Anniversary MOT

[tim hunt]

I consider myself a fair amateur mechanic but despite now being able to claim exemption from an annual MOT test I prefer, for peace of mind like many on here I'm sure, to have an expert pair of eyes give my car a regular once over. This is a chance for any minor fault that may have developed gradually and remained undetected to be picked up. I am glad to report another pass this morning with no advisories. Thanks to earlier restrictions on non-essential travel and the cancellation of events this year I have done just 600 miles since the previous test, my lowest ever annual mileage in the 4A. I took the long way to and from the test station just to give the car a run for the first time in weeks and this simply confirmed what I 've been missing!

When I booked the test the date rang a bell and I remembered that it is 50 years to the day today since my late father bought NGP 86D for the princely sum of £670. We had previously been offered a Surrey TR5 for £800 but decided against due to stories we had heard of BL dealers not understanding the new fangled Lucas PI system and consequent running problems with high fuel consumption. The premium now for a TR5 over the previous model in comparable condition is rather more than it was in 1970 but I have never regretted our decision. We had to re-register the 4A since the seller had a personal plate, PLJ 2 on the car. Things must have looked up for him since over the following years I saw PLJ 2  twice more, first on a very nice TR6 then a Porsche 911S! Over twenty years later I was intrigued to find on page 101 of Bill Piggott's Sidescreen TR Compendium a picture of a TR2 being towed up a hill after failing on the Exeter Trial, this car bore the registration mark PLJ2!

Tim

[Motorsport Mickey]

" like many on here I'm sure, to have an expert pair of eyes give my car a regular once over. This is a chance for any minor fault that may have developed gradually and remained undetected to be picked up."

Great idea Tim...but what happens the week after...or the month after that...or even the day after you submitting it for an MOT and then being stopped at a roadside check and being found to have committed am offence by allowing an illegal MOT breaking car to be used on the road ? The judiciary will NOT take any pleads of..."it was MOTd yesterday" to stop them fining you and other penalties as allowed by law. As a regular user you actually stand more chance than a relative stranger in how your car is performing and a change in tolerances on a slow wearing part, just do the pre MOT check in the manner you would normally do and...if it passes your check then it will pass an MOT.

Mick Richards 

[Rod1883]

Of course you are correct Mick - they say that any MOT is really only valid on the day it is issued.

However I would agree with the OP - for the circa £50 it costs I get our three exempt classics MOT's every year. Yes I check the things I can, stick grease and other lubricants in the correct holes, check wheel bearings for play etc etc, but the independent (classic friendly) tester at my local garage as the ability to check things more thoroughly from the comfort of his pit than I do trying to do it on my back on my drive. He sees our three classics every year so knows them.

The TR and Stag were both MOT'd last week and he spotted that the TR nearside rear shock drop link bottom nut was slightly loose - perhaps I should have seen that, but it was much easier for him, and gives me peace of mind that he is pretty thorough. He tightened it up and we're all happy.

It also, imho, ensures the classic are no different to any other car on the road in terms of the safety checks done at MOT, and if I were to take advantage of the exemption and were to be involved in any accident, then I'm sure the third party's insurance would play on the exemption.

Rod

[boxofbits]

35 minutes ago, Rod1883 said:

Of course you are correct Mick - they say that any MOT is really only valid on the day it is issued.

However I would agree with the OP - for the circa £50 it costs I get our three exempt classics MOT's every year. Yes I check the things I can, stick grease and other lubricants in the correct holes, check wheel bearings for play etc etc, but the independent (classic friendly) tester at my local garage as the ability to check things more thoroughly from the comfort of his pit than I do trying to do it on my back on my drive. He sees our three classics every year so knows them.

The TR and Stag were both MOT'd last week and he spotted that the TR nearside rear shock drop link bottom nut was slightly loose - perhaps I should have seen that, but it was much easier for him, and gives me peace of mind that he is pretty thorough. He tightened it up and we're all happy.

