MOT Exemption

[Grasshopper]

I see that my '67 TR4A is now exempt from the MOT requirement from May 20th 2018. My current MOT runs out on March 20th 2018. I can't work out from the wording of the government's statement on this whether I have to get another MOT to cover the 2 months till exemption. Or can I just keep the car off the road for 2 months and then re-tax (free) on May 20th and re-insure?

[Lebro]

MOT it anyway

 

Bob.

[Fireman049]

+1 Bob ~

 

Tom.

[Grasshopper]

I just want to know what the law is. Then I can make up my own mind on what to do.

[Alec Pringle]

Nothing to stop you SORNing the car for 2 months, then retaxing.

 

But why would you not want an MoT ?

 

We've already chewed over this topic at great length, and the idea of classic owners driving round in cars without an MoT strikes me as the stupidest idea from the government for quite some time.

 

Very few classic owners are qualified to assess their vehicles adequately, and those that are - my own MoT tester, for example - wouldn't dream of driving without an MOT, and nor would they consider assessing their own vehicle rather than letting a colleague perform an independent inspection.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

[Fireman049]

+1 Alec.

 

Tom.

[BrianC]

My TR3A MOT is actually due on 20th May so will not need one, but I'm not stupid enough or arrogant enough to assume that just because I do my own maintenance and servicing there aren't problems that I have overlooked or underestimated. There is no substitute for an independent inspection by a tester that you know and trust and at £39 a real bargain.

[Fireman049]

The Insurance Companies need only the smallest of excuses not to pay out !

 

Tom.

[AndyR100]

Mines up in April, I’ll just get it MOT’d as normal

.... Andy

[RogerH]

Just to complicate matters my MOT garage (Punters in Hillingdon W.London) has , after over 70 years in the motor trade, shut down.

They were very sympathetic towards old cars.

 

The owner, Jim Punter, has a fleet of old cars. His oldest is a 1920 Lagonda with no front brakes and wooden rear

 

XK120 Jag Mk V lumpy saloon and other.

 

But it is now shut - where do I go now.

 

Roger

[Lebro]

Is Hersham within your range ? I take mine there (Hersham service station in Lyon road) & the test is very thorough, but fair. has not failed yet !

 

Bob.

[RogerH]

Hi Bob,

something to think about. I would prefer somewhere closer, but!!

 

Roger

[AndyR100]

 

But it is now shut - where do I go now.

 

Roger

I know others may have a different view, but I regularly use the MOTest near me, have done for the last 35 years... I’m sure there is one in Hillingdon.

 

..... Andy

[ChrisR-4A]

I too will continue to have my 4A MOT'd but I Have one question, has anyone done this yet and as the car no longer requires an MOT will it still be on the DVLA database and will a certificate be issued.

Also if it fails will the same rules apply re time to fix and retest or will it be at owners discretion?

Could be like seatbelt rule, which says if car did not have them when new then not req for test but if retrofitted then they will form part of test

Chris

[Lebro]

Yes you will get the normal MOT certificate, not sure about the database.

I'm told (by the MOT inspector) that if it fails you can still drive it on the road as if you had not had the test done at all.

 

Daft or what !

 

Bob.

[Grasshopper]

Nothing to stop you SORNing the car for 2 months, then retaxing.

 

But why would you not want an MoT ?

 

We've already chewed over this topic at great length, and the idea of classic owners driving round in cars without an MoT strikes me as the stupidest idea from the government for quite some time.

 

Very few classic owners are qualified to assess their vehicles adequately, and those that are - my own MoT tester, for example - wouldn't dream of driving without an MOT, and nor would they consider assessing their own vehicle rather than letting a colleague perform an independent inspection.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

 

I'm surprised that you think that the average MOT tester can find things (that are unsafe) that a reasonably competent owner can't find. Most of the things that are checked on old cars are things that are easily checked, and those that are difficult without special equipment are specifically excluded for old cars - like emissions (done visually!) - or watered down to such an extent that they're pretty useless - like brakes. The brakes on my TR are virtually useless but the car still gets through the MOT - I intend to get a servo fitted at some point.

