40 year rule for MOT exemption to come in 2018

Is it actually retrospectively forcing it or just people have 'got away' with it for years will finally have to follow the rules?

 

If you dont have to MOT it why would the vendor bother to even maintain it, same logic... FFS .. loads of the vans on here cant make it 50 miles before breaking down as the owners dont have a clue how to maintain an old motor, never mind a rusty old VW camper .. let alone some of the other 70s junk.. Gonna be some poor sods getting proper ripped off in there quest for a decent camper dream

lets get the camper out and go to a festival.... RIP ... when that piece of junk held together with glassfibre and tiger seal is T boned by a knob in there homogenized rep mobile ...

seriously if you cant afford to keep it on the road for the sake of an annual test @ £50 ( or even PLG TAX for that matter) then really you probably cant afford to maintain it properly either..

A large percentage will have to be MOTd anyway, mine falls into that category, and I aint worried about it, I stuck new pads in just because the old ones were squeeling and service it around every 1000 miles .. Ironic that I fall into the testing category , ( which Im not concerned about at all) wheras the proper junk that never sees a grease gun but will get a proper lathering of brush on blunderseal to disguise the rot wont need a test !!! ... Come on .. these legislators heads must zip up the back... and stuffed with fluff..

 

And so you'll still need an MOT ..

 

I have just spent the last half hour reading this thread. (I am at work). I would just like things to stay as they are. For me the passing of the annual MOT test is like a certificate of achievement of keeping classic on the road. The test requirements are not to strict in this country and on our vans even easier with no ABS or airbags to worry about. The thought of old cars with no MOT on our busy roads is a bit scary.

 

But the definition of "substantially modified" for MOT status is not the same as the 8 point system for Q plate which is about "radically modified" vehicles. You are confusing the two. E.g. my bus is not considered "radically modified" as is scores 13 on the 8 point test (I only lose one point for the engine, everything else is unmodified), but it would be considered "substantially modified" under the new definition for MOT status because the power-to-weight ratio has increased by over 15% (it's actually closer to 50% in my case).

So yes, a "radically modified" vehicle on a Q plate shouldn't have historic status for VED, but you will get a lot of vehicles stuck in the middle - they pass the 8 point test for VED but they are still considered "substantially modified" and therefore are not exempt from MOT. It is idiotic to have 2 different definitions where some clarity and consistency would actually be really helpful, but we are talking about the DVLA here, and clarity and consistency has never been their forte.

 

But according to the consultation old vehicles are better looked after and less fail the MOT (apparently) I dont disagree with you just pointing out that if you dont have to MOT a bus to use under the new rules then why would you do that to sell, buyer beware and all that.

Mine will need doing also, but some will already be working out how to avoid "oh I've still got the same type of engine" even when it is pushing out significantly greater power than the original.

 

If you read the consultation documents and the DVLA position, its all really simple:

1) Your vehicle must remain roadworthy at all times (same as now). Mr Plod and Mr VOSA can (and probably will more than before) inspect your vehicle by the roadside, or after an accident.

2) If you are tax exempt now, then you will still be tax exempt after.

3) If you declare your vehicle has been 'substantially modified' you need an MOT. This is not linked, nor is there a suggestion it will be, to the 8 point Q plate system. That is something different for assessing if your car is still your car or it its now a trike.

4) If your vehicle is stock, or with minor tweaks, or your more major changes happened (or at least could have happened) before 1988, then you can self declare you don't need an MOT. If you declare you don't need one and anyone finds out, expect a severe talking to and some sort of fine.

If you look at the figures in the consultation document you'll see that this proposed change has a very small effect on the number of MOT free vehicles on the road, and that the 40 plus year old vehicles are proportionally less likely to crash.

The MOT is a pretty meaningless check anyway - its a snap shot of the condition at that point in time limited by the experience/mood/hangover of the tester. It should pick up on any major issues, but may not - my last one on the beetle missed a snapped shock-adsorber and a failed wheel cylinder, but I failed on one indicator being insufficiently orange.

If you are now inclined to drive a rusting shed celebrating that there is no MOT test, then you are most likely to have spent the weeks before the MOT lovingly crafting new suspension mounts from expanding foam and newspapers, whilst applying underseal with a shovel, in the hope it would pass anyway (and it probably would, with an advisory about thick underseal).

If however you are the type that have an MOT pre-inspection, where you change a slightly corroded bolt with a new stainless steel one (two grades stronger) to match the rest, and have the tyres changed once the moulding marks have worn off (just in case) and haven't failed an MOT in 26 years, I suspect that your bus will be fine.

To put it all in context, a neighbor drives a 12 year old merc. It failed its MOT in January (he told me) on a long list of nasties (including inadequate braking performance), yet he still drives it daily, at speed. I have tried to get the police/vosa interested in this (as its a death trap) but genuinely no one cares. Probably more heaps like this around being knowingly run in a dangerous state, than there will be unsafe classics.

In terms of insurance companies, they will not make you have an MOT - they will want your vehicle to be road worthy, no more, no less. An MOT infers a professional check, whereas no MOT makes it easier for the insurance company to wriggle out because of a defect they find during post crash inspection. It will work well for them.

 

Depends so much on your local test station though.

I would have a lot my time for it if we had a series of government run test centres that offered nothing but MOTs. The current system whereby the people who make money off MOT fails are the same people doing the tests is open to abuse.

 

That will depend on what modified definition of Substantial Change based
on DVLA’s rule they come out with.

If someone is honest and carried on getting an MOT because they have notched a chassis, that would also fail the current system.

 

Until they actually define what the rules will be, no one knows what the actual impact will be.

 

Probably initially, though it would make sence to have one set of rules.

 

Surely the issue is you need a valid MOT to get insurance? No MOT = No insurance.....

 

Don't see why - what does you current policy say?

Mine says:

1. USE AND DRIVING WHICH WE DO NOT COVER

Your Policy does not cover any accident, injury, loss, damage or liability when any vehicle covered by this Policy is:
- in an unsafe or un-roadworthy condition or, where such regulations require, does not have a current M.O.T. certificate

 

the draft guidance defining substantial change is on the DOT website. seeing they have been through a consultation process and no doubt driven by cost/time I can't see there being much change from this, after all its not as though there is a big lobbying body behind anyone involved in this that is likely to now put pressure on the govt to amend.

 

It is what you make of it. To most, it is a means to an end, an obstacle to get over, I tend to use it as an opportunity to have a good look underneath my bus and talk to the tester about what he thinks generally of the condition of things he's testing. People focus on the MOT, when they should be thinking on any given day 'is it roadworthy?' because when it comes to accidents and claims, that's what the assessor will be focussing on.