MOTs Government response - MOT, now rolling 40 years.

GJUK · Post by **GJUK** » Thu Sep 14, 17 3:26 pm

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... hiness.pdf

mustangbooks · Post by **mustangbooks** » Thu Sep 14, 17 3:31 pm

Was just goinhg to post that! In summary (TL:DR)

"What do I need to do if I am responsible for a vehicle aged more than 40 years old and first registered in or after 1960?

From 20 May 2018 most of these vehicles will not need a valid MOT certificate to be used on public roads. You still need to keep the
vehicle in a roadworthy condition and can voluntarily have a test. We recommend continued regular maintenance and checks of the vehicle.

You need to check whether the vehicle has been substantially altered since 1988, checking against the criteria. If it has been altered substantially a valid MOT certificate will continue to be required. "

GJUK · Post by **GJUK** » Thu Sep 14, 17 3:52 pm

"You need to check whether the vehicle has been substantially altered since 1988"

Everyone will now say "All of mine were done in December 1987"

Blue · Post by **Blue** » Thu Sep 14, 17 3:52 pm

Blimey, that's handy! I just hope the rat rod and Matt black brigade don't take it as Carte Blanche to drive about in all manner of illegal and dangerous crap....

MilesnMiles · Post by **MilesnMiles** » Thu Sep 14, 17 5:07 pm

Damn that's useful as my local Yank MOT guy seems to not be testing anymore. Should raise the value of 'our' cars even more!

Imagine the advert

1976 Chevrolet Camaro 350 Â£11,000
1978 Chevrolet Camaro 350 Â£8,000 short MOT....

ðŸ˜‚ðŸ™ˆ

lough3969 · Post by **lough3969** » Thu Sep 14, 17 5:54 pm

WOW...that will lessen the burden as 2 of my five vehicles will not need MOTS.
I wonder if insurance companies are going to bump up their cover unless you get one... guessing they will assume most of us would begrudgingly pay a few quid more to them than go to the hassle of having to MOT

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Fri Sep 15, 17 12:47 am

I'm guessing that there's going to be some form of official release of this info, or will they just leave it to leak out as has happened here?

Super Sloth · Post by **Super Sloth** » Fri Sep 15, 17 12:51 am

MilesnMiles wrote:Damn that's useful as my local Yank MOT guy seems to not be testing anymore. Should raise the value of 'our' cars even more!

Imagine the advert

1976 Chevrolet Camaro 350 Â£11,000
1978 Chevrolet Camaro 350 Â£8,000 short MOT....

ðŸ˜‚ðŸ™ˆ

It's going to be a rolling thing to run concurrent with VED exemption.

cadboy · Post by **cadboy** » Fri Sep 15, 17 6:14 am

I think having a test every year will confirm the car is good at the time to be road worthy, so for Â£30 or Â£40 MOT test fee I don't mind having one done.

But good news and can only push classic car prices up

MilesnMiles · Post by **MilesnMiles** » Fri Sep 15, 17 7:19 am

MOT problem is often not the car but over zealous testers who don't understand the nature of 1970s tolerances in suspension, steering boxes etc.

Some years ago I objected to how a tester was hammering the crap out of my floor pans trying to prove their was rust where there wasn't

lough3969 · Post by **lough3969** » Fri Sep 15, 17 8:01 am

Agreed Miles... the dreaded screwdriver used to try and poke holes!
Also it's simply the fact of having to get the car out, sometimes in the depths of winter, and get it there. Mine goes to Anton which is the other side of London... it will of course continue to go to Anton but ill probably not bother with the test as Anton is far more scrupulous than any tester anyhow.

Cannonball · Post by **Cannonball** » Fri Sep 15, 17 11:20 am

I think this is bad, crikey some people try codging stuff together to get an mot imagine the old tat that will be running around if this happens, the real old tat that is already exempt most times wont go over 50 and the owners are mostly old and drive accordingly, a very bad move in my opinion,

Post by **TyreFryer** » Fri Sep 15, 17 12:08 pm

I agree with Duncan and as I don't own my own four poster, it's the ideal time to get underneath and see what's really going on.

MrNorm · Post by **MrNorm** » Fri Sep 15, 17 12:50 pm

What's the definition of 'substantially altered'?? Uprated engine, suspension, etc?. Different wheels and tyres from stock? MSD box?
And if you decide it's not substantially altered, and later need to claim on the insurance, will they decide it was, you should have had an MOT, and refuse to pay?

Not being paranoid but they do need to provide clarification.....

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Fri Sep 15, 17 12:52 pm

I expressed my concerns during the consultation. Most "classic car" owners will continue to maintain their cars to a good standard, and of course we still have the option of having an MOT test for peace of mind. What worries me is the sheds that will be running around without any roadworthiness inspection at all.