 

The only failure reasons I've had for many years are number plates and windscreen washers. The number plates don't have the maker's name on them or something, I can't remember, so for every MOT I take them off and put the ratty old originals on - and then swap them back again afterwards. And the windscreen washer tube keeps on getting kinked and it's a pain to straighten it out, but I don't give a monkey's because I never use them. If the screen's dirty I stop and clean it properly - I don't want the screen scratched.

 

The other problem is that I have to take the car some distance to a garage that deals with old cars - and then sit around for hours until they get round to doing it, which basically seems to involve checking stuff I've already checked.

 

The point about insurance is an interesting one, but if the government have determined that an MOT is unnecessary - and the insurance company don't specifically demand one - then I don't see that they can refuse to pay out because of lack of an MOT. They can of course refuse to pay up because the car was in an unsafe condition - but they can do this anyway. An MOT is no proof that the car is safe to drive.

 

I think I'll try the SORN route this year and see if it works - the govt statement on this subject is, as usual, as clear as mud.

[RogerH]

 

I'm surprised that you think that the average MOT tester can find things (that are unsafe) that a reasonably competent owner can't find. Most of the things that are checked on old cars are things that are easily checked, and those that are difficult without special equipment are specifically excluded for old cars - like emissions (done visually!) - or watered down to such an extent that they're pretty useless - like brakes. The brakes on my TR are virtually useless but the car still gets through the MOT - I intend to get a servo fitted at some point.

 

The only failure reasons I've had for many years are number plates and windscreen washers. The number plates don't have the maker's name on them or something, I can't remember, so for every MOT I take them off and put the ratty old originals on - and then swap them back again afterwards. And the windscreen washer tube keeps on getting kinked and it's a pain to straighten it out, but I don't give a monkey's because I never use them. If the screen's dirty I stop and clean it properly - I don't want the screen scratched.

 

The other problem is that I have to take the car some distance to a garage that deals with old cars - and then sit around for hours until they get round to doing it, which basically seems to involve checking stuff I've already checked.

 

The point about insurance is an interesting one, but if the government have determined that an MOT is unnecessary - and the insurance company don't specifically demand one - then I don't see that they can refuse to pay out because of lack of an MOT. They can of course refuse to pay up because the car was in an unsafe condition - but they can do this anyway. An MOT is no proof that the car is safe to drive.

 

I think I'll try the SORN route this year and see if it works - the govt statement on this subject is, as usual, as clear as mud.

 

About four years ago my MOT tester spotted what he thought was a crack in one of my off side trailing arm brackets.

He allowed it through as he couldn't be 100% sure. I reassured him that I would strip it down and report back.

Apparently this is a known failure area on the 4A, 5 & 6.

The crack was only visible through the thickness of the bracket (apprx 4mm). Upon removal the crack ran almost from top to bottom in a combination f three cracks.

The tester did well.

 

Regarding the screen washers - have you every followed other vehicles after rain. All the muck the is thrown up can't be removed with wipers alone.

And if you tried the grit in the drying muck would scratch your screen. You DO need washers.

 

Clearly it is up to you whether you go for the MOT or not but there is a big concern that if enough Non-MOT'd cars have accidents then the Gov't may find good cause to get them off the road or strictly ration their use.

 

Roger

[Pogo]

You DO need washers.

 

You do.

I think washers are the only thing that you have to have whether your car was built with them or not - unless you don't have a windscreen.

I could be wrong.

 

Roger

[harrytr5]

Stupidity is what I think.Yes I do all my own maintenance and build from bare chassis up, but still like my MOT tester to test them.I will continue regardless.

Regards Harry

[harrytr5]

 

About four years ago my MOT tester spotted what he thought was a crack in one of my off side trailing arm brackets.

He allowed it through as he couldn't be 100% sure. I reassured him that I would strip it down and report back.

