Pre 1960 MOT exempt cars

[pedrobedro]

Places that charge less will prob be looking for work to make up the difference.

Ours is just a test station. They give you the ticket and send you away to do or get done whatever it needs if it fails and they don't charge for retests if you go back within a fortnight, even longer if they know you as I take 3 or 4 cars a year there. He recently started doing bikes as well at £20.

 

[Highway_Star]

Ours is a garage/test station. Charges £39.95 in fact, I always tell him to keep the change.

Never gets or expects to get any work out of me for the Range Rover or any of the other old tat I bring in. If it passes it passes, if it fails it fails, I fix it and bring it back, or don't.

He's done work for my brother, my wife and my mum. Never found his charges excessive, not have I ever felt he'd done anything un necessary. He's a small independant garage with an excellent rep locally for honesty. I guess that's how he got his reputation, and how he keeps it.

 

[Justme]

You are all luck to get the MOT cheap & get no issue.

I used to offer a take & repair MOT service & had to avoid quite a few testing stations as they would always fail every car & if they dint do the work fail the retests too.

Where I live now is a bit remote so there is little competition but my local place is great so worth the £50 fee as it saves a long drive & I can borrow kit if needed.

 

[CRB]

When I got my '89LT28 failed round the corner, I only got charged for a retest after two months, because 'It was the nicest bus he had driven'

 

[KemppiFrog]

Around here, the test for 2 yrs and a retest free up to two months. If it fails the retest, you get another two months No rolling roads for diesels either.

 

[Wozzaaah]

An MOT test is £40.

Are people really that desperate to save £40 a year?

Come on it's not the 40quid to pass it. it's the cost of failing it

Surely £40 is a small price to pay for knowing that your car is safe to drive?
Regarding the cost of failing, if a pre-60 car doesn't need a test then there's no issue, you wouldn't be obliged to do the work but at least you'd know if anything was seriously wrong with it.

 

[the snooper]

Regarding the cost of failing, if a pre-60 car doesn't need a test then there's no issue, you wouldn't be obliged to do the work but at least you'd know if anything was seriously wrong with it.

actually you would need to do the work, the law states that the car still needs to be in a safe roadworthy condidtion and if it fails then it doesnt meet those requirements

 

[CRB]

I may have this wrong but the MOT test is only valid on the day it is issued and it is the owners/drivers responsibility to ensure that it will pass another MOT test on any day thereafter.

That is, if your OSR tail bulb goes pop, you therefore do not have a valid MOT certificate, and are in effect driving illegally.

People do get caught out not having a replacement bulb to hand, though I carry a full spare set which I think is a legal requirement in some countries, but to drive around with misaligned or inoperative headlights etc 'waiting for the MOT test' should be something our boys in blue could do with remedying with their spare time.

 

[hotrodder]

Kinda. MOT and roadworthyness are two different things albeit related in places. The MOT is a snapshot... can damage/break something driving out the test centre which'd make the car unsafe/illegal to use and can pass an MOT with something that doesn't meet construction and use regs* but once issued an MOT cert is valid until it's expiry date. This was the reasoning behind the '13 month' MOT... present it early and if it fails on something that DOESN'T leave it dangerous you had a month to fix it before being restricted to driving to and from a test/place of repair. Now that everything is electronic it might not work in practice anymore as the computer probably only logs the most recent test results for ANPR purposes?

The insurance details for the daily driver stipulate i must keep it roadworthy and have a valid MOT. Not unreasonable but having a crash without a valid MOT wouldn't leave me 'uninsured'... if it was a no fault claim the lack of MOT would effect the payout as the car is worth less. If it was a fault claim they'd be free to pursue me for their costs for breach of contract- if i'd slid into a bustop full of people on bald tyres it'd be easy for them to bankrupt me, if it had been a run of the mill accident and my car was in good condition things would be less bleak as an MOT cert is not proof of roadworthyness- it even said so on it when we had a proper one and not a basci receipt

The only pre '60 car i own has been in bits for eons and probably will be for another couple as i'm useless so only have anecdotal comments from mates that claim they're been told by their insurance companies they still need an MOT. Wouldn't be suprised if that's the result of call centre monkies spouting nonsense like what happened the other year when winter tyres became all the rage