It also, imho, ensures the classic are no different to any other car on the road in terms of the safety checks done at MOT, and if I were to take advantage of the exemption and were to be involved in any accident, then I'm sure the third party's insurance would play on the exemption.

Rod

I couldn’t agree more with your comments. If you can tell me that any TR or classic car owner has a rolling road brake tester with meters to determine brake balance and effectiveness, and a headlamp beam tester, to check headlamp alignment in their garage at home I’d be more than surprised.

We constantly read posts on here referring to seized calipers, wheel cylinders and ineffective handbrakes, much of it due to underuse. There was a post on here just the other day concerning a TR pulling to one side under acceleration. That turned out to be loose rear axle U bolts. 

An MOT MUST be considered as a fresh pair of eyes, and the use of test facilities including a ramp which we simply do not have access to as home mechanics, as you say laying on our backs in the driveway. 

For the £50 fee it is well worth the money for the use of these facilities AND the benefit of a certificate to prove you have taken the safety of your vehicle seriously. USE IT!

Kevin

[Colin Symonds]

Mine had its MOT last month, a pass with no advisories.  Following a severe hand injury a few years back I can no longer be as hands on with the more intensive maintenance so the main service and separate MOT are the only real chances for it to be given a clean bill of health on the main underpinnings.  It's a cheap price to pay for some peace of mind.

[trchris]

Having been an mot tester since the 70s(now retired) I personally think no vehicle used on the public road should be exempt from a test and as Mick says it only has to pass on the day of presentation you'd all be surprised at what is allowed to pass. The bible that is known as the mot testers manual is not black and white its very grey in areas it covers we are ENCOURAGED  to pass and advise on items not fail and be safe 

Chris     

[acaie]

As with many things, the MOT is not perfect particularly since it has to address such a wide range of cars.  Nevertheless the best is the enemy of the good, so it is stupid to turn up one's nose at the MOT unless someone is offering something better to put in its place. Many of us in the register do not have the expertise or the equipment to do better than the MOT, and have no access to something better. So for those of us an MOT from a testing station with experience with classic cars is a no brainer.

[North London Mike]

Agree 100% with all previous comments, you're mad not to (have an MOT) IMHO not only for safety and piece of mind but also for insurance purposes

Most policies will carry a rider that your car is roadworthy and the traditionally, a current MOT (and history) has been accepted proof of same.

However, without a valid MOT and in the shadow of a major claim, involving, say multiple vehicles and, God forbid, injury or death I would not want to have to fall back on trying to prove that I had maintained the car myself and I felt sure it was OK, honest . . . . . . (doesn't bear thinking about) 

[Motorsport Mickey]

3 hours ago, North London Mike said:

Agree 100% with all previous comments, you're mad not to (have an MOT) IMHO not only for safety and piece of mind but also for insurance purposes

Most policies will carry a rider that your car is roadworthy and the traditionally, a current MOT (and history) has been accepted proof of same.

However, without a valid MOT and in the shadow of a major claim, involving, say multiple vehicles and, God forbid, injury or death I would not want to have to fall back on trying to prove that I had maintained the car myself and I felt sure it was OK, honest . . . . . . (doesn't bear thinking about) 

What a load of tosh !

If you went down the road in your 2 year old car which doesn't require a MOT and had an accident caused by a failure of a component do you think the police or legal system would differentiate that it is a 2 year old car and doesn't even need an MOT ? The test is whether it is road legal or not.

The insurance companies use the MOT for older vehicles as a shorthand for it being roadworthy..at that day...at that time, if you had this envisioned multiple car accident you would not have to prove that you had maintained the car yourself...the authorities don't care if you do or don't, all they care about is that when you use a car on the road that it will pass the required legal standards. This is exactly as it has been over the last 30 odd years, a MOT gave a snapshot of the cars condition...until tomorrow when it could very well fail the test, it's a moveable measurement. 

