For those interested in old cars.

[MrWolf]

Good point. That said, I take our old vehicles for an MOT anyway. Just for peace of mind. Despite the fact that I have been tinkering around with old cars since I was about 12, I like a second opinion, because I could well have missed something on a vehicle that I am familiar with that the tester won't.

Secondly, I don't trust the insurance companies to back me up in the event of an accident if I can't provide documentation that the car was safe to be on the road. If an accident went to court, I don't want some smartass lawyer trying to say that my vehicle was cobbled together in the backyard by an amateur etc etc.

[rodent279]

58 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Assuming it's a Morris Minor then it'll be mot exempt so it's academic anyhow. 

No, it isn't exempt. It has to be declared exempt and to do that, it has to have an MOT first. I don't want to exempt it.

[Kickstart]

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

So, changing the subject slightly, my Minor is due for MOT in Jan. It has already had an MOT extension from July, due to the 1st lockdown, and I am wondering whether, if we go into a tougher, tighter national lockdown in Jan, as some are speculating, it will get a further extension if I am unable to MOT it again?

Not sure, and haven’t heard anything. I did hear that if a car fails it’s MOT during traffic extension then that is the MOT extension ended (ie, you don’t get until the extension ends), but not really sure if this is true.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[Beechnut]

8 hours ago, Kickstart said:

Not sure, and haven’t heard anything. I did hear that if a car fails it’s MOT during traffic extension then that is the MOT extension ended (ie, you don’t get until the extension ends), but not really sure if this is true.

 

All the best

 

Katy

 
That’s correct. My LR90 MoT was extended to Dec. 6th and I took it in four weeks early and it failed on a light bulb. The tester would have replaced but he didn’t have a spare so no choice but to fail it. It’s not a primary vehicle so it wasn’t the end of the world, just booked in a week later and passed ok.

 

Brendan

[Hobby]

10 hours ago, rodent279 said:

No, it isn't exempt. It has to be declared exempt and to do that, it has to have an MOT first. I don't want to exempt it.

 

Playing with words...  OK then you can declare it exempt, happy now! 

[rodent279]

1 minute ago, Hobby said:

 

Playing with words...  OK then you can declare it exempt, happy now! 

But you can't just declare it exempt-you have to put it through an MoT test as part of the exemption. So either way, come mid Jan, it has to have a test.

[Hobby]

True, mine was already declared exempt but had an MoT when I got it and I've continued that. Perhaps that's the way to go, get the MoT done, declare it exempt and carry on with the MoTs (or the equivalent check many garages do instead) after.

 

EDIT: A read of the Gov pages would seem to indicate that once it's registered in the Historic Tax class (for which you need the MoT for the initial registration) it is them exempt for any further renewals. Have you not registered it as a Historic vehicle? If you have that's it, end of MoTs unless you want to do them.

Edited December 24, 2020 by Hobby

[gr.king]

Has anybody checked the legal position carefully to be absolutely sure of the implications of electing to have an MOT test on a vehicle that is already in the Historic Tax class, has been exempt from MOT tests, and has not in fact had such a test for say two or three years? If the vehicle fails its non-mandatory MOT test is it then unlawful to use it on the road until the defects are rectified and the vehicle re-tested? Even if it is not unlawful, with all of the records being "joined up" these days will the failure be there on the government database and visible to anybody who chooses to look? That might be as much of a risk as, or even more of a risk than having no proof of "time of test only" road worthiness in the event of a claim of some sort. 

Given the way the law works in other situations, might it even be the case that if the owner, as a non-expert, fails to notice a safety-related defect in the vehicle then that would actually be regarded less seriously than a failure by an expert (such as an MOT tester) to spot such a defect. In other words might you actually be able to "get away with" rather more if you subtly avoid asking for an expert examination?

I feel that the law, and the ways in which the legal profession and the judiciary have decided to apply it, often contains traps, such that a reasonable person making a reasonable effort is still "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't". He can be even worse off if he goes to get legal advice, because there's then no doubt that he "should have known better" if his actions are judged to be deficient!

Edited December 24, 2020 by gr.king
Spelling mistake!

[MrWolf]

Another good reason for keeping our old bangers MOT'd is that perhaps the exemptions are the thin end of a wedge designed to turn them into museum pieces that can only be taken out on a Sunday to be driven by a direct route to a pre booked show.

[Nick C]

Quote

You do not need to get an MOT if the vehicle was first registered more than 40 years ago and no ‘substantial changes’ have been made to the vehicle in the last 30 years.

This includes vehicles previously exempted on the basis of being first registered before 1960.

Different rules apply to large vehicles.

Whether or not you are exempt your vehicle must be roadworthy and you may wish to voluntarily undertake an MOT test anyway.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/historic-classic-vehicles-mot-exemption-criteria/historic-classic-vehicles-mot-exemption-criteria

 

No mention of needing to declare anything, and I certainly didn't when I had the Triumph. 

