MG-Cars.info
MG MG Y Type MOT Exemption for Pre 1960's Cars BBS discussion at MG-Cars.info
MG-Cars.info
Welcome to our Site for MG, Triumph and Austin-Healey Car Information.
Parts
MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.
|
|
MG MG Y Type - MOT Exemption for Pre 1960's Cars
| The Department for Transport has published (on the 3rd November 2011) a consultation on a proposal to exempt vehicles of historic interest (vehicles manufactured prior to 1 January 1960) in Great Britain (GB) from statutory MoT test, as allowed under Article 4(2) of the EU Directive 2009/40/EC. This is potentially good news and I would encourage all UK Y Type owners, and everybody else with Pre 1960’s cars to participate in this. It is always annoying that there is no discount on the MoT Test for our classic cars, when so many things are exempt from testing. The Catalytic Converter testing adds an extra 10 mins to the test for modern cars, particularly if they have not achieved the required temperature. It takes seconds to check the exhaust on a Y Type so why the same cost? Given that some pre 1960's cars, mine included, only cover a few hundred miles between tests I would welcome exemption. Details can be found at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/penning-20111103 Regards. |
| David Pelham |
| This is bad news! The MOT provides an element of safety, scrapping it goes against road safety, I hope it does not happen. Classic car owners already benefit by no VEL, we have cheaper insurance. Be good idea to have two tier MOT to perhaps address the ease & Speed of checks of classic compared to modern car, I hear that all warning lights on dash will soon amount to failure, here goes up the failure rate of all modern cars. |
| R E Knight |
| Richard - I dont think David is advocating that any of us drive our cars in an unsafe or dangerous condition. Common sense dictates that in the interests of a) self preservation and b) the irreplacable nature of our cars that actually we, as Classic Car drivers, are actually probably safer drivers than those cocooned in their 2010 Ford Focus that has covered 26,000 miles in a year and hardly had any servce attention at all. I believe there are clear arguments on both sides of this, but having read the consultative link I concur with David that for you UK over burdened with restrictive legislation and a punitive taxation system that this is a good thing. Washington State has no such requirement on Collector Vehicles at all and I can testify that to date all the vehicles I have seen both on the road as everyday classic cars enjoyed to the hilt by owners and spectators as well as at shows, are probably 100 times safer than many of the other vehicles on the busy streets in the cities here. I think your concern, while valid, is over reacting to the potential downsides of this proposal though. Safety Fast Paul |
| Paul Barrow |
| Absolutely Paul – I am not advocating that this is an opportunity to either cut back on maintenance or drive cars that are not in total roadworthy condition. If you actually read the consultative document, which I suggested, then you will see some very interesting facts. Some salient points are listed below: In total there are approximately 162,000 pre 1960 cars registered on the UK's roads, representing less than 0.6% of the 35.2 million registered cars in the UK. Of these approximately 2/3rds, that is 106,920 are driven less than 500 miles per annum. The average mileage for cars in the UK is 9,000 miles per annum, or 18 times the distance of the 106,920 cars above. The failure rate for pre 1960 cars is less than 10%, whereas the failure rate for post 1960 cars, which includes those that are only three years old, is in excess of 30%! The conclusion being reached that pre 1960 cars are better maintained by their owners. Further justification for the consultation is that pre-1960 registered cars were involved in mere 0.03% of all road accidents. The proposals would also bring the age of vehicles requiring the statutory MoT test in line with The Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988, which already exempts unladen pre-1960 manufactured Heavy Goods Vehicles from the roadworthiness test. I would urge everybody would read the consultative document before reaching any conclusions on the merits of what I would regard a very sensible proposal. The Government believes that the proposed exemption will reduce regulatory burden on owners of historic vehicles, meet its Reducing Regulation agenda and the desire to remove unnecessary burdens. I would suggest that the police ‘targeting’ the 4% of the 35.2 million cars who drive without insurance, that is 1.4 million drivers, would be a much better use of resource. One must assume that drivers who do not worry about insurance are not too concerned about the MOT regulations either and this is a much greater risk to road safety. However, that is another subject. |
| David Pelham |
| I think motor insurance companies will have something to say about un-tested cars. Clearly many MOT centres have very little idea on how to test our cars. It would be some help if the club or better still the classic car movement would lay down guide lines for voluntary testing of our cars. I can point to such items such as adjustable wheel bearings where there needs to be a tolerance [the castle nut either pinches the bearing or slackened allows peceptable play] The screw cut stearing idler on my Anglia like the Y type king pins have perceptable play when new, yet are far from worn. I think its time for various clubs to give some thought on how best to advise members in maintaining a reasonable standard of roadworthiness, or better still publish a check list. Bryan |
| B Mellem |
| Guys, Interesting thread, for sure never thought anyone here would advocate driving a car unsafe, you would not buy Y type if you were, like David points out "trying to avoid MOT and insurance etc". My concern is an MOT provides a safety net even for safety conscious owners of all types of car, a kind of enforced secondary check. Without a form of enforced check, it may be overlooked, or put back for tomorrow and as is with many things tomorrow never comes. I'm all for removal of red tape and lower taxes who wouldn't be. Bryan, be interesting to hear what the FBVHC have to say on the proposal! Richard |
| R E Knight |
| Good morning Richard. I must take issue with you though on your saying "My concern is an MOT provides a safety net even for safety conscious owners of all types of car, a kind of enforced secondary check.". The Ministry of Transport Test Certificates are not a certification of the roadworthiness of a vehicle in the long run and are merely a certification as at a particular point in time. Two examples will suffice - your spare tire, having been inspected by the Inspector, is then taken from your car, given back to your 'mate' and then you put your old threadbare one back in. Or two minutes down the road, the Prince of Darkness takes over, out goes a bulb and hey presto you are driving an MOT failure. Here are intentional, and unintentional failings of the so vaunted 'safety' features of relying on the MOT. Bryan, as a guide to Jane Austin's (no relation to Austin cars - LOL) Sense and Sensibility, I would say as a monthly health check to run through all the tests on the MOT is not hard to do, especially with a working Jackall and a couple of axle stands even to checking wheel bearing wear and stub axle/kingpin wear. Brakes are easy to check efficiency too - if the parking brake is applied can you stall the engine, and uneven brake pressure by examining the pads. Tire wear, by feeling the grooves, exhaust by look and smell, steering wear by feel etc. I would say doing an MOT yourself on a Y on a monthly basis will take about all of 1/4 to 1/2 hour as you quickly run through all the tests. After all it isnt that long ago that the MOT was nothing more than a quick overall and mainly visual check. When I was in the Army we had a First Parade of a vehicle and a closing Last Parade of a vehicle before you even moved it and that included wiper blades and the like too.! |