As Shox i see this as a precursor (or at least an attempt) to restricting use of vintage cars. I can't see the 'old wrecks everywhere' scenario... for one thing i can't think of any pre '60 car that could be cheaper than a ten year old 'bangernomics' example, even restoration projects. Then theres the running costs, or at least hassle- they typically respond to a lack of maintenance by not working, drink more fuel, are slower, 'kill children' through a lack of airbags (more seriously child seat laws make life difficult) etc. The only thing they have going for them is character and simplicity which for most people isn't enough


* something that's not part of the MOT test and/or something that the tester can't see or check 'cause they're not allowed to remove things

 

[CRB]

Thanks hotrodder, that does explain all the one-eyed motors dashing around without a care in the world. Perhaps a little more stringency on that point, instead of allowing a five year preMOT test amnesty for new cars. Frankly, that is just allowing more laziness.

 

[hotrodder]

Oh year, the bulb thing, on modern cars you've got to take half the car to pieces to get to some of 'em... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXCZ2v-nIF4 so French car and the France is somewhere where you need to carry spare bulbs Even my 20 year old w124 needs the airbox taking apart to get to the offside indicator/side/headlamp. Sod doing that by the side of the road in the dark

 

[Wozzaaah]

^ That's probably why there's so many cars around with bulbs fitted incorrectly so they dazzle you.

 

[madkayaker]

Landrover has the best system the glass screws off and the bulb is there! No guarantee its going to work though as it Lucas electrics

 

[tigler]

Conceivably it should become a non issue as LED lighting becomes more established.
Anyway, anybody who is concerned about the safety of their MOT exempt vehicle, there is nothing stopping them taking it in for an MOT type test anytime.
Personally I've never had any vehicle fail an MOT yet, I keep on top of maintenance and a week or so before the MOT is due I give it the once over to make sure I don't get caught out.

 

[Robotstar5]

After watching the video about the Megane headlamp and the dealer prices to change, I wonder what would happen if you asked for the Halfords offer to fit a headlamp bulb for £6.99?

 

[brightspark]

Conceivably it should become a non issue as LED lighting becomes more established.
Anyway, anybody who is concerned about the safety of their MOT exempt vehicle, there is nothing stopping them taking it in for an MOT type test anytime.
Personally I've never had any vehicle fail an MOT yet, I keep on top of maintenance and a week or so before the MOT is due I give it the once over to make sure I don't get caught out.

i just take mine in and if it fails on anything thats all i fix

 

[tigler]

I just don't like surprises

 

[dickie bell]

ooh quite fancy an auld banger to run aboot in!

 

[400-ascona]

The wife Volvo XC90 headlights are held in with 2 pins. Take the out, slide out the light, disconnect the plug and take it in the kitchen and swap the bulb whilst having a cup of tea. The Lotus Carlton is a little more difficult.
Rob

 

[Morris]

Reckon it's a bad thing overall, but does suit me - in the process of registering a 1959 import that stands no chance of getting an MOT at the mo.
Reckon I'll still be taking it for a test when it's built, to have an independent eye on it. I'll be putting my family in it so it's worth it to me.

Would think once the initial excitement has died down, things won't be much different. It's only ~£45 for a ticket so hardly earth-shattering savings! Nothing else has changed; C&U still applies or whatever it's properly called. Modification rules are still the same, IVA/BIVA.

Insurance companies might be cheaper for those who opt to have an MOT done (go up a bit for those that don't...), if there's any major incidents or a rise in claims perhaps.

Regards restrictions on older vehicles - this is already in place in some areas of Europe. To the extent of only being able to drive on pre-arranged 'parades', and banned altogether from some cities (Germany iirc). Info will be out there, the ACE is usually a good starting point.

Historic vehicles (H plated) in Germany are not banned or limited in cities, they have free access. Collectors plates are though, these are plates for large collections and allow one plate for all vehicles. H plates pay a flat rate of tax. There has been a large increase of these in Germany.
France lifted limitations on historic vehicles about 10 years ago.
How historic vehicles are treated in EU countries is down to each county, working within the EU directive framework.