[Hobby]

I don't know if anyone has, though I suspect someone will have! If you can prove that the fault was fixed, though, you may have fulfilled the requirement... Who knows!

 

There are alternatives to the MoTs now, many garages will do the full test relevant for the vehicle but not actually do it as an MoT. As many of us do an annual service and MoT at the same time the checks will be done during the service and any problems highlighted at that point, assuming you have a decent garage, so is the MoT necessary? Of course for cheapskates the system allows unroadworthy vehicles to be used, but I suspect most classic car owners are more safety conscious than most and will keep their car in good order anyhow. The majority of unroadworthy vehicles are under 40 years old I suspect!

[Hobby]

Going back to @rodent279 who's comment sparked this discussion. If the car passed it's last MoT and is registered as a Historic Vehicle, then it doesn't need an MoT so he doesn't have to worry about getting it done if he doesn't want to. The MoT is only required for it's first registration as an Historic Vehicle, after that it's up to the owner. At least that's what the Gov site says.

 

The only proviso to that is if his classic car insurance insists on an MoT or equivelent test.

[alastairq]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

But you can't just declare it exempt-you have to put it through an MoT test as part of the exemption. So either way, come mid Jan, it has to have a test.

Not in my experience!

Otherwise, how do all the other types of vehicle that can claim exemption get on? [Including those whose construction would prevent a valid test being undertaken?]

On the insurance front, no Insurer is entitled to insist on a valid MoT certificate. The MoT  certificate in itself isn't a guarantee of roadworthiness.

 

[For a simple example, note the regulations regarding the fitting of a working speedometer? Not part of an MoT test!!!]

 

All motor insurers, classic or otherwise, will likely have a policy clause requiring the vehicle to be 'roadworthy' at all times, when on the public road.

 

Insurers cannot insist on a valid MoT, otherwise, how would policy holders get on with having a vehicle whose MoT has expired, but are lawfully allowed to drive said vehicle to & from a pre-booked MoT test?  That vehciel, of course, must be roadworthy when on the public highway....test or no test.

Also, there is no stipulation as to where the MoT test can be pre-booked [in Law]

Thus one could lawfully obtain a vehicle down south, {check to ensure it's roadworthy, of course}...that has not got a valid MoT certificate....pre--book an MoT in Edinburgh, and provided it is insured, drive said motor to Edinburgh. One is even allowed to stop on the way [petrol, etc], or make a slight diversion for food, ciggies, etc.  Extreme, I know, but an example of how the Law works with regards to valid MoTs.

 

From personal experience, one can even drive a vehicle that has not yet even been registerd..IE has no registration number issued at that point in time.

To obtain a registration number, first one has to undergo an MoT [Used to be a super-MoT, but an ordinary one now suffices in most cases...or an SVA]...

To do that, one pre-books said MoT..one insures ones' motor on it's already inspected chassis number......then one can drive to the MoT test [which may be some distance away]...Once at the MoT testing spot, one may have to provide a vehicle weight [for the testers braking rollers].....which entails then driving to the nearest public weighbridge and back again.....All done without a registration  number!!!!!  None of this snowflake bull about having to trailer to & from, etc etc.......

I know, I've done it, clocked up quite a mileage without registration numbers, all quite lawfully.

 

Incidentally, one does not have to pre-book and MoT at one's nearest MoT test centre. [What if they don't have a convenient slot, for example?]

[Northmoor]

4 minutes ago, alastairq said:

Incidentally, one does not have to pre-book and MoT at one's nearest MoT test centre. [What if they don't have a convenient slot, for example?]

A local centre to me does no-appointment MoTs, you just chance it that the queue isn't too long.  They weren't too bad but I was once failed a bike MoT for loss of a small circlip and they didn't have time to find a replacement in their shelves.  The local bike shop gave me one for free after rolling their eyes at mention of "them down the road", it seemed to be common practice.

[MrWolf]

I have to agree with @alastairq, as I have needed to pre book MOT tests to move several old American cars as there was nobody available or willing to shift something so big and heavy within a reasonable time.

Also with vehicles that have lost their original numbers, usually motorcycles, but also an Austin Somerset and several Bedford CA vans, these have been driven to an MOT station, tested on the chassis number and given a certificate in order to qualify for an age related registration number.

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

On the insurance front, no Insurer is entitled to insist on a valid MoT certificate.

 

Which is why I put "or equivalent"!

 

Though as you say they probably rely on the "roadworthy" clause. From Footman James:

 

"• You must keep your vehicle in a roadworthy condition. "

[MrWolf]

And it would all depend on how they define roadworthy and their accepted methods of proving it.

I wouldn't put it past any insurer to find a way of wriggling out of making payment.

