary yearly MOT level test with advisories on 'what needs doing / should be done in the near future' would be a very good idea and if we keep any receipts / invoices, they could prove good ammunition should we have to defend our hobby and it's usage against some future government legislation.
It would also prove that any future unmaintained classic related fatalities were down to the actions of the individual, not the attitude of the whole classic car (bus / lorry) movement.
Mike.

That is exactly what we now have for pre 1960 cars! A voluntary MOT test.

It seems that most concern is that it will be "other people" who will now be irresponsible due to this change. I don't see any reason why that should be the case. A compulsory test that has less and less relevance to older cars is no longer required. This is good news for owners and good news for the industry.

Any time a police officer wants to stop me and check my car he is most welcome. I think there should be more of that. Unfortunately it is not cost effective and difficult to regulate, but it would do a lot more to prevent defective cars being used than the MOT test.

In fact I would go so far as to say the MOT has a negative effect on vehicle safety when it comes to older cars, especially the Morris Minor. It is all too common for people to hide behind the fact that their car has an MOT while knowingly driving with defective brakes or steering. This is something I see all the time from the mechanics days and technical pages of this forum!

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that most of the negative comments come from owners of post 1960 cars! Not that I am suggesting sour grapes.....

[Hotroddickie]

Most of the proper mechanic run MOT stations where I live have closed or stopped doing MOT's because they can't compete with the fast fit no win no fee £35 MOT stations. These in the main are staffed by £7.50/ hour trainee mechanics whose training mostly consists of learning where to plug the computer in and reading fault codes.

I hope all the pro MOT folks wont be dissapointed in years to come when an imbecile in Brussels decrees something like you can't fit a different engine in a vehicle without all sorts of red tape and the MOT picks up that your split screen has a 948 so after your MOT you get a letter asking for an engineers report, where did you purchase the engine? was it from a registered authorised vehicle dismantler? Oh you bought the engine at an auto jumble or from this forum and not an authorised place so sorry you can not use the car on the road as it is an environmental disaster area.

Sure if you are not comfortable with your own abilites to jack a car up and asses if it is safe, get it looked over regularly at your own expense by a pro. If you go to look at a new car and don't know anything about them common sense says take someone with you who does, but please don't throw your toys out of the pram for authorities to impose more legislation on those of us who can.
Richard

[Neil MG]

well put Richard!

Luckily in the UK we have a very strong classic car lobby as the business is much bigger than in other European countries. I don't believe there would be retrospective legislation regarding vehicle changes, but perhaps tougher legislation regarding future alteration of older vehicles. I think that the industry could handle and possibly benefit from such changes.

So in my view, the current path is no cause for concern and a good reason to be happy!

[jagnut66]

I hope for your sake you are proved right, because what affects you will inevitably effect all classic car owners, pre and post 1960.
As for sour grapes and confidence in work done:
Firstly, I would rather be able to hold up my MOT certificate to all non classic owners to show that I'm just the same as them and have just as much right to drive my car wherever and as often as I like.
Secondly, I replaced my own engine and gearbox, springs, trunnions and kingpins, discs, drums, wings etc., so it's safe to say that I'm happy and confident enough to work on my own car, as are allot of others. However I'm not conceited enough to think myself infallible.

I hope all the pro MOT folks wont be dissapointed in years to come when an imbecile in Brussels decrees something like you can't fit a different engine in a vehicle without all sorts of red tape and the MOT picks up that your split screen has a 948 so after your MOT you get a letter asking for an engineers report, where did you purchase the engine? was it from a registered authorised vehicle dismantler? Oh you bought the engine at an auto jumble or from this forum and not an authorised place so sorry you can not use the car on the road as it is an environmental disaster area.

Certain regulations are in place already to try and catch people trading in stolen parts. I had to show where my replacement engine came from and was perfectly happy to do so. I also had to have a letter to say it had been installed to a roadworthy standard. Again I was happy to source and provide this.
I would be more worried about those who are not if I was you. I find it sad to read about stolen classics and wonder at their fate, some no doubt end up as spare parts.
In short I was perfectly happy to declare all work done. I found this neither difficult nor troublesome, I simply anticipated what the DVLA would require (including photos) and went to their offices prepared, a few weeks later I was issued with a replacement log book, which for the first time in years (probably long before my ownership) now shows the correct engine number.

