MOT Requirement

[Tonyloz]

But isnt finding a classic car friendly mot tester the main thing the purists try to do?!

A bit dual standards maybe!????????

[Peter Cobbold]

Peter - you are confusing MOT testing with roadworthiness. The two are not the same. A car may pass an MOT today but be unroadworthy tomorrow. An MOT means no more than the car was OK on the day it was tested. Having poly bushes does not make a car unroadworthy - in your scenario my defence lawyer would point out " would the car have passed an MOT with poly bushes? Of course it would".

Of course a car has to be roadworthy, even with an MoT. We should ask what is the the point of declaring car is standard as an alternative to testing? It seems to me to be a means of ensuring the legal liability on the declarer. Being standard is no guarantee of roadworthiness so it must be a ploy to find rogue owners culpable.

We are in completely new, uncharted territory. I shall stick with MoTs for as long as they remain available for classics.

 

Peter

[Fireman049]

Same here Peter ~

 

Tom.

[RobH]

As I said before - providing you believe it fits the criteria there's nothing to stop you declaring eligibility for exemption so that the system records your car as an 'historic' vehicle, but still having an MOT-style test done anyway for your peace of mind.

[Peter Cobbold]

As I said before - providing you believe it fits the criteria there's nothing to stop you declaring eligibility for exemption so that the system records your car as an 'historic' vehicle, but still having an MOT-style test done anyway for your peace of mind.

My 6 is nowhere near eligible - more than 15% for starters (given 125 starting point).

Criterion 2 I'll leave to others to sort out.

Peter