Also, in my experience, the assessors who examine a damaged vehicle have no Idea what they are looking at when it comes to classic cars.

[Kickstart]

11 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

 

Also, in my experience, the assessors who examine a damaged vehicle have no Idea what they are looking at when it comes to classic cars.

Being fair, quite a few MOT testers struggle as well.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[PhilJ W]

3 hours ago, gr.king said:

Has anybody checked the legal position carefully to be absolutely sure of the implications of electing to have an MOT test on a vehicle that is already in the Historic Tax class, has been exempt from MOT tests, and has not in fact had such a test for say two or three years? If the vehicle fails its non-mandatory MOT test is it then unlawful to use it on the road until the defects are rectified and the vehicle re-tested? Even if it is not unlawful, with all of the records being "joined up" these days will the failure be there on the government database and visible to anybody who chooses to look? That might be as much of a risk as, or even more of a risk than having no proof of "time of test only" road worthiness in the event of a claim of some sort. 

Given the way the law works in other situations, might it even be the case that if the owner, as a non-expert, fails to notice a safety-related defect in the vehicle then that would actually be regarded less seriously than a failure by an expert (such as an MOT tester) to spot such a defect. In other words might you actually be able to "get away with" rather more if you subtly avoid asking for an expert examination?

I feel that the law, and the ways in which the legal profession and the judiciary have decided to apply it, often contains traps, such that a reasonable person making a reasonable effort is still "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't". He can be even worse off if he goes to get legal advice, because there's then no doubt that he "should have known better" if his actions are judged to be deficient!

 

3 hours ago, Hobby said:

True, mine was already declared exempt but had an MoT when I got it and I've continued that. Perhaps that's the way to go, get the MoT done, declare it exempt and carry on with the MoTs (or the equivalent check many garages do instead) after.

 

EDIT: A read of the Gov pages would seem to indicate that once it's registered in the Historic Tax class (for which you need the MoT for the initial registration) it is them exempt for any further renewals. Have you not registered it as a Historic vehicle? If you have that's it, end of MoTs unless you want to do them.

You don't have to have an 'official' MOT.  

[rodent279]

Mine has had suspension, brake and engine modifications. It would probably still be exempt, reading the rules about "substantial changes", but I don't intend to find out the hard way, I still intend to get my vehicle MOT'd. Having recently found issues needing attention, that would otherwise have led to an MOT failure, I feel justified in this approach. However, that is a slightly different issue from the original question.

 

The original question which could equally apply to a modern, is, having had the MOT certificate extended once, due to the first lockdown, if tighter restrictions come in meaning I am unable to get it tested in Jan, will I get a 2nd extension? This would take it to July/Aug, over 2 years since the last test.

[PhilJ W]

Some countries have bi-annual tests, Malta for example. 

[PatB]

28 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Some countries have bi-annual tests, Malta for example. 

And some, or parts, at least, have none at all, Western Australia, for example. Interestingly, there is no statistically significant difference in the rate of crashes, involving roadworthiness issues, between non-inspection Australian states, and those requiring annual inspection. 

[alastairq]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

he original question which could equally apply to a modern, is, having had the MOT certificate extended once, due to the first lockdown, if tighter restrictions come in meaning I am unable to get it tested in Jan, will I get a 2nd extension? This would take it to July/Aug, over 2 years since the last test.

Well, it looks like no extension....I have just received the email from DVSA advising me one of my dailies is due an MoT within the next month....having been extended from July.

If lockdown really stars to bite, I may simply SORN the other daily, and rely on my oldies for  transportation needs?

Saves me pensionquids in the process.

Take Dellow out if its foul weather, snowy, icy or salty...and posh yankmotor is the weather is reasonable......but....much will depend on how much petrol each has in its tank??? Also, exactly what errand they are needed for?

[Northmoor]

4 minutes ago, PatB said:

And some, or parts, at least, have none at all, Western Australia, for example. Interestingly, there is no statistically significant difference in the rate of crashes, involving roadworthiness issues, between non-inspection Australian states, and those requiring annual inspection. 

That probably says a lot about the self-sufficiency of people in very sparsely-populated parts of the world.  In 99% of Britain, you can get recovered quickly enough or someone will drive past and can get help.  However, you probably make extra sure your car isn't going to break down if you could get stuck somewhere in 40degC heat, 30 miles from the next house and with no-one else passing in the next few hours.

 

FWIW I'm not convinced the British MoT test does anything to improve roadworthiness, most drivers never pay any attention to anything on their cars until (a) it actually breaks down or (b) they get the bill at the next MoT and insist the garage is trying to rip them off, rather than repairing the last 12 months worth of neglect.

[PhilJ W]

Germany has one of the toughest roadworthiness regimes. Failures are often shipped to Poland that has a less stringent test and when they fail that test they often go further east to Ukraine.