| Paul Barrow |
| Paul, Accept fully what you say in your examples. Of course no system is fail safe, and with every system the Government has to draw a line somewhere with those inside or outside the scheme, in this case we talk about MOT. I also agree that every time someone jumps in a car checks should be made of all the points you rightly refer to, and with my Y Type I do conduct these checks, however look at cars as one drives along the road in respect of modern cars, and how many have a light out? These are just the faults that can be seen. In respect of Y Type and classics in general I accept more owners do keep and maintain "DIY" with the maintenance of their motors, however not all owners are "DIY" and this is where an MOT may be an advantage, equally I accept it is only as good as the tester and again perhaps a two tier test could help here. The final edvatage of MOT is it also keep a formal record of car history, by recorded mileage and shows where a car may have been tested and although far from gospel is a tool amongst others in assisting a prospective buyer in checking on cars history/maintenance record. |
| R E Knight |
| I have to agree with Richard that this is not something that we should support. The MOT does find out those items which even the most dilligent individual may not pick up. Of course we all know that the MOT is the state of a car at a given date and as soon as you drive out onto the road somethingh might happen. However it does give the owner a chance to view his car from below, subject of course to the garage agreeing, which gives a very different perspective from a vehicle that is jacked up on stands or whatever. Whilst some folks do have access to a ramp or a pit I would have thought that many of us dont. I have talked to quite a few people recently and at the NEC over the weekend. The concensus was that this is something that we should not support. Indeed yesterday I was talking to Bill Silcock the new Chair of the MGCC, and he gave an example of someone he knew who was very thorough who happened to come across an item in his suspension syatem after attention had been drawn to it by the tester. Brian is correct in his thoughts on what Insurance Companies may say. Just imagine if a seriuos accident occured involving a classic car, which did not have to be tested, and the owner had chosen to ignore basic servicing and this was proven to be contributory to the accident then there would be an outcry. As has been noted in this thread classic car owners (pre 1971) pay no road tax and we benefit from chaep insurance, That 99% of such cars are in fine condition is all well and good. But it only needs the 1% to not bother and the result above arising then without doubt insurance companies would react accordingly. It would be handy to get FHVBC views. Anyhow Paul is doen't affect you but what is the experience of owners in Germany, France and Swizerland and other countries where far more rigorous systems are in place? Surely better to be safe than sorry! All the best Jerry |
| J P BIRKBECK |
| A few further thoughts - some of which Paul may be able to respond to from his experience in Washington State: + How long have the expemptions been in place + Is there any requirement by Insurance Companies to ensure that the condition of a vehicle is in roadworthy condition and if so how is this undertaken? + Have any restrictions been imposed either by the State or Insurance Companies on driving to other states? + Do any states have vehicle testing? My view would be that testing is essential and even if legislation is introduced in the UK to remove the MOT requirement from pre-1960 cars then I would seek a regular independent assessment. Indeed will Insurance Companies seek this as a pre-requisite for providing cover and will costs rise as a result. Have a read of the Jensen Owners website on the removal of testing for pre-1960 cars. 'Chris's' comment was well thought out. All the best Jerry |
| J P BIRKBECK |
| Jerry, Is this the thread you mean? http://www.joc.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11936&sid=8e06ae143b555e2b9b0f9bffd48f97dc Richard |
| R E Knight |
| Hi Jerry To answer your questions: + How long have the expemptions been in place - No idea - they predate my arrival in Washington State though. + Is there any requirement by Insurance Companies to ensure that the condition of a vehicle is in roadworthy condition and if so how is this undertaken? - No. If the vehicle is in a wreck and the insurance company wishes to inspect the car and finds it in an unroadworthy condition a criminal offense has taken place as it is the Owner/Driver's responsibility to ensure their vehicle is in a roadworthy condition before making a journey so they could walk away from the comprehensive side of any settlement but would still be liable for third party damages. Unlike in the UK Washington State Patrol will stop a vehicle even if it has only a broken/non working headlamp and the driver is required to produce by the roadside driver license, insurance documentation and ownership documentation even if it is not their vehicle. In the US it is the driver who is insured not the vehicle so I can drive any vehicle with the owners permission. This is way different from the UK where it is the vehicle that has to be insured and where the police do not seem to stop and check insurance even. Even if there is nothing apparently wrong with the vehicle, Police (in the cities), Sherrif's department (counties) and State Patrol are all deputized to stop and inspect any vehicle driver any where any time for any cause. + Have any restrictions been imposed either by the State or Insurance Companies on driving to other states? -No. States have federal juristiction. This would be akin to Luxembourg refusing cars from France. + Do any states have vehicle testing? - Yes some do, some do not. There is no restriction though in driving a car licensed from a non-testing State in a testing State. Just as there is no restriction between driving a car registered in Azerbaijan in London UK. Hope that helps you understand our system Jerry. Paul |
| Paul Barrow |
| In Holland pre-'60 cars are exempt from APK (=MOT). There are no restriction to use the car and the insurance company made no changes in the policy when the exemption was introduced. There is a risk of restricted 'eco-zones', but that has nothing to do with testing. If given the choice I would advocate mandatory periodical testing, just to keep well meaning amateurs on their toes. Every two years I have my Y inspected as if it was an MOT. That way I can be sure of a second opinion and use the brake tester to check the condition of the brakes. In Holland the exhaust/catalyst testing is charged seperately. |
| Willem vd Veer |
| There is no question in the sincerity of everyone in ensuring that their cars are in tip top condition. My concern is that testing centres are sometimes left to interoperate regulations which really don't apply to our cars, and so the DVLA are washing their hands of us. If one could hand the MOT tester a copy of the club authorised test regulations for the particular car it would reduce ambiguities, thats all. Bryan |
| B Mellem |
