do you MOT? Why?

[Grumpy21]

I'm curious. My Morris has a valid MOT via its previous owner and it's due to expire.

do you MOT your Morris? If yes why, if no why?

Comments below please (notwithstanding we all know its not a legal requirement)

[bobtail4x4]

I am in the same position my MOT runs out next week,
booked in with a kindly tester this thursday

I like the idea of a second pair of eyes checking things,

[RustAndMagic]

If you one day want to sell it and it had the latest MOT 15 years ago, that may not be that good, an MOT do show that it is kind of ok and they checked things like brake lines/hoses, bad hidden rust and stuff, so from that perspective it might be good and easier to sell.

On the other hand, if you do check all these things yourself and have no plan on selling it, there may not be any idea to do it, but if you only drive and don't do much service on it yourself it may also be a good idea to have it checked from time to time.

[slider]

Hi all new to the site
( 1971 Teal Blue Pickup in a very sad state of repair)

One very good reason to have an MOT is from the point of view insurance (the old saying you are insured till you make a claim) in this day and age they are always looking for a reason not to pay out .

Another issue is the legal aspect that if you are involved in an accident the police may consider you contributed to it regardless of the circumstances if for example your brakes were found to be defective .

[Bill_qaz]

I'm curious. My Morris has a valid MOT via its previous owner and it's due to expire.

do you MOT your Morris? If yes why, if no why?

Comments below please (notwithstanding we all know its not a legal requirement)

Below link to a previous discussion on the subject.

viewtopic.php?p=709175&hilit=mot+test#p709175

[svenedin]

As Bill says, we've discussed this before several times but there's no problem hearing new opinions on the subject. I do MoT every year. I do my own maintenance (unless it's something that requires specialist equipment or expertise) and so I am glad to have a second pair of eyes look over the car. We all know an MoT only really says the car is roadworthy that instant; you could drive home and on the way develop a serious fault but that's the nature of old cars. My MoT tester lets me look underneath with a torch when the car is on the lift. This is very useful as I never get a complete overview when under the car at home. I also like that the brakes are tested on the machine for efficiency and balance. Again, this is not something I can do to that kind of accuracy at home. I do think it is a small price in money for a thorough check over.

Stephen

[Bill_qaz]

Its a case of "horses for courses" as they say.
Its dependant on your facilities and level of expertise and knowledge.
I am lucky to have availability of workshop and 4 post lift where my car is stored and 55 years experience in motor trade. It goes on the lift several times a year and a tester would not look at anything I can not check myself.
So for myself an mot would be a waste of time and money.

But as stated on numerous occasions its the drivers responsibility to keep the vehicle fully roadworthy, regardless of MOT or not.
Exemption is a classic car privilege not an excuse

Rant over

[Mervin]

"One very good reason to have an MOT is from the point of view insurance (the old saying you are insured till you make a claim) in this day and age they are always looking for a reason not to pay out ."

The lack of a MoT is not a reason for denying a claim.
Yes, they do look for an excuse not to pay out, but not having a MoT is not a valid one. I think it has been through the Insurance Ombudsman at some time in the past.

[svenedin]

Bill makes a very good point. Not having to MoT is a privilege which could be withdrawn at any time if that privilege is abused. Unfortunately, a small minority of classic car owners have a cavalier attitude to the roadworthiness of their vehicles. This really annoys me and I have to bite my tongue not to over castigate such folk. "Oh it's only a mile away" is not an excuse to go out on the public highway in a dangerous vehicle.

Stephen

[myoldjalopy]

Bill makes a very good point. Not having to MoT is a privilege which could be withdrawn at any time if that privilege is abused. Unfortunately, a small minority of classic car owners have a cavalier attitude to the roadworthiness of their vehicles. This really annoys me and I have to bite my tongue not to over castigate such folk. "Oh it's only a mile away" is not an excuse to go out on the public highway in a dangerous vehicle.

Stephen

It sounds like the 'small minority' you mention are more interested in having a car that doesn't require an MOT, rather than owning a classic car......

[King Kenny]

When we lived in France classic cars had an MOT equivalent every 5 years which seemed right for the use I put my Traveller through, Newer cars had an MOT every two years. I intend to do the same now that we have returned to the UK. I have owned and maintained my Traveller for 47 years and I will know if something needs attention and I would sort it out. A 5 year check seems to be the best compromise for me. It might not be right for you.

[mrs.smith2012]

I plan to MOT Nellie as I use her… that said my mileage will be extremely low so I have debated whether to have her tested every other year, and just take her for an inspection in between.. I know many owners do this… her MOT isn’t due until the end of the year so I’m undecided right now

[Bill_qaz]

I plan to MOT Nellie as I use her… that said my mileage will be extremely low so I have debated whether to have her tested every other year, and just take her for an inspection in between.. I know many owners do this… her MOT isn’t due until the end of the year so I’m undecided right now

It will probably cost you as much if not more for an inspection as it does for an mot which has a fixed maximum cost.
Therefore you may as well get it mot'd if you wish to have her checked. Unless you can find a classic car experienced friendly local garage who will inspect for at a reasonable charge.

[myoldjalopy]

I plan to MOT Nellie as I use her… that said my mileage will be extremely low so I have debated whether to have her tested every other year, and just take her for an inspection in between.. I know many owners do this… her MOT isn’t due until the end of the year so I’m undecided right now

If it were me, with a new car, I would get it MOT'd when next due, and then decide how often from therein on.

[mike1864]

And - as exhaustingly established on another recent thread - an MOT failure does NOT oblige you to get a subsequent pass.
Though of course, any fault needs remedying to make the car roadworthy and legal.
The above is not my opinion. As this forum's Mods have confirmed, we have it in writing from the DVLA!

[ndevans]

I have always had mine tested yearly and will continue to do so regardless of the legalties. £54 is not much for a second pair of eyes to check basics, and that barely buys a tank full of fuel these days, so I don't think cost is a valid argument against.

[Bill_qaz]

I have always had mine tested yearly and will continue to do so regardless of the legalties. £54 is not much for a second pair of eyes to check basics, and that barely buys a tank full of fuel these days, so I don't think cost is a valid argument against.

I don't recall anyone complaining about the cost, I actually said it was more than likely cheaper than an inspection.
I did say it would be a waste of my money as the tester would not check anything I couldn't.
After many years of pre-testing trucks for mot I'm well aware of what they check at mot.

[geoberni]

As I recall from when the original MOT exemption was expanded, circa 2011.. As part or removing Red Tape by the Coalition Government, a key factor was an increasing number of MOT Fails that were due to a lack of Testers who could MOT without a Computer plugged in.
There were an increasing number, year on year, of successful appeals by owners for 'incorrect' failure certificates and DVLA were looking to stop the rising number of such appeals.

Essentially things that were common and legal on cars back when they were made, therefore still legal, but completely out of the experience of anyone under 60. For example failures for...
Excessive wear in a bearing which had just been replaced with NOS, similarly with Track Rod Ends.
Not understanding how old style Dampers operated.
Tester breaking an Indicator Stalk off while trying to dip the headlights.
A classic Jag Owner actually paid out for laboratory testing to get a report that the wheel bearings which had been failed were NOS to original 1960s standards.
Even an early 1990s TVR model being failed for having a back lit rear number plate -- that's how TVR made them!
I've no idea what other makes/models may have used them but I'd bet some other top end fancy cars had them.

Part of the problem is DVLA, they don't readily publish annual data about MOT appeals.

Some MOT places try it on anyway; I had one about 4 or 5 years ago give my wife's Corsa an Advisory for 'Misting' of both rear shocks and immediately try to get me to book it in for replacements. I told them I didn't agree with that diagnosis and have never used them since.
The same Shockers are still on the car and have passed every subsequent MOT.
The manual actually says "Slight seepage causing a film of fluid on a shock absorber is not a reason for rejection"
It's just how some shocker designs operate.

But back to the original question, I don't have my Minor MOT''d because the system is geared to a modern car and being plugged into the equipment.
I would be in favour of a basic test done 'old style' but not the way it is done at the moment.
I wouldn't trust anyone other than my local garage and I don't think he really wants the hassle of doing it.

[Nickol]

Out of interest, what does an MOT cost in UK these says?

[svenedin]

Out of interest, what does an MOT cost in UK these says?

The maximum for a passenger car is £54.85

Stephen