Apparently this is a known failure area on the 4A, 5 & 6.

The crack was only visible through the thickness of the bracket (apprx 4mm). Upon removal the crack ran almost from top to bottom in a combination f three cracks.

The tester did well.

 

Regarding the screen washers - have you every followed other vehicles after rain. All the muck the is thrown up can't be removed with wipers alone.

And if you tried the grit in the drying muck would scratch your screen. You DO need washers.

 

Clearly it is up to you whether you go for the MOT or not but there is a big concern that if enough Non-MOT'd cars have accidents then the Gov't may find good cause to get them off the road or strictly ration their use.

 

Roger

Roger,

If not too far Langley Autocraft in Kings Langley 01923 269456 (even free coffee while you wait) not far from the Old Red Lion where we have our meetings, love our cars. The MOT man has rebuilt a MK11 RS 2000 Escort to better than new

and has a great affection for our stuff. I have gone there for years but still did not stop him for failing my TR5 one year on something I missed, which what you want!

Regards Harry

[Motorsport Mickey]

"The brakes on my TR are virtually useless but the car still gets through the MOT - I intend to get a servo fitted at some point"

 

That's comforting...why do you think that fitting a servo to useless brakes will make them anything other than "useless brakes with a servo" ! Perhaps you need to inspect (maybe get a friendly MOT man to do it if you can't spot it) them critically, TRs were always noted for having good brakes and I never used a servo when racing and many of the other competitors didn't either and still outbraked many other marques of cars in mixed racing. Go back to basics and start assessing what you think a 50 year old car should stop like.

 

Mick Richards

Edited February 3, 2018 by Motorsport Mickey

[Paul J]

In my opinion i think Grasshopper asked a reasonable question in his initial thread, to Mot or not is purely his decision along with fitting a servo.

Its replies like he's getting that scares people off the forums and leaving.

His car and he only wants to abide by the current legislation, may not suit everyone but its entirely up to him.

 

Paul going through the door

[Ade-TR4]

I rebuilt my car nut and bolt, but wouldn't dream of driving it without an MOT.

My MOT-er is a born and bred TR restorer too and the only person allowed to spanner my TR other than me!

 

It's the best-value spend on the car each year and has picked up potential problems before they become an issue.

 

just my opinion... but would you buy a TR that didn't have a fistful of year-on-year MOT's in the history file????

 

Ade

[Rob Salisbury]

I rebuilt my car nut and bolt, but wouldn't dream of driving it without an MOT.

My MOT-er is a born and bred TR restorer too and the only person allowed to spanner my TR other than me!

 

It's the best-value spend on the car each year and has picked up potential problems before they become an issue.

 

just my opinion... but would you buy a TR that didn't have a fistful of year-on-year MOT's in the history file????

 

Ade

+1 Got mine going all the way back to 1970, except for a 4 year gap (1986 to 1990) when it was off the road for it's first major re-build) ..... MOT for me every year from now on.

Cheers, Rob

[Motorsport Mickey]

Paul,

 

"Its replies like he's getting that scares people off the forums and leaving"

 

Well that would be a shame, because it would mean that having asked for opinions he would object to having received them, don't want feedback don't ask for it.

 

I can't see where anybody has answered in a disrespectful way and the answers have given other peoples opinions. If they don't know or can't post a link from the government that says "Oh for the information of anybody with a car not currently carrying MOT it's ok NOT to MOT your car if it will be exempt from May 2018" which is what the poster wants, how else can anybody reply. If you don't say anything the next complaint is "I've posted this 48 hours ago...anybody" ? ?

 

The opinions vary from "well why not MOT it yourself" to my own reply about fitting a servo when unsure about the braking system on his car, how those suggestions can be read in the way you suggest is disingenuous.

 

Please now don't tell us having left the building you'll continue down the road and leave the Forum/TR Register/Classic Car movement/Won't attend IWE etc, all of these are of course your choice and shouldn't be influenced by mine or anybody else's actions.

 

Mick Richards