| Paul, I quote from your thread **"Unlike in the UK Washington State Patrol will stop a vehicle even if it has only a broken/non working headlamp and the driver is required to produce by the roadside driver license, insurance documentation and ownership documentation even if it is not their vehicle"**. This is no difference in the UK, Section 163 Road Traffic Act 1988 is the act under which police have power to stop vehicles, driving with defective lights is like displaying a sign to say "Stop Me." Also the fact the police can/do check insurance/MOT/Driving licences at the roadside is a good thing, along with the excellent tools of ANPR expect to be caught, have vehicle seized if a driver flouts UK Traffic Laws, (Watch any series of Road Wars/Traffic Cops on Sky) Having spoken to UK MOT Testers it is to the great benefit of sometimes misunderstood members of the public that the computer systems in place allows such an exchange of information between government agencies, before such times it would require a producer of docs within 7 days and a court summons. Clearly such technology costs money and the end cost is borne by the user "The Motorist" in higher cost for an MOT. Either way the "Government", "The Motorist" can't win, because for sure if a copper stops them they will moan, "Why have you stopped me!" or if involved in a shunt with an uninsured driver the question will be "What are the police doing to stop uninsured drivers? etc etc. For all the hassle it causes, long may the MOT stay, an easy life such as no border checks and current issues with the resignation by UKBA chap highlights that some regulations are in place for a good reason. Safety Fast Richard |
| R E Knight |
| Richard The key difference here is that unlike my experience of never having observed the UK Police using this power in 20+ years of motoring in the UK, I have seen a fair number of instances where this has occured here. I wasnt implying that the UK Police DO NOT have this power, but just as they do not seem too exercise it frequently. I used to report vehicles with expired VEDs (Vehicle Excise Duty discs) I was often treated to a reply of "so what do you want us to do about it?" kind of reply. Clearly such vehicles were probably also not insured or may even have been stolen. Furthermore, I was under the impression too that although you can be stopped in the UK you have up to 3 days to appear at any police station of your choice to produce documentation. Here, if you cannot produce all the required documents by the roadside, you are under arrest for a felony at that time and are treated to a ride in a cop car and will be booked into jail. Has the UK law now changed to remove this slack? I hope so. In Arizona, if the law enforcement officer has a reasonable suspision that you are not a lawful resident citizen you are also required to produce proof that you are legally entitled to be in the country at that time too or again you are under arrest and will be jailed in a very secure camp until you are processed and returned to your country from whence you came illegally. I regard all of these as way more beneficial powers and enforcement. You further mention that the computer interaction has resulted in lowering the costs for the interchange of information so is it to be hoped too there will be a report soon that the price of the MOT will be coming down? I hope so as it has long been that the motorist is seen as a soft tax target in the UK. You are right though, at the end of the day it is the uninsured motorist that is the problem and more policing effort needs to be done in all areas to curb this. Paul |
| Paul R Barrow |
| In the USA State of VIrginia we have had a law for many years that allows the registration of cars older than 25 years as "Antique" or "Vintage". This law exempts from annual inspections cars registered in these classes, limits the uses as stated below, but also provides significant cost savings over annual fees and inspections. We have not experienced mass highway deaths related to the antique cars populating our roads. The vast majority of people are reasonable and mature enough to properly maintain the cars as they are not cheap to acquire in the first instance. In most cases these cars are are far better maintained than cars under normal registrations and safety inspections. There are of course people who abuse the registration system, to avoid paying normal fees to the state, but this is not common. Exemption from normal fees and inspections are the best way to assure these cars will be around for all of us to enjoy for years to come. Conditions are as follows; "Registering your vehicle either of these ways limits your use of the vehicle to: Participation in antique car club activities, exhibits, tours, parades, and similar events. Testing its operation, obtaining repairs or maintenance, selling the vehicle or trailer, transportation to and from events as described in number 1 above and for the occasional pleasure driving not to exceed 250 miles from your residence. Carrying or transporting passengers, personal effects or other antique motor vehicles being transported for show purposes. You may not use your vehicle for general, daily transportation. This includes, but is not limited to, driving to and from work. If you are providing vintage license plates, then the year embossed on the license plate must match the model year of the vehicle. In addition, DMV must inspect and approve the physical condition of the vintage plates. To register your vehicle with antique or permanent vintage license plates, DMV charges a one-time fee. Your license plates will be valid for as long as you own the vehicle. You may not transfer your license plates to another vehicle, but you may surrender them to DMV and then register them to a different vehicle for an additional fee. Unless the vehicle was manufactured for one license plate only, you must display license plates on the front and the rear of your vehicle. Using the "Antique Vehicle Applicant Certification," VSA 10B, you must also certify that you own, or have regular use of, another vehicle, without antique plates, for daily use and that the vehicle or trailer you want to register with antique plates can be driven safely on the highways of Virginia." Regards |
| PNW Williams |
| I read but do not often pass comment on the Y Type threads. Until I read this particular thread a short while ago I was actually totally unaware of this potential Govornment change of legislation,(I must live in a closet!). I thought therefore that I would add my pennies worth for what it is worth, with regard to this thread. If implimented, the new legislation might make, apart from anything else, my paperwork life much easier. I also understand that my view is just one of several. So here goes! I recognise that there are views with regard to safety, and there are views held that doing away with MOT's on historic vehicles might impact on car safety. However this viewpoint however noble, in my view, fails to take in the basic difference between the 'general every day car', that does on average 14,000 miles whatever per year and the 'historic vehicle', that will probably only cover a couple of hundred miles per year. Is there really the need to MOT an historic vehicle every few hundred miles? This does appear to be somewhat excessive. This does not even begin to ask the question about whether or not the MOT inspector actually understands the historic vehicle he has been looking at. It also begs the question as to why we have yearly MOT's in Britain when most of the rest of Europe has them every two years or even more infrequently. Also we are not the only European country looking to do away with MOT's on historic vehicles, again some European countries have allready progresed