Practically Classics Forum

Took the Minx for its MOT today and the tester said ‘might be the last time we see it then’

Now I know there has been talk of scrapping the MOT for older cars but I thought it was very old cars but the tester was telling me he had just been on an update course and this was discussed at length. He tells me VOSA were/are happy to introduce a cut off date of 1960 but they are being lobbied to increase it to 1970 which they are not happy about so it’s in the discussion stage.

Have to say I think it’s wrong. I think all cars should be tested – maybe a different test/price for older cars but none-the-less they should be tested.

The Minx passed by the way.

Congrats, it's always good to get that green piece of paper

I'd heard of the 2-year gap but nothing about a blanket exemption... If this goes ahead, it's going to create another wasteland in the living history of our cars, unless it's a rolling exemption.

Bad idea leave it, rather have a rolling tax 25 years exempt on cars.

The first time someone has a crash because it has no mot then what?.

Will your insurance go up because of no MOT on your car maybe?.

OneCarefulOwner wrote:I'd heard of the 2-year gap but nothing about a blanket exemption... If this goes ahead, it's going to create another wasteland in the living history of our cars, unless it's a rolling exemption.

Perhaps that’s what he meant when he said ‘not next year’ Still seems wrong. I thought there was talk of no MOT at all for cars of a certain age though?

There was talk of exactly that and in my opinion, it's a bad thing.
For a start, it only takes one fatality linked to an "old, unroadworthy" car and our right to use older cars as their makers intended would be compromised, we as owners would be scapegoated yet again for the shortcomings of one idiot who assumed that no test means no need to maintain any car in a good, safe mechanical and structural condition.

I can't remember how it now works over in the RoI, but ISTR that testing for cars over their 30 year rolling tax and insurance discount limits is either optional already or is to become so.

Even the best and most conscientious owner isn't always equipped to test for - as examples - brake balance or headlamp alignment and even as one who used to make my living in the repair and maintenance of what are now old cars, I'd sooner see for myself the figures from the brake rollers when I present a car that can be tested that way, and the pattern shown by the beam setter.

I hope that, if the MOT ceases to be compulsory for owners of some cars, it will at least remain an option to have those cars tested since the vast majority of owners won't have any reason to fear the test. After all, even now the MOT is no more than a measure of the ability of certain areas of a car to achieve a bare minimum standard on one day of each year.

I also consider that unscrupulous traders would have a field day, especially on eBay, if they were permitted to sell roughly bodged-up, untested vehicles and pass them off as roadworthy examples.
It's a frightening notion but at least sales of Cataloy and chicken wire would be aided by the implementation of such a proposal!

It frightens me too! Although my own machines don't need MOTs, I do try to keep them up to a good safe standard. However, a farmer down the road is quite happy to codge his similarly aged machines - bad brakes, smoke and oil from everywhere etc. I suspect most of the members of this forum would be, like me, prepared to pay out to make the vehicles safe; though there will be others who see it as a way to save money - after all a pound a week saved is a lot

I think I'd still go to a garage and have the car checked by a tester - in much the same way as I tend to check and change safety-related items on the car before I have it tested, just to catch any mistakes I might make!

While my machines are only on the road for a few hours a month (or even a year I suspect), perhaps a full modern MOT isn't absolutely necessary and a "lighter" test would be adequate with less worry about some of the "environmental" considerations!

If the test goes altogether, I fear there will be more unroadworthy cars about (as JPB says). If this increases accidents, I suspect the usual government knee-jerk reation - "Someone was killed by an old car, let's ban them" - in much the same way as Part P and PATS, shotgun licenses etc.

Glad to hear the Minx went through easily Minxy - though that was a foregone conclusion (I hope)!

JPB wrote:I hope that, if the MOT ceases to be compulsory for owners of some cars, it will at least remain an option to have those cars tested since the vast majority of owners won't have any reason to fear the test.

It'd be pretty hard to stop it being available as an option. We might not get a bit of paper, but I'm sure we'll always find garages willing to test our brakes, etc. for a price.

Perhaps a better idea would be a price reduction on MOTs for older cars. Since only half of the modern MOT applies to "our" cars, it's fair that we should only have to pay half the price.
I actually wonder if we'd even be getting half the service. As someone mentioned, testing brakes and headlight adjustment is valid, but how many testers under about 40 years old are truly competent to test anything else on an old classic? And this is hardly going to get better in the future. Just imagine what it would be like if we all had to rely on Halfords or similar for our MOTs!

Willy Eckerslyke wrote:...... Just imagine what it would be like if we all had to rely on Halfords or similar for our MOTs!

Halfords' MOT tester wrote:I'm sorry Sir, your car has failed.

The innocent customer wrote:Really? On what grounds please?

Halfords' MOT tester wrote:Let me see now......
Oh yes, *clears throat...* "Head unit connected out of phase to bass bins, underfloor neon lighting insufficiently tasteless, rear window sticker 'so last year', rims insufficiently bling, innit."

The innocent customer wrote:Please accept this slap across the face you obnoxious wee c....

An MOT isn't a guarantee of roadworthiness, but the cars I've seen for sale without one "Its Sound and will breeze an MOT" (If its that good spend £50 you tightwad, and get it back in spades when you make a sale then) that are anything but safe is scary. Trouble is a car that looks sound on the surface can hide a lot of serious trouble if you don't look too closely.
Example was my Nissan Daily Driver. About a month before the MOT was due (and it wasn't raining) decided to go over it and make notes on anything that needed doing before booking it in. On the surface it drove fine, braked straight outer panels sound.

5 minutes of prod, prod, crunch, crumble was followed very swiftly by a long visit to the toilet.

I didn't drive it after that. Even though it had a current MOT. If I didn't need an MOT I may well have left a full check over for another few months.

If that isn't enough the experience of Eire should convince you that MOT's are a good idea. NCT over there is relatively recent (About 10-15 years or so) Before that I belive there was no check and the irish fleet was in a horrific state. Stuff was being scrapped before 10 years old because of faults and corrosion that if they had been picked up early by NCT, could have been more cheaply repaired before they got to the state where they were uneconomic to do so.