MOT & how else would you prove roadworthy…..

[alfie austin]

Hello,
Last week my everyday Traveller passed the MOT (twentieth year of passes & no advisories), then at the weekend I went to a local steam fair and was parked up for the day surrounded by a good display of cars from the 1950s onwards. I was curious as to how many others still put their car through the yearly MOT - so I checked the registration plates on 25 of the cars parked around me on the field against the MOT.gov website…. I was very surprised to discover that only one other car had a current MOT. (with 17 of the 25 not having had an MOT in the last ten years). Is this a fare representation of classic cars as a whole ?
While I appreciate all the problems associated with the MOT system and older cars, along with it only being a test of how the car actually is on the day of the MOT, how else is would an owner to you prove that the vehicle is kept in a roadworthy state.
Would be interested to hear others opinions….. (hopefully I’ve not opened up a can of worms on this subject)
Kind regards.

[les]

There’s no other way to actually prove it. However legally you don’t have to prove it.

[svenedin]

I have a local garage that is classic car friendly and they are very sensible about MoT testing classic cars. I have my car MoT'd every year. I do most of the maintenance work on my car myself and I am not an expert mechanic. Nor do I have a post lift so I cannot easily examine all of the important parts underneath. I feel that the MoT test is a bargain for my peace of mind and as a second pair of eyes on my maintenance efforts. Of course there is a downside, if the car fails an MoT test (even though it is not legally required to have one) it is identified as not being roadworthy and the fault(s) must be rectified and the car represented for an MoT to prove it IS roadworthy.

I have been very shocked by some of the conversations I have had with some classic car owners. The general gist of the conversations being, "well it doesn't need an MoT so what the headlights don't work and the brakes are absolutely terrible" (or whatever other fault that makes the car unroadworthy). This in my view is highly irresponsible.

I recall a story my father used to tell. He had an Austin 7 in the 1950's before the introduction of the MoT test He was always having trouble with the brakes which were cable brakes. He had trouble getting the braking even and on one occasion the handbrake was not working either. He was stopped by a policemen and asked to step out of the car. He declined to do this and had to admit that he couldn't take his foot off the brake pedal or the car would roll down the hill. He got a fine of course and rightly so.

Stephen

[ndevans]

All it'll take is a spate of accidents and/or fatalities involving classics that are not MOT'd in which the roadworthiness of the vehicles is at fault or suspect, and there will be a clamour for "something to be done".

[Blaketon]

My father used to recall how some cars were in a shocking state before MOTs. He mentioned play in steering boxes. However, MOTs didn't put and end to unroadworthy cars.

As to historics, I hope people don't abuse the concession, as in ignorance some will tend to judge things by their standards and experience. Therefore, because their fifteen year old whatever was clapped out, a sixty year old whatever will be four times as bad. Some clowns ask me whether the cars I own break down a lot (One of them has only done 51000 from new) and recall faults that were caused by neglect.

I remember one rather stupid television personality commented on MOT exemption, comparing cars to people; I've not seen an old person taken apart and rebuilt with new and reconditioned parts.

I took part in the consultation, that led to MOT exemption and made the point that one idiot could have a disproportionate effect, were anything to go wrong. I accept that there is no need for an MOT annually, if a vehicle doesn't get a lot of use. Quite how you decide how many miles to set it at is not so easy. Perhaps every 5000 miles or three years, whichever comes first. In my case, I go for 1000 miles or three years but I don't get much time to use the cars, so 1000 miles can take a while to cover. My MG Midget 1500 is a couple of hundred miles off 69000 and I've gone about eight years BUT I have left it until it hits 69000, so I will know when it was done, without looking. Quite a bit has gone on in that eight years (I replaced the steering rack gaiters, which had perished), such as inheriting another Midget from my father (Which I finished off for him before he died, although he was only able to ride in it by that stage), although I have done little more than 1000 miles in that, in the five years since I finished it (I got an MOT for it after I first finished it and then again last year). I look on it as a second pair of eyes and the two brothers, who do the MOTs, have a collection of classic cars themselves, so understand old cars. Indeed, when I bought my Midget 1500, in 1984, they sold petrol (The pumps are long since gone) and my father and I filled the Midget at their pumps (I didn't know them then) and my father spotted their Frogeye Sprite, which they still have, in the back of their old garage. The younger brother is about my age and has bad legs (Though he was limping less when I last saw him), whilst his older brother must be around pensionable age, though he seems to be in good fettle. I know once they finish, that's it (They see no long term future in what they do, which is not specialising in old cars, though they are listed by FBHVC) and after thirty five years, (Plus those between now and then), I will need to find another MOT station (There is the one my father used, though the owner died about five years ago and his son now runs it, though as a village garage but you see the odd historic in there).

[ndevans]

The point about an MOT is the car has to be roadworthy for it. I did my brakes and wasn't happy with the result. Upcoming MOT meant I had to redo them instead of just living with it.
Some things are not so obvious.
How many owners check their seatbelt mountings? My Minor was nearly failed because of a loose passenger side lower mounting bolt (so loose that it was almost hanging free). MOT man passed it saying he did so knowing I would tighten it up, which I did there and then. Without an MOT check that could have gone unnoticed and been almost useless in an accident.

[Bill_qaz]

It still only means ok on that day you still need the experience feel and regular checks to be safe for the rest of the year. I prefer to do my own regular checks. An mot examiner would not be able to see anything that I could not check myself.

[King Kenny]

When I lived in France classic cars were tested every five years. As me and my Moggie are both retired I recon that an MOT every five years is enough. I had to have a valid MOT to reregister the car in the UK which she passed. That was two years ago and I have only done a few hundred miles since then. When I worked full time I maintained the car and regularly took it for it's MOT. Having driven her for over forty years I recon I know when things need attention. Having a new MOT every two or three hundred miles is overkill, so I will continue with one every five years.

[Andmurph]

Maybe a controversial view?
Does the passing the MOT test mean a car is safe and roadworthy?
Recent experience with our pickup leads me to think not. The previous owner diligently had MOT tests each year. It had a few advisories for different oil seal and seatbelt mounts that were quickly fixed as soon as we had it. All good now we thought…..

Within weeks we replaced the rear brake line and all three flexi hoses as it pulled violently to the right on braking. Followed by having the front Armstrong dampers refurbished as they were leaking oil. Surely it must be good now? New seatbelts, it drives and stops well….

A few months later we took the tub off and found the shock absorbers almost poking through the crossmember which has rusted right through. During the project to repair and refurbish that I discovered badly worn lead springs….

Then the front tie bats both worn 50% at the front bracket and both brackets also severely worn and fixed with badly welded washers.

I think we uncovered a bit of a death trap with years of valid MOTs. The MOT tester can only test what he can see. For sure it’s better than nothing but it clearly doesn’t pick up everything. Indeed my modern cars usually get advisories for engine covers not being removed etc.

I’m not a qualified mechanic but I do have mechanical sympathy. I have suggested continuing with the MOT on the pickup and the Midget for a second pair of eyes but I am cognisant that can’t negate my responsibility to check the vehicle regularly.

[Mervin]

I agree with Bill. My Minor was last MoT'd in 2022, passed with no advisories.
I regularly check over MoT items and personally think, maybe wrongly, that I'm perfectly qualified and experienced to know when somthing would fail.
Again, as Bill suggests, the test is only an indication of roadworthiness at the time. A light(e.g. brake) could stop working driving from the test centre, which would be a fail.
I did read, some years ago of a tester, unfamiliar with older cars, who broke an indicator stalk (Minor) trying to full beam/dip the headlights, unaware it was foot operated.

[Blaketon]

This reminds me of a fairly local MOT station. Their own cars were mobile scrapheaps (It was well known for having wrecks of cars, covered in brambles, outside) and I cannot believe they didn't turn a blind eye to faults. The father was a nice enough man, now long gone but his son seemed to have a chip on his shoulder and I have the impression that he would invent excuses to fail cars which were too good, out of shear spite/resentment. Like all systems, the MOT system is open to abuse.

[geoberni]

I did read, some years ago of a tester, unfamiliar with older cars, who broke an indicator stalk (Minor) trying to full beam/dip the headlights, unaware it was foot operated.

There's numerous tales of people with Classic/Historic vehicles had to appeal MOT Fails in the early part of this century (it still sounds weird referencing that...) , it's part of the reasons for granting the exemption.
I remember reading a report online, which I should have saved, about a guy who restored a 1960s Jaguar.
The MOT Tester failed the Track Road Ends for being 'too loose'.
The Owner had just fitted NOS TRE's straight out of their packaging. He obtained an engineers report from a Laboratory who tested them against the Design Spec and said they exceeded the minimum spec for passing the production line.
The Tester just did not understand the difference in design tolerances between 1960s and 2010s.

I agree there are probably many 'Chancers' on the roads in 'Historic', particularly more modern ones from the early 1980s.
Increasingly justified by them being exempt other charges.
The London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) has exemptions for all vehicles constructed before 1 January 1973 and for historic vehicles, over 40 years old, registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in the historic vehicle tax class.
So grab an old Banger, register it as Historic and you've saved the MOT Fee, Road Tax and daily ULEZ.
I don't personally see why vehicles from the 1980s are now exempt, because they are much nearer to modern vehicles in their complexity.
It's only 7 years and the first compulsory fit Catalytic Convertor Cars will become Historic (legal requirement 1993) and many would have been fitted earlier; I don't think the rolling introduction date really works as it is now into an era of rapid introduction of 'New Tech'...

[mobylette]

I have a local garage that is classic car friendly and they are very sensible about MoT testing classic cars.

Could I ask the name of the garage please?

[King Kenny]

I did read, some years ago of a tester, unfamiliar with older cars, who broke an indicator stalk (Minor) trying to full beam/dip the headlights, unaware it was foot operated.

I remember years ago ( about 35?) I took my Traveller to Half-fords for an MOT. They failed it on the suspension. The tester said that there was movement in the linkage when prised with an iron bar. I told him that the links are rubber mounted and needed to move. He was adamant, so I took it somewhere else and they gave the car a pass. That was the last time I went to Half-fords.

[Bill_qaz]

I worked for a major manufacturer and when we introduced spring loaded ball joints we had to have dealer tool with service bulletin. It compressed the joint until bottomed then measure gap between pads with feeler guage. All this was because testers used a priebar and said joint had excess play, even when new.
Just because they have passed a testers course, it doesn't make them a mechanic or have a full understanding of vehicle specifications.

[geoberni]

Not relating to Minors, but an indication of how stupid some people can be, even when they are supposedly specialists in the task..

Last year, I ordered a pair of rear tyres from Black Circles for my Ford Kuga, selecting a local branch of a medium size national chain to fit them.

While waiting for the work to be done, the 'supervisor' came in and told me the Locking Wheel Nut Key Socket was worn and they were having difficulty.
He then tried telling me I needed to replace the set of locking nuts, so I'm guessing they probably sold them.
I told him that if he just finished the job, I would look at getting some later...
A few minutes later I could see one of their staff beating 7 shades of .... out of the socket on the wheel...
I went around to the open roller door and asked what he was doing. Apparently because the Key was worn he was bashing it on.
This was the 2nd of the two being done and he had now got it lose.
I left them under no false impression as to my thoughts on their technical skills and told them to fit each wheel with the 4 normal bolts torqued up and the lock nuts just finger tight.
When the job was complete, in the car park I tightened the 2 locking nuts myself with the car wheel wrench.
When I got home, I dressed out the damage they had caused to the 'key' using a Dremel type instrument and had no problem torquing and then removing the locking wheel nuts. Its a little sloppy, but held in place properly it doesn't slip.
I think their problem was fitting the Key to the Windy and then spinning the Windy to catch the keyway, rather then fitting it and then operating the tool. Just incorrect use of the tools.
I ensured that Black Circles had a detailed review of the service provided.
A complaint to the head office of the tyre fitting chain went on deaf ears.....

[svenedin]

I have a local garage that is classic car friendly and they are very sensible about MoT testing classic cars.

Could I ask the name of the garage please?

Christian Cars in Woldingham, Surrey. They are listed in the FBHVC directory of "Historic-friendly MoT stations". They are not classic car specialists and in fact they service modern cars of all marques but I have always found them very pleasant to deal with.

The full list is here:

https://www.fbhvc.co.uk/historic-friendly-mot-stations

Stephen

[mike1864]

I agree with svenedin. With just a jack and axle stands, I can't hope to match an MOT garage's facilities for checking for wear and play etc.
Plus that £50 buys piece of mind and a good defence if an insurance or breakdown company disputes cover on the grounds that my car is unroadworthy.
In answer to the OP, ISTR reading that only 7% of classic car owners get them MOTted.

[alfie austin]

ISTR reading that only 7% of classic car owners get them MOTted.

Hello,
Can anyone inform me what ISTR is and where I can find out more on statistic ?
Kind regards

[ndevans]

ISTR=I Seem To Remember