this and I understand have allready implimented historic vehicle 'MOT' exemption. I had not intended to open up the debate on whether or not British legislators have gone overboard in the past, and following on not aligned our legislation to the European lead, but I may have. Taking a practical stance, with regard to the safety standard of historic vehicles on the road, many of those that I have seen appear to be in far better condition than many 'everyday cars', with many historic vehicles appearing to be in better condition than when they originally left the factory. They are maintained and repaired 365 days of the year, mostly by enthusiasts, or if owned by non-technical enthusiasts by specialist garages. The MOT is only for one day of the year, and in my view, is not really set up to deal with the 'historic vehicle'. The fact that the Govornment is legislatively thinking along these lines is evidence that they also realise that generally, 'historic vehicles' are different to everyday vehicles and that this form of yearly inspection is now out of kilter with regard to historic vehicles. I for one, and I do understand that not everyone may agree, support the basic concept of removing the need for MOT's on historic vehicles. It is very seldom that legislation is reversed, once implimented it normally continues ever onwards with more and more restrictions being overlain untill frequently a nest of contradictions occur that is only sometimes sorted by case law. It is pleasing to think that for once the Govornment is considering rolling back the 'police state' and removing legislation. This does not necassarily mean that I would not use the MOT facility or garage from time to time if the new legislation was invoked. I would always put a car that has been totally restored through one or other before putting it on the road, but would view the results for what they are, when referred to an historic vehicle. Since joining the Y fraternity several years ago, I have found all those that I have met to be like minded and very sensible people, with a clear view on safety. There are many BBS threads I have read where 'safety' and 'safety & originality' have been discussed. If safety was not high on fellow enthusiasts minds these thread discussions would probably never have taken place. I would suspect, hopefully without taking fellow enthusiasts views for granted, that most fellow enthusiasts would do similar to myself and use MOT or garage facilities from time to time as required. Finally, I would hope that if this legislation happens it would also free up the SORN reporting requirement as well. I have several cars and the amount of time spent on this paperwork I have found to be somewhat excessive. Why do I need to SORN every year a vehicle that is zero tax rated? Neil Coombes. |
| N. K. Coombes |
| Well this has become a somewhat lively topic! Jerry mentioned the more rigourous systems in Europe. I thought it worth detailing below what happens in Switzerland: Classic Cars in Switzerland, known as Oldtimers, are classified as cars over 30 years old. Oldtimers have to be tested every 6 years at an average cost of 100 Swiss Francs (about GBP 69) In Switzerland the number plates are registered to the owner (as in Germany) and not to the car. In the Canton of Zurich, you can run 6 classic cars on the same number plate. This is because obviously you can only drive one car at the same time! Clearly you have to transfer each time the number plates from one car to the others. Rules can vary slightly from one Canton to another. To have access to the number plate you have to provide confirmation that you have insurance. The rate of tax that you pay is based upon the rate charged to the car with most power (Highest BHP). The number plate transfer system is also available to use with modern cars but only two cars on the same number plate and tax is paid on the highest BHP car as well. This sounds like a good idea here but can you imagine the Police National Computer coping with different cars having the same number plates? Regards. |
| David Pelham |
| I thought I would add that we take cars to Vehicle Roadworthiness Test VRT - our version of Englands MOT every two years. I think the same as France and Germany CG |
| Corry Grainger |
| Here in New York State we have an annual safety/emissons inpection requirement. However, when I bring in one of my MGAs they do what is referred to a "lick em and stick em". Which means they remove the old sticker and apply a new one. I usually drive the car into the garage because they don't know how to start it or, in the case of the roadster, open the door. Some of these guys have never worked on a carburator or seen a king pin suspension. Their attitude is that people who drive these cars take care of them. Cheers, GTF |
| G T Foster |
Following on from Corry’s comments about France & Germany. I understand that Germany is every two years but there are specific rules for historic cars (Karl Heinz did try and explain them to me) but usage appears to be restricted if you opt for these. However France is only every two years for modern cars and those that are less than 30 years old. Cars older than this ‘les véhicules de collection’ are only required to be tested every five years. In Spain the ITV (MOT equivalent not a TV station) is required every 2 years for cars older than four years and less than ten. Once a car is ten years old then it needs to be tested annually until it is 35 years old and then it has to be tested every five years the same as France. Willem has already confirmed that cars over 50 years old are already exempt from testing in Holland and in Ireland Classic Cars are exempt after 30 years. Every Car owner has an obligation to keep his vehicle in a safe and roadworthy condition by law. The removal of the MOT test would not change that. However, given that 2/3rds are covering less than 500 miles a year, compulsory annual testing for these could easily be considered excessive. This is more frequent than the bi-annual test required in most European countries for everyday cars covering 10,000 miles a year and many company cars travelling twice that. Last year I had to SORN my YT as I hadn’t arranged an MOT before the ‘rainy season’ and then once I obtained an MOT I taxed it gratis. You can be prosecuted if a car is neither Taxed nor Sorned, albeit as Neil says above no tax is payable. However,like Willem, if an exemption is introduced then I would still use garage facilities periodically to check brakes, steering and suspension. I can tell if the lights are working, that the seat belts, Foglamps, Windscreen Washer, Catalytic Convertor etc are still not fitted, and if the exhaust coming out the back is excessive etc. I think the point regarding insurance is well made but if Classic Cars are involved in only 0.03% of all accidents, then a simple calculation tells us that they are not involved in 99.97% of all accidents, so why do premiums keep increasing? It is of little wonder that most of the insurance companies can afford to pay significant commission to some car clubs from our Classic Policies and think how well those that don’t must be doing. I still think that if 1.4 million cars on the road are not insured then many will be saving another £55 by not having them MOT’d. The majority of these clearly do not have sufficient disposable income (otherwise they would buy insurance) to ensure that they are completely roadworthy. This is a much greater risk to all road users than the 55,000 classic car owners who drive more than 500 miles a year. |
| David Pelham |