If as an owner you fear your skills are not up to the mark to service and repair your car then a reputable garage will do it for you...but when your car has an accident caused by a MOT fail point YOU will be the person prosecuted, not the garage. That's exactly the same as it has been for decades. This is an individual choice, and depends upon the skills of the car owner/driver/mechanic, why not get a TR owning friend with mechanical experience to cast an eye over your car if you lack confidence in yourself. 

Mick Richards  

[Spit_2.5PI]

Congrats on your 50'th anniversary MOT Tim. It's a great thing to have that long ownership and memories in your family.

23 hours ago, Rod1883 said:

Of course you are correct Mick - they say that any MOT is really only valid on the day it is issued.

We've had this conversation before - many times I think. For me, the key thing is that I can wave the MOT under the nose of the judge and say that I'm doing the same due diligence as someone with a more modern car. An annual MOT is deemed sufficient for non-technical people to drive their cars in this country (it's 6-months in Germany).

Cheers, Richard

[Bleednipple]

This topic gets done to death - but even then inconclusively - on all classic car forums and there's always vague supposition about how the criminal law will come down on you like a ton of bricks and you'll be led away in chains if you get nicked with a defective vehicle. The facts are, I'd suggest, a bit different.

In practice, as a car owner (not an HGV or PSV operator) it's actually pretty hard to get yourself prosecuted for a non-obvious vehicle defect. Nearly all matters are dealt with by fixed penalty notices and are for stuff which any half-competent owner can check themselves or would spot anyway. Tyres, exhausts, bumpers or bodywork hanging off, that sort of thing. Or grossly defective brakes or wobbly steering where a rack has come loose, that would be obvious to any TR owner on this forum.

Bad tyres are certainly treated seriously and you will get 3 points per tyre. But I think we all know that and know what's required there.

On the other hand, basic stuff light lights will very often just be dealt with by a defect rectification notice so you won't even pay a fixed penalty if you get it sorted within 14 days.

As far as actual prosecutions are concerned, I spend quite a lot of my time in magistrates courts but can't actually recall the last time I came across a vehicle defect charge getting as far as the court. I'm sure some do but I can say it's pretty rare and (in my opinion) would have to be something something pretty egregious for CPS to go to the trouble of gathering the technical evidence necessary for a prosecution. Much easier to bring some other charge if you've been naughty on the road, eg due care and attention or no insurance.

It is I think possible to bring a charge of dangerous driving in respect of a vehicle defect, eg if your wheel flew off and hurt someone, but that requires evidence that "it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous". Maybe so if several wheel nuts had fallen off but not (IMO) if an un-lubricated trunnion suddenly gave way.

Back to the classic cars/MOT question, in a courts context all I could say is that if the prosecution argued that the lack of an MOT on the classic car involved was, of itself,  indicative of a criminally low standard of care, so it was predictable that the front wheel had come off on that roundabout, any half-awake defence counsel would surely point out that the Parliament has itself seen fit to waive the requirement so it can hardly be of much evidential weight. (None of this is legal advice, by the way ).

Of course there are many very good reasons for doing whatever we feel necessary to be confident our TRs are roadworthy. None of us want to risk anyone else's life and limb. But fear of a big fine or points is probably the least of our worries.

(If we're going to look at the insurance jeopardy it would be good to have someone with some actual knowledge on that side who could give informed comment.)

Nigel

 

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Bleednipple

[Andy Moltu]

I’m with Mickey.

Having a lift makes the job of checking things over easier so that is a consideration.

As the driver I take the view that as it is my neck on the line, I have a greater incentive to do safety checks than any tester.

The MOT looks at a few things and the test will only identify those you have missed amongst that limited range.

If you need MOT rollers to identify that your brakes need sorting you either are not used to the car or just kidding yourself. Emissions don’t apply to our cars.

If you don’t have access to a ramp/lift then maybe an MOT can be an opportunity to check the gearbox and diff oil levels and grease the u/js.