No MOT

[King Kenny]

I was out of the country when the change in MOT rules came into effect. I have a current MOT, in order to re-register my 1969 Traveller in the UK. I understand that it is no longer a legal requirement on vehicles of a certain age, but do I need to fill in a form or anything else when it comes up for renewal?

[svenedin]

You don't need to fill in a form if you choose not to have an MoT test. Many owners do continue to have their cars MoT tested even though it is not a legal requirement. I have my 1969 Morris MoT'd for several reasons: a) it is a check of work I have done on safety critical systems b) should I ever be involved in an accident I want some evidence that the car was maintained in roadworthy condition. Of course I realise that an MoT is only really valid the moment it is issued and a car could develop an MoT failure fault at any time after the MoT test.

What you do have to ensure is that your car is registered as a "historic vehicle". A vehicle in this class is exempt of MoT and VED (road tax). Even though no payment is due, you need to renew the road tax every year (this can be done online). Bizarre as it sounds, owners have been fined for not paying the zero road tax.......

Stephen

[philthehill]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... n-criteria

[King Kenny]

Brilliant. Thanks for that. We came back to the UK from France last year. In France the MOT for classic cars was every five years.

[myoldjalopy]

I would imagine most 'hands-on' owners familiar with Minors would know if the vehicle is roadworthy or not. Even if they put it in for an MOT they would check it over to avoid a fail. Not that I am advocating one way or the other.

[geoberni]

Brilliant. Thanks for that. We came back to the UK from France last year. In France the MOT for classic cars was every five years.

You can pretty much sum up the situation here as being that government research found that generally:

A - Classics made up a very small percentage of the cars on the road
B- The majority of those Classics were low mileage lovingly looked after vehicles
C - The MOT is so 'tech focused' with all the different sensors that have to be working on a modern car, that the actual mechanical inspection aspect makes up only a small part of the MOT Inspection
D - We now have a generation of MOT Testers that increasingly don't understand anything they can't plug a computer into
E - Manufacturing standards for modern cars are so tight, that there were an increasing number of successful MOT Appeals where vehicles were being failed when NOS items such as Bearings and Track Rod Ends had been fitted because the Tester thought they were loose (compared to the modern cars).

So all this considered, they decided that it is still the law that the Driver is responsible for the vehicle being roadworthy, therefore the MOT for a not substantially altered vehicle was a waste of money for the owner, and time for the MOT Testers.

I'm not arguing for or against the situation, that's just my bullet point summary of the official publications on the subject.

There is the problem that a small percentage of people are taking advantage of the Self Declaration aspect and having no MOT despite significant changes to their vehicles, which undermines the system, but that's life I guess....Hopefully Karma will catch up with them eventually.

[svenedin]

I would imagine most 'hands-on' owners familiar with Minors would know if the vehicle is roadworthy or not. Even if they put it in for an MOT they would check it over to avoid a fail. Not that I am advocating one way or the other.

Absolutely but there’s no harm in having a car inspected by a professional. In response to what Geoberni said, the place where I have my MoT test is a classic car garage so they know what they are doing.

Anyway, it’s up to you what you do! Happy motoring

Stephen

[Chief]

Absolutely but there’s no harm in having a car inspected by a professional.

Which also means that you could presumably just ask a garage to do the safety checks/structural checks without actually putting it through an MOT (though I suppose the hourly rate may be more than an MOT could cost these days).

[svenedin]

Absolutely but there’s no harm in having a car inspected by a professional.

Which also means that you could presumably just ask a garage to do the safety checks/structural checks without actually putting it through an MOT (though I suppose the hourly rate may be more than an MOT could cost these days).

Yes you could do that. The difficulty comes if the car fails an MoT even though it technically does not need one. Then it must be fixed and pass an MoT!

Stephen

[myoldjalopy]

Surely if something is found it just needs to be fixed? Can't see why there would be a requirement for an MOT as well. Same as if an owner finds the brakes weren't working - he/she fixes them. No need for an MOT and vehicle is roadworthy again (assuming nothing else needs doing).