| Given my jaundiced view of UK companies using every trick to extract money from the public, I could imagine that with no MoT requirement, insurance companies would put premiums up, or demand proof of an independent test which would probably cost far more than the present MoT. The present MoT sounds like good value to me. David |
| David Wardell |
| Just a brief reminder that The Department for Transport’s published consultation (issued on the 3rd November 2011) on a proposal to exempt vehicles of historic interest (vehicles manufactured prior to 1 January 1960) in Great Britain (GB) from statutory MoT test, as allowed under Article 4(2) of the EU Directive 2009/40/EC finishes this Thursday 26th January. The MG Car Club (UK) Board of Directors has made a submission to the FBHVC that the MOT should remain as it is, but did not consult the general membership before submitting this recommendation. I reiterate my comments when I first raised this subject that this is potentially good news, and I would encourage all UK Y Type owners, and everybody else with Pre 1960’s cars to participate in this consultation. I would also stress that you should read the Consultation Document, as many appear to be willing to make comments, whilst being completely unaware of the facts, as has been demonstrated above. Given that over 66% of pre 1960's cars, mine included, only cover a few hundred miles between tests I would welcome exemption. Details can be found at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/penning-20111103 Regards. |
| David Pelham |
| What ever decision is made regarding the MOT I intend to have an annual inspection for my motors because the local garage found rust in a inaccessible area that I had missed. The problem is deterioration occurs regardless of mileage and is more likely in cars little used. Cars used often will be thoroughly dried unlike a little used classic, so rust may be more of a problem, even with underseal moisture can still penetrate under it. Bryan |
| B Mellem |
| The decision by an owner to carry out preventative maintenance or to have an annual safety inspection, in the absence of an MOT, is one of choice. However, insurance policies normally state that the vehicle is kept in a roadworthy condition, which is the owner's responsibility. The MOT inspection looks at a vehicle on a particular day and has no influence on what happens in the next 12 months. A rust problem does not appear “over-night” and should be picked up by a competent tester at some stage, long before it becomes serious and detrimental to the safety of the car. Mechanical defects do not suddenly materialise when a car is in a garage and minor ones are attended to as and when they occur or are spotted during maintenance. It would therefore seem unnecessary to have annual MOTs just for the sake of it. Perhaps better to fall in line with other European countries. The purpose of the DoT and FBHVC surveys is to get an honest “grass roots” response from owners. Any organisation involved in motoring had a responsibility to support this and any submission should have been a true reflection of its Members’ views, NOT a Board or Committee decision. Circumventing a proper consultation undermines credibility! |
| Keith D Herkes |
| Bryan, Agree with you, second opinion is worth while and a good opportunity yearly to look from below the car whilst up on a ramp, I don't have this luxury (Hydraulic Ramp)at home. Keith, Your comment about the "Members NOT Board or Committee" I agree totally should be reflective of members opinion, historY repeats itself,showing in many cases members and boards fail to reflect the views of the majority. On this occassion though, nobody has reflected the fact the club have communicated a sincere apology for their lack of broader consultation, and they did reply according to their circular based on "number of views." Surely this is acceptable? and they in fairness have to submit a view in good time. Extract from the circular here between row of asteriks, full article on main MGCC members side of site!;- ***************** Kimber House Submission to the FBHVC A number of views from various individuals and registers were conveyed to Kimber House and MG Car Club board members. On this basis, the Club submitted its response to the FBHVC. Overwhelmingly the views received were in favour of retaining the current MoT system. The most compelling and commonly held views were based around safety issues. However, the Club recognises a broader consultation process with members should have occurred before a formal response was submitted to the FBHVC. The Club offers sincere apologies for this and will be discussing the issue at the “Visions For The Future Forums” in February. ********************** |
| R E Knight |
| Richard I am uncertain of the point you are trying to make. The MG Car Club did not undertake a consultation, and probably wouldn’t have admitted it, had I not raised it with the Chairman. I am pleased that an apology was issued, however, I, unlike you, are fully aware of all of the facts concerning this issue, and my limited comment in the posting above was to avoid further embarrassment by going into more detail. I believe Keith’s posting relates to the fact that representation without consultation is absolutely meaningless in terms of credibility. I don’t think that this can be questioned in this context. The purpose of resurrecting this thread was to remind individuals that the DoT consultation finishes on the 26th January and nothing else, as the subject had already been debated in full on this forum. Regards. |
| David Pelham |
| The FBHVC have published the results of their MOT Consultation and for interested parties it can be found at: http://fbhvc.co.uk/files/2011/11/MoT-survey-report-v2.pdf The results of the DOT Consultation, which finished on the 26th January 2012 are not yet available. Regards. |
| David Pelham |
| Interesting reading David, it looks like the MOT will become a thing of the past for pre 1960 cars if the conclusions are accepted,74% is pretty convincing. It may let the odd unroadworthy car on the road, but I have trust in my fellow classic car drivers that they will still make every effort to keep there pride and joy in a safe roadworthy condition. I for one, will still carry out full service and thorough inspection every spring before the show season. As I have carried out full nut and bolt rebuilds myself on both my MG's I feel I have a better understanding of these cars than the local MOT inspector. Finger crossed I haven't spoken to soon!!!! Regards chris |
| C A Pick |
| Interesting anomalies occur for the 1960 delineation is that my February 1960 Anglia will still be tested yet an identical car built 2 or 3 months earlier will be exempt. Thats how it is! Bryan |
| B Mellem |
| Just a brief clarification that the survey I referred to above is that conducted by the FBHVC. Their response will have been forwarded to the Department of Transport and it is they who will determine the future requirements for the MOT. Hopefully their survey will have reached similar conclusions. As a matter of interest I do not know how many of you have accompanied your car whilst undergoing the ‘Annual Medical’. It is not possible for the examiner to print out a Pass Certificate until a minimum of 45 minutes has elapsed from the start of the test. This is apparently the minimum amount of time a test should take. I always make sure that our MGs and Beetle are running at normal temperature so they get through the Catalytic tests on the first pass!!! Regards. |
| David Pelham |
