No MOT??

[mrs.smith2012]

Hey all,
I’m car shopping right now and I’ve realised that so many of the cars I’ve seen do not have current MOTs.. which is kind of off putting. I do understand that MOTs are not mandatory but personally I do plan to MOT my mog if I get one, and I would definitely be more comfortable buying something with a recent MOT, especially as I am very new to this!
Is it acceptable to ask a seller to MOT a car before I go ahead with a purchase? (I’d only ask if everything else checked out and it was a car I was seriously considering buying)
I’ve only ever bought modern cars off dealers where MOT is default.. so not sure what the etiquette is with regards to these things.. is it cheeky to ask for an MOT to be done before purchase?

[Andmurph]

I think it’s quite a reasonable ask. If a vendor isn’t willing to put it through an MOT there’s probably something they don’t want to have to fix.

[mobylette]

My stance would be," I would be happy to buy your car , but only if it passes an MOT. I will cover the cost of the MOT if it passes but not otherwise." I can't see that this could cause any offence.

[geoberni]

Getting an MOT is a bit of a Marmite subject.
Some are strongly, neigh obstinately, in favour, while others are not so.
Personally, I don't get mine MOT'd; but I would if selling him just because many newbie buyers would expect it.

The reasons an MOT is not mandatory, unless certain aspects have been altered, are many but can be summarised as the following....
The current MOT is of negligable value on a car pre 1980s because not only are they exempt many of the modern requirements but also Testers have no experience of what they are looking at. There were an increasing number of appeals against failures, simply because the Testers were saying that an item such as a Steering part was 'worn' based on modern tolerances, not the specifications of yesteryear.

There is, IMHO, an increasing problem of people buying classics because of the MOT and Tax exemption, who know nothing of a vehicle which requires regular TLC, and as a result are driving around in dangerous vehicles.

I believe the government are still considering a review of the existing requirements....

But yes, as you are a novice classic car buyer, if they want to sell it to you they should get it MOT'd to give you some confidence in it.

[mrs.smith2012]

I’d be happy for the cost of the MOT to be added to the sale if the seller agreed to take it for one…. It’s more if the car failed and I decided not to go ahead… not sure where that would leave the seller… bit of a sticky subject
I don’t want to put anyone out! I suppose I can just put the question out there, if the seller was reluctant I’d probably be concerned anyway

[Myrtles Man]

Personally, I wouldn't hesitate. In expressing my interest in buying the car I'd ask at the outset whether or not the seller intended putting an MoT on it and I wouldn't be offering to pay the MoT fee either. Again, the seller's reaction could be quite revealing - caveat emptor and all that.

[svenedin]

I strongly believe in the MoT test of classic cars. Mostly, there is great concern and diligence, particularly on this forum, to keep our cars in the very best running order but there are those with a tremendously cavalier and dangerous attitude to safety.

Stephen

[ndevans]

I agree, and am most definitely in the "obstinately in favour" category. My car is MOTd every year and will continue to be so regardless of legal requirement. If it fails, it will be taken off the road and not used until the failure reason is rectified.
I understand the reasons given above for MOT exemption, but that is nothing a Classic MOT system could not override.
Finally, there seems to be an opinion that classic car owners all look after their cars meticulously, and would never keep or use them in a dangerous state. I think that is a dangerously complacent point of view. If any group of people need to have their cars independently inspected for roadworthiness, it's classic owners. Modern garages in many cases are not set up to deal with classics, so owners tend do their own maintenance and repairs.
In my view, MOT exemptions (and Road Fund exemptions) are privileges, not rights, and as a community we must recognise and respect that. We are not special just because we have chosen to drive 50+ year old vehicles.

[mrs.smith2012]

Thanks for the feedback all, I’m glad you share the opinion that asking for a car to be MOTd isn’t inappropriate.
If I find something I like with no MOT I’ll put the question to the seller and take it from there… as you say, their reaction could tell me a lot!

[mike1864]

I'd take the midway position that I would I commit to buying the car if the current owner got it a successful MOT (which I'd accept him adding to the agreed price).
But if it fails, I'd re-negotiate the price to take into account the garage's estimate for remedying the fault(s). Or walk away if there's no agreement (and NOT pay the MOT failure fee).
Obviously a failure that makes it unroadworthy would require addressing at the testing station, or removal by trailer.
I've been doing my own maintenance for over 50 years, but I don't consider that I have the access and resources (eg rolling road) to certify my car's roadworthiness.

[mrs.smith2012]

That sounds fair, I’d be happy with that providing the seller was! Because yes that’s another valid point… if it fails an MOT I’d have to trailer it away… didn’t even consider that!
Lots to think about

[mike1864]

In practice, a MOT station won't prevent you taking away an MOT failure (or report you!), unless it's clearly dangerous, eg no brakes.
So your taking it away to quickly fix something trivial (like a dead bulb) should be no problem.
As determined elsewhere on this forum, the DVSA says you don't then HAVE to take a MOT exempt car back for a re-test. But the onus is on you to ensure the identified fault has been remedied. But if it's a major repair, you may prefer to have its quality assessed by a MOT tester.