I have looked at a few 1950's cars and would still like to acquire one at some point, I would then like to be able to drive it whenever and wherever, regularly if I choose, without having to worry about some self important government / EU busy body trying to stop me.
Regards,
Mike.

[charlie_morris_minor]

not sour grapes on my behalf i own 2 pre 60's and 3 post 60's cars.

i for one would have preferred they had reintroduced rolling tax exemption to allow some more modern cars to be covered.

[JOWETTJAVELIN]

i for one would have preferred they had reintroduced rolling tax exemption to allow some more modern cars to be covered.

Agreed, it should have always been 25 year rolling tax emption, as it was when originally introduced. My 35 year-old Allegro still had to be paid road tax on. 35 year old car???? Surely a classic now. It's worse for those with engine sizes over 1500cc, as they have to pay about £250 a year, even though it was built in 1974.

[ampwhu]

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?

if you fit midget front brakes with hydraulic rears on an A30, then it will stop better than a cowley lump. proven fact.

[chrisd87]

Que? The point was more about the hypothetical case of a car with defective brakes causing an accident, not a comment on their original efficacy!

I had to show where my replacement engine came from and was perfectly happy to do so. I also had to have a letter to say it had been installed to a roadworthy standard.

I'm a bit worried by this. Did the DVLA say what evidence they were after for the source of the engine? If it's just a receipt, that's no problem as you can easily knock up a fake one in a few minutes. If they want to see the logbook of the car it came out of, that's a bit harder as I suspect the cars my (privately purchased) spare engines came out of were scrapped donkey's years ago. Also interesting that they wanted a bit of paper to say it had been installed to a 'roadworthy standard'. Never heard of that one before. Personally I would resent having pay a garage to give me a piece of paper to 'prove' to some bureaucrat that I can indeed tighten bolts correctly.

[AntB]

ah well, didn't take long did it:

would YOU buy a car from this man?!!!

[JOWETTJAVELIN]

That ad has been on for a while, the car never had an MoT. However if it did have an MoT the price would be reasonable.

[jagnut66]

ah well, didn't take long did it:

would YOU buy a car from this man?!!!

I had a look at this link
I think it makes my point for me, all it needs now is a buyer with the wrong attitude...............

[kennatt]

yes indeed thats just the first of MANY more that will rise up from the dead.

[Hotroddickie]

Que? The point was more about the hypothetical case of a car with defective brakes causing an accident, not a comment on their original efficacy!

I had to show where my replacement engine came from and was perfectly happy to do so. I also had to have a letter to say it had been installed to a roadworthy standard.

I'm a bit worried by this. Did the DVLA say what evidence they were after for the source of the engine? If it's just a receipt, that's no problem as you can easily knock up a fake one in a few minutes. If they want to see the logbook of the car it came out of, that's a bit harder as I suspect the cars my (privately purchased) spare engines came out of were scrapped donkey's years ago. Also interesting that they wanted a bit of paper to say it had been installed to a 'roadworthy standard'. Never heard of that one before. Personally I would resent having pay a garage to give me a piece of paper to 'prove' to some bureaucrat that I can indeed tighten bolts correctly.

A friend of mine wrote off last year to change the log book on his Ford Pop as he had fitted a crossflow engine.
They wrote to him asking for an engineers report, which he sent, they then wrote back wanting a copy of the receipt for his engine, like many of us it was an Autojumble or small adds purchase, when he called the DVLA the call center told him that it is illegal to purchase an engine from somewhere other than a registered vehicle dismantler and refused to return his log book . In the end after a 3 months stressfull backwards and forwards with DVLA getting no where, he sold the car for spares without the log book.
Going off topic I know but moving forward, the MOT is the easiest way for the authorities to keep track of vehicle changes especially with the impending demise of the local DVLA offices.
I believe they have since stopped asking for engineers reports for engine changes, originally it was bought in to stop folks saying they had fitted a smaller engine for emissions or to avoid the congestion charge.

[jagnut66]

Hi,
As you say off topic, but all I had was a receipt from the chap I bought it off, genuine and I believe I gave them his phone number as well. So hopefully there will be no more extreme cases like this one where people end up selling off their cars for spares.
I know the DVLA can be a frustrating load of bureaucrats at the best of times.
Best wishes,
Mike.

[chrisd87]

What a disgrace! The DVLA do seem to have a good line in making up 'laws' that don't exist. One of my cars doesn't have an engine number, as it was removed when the block face was skimmed. Never had trouble getting an MOT, so maybe that's one way to get around all this nonsense.