| Extract from Press Association Release at lunchtime today: CLASSIC and historic vehicles are to be exempted from the annual MoT test, the Government announced today. From November 18 this year, owners of vehicles manufactured before 1960 will not have to have to take them in for an MoT, Roads Minister Mike Penning said. Pre-1960 licensed vehicles make up about 0.6% of the total number of licensed vehicles in Britain, but are involved in just 0.03% of road casualties and accidents. Mr Penning said: "We are committed to cutting out red tape which costs motorists money without providing significant overall benefits. "Owners of classic cars and motorbikes tend to be enthusiasts who maintain their vehicles well - they don't need to be told to look after them, they're out there in all weathers checking the condition of the engine, tyres and bodywork." He added: "Owners of classic vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road, but scrapping the MoT test for these vehicles will save motorists money." The decision follows a campaign by the All-Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicles Group, led by East Yorkshire MP Greg Knight, its chairman. Mr Knight said today: "I am delighted by this announcement. Accidents involving historic vehicles are extremely rare and the majority of owners are meticulous in keeping their vehicles in good condition. Having to have an annual MoT test for a vehicle which may only travel a few hundred miles in a year was costly and absurd." AA president Edmund King said: "Cutting the red tape of an MoT requirement for classic pre-1960 cars is a victory for common sense." |
| David Pelham |
| Sounds like a vote for common sense and I applaud the comment of "Owners of classic vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road, but scrapping the MoT test for these vehicles will save motorists money." Paul |
| Paul Barrow |
| I'm surprised that such a long and lively thread should not have attracted more comment since the Government announcement - perhaps I can hear the thunder of keyboards in the background? This move seems to me an entirely sensible one, given that, as Paul notes, this is not some kind of carte blanche for owners to neglect their cars: presumably cars can still be submitted to the MoT test if owners want to? At its simplest level, I am going to thoroughly enjoy NOT having to have an annual conversation with someone who, though friendly and professional, has hardly ever seen a car with a chassis, and has to be asked to check his manual to confirm that, in fact, my Y doesn't need a rear fog lamp, screenwashers, etc etc. Incidentally a motoring friend has just asked me to consider signing an e-petition started by James Elliott (of Classic and Sportscar, I believe, and a fine journalist) resisting the abandonment of the MoT. You can find it here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34242 I won't be signing it. |
| Tim Griggs |
| There may be quite a few owners who are never happier than when they are firing a grease gun at their pride and joy but I have to say my motivation to grease the front suspension has been the annual MOT. I agree my very classic aware local MOT garage has never failed my YT in the past 11 years of ownership but this is mainly due to the warnings that this or that needs doing for next time. I for one have appreciated the confidence that a new certificate brings each year and have never begrudged the expenditure. I believe that most of our present owners are so, because of past association and because they have had experience of maintaining pre seventies cars. Very few under fifties know what goes on under a bonnet and are reluctant to take on an old car. Take away the MOT and you reduce that confidence even further. Not a good move for future classic ownership. |
| P W Vielvoye |
| I agree with most of the threads above and pro's and con's of MOT. It is true that a lot of classic owners are competent and more than happy to part with money to up keep their pride and joy. However Peter I share your view it is confidence in a second opinion and also an opportunity perhaps to have car high up on a ramp and opportunity to see from below any bits that may be missed if alternative is crouched under car in garage. I agree the current test is not best suited for classics but perhaps a cheaper simplified test may be viable alternative. On positive note my classic too passed it's MOT but the W reg Toyota didn't and it took 3 weeks for part to arrive from Belgium on back order, typical. |
| R E Knight |
| Although there will be no legal requirement, after November, to mot test pre 1960 cars, nothing stops the classic car owner taking his car to the garage for a yearly annual inspection. I am sure most garages would perform an inspection for a similar cost of an mot, so the option has not been taken away, it just gives you the responsibility of deciding whether you want to ensure your car is roadworthy. Chris |
| C A Pick |
| I'm very pleased that the "government" has seen fit to relax the requirements for MoT tests. Probably because most test stations don't understand the requirements for our cars and there is a cost implication. Most cars in this class cover very few miles annually and so wear and tear etc. is quite low. As has been indicated in earlier threads the vast majority of owner drivers are more than competent to ensure their cars are in a fit and roadworthy condition. There is though a core of owner drivers that have very little mechanical experience of "proper" cars and never service the every day car, rather leaving it to the Garage,therefore, I do think that there is an insurance angle which potentially could increase premiums for cars which do not have an ndipendant inspection. Thus the saving on the MoT could be nullified by the increase in the insuance premium So, I intend to present my Y to a competent garage for a full condition report every two years (i.e. MoT) just to be on the safe side. As has been reported in other posts on this thread, I realy enjoy getting down and dirty with the grease gun but with limited facilities it is better to get the car on a hoist and check for potential problems and then get them sorted before trouble arises. Dave |
| D P Jones |
| I dont think one should dismiss younger owners as all unaware of what goes on under the bonnet. As a classic Ford owner I have often been most impressed by quite young lads who have modified their cars to a standard of workmanship of the highest order. I bet not many Y owners know how to re profile the electronics. I know we Y owners frown on such mod's but I'm sure young drivers racing MG's know their way round cars. On the subject of MOT's I believe some stations have difficulty in interpreting the regulations ie the weight in regard to braking performance [no references to 19 3/4cwt in the book] or say immission, how much smoke is allowed? I do think however that a chance to get a second opinion once a year is valuable, but at a time convenient to the owner. There has been occasions when the car has been laid up for repairs and the MOT and tax [exempt] was due, then a flexible arrangment would be helpful rather than a SORN. Bryan |
| B Mellem |
| Peter, I agree with Bryan that age has nothing to do with knowledge about what's happening under the bonnet. It has to do with interest and ability. I'm from 1965 and I've been tinkering with English cars and motorbikes from 1980(ish). That's because I happen to like mechanical things and was raised as an Anglofile. I know plenty 'old' (pre 1960) enthusiasts that haven't got a clue about the oily bits, but do like to drive their classic vehicles. I've said it before; I have my car checked annually by a competent mechanic that knows about old cars, just for a second opinion, MOT or not. I've also learned at school that you should avoid starting a sentence with 'I'...... |
| Willem vd Veer |
| I think everyone is correct in saying that we all need to be safe. At the end of the day though, as someone said to me yesterday "All this stuff is a bit like visiting the dentist isn't it?" "What?" I said. "Well everyone knows it is a good thing to do on a regular basis, even if you dont think that you have anything wrong with you, to go and see a specialist that is. If you want to go for the reassurance that you are OK, or have reason to worry about something that you are not sure about, then that is fine ... but at the end of the day there is no law forcing you to go." Couldnt agree more! Voluntary inspections are entirely up to the individual and I dont think any one on this board will disagree or deny those who want to do that - indeed I would actively encourage that. After all, that is just being responsible and putting Safety First as well as Safety Fast. happY MotorinG everYone Paul |
| Paul Barrow |
| Willem I agree there will always be plenty of enthusiasts of all ages as the motor car has never failed to attract especially young men. No, the point I was making was, that pre 80s just about every one lifted the bonnet to check the oil or even clean the plugs and understood basically what was going on. It is from this vast pool of motorist that our present classic owners invariably come. The loss of the MOT can only add to the lack of confidence that a possible future post 80s owner might have about taking on an old car. Can we rely on the enthusiast or will it become more difficult for our cars to find new owners in the future? |
| P W Vielvoye |
| There is one point of view that to own even a car like ours is a rather expensive undertaking, and a TF or YT £15 - £25,000 is ridicules outlay for a young family man with a mortgage. When I was a bit younger a Y type runner could be found for £100 a TC for £45 and MGA's you couldn't give away. The comaraderie was second to none because we were committed MG enthusiasts not as I later found amongst some T owners who want to talk only of their cars rising market value. Thank goodness this gloating has not penetrated into our fraternity. As I have said before where classic cars sell for more obtainable prices such as Fords young enthusiasts are thick on the ground. Never mind there are always plenty of oldies who are in search of a dream, and have the money to realise it. Bryan age 76 |
| B Mellem |
| Brian your comments are spot on. |
| D MULLEN |
| Bryan, Your comments are spot on, also further is the storage of Classic Car nowadays. Most affordable housing too has no garage and planning rules allow for less than one car per house/flat if living in modern housing association/new build estate. Moving back to the theme of the thread was discussing this move to exempt MOT with friend, when it was mentioned in France that the French owner needs to obtain a permit to use classic car outside their district/region, I'm no expert here perhaps others may have more info. But I do hope the UK Government are not in early stages of limiting the use of the Classic Car here in the UK. Again cynical but who knows what the longer term proposals are when you read in the news of new Green tax for fuel another EU proposal when economy in free fall. |
| R E Knight |
| About 2 years ago we were in a camping municiple just outside Reims when one night about 20 classic Citroen Tractions arrived, they were returning from Russia where they had been given a reception in Red Square, and were soon to have an official escort down the Champs-elysee They had departed some weeks before from a 1000 car rally at Amiens for a tour across northern and eastern Europe. Admittedly some of the crews were from the Netherlands [what do you expect those Dutch are everywhere], but it seemed to me that the classic car movement in France is in excellent health |
| B Mellem |
| Some of you may be aware that I had a recent cause for calling out recovery on this years Sommertreff event, and my insurance company contributed towards my eventual self repatriation back to the UK. On the claims form back home it asked for proof that my car was roadworthy i.e proof that it had a recent service. Like many Classic owners most of my mechanics are done in my own garage so I had no written proof of services etc,or the mechanical suitability of the car at the time of breakdown but the request for proof got me thinking... the cost of an MOT it was probably worth it. My thoughts is I could at least prove within the last 12 months that it got through MOT giving me some assurances. The other thought was that everyone has access to the DVLA website of the current VEL and MOT status of all cars, so if I were involved in unfortunate incident I would prefer my car to show it holds a valid MOT, not because in reality it means the car hasn't since developed a fault but it gives other interested parties one less opportunity to find fault being mine. https://www.vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/ Food for thought Richard |
| R E Knight |
| Despite the exemption, I still maintain a valid MOT on both of my cars. It gives me reassurance that there is nothing seriously wrong with them. It also gives me the opportunity to look underneath when they are on the ramp, as my garage allows me to 'assist' with the mot test. Last year the tester almost fell into the 'Jackall trap', initially saying that the rear flexible brake hose was seriously worm and that he would have to fail the car. However, he soon realised his mistake. However, I was not aware of the wear to the Jackall hose, and subsequently replaced it. Mike Long |
| M Long |
| I agree with you Mike. I have 3 pre-60's cars and get them MoT'd as it also gives me a good opportunity of looking around underneath. Although not required, I also request the garage to test the brakes on the rolling road, and it is re-assuring to know that they give excellent readings on the gauge. Anil |
| A K Koshti |
| I think this needs clarifying with DVLA and the insurers. For as long as I can remember, which is quite a long time now, the MoT document has stated that a certificate of inspection is not to be taken as any guarantee of the car's condition, or words to that effect: are we suggesting that the insurers are now behaving as if this is not the case? I was told by my inspecting garage when the pre-1960 exemption from MoT inspection was introduced that they wouldn't be able to test such cars any longer as the vehicles wouldn't be included on the relevant vehicle database. Again, Richard and Mike, this appears not to be the case? |
| Tim Griggs |
| Tim you are absolutely correct. The UK MoT Test certificate is not a guarantee of any description other than the state of the car at a specific moment in time. While early cars may not be in the database for testing I think what I think the others are saying is that they have the test station go through the motions of the tests so that critical points are examined methodically and quasi tested. Clearly there is no PASS/FAIL but the mechanic is able to test and advise on what should/need not be attended to. Paul |
| Paul Barrow |
