Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

camembert · Joined: 12 Aug 2015 Posts: 11 Location: Liphook Hampshire

Cars of a certain age (I can't remember the cut-off date) don't need an MOT in UK. In many ways a good thing bearing in mind the average MOT tester's knowledge of old cars.

But is it a good idea to have your car checked over by a sympathetic tester? Common sense would say yes. But my question is: what happens if it fails an MOT - especially over some trivial matter which is irrelevant to an 80 year old car? Does this leave you in a difficult insurance position?
_________________
MG Magnette 1934

MikeEdwards · Joined: 25 May 2011 Posts: 2701 Location: South Cheshire

I would imagine that if there isn't a requirement for an MOT "pass" because there isn't a requirement for a test, then there can't be a "fail" either. Obviously someone with enough sense to have the car checked over in any case could probably be relied upon to act on whatever the checker tells them.

My car isn't old enough to be MOT-exempt, and I did figure that if it ever gets to that point (there is talk of it being brought into line with VED exemption) I'd take it somewhere annually to have it looked at. But mine is from the seventies, so doesn't have a lot of the differences that made it difficult for MOT testers to cope with much earlier vehicles.

peter scott · Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 7211 Location: Edinburgh

I have taken my old car to the same MOT garage for the last 22 years and I have always sat in on the test. Although the actual tester has changed a number of times over the years they know the regulations regarding old cars and the differences in the tests required.

I have had the odd advisory and I think it is sensible for an independent and competent mechanic to cast an eye over the items of basic safety.

I also think that in the event of an accident there is less likely to be any hassle from insurers or police if the car has a current MOT.

Peter
_________________
https://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon

Riley Blue · Joined: 18 Jun 2008 Posts: 1751 Location: Derbyshire

Having a valid MOT certificate means nothing more than on a certain date, at a certain time, certain compenents were inspected and found to comply with a certain set of regulations.

An owner is obliged to ensure that their vehicle is in a roadworthy condition at all times; failure to do this is an offence so your MOT pass certificate counts for far less than you might imagine should you have an accident.
_________________
David

1963 Riley 1.5
1965 Riley 1.5

Fatbloke · Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:34 pm Post subject:

Pre 1960 cars are now MOT exempt.

If I were lucky enough to own one of these beauties, I would still take it to a local "old car friendly" garage for them to give it a once over on their lifts.

If it were to "fail" on a safety issue, there would not be any insurance ramifications unless the insurance co had asked for the inspection as part of the cover. However, I would fix it or not drive it regardless of any "insurance issues"

Common sense isn't it?

Without the MOT requirements. A respectable/knowledgable garage would only check the safety relevant aspects anyway wouldn't they?
_________________
Mike,

A Fatbloke in a Herald.

Fatbloke · Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:38 pm Post subject:

PS. the excemption has been bought in because of the new MOT regs and "automated nature" of the new/planned MOT tests. The system can't cope with missing bits out that aren't applicable to very old cars or the larger "tollerences" needed.
_________________
Mike,

A Fatbloke in a Herald.

Peter_L · Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:49 pm Post subject:

Ray White · Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 7076 Location: Derby

Phil - Nottingham · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1252 Location: Nottingham

Any car can be unroad-worthy and possibly dangerous at any time with or without an MOT

A car that does not need a MOT but fails one will be unroad-worthy but not necessarily dangerous

Whatever the answer is the insurance companies have a valid reason for rejecting a claim irrespective of its age
_________________
Rover P2
Rover P4
Rover P5 & P5B
Land Rover S2 & S3
Morris Mini Traveller Mk2

D4B · Joined: 28 Dec 2010 Posts: 2083 Location: Hampshire UK

Rootes75 · Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:50 pm Post subject:

I don't MOT my 47 Minx anymore but as my father is a trained motor engineer we give her a thorough checkover every now and again during the summer.

with regards testing becoming more automated I am not sure this is applicable to cars. There is a paper in consultation to extend the MOT exemptions to classic commercials due to a more 'automated' and 'computorised' test for LGV's.
_________________
Various Rootes Vehicles.

Fatbloke · Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:12 pm Post subject:

Phil - Nottingham · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1252 Location: Nottingham

You are correct - it was in PC but they were wrong. MOT's can and are often issued for pre 60 cars. If it fails however it must be repaired as by legal definition its is un-roadworthy on the day of test Laughing

_________________
Rover P2
Rover P4
Rover P5 & P5B
Land Rover S2 & S3
Morris Mini Traveller Mk2

ukdave2002 · Joined: 23 Nov 2007 Posts: 4231 Location: South Cheshire

If MOT tests are become more automated, it should be simpler to test older cars as the system would prompt what was required without the tester having to rummage through manuals to determine lighting regs for a 1929 whatever?

Dave

Ray White · Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 7076 Location: Derby

I think the removal of the compulsory element has had an effect that I was not expecting. When I took my Austin for it's annual test I was expecting the same routine as before. The garage was quite happy to take my money but the inspection was rudimentary to say the least. The tester knows me and my cars and in the past has been quite happy to accompany me with a 'Tapley' meter to check the brakes but on this occasion all he said was "brakes o.k.?". I confirmed that they were. The car didn't even get on the ramp. A pass certificate was duly issued with the comment that I did't need it now.

I imagine the M.O.T. tester was of the opinion that if a pass certificate was not required by law, his testing the car was a waste of time.