[geoberni]

That sounds fair, I’d be happy with that providing the seller was! Because yes that’s another valid point… if it fails an MOT I’d have to trailer it away… didn’t even consider that!
Lots to think about

You'd only have to trailer it if it was a Dangerous Fail, and if that were the case, you very probably wouldn't want it anyway...
You can drive away with a lot of MOT Fails.

For something like this I would normally provide any reader with a link to an official reference source, but the DfT information is so long winded, because it is the entire Tester Manual , this website is far more succinct https://www.assingtonautos.co.uk/what-i ... t-failure/


Minor Defect: Car passes, but repairs are recommended.
Major Defect: Car fails but may still be driven to a repair centre if roadworthy.
Dangerous Defect: Car fails, cannot be driven, and must be repaired before use.
Legally, driving a car with a dangerous defect invalidates any remaining MOT certificate days. This means that even if your previous MOT was still valid, it is immediately nullified the moment a dangerous defect is identified.

[mrs.smith2012]

Thank you for clarifying that!
You’re right, if it was a dangerous fail I think I’d give it a miss lol, leave it to someone who knows what they are doing! Haha

[mike1864]

"Legally, driving a car with a dangerous defect invalidates any remaining MOT certificate days. This means that even if your previous MOT was still valid, it is immediately nullified the moment a dangerous defect is identified."

This is not true. Unroadworthiness (however discovered) does not invalidate a pre-existing MOT. And Minors (unless substantially modified) do not need a MOT anyway, even after they'd failed one.
We laid this old wive's tale to rest in another (long) thread. The MOT Certificate's only function is to demonstrate that your car met the statutory roadworthiness test on one day in the past 365 days. That simple statement of fact cannot be nullified, revoked or invalidated by any subsequent change in the vehicle's condition. Unless it was fraudulently issued, only the passage of time (ie on Day 366) can make It invalid (through expiry).
Some MMOC members didn't believe this; so - on behalf of the MMOC - I'd asked the DVSA, whose Policy Unit replied:

From: MOT <MOT@dvsa.gov.uk>
Date: 23 July 2025 at 10:57:57 BST
Subject: Re: MOT testing of historic vehicles

A vehicle of historical interest that fails an MOT does not automatically lose its MOT exemption and does not legally require a retest (as long as there have not been any substantial changes), it will however have been assessed to be in an unroadworthy condition. As the vehicle had initially not met the requirement of being roadworthy, although not mandatory it is strongly recommended that it has a retest to prove roadworthiness following repairs.

Everyone agrees it's an offence to drive an unroadworthy vehicle, and that getting the remedy (especially a major repair) MOT checked is a good idea. But an MOT "lasts" for 365 days, regardless.

I gather that some members maintain that both I and the DVSA (the MOT authority!) are wrong.

[geoberni]

We laid this old wive's tale to rest in another (long) thread.

I forgot we'd been through all that; that's one of the reasons I'd rather have given a link to a Gov website; but as we established, nothing is clear in that regards with DVLA info....

[mike1864]

How could you forget?
For the avoidance of doubt, I also asked the DVSA if this un-cancellability of an MOT applied to ALL vehicles, not just MOT-exempt cars. They replied (my bold):

Dear Mike ****

Thank you for your email.

Following a fail at MOT test, you may take your vehicle away if your current MOT test is still valid and there are no dangerous problems listed in the MOT. It does not cancel out an existing valid MOT test.

As you quite rightly state, it must still meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness at all times, and as stated above would need to be repaired before driving if there are dangerous defects listed against the new MOT.

I hope this assists with your enquiry.

Yours sincerely

Angela | DVSA Customer Service Centre Agent
Tel: 0300 123 9000

[myoldjalopy]

I bought a Minor in 1989, before the exemption came in. It had an MOT with a few months to run. I told the vendor that I would buy it IF he got a new MOT - which he did, no quibble.
The thing is, nowadays a car may not have been MOT-ed for several years and issues may have cropped up in that time that the seller is not aware of.
Therefore, an MOT would provide some peace of mind when purchasing.........

[mrs.smith2012]

I bought a Minor in 1989, before the exemption came in. It had an MOT with a few months to run. I told the vendor that I would buy it IF he got a new MOT - which he did, no quibble.
The thing is, nowadays a car may not have been MOT-ed for several years and issues may have cropped up in that time that the seller is not aware of.
Therefore, an MOT would provide some peace of mind when purchasing.........

Thanks for the response. Tbh, as has been noted on here… most honest sellers would happily put a car through an MOT before a sale, if they refused I’d probably question the reliability of the car!

[kevin s]

while an mot may give you some indication of condition a car can still be pretty bad and still pass. If I wasn't confident about being able to inspect it myself I'd pay for a independent inspection by a classic car assessor.

Even If a car did fail an MOT I'd look at what it failed on, rather have one that failed MOT on a couple of tyres and a few bushes than one that scrapped through but has extensive corrosion which is not quite perforated.