| The following link gives information about MOT and exemptions;- www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/the-mot-test All vehicles manufactured or Registered before 1st January 1960 are exempt from an MOT, my understanding is that in order to tax the car which again in our cases being historic is free will still need form V112 completed. I believe most cars will have a record on DVLA database and with the abolition of VEL (Vehicle Excise Licence) probably means why the layout of vehicle inquiry results page on the DVLA web site seems to have altered slightly with greater information in the one search. Paul, is correct in what he says about car MOT only gives snap shot for the day it is tested, but it is none the less a bench mark in my view. It clearly does not help with the health or condition of car parts which fall outside the scope of test for example if rear wiper does not work it won't fail MOT. Regards Insurance companies Tim, I can't say my Insurance company have ever asked me to produce a valid MOT they haven't but they did ask on my claims form for recovering the cost of self drive repatriation from Holland for me to prove my car was in roadworthy fit state etc before I took it on my trip...This apart from MOT I would struggle to do as I said before I self service and don't write my own proof of condition documents. Again I don't profess to know the answers but feel if things went wrong it could get all a little messy. Richard |
| R E Knight |
| Hi all, Just to add some more food for thought- my 1952 MGYB was MOT'd on 15th July this year and my 1930 MG 18/80 was MOT'd on 11th July. They were immediately identified on the MOT data base at the testing station and went through the normal testing procedures including the brakes on the rolling road. Both passed and MOT Certificates were issued. These also include on the form a handy record/reference of the mileage for the past few years. However,neither car shows up on the DVLA vehicle enquiry website? Interestingly, my MGC which has been on SORN for the past few years is clearly recorded there? Any suggestions, anybody. Keith |
| Keith D Herkes |
| Keith, Does you two cars show up with the V5C log book serial number as alternative option to look up car details? Richard |
| R E Knight |
| Keith What exactly (type including any spaces or punctuation) does your V5 have in the MAKE box? Paul |
| Paul Barrow |
| Hi all. Sorry to bore all our overseas members, but Richard and Paul have solved the problem for me. I had not noticed before, but on both cars, on line D1 of the V5C form(registration Document) DVLA have entered the Model details which should be on line D3. ie they have the "Make" down as, MGYB and M.G.18/80 MKI. Not sure what the implications are of this, apart from not immediately recognising them in a "search" but knowing how bureaucracy works, I shall get it corrected on the DVLA system and have new form V5Cs issued. Thanks for your help. Keith PS might be worthwhile for the rest of UK owners to check that your documentation is absolutely correct. PPS I still miss David Pelham. |
| Keith D Herkes |
| Keith, Great to hear you now know why you could not find YB on DVLA Database. My own YB chassis number was shown on DVLA once as Y8 instead of YB.... Odd how typo some time back in day causes small problems to this day. Richard |
| R E Knight |
| Keith I have had long battles with the the DVLA over vehicle type and dates of manufacture on the V5c. The truth is the "system" cannot cope with the sort of changes you and I require. My MG MGB has no type,it is just down as a make MG. Thy cannot, it appears enter MGB in the type, only B which is wrong. Even a letter from Don Hayter and a copies of the original literature could not change that one. Let alone get the number of owners correct from new even though I have all the original logbooks. This why one of the reasons why so many 2 owner form new cars "appear" for sale. As for the BSA they cannot, as I reclaimed the original registration, state the date it was originally registered only the date it was registered, thus a 1958 bike becomes a 2001 registered Historic vehicle. And they cannot get the make and type in the correct boxes putting it all in the type box. My advice is don't bother. |
| G R Wilder |
| Hi all I am ever the optimist, so I have despatched my three incorrect V5Cs duly amended and with an explanetory covering letter, to the DVLA and will now wait and see what happens. I'll let you know. Keith |
| Keith D Herkes |
| Keith We have had some success with the DVLA writing letters of proof etc.and will be happy to oblige you if you need it. Unlike some clubs we make no charge for this. Paul |
| Paul Barrow |
| http://www.hagertyinsurance.co.uk/Articles-and-Resources/All-Articles/2013/05/01/MoT-Changes Interesting view from Hagerty on the subject of MOT's for classic cars. |
| R E Knight |
| The IMGYTR's stance has always been in line with Hagerty's view " it is more important than ever to ensure their vehicles are roadworthy". If that peace of mind comes from obtaining an MOT or similar certificate voluntarily or by legislative requirement it is vitally important that Safety come first. It is equally important to bear in mind that any test is only valid at the time it was done. On going vigilance at all times on all matters relating to Safety - both of vehicle and the driver. On going maintenance is as vital as a one time test. Drive Safely, and enjoY Paul |
| Paul Barrow |
| Hi This quote from Hagerty was back in 2013- do anybody have any evidence of their current view in light of the intervening 2 years of experience, without MOT requirement? Perhaps an update would be beneficial bearing in mind our link with Hagerty Keith PS It still gives me goose-bumps to see David Pelham's name at the top of this thread. |
| Keith D Herkes |
| As I understand the MOT regulations, a failure places strict requirements for the retest and a time limit. My local tester is willing to overlook the letter of the law in the case of my 1960 Anglia and is aware of difficulties in obtaining parts but other testers may not. I have the YA pre MOT checked every 2 years, in this way if the car is involved in an accident I have a piece of paper which confirms it meets the required standard of the MOT if not an actual certificate. Also because I am retired I have my eyes tested and have a regular medical check up, I think its not just the car that needs attention. It is rare for mechanical fault to be the cause of an accident nowadays. Bryan |
| B Mellem |
| It might not be relevant to the thread, but I want to comment on David Pelham's thread regarding Switzerland. it is by no means like Paradise over here! If you own a car that is older than five years, you have to have it government-testet every two years and the rules are very strict. If the car is 30 years or older, you can apply for oldtimer-registration, but to be entitled the car has to function and look better than new. On top of this you are not allowed to do no more than 3000 miles per year. Presumably because the government loses some money with the scheme, they apply silly standards such as: I once failed MOT with my TD because it only had (the original) one only fog lamp. I was told that lighting must be in pairs. Other ridicules examples of declining the oldtimer status to some friend's cars where: An MG B's handbrake on the lefthand side pulled 10 % less than the one on the righthand side. The paintwork on a US car was well looked after but was not as new. A VW Beetle had a new stainless steel exhaust fitted which was not considered "original", because it was not made of mild steel |
| Anton Piller |
| Anton, Interesting comments about the rules in Switzerland...Makes me laugh that the fact a stainless steel exhaust is questioned because it was not original...sounds like a mad EU rule, that I would expect in UK (UK citizens seem to follow rules that the rest of Europe disregard, but EU make rules) but Switzerland is not in EU bizarre. Interesting to see how few Y types have a valid "MOT" searching the vehicle enquiry gov.uk pages, I am in the minority but will still MOT my cars. Most cars on DVLA database show up as "Exempt" Richard |
| R E Knight |
| All, The YB had it's annual MOT this year and I was advised about the % braking difference between offside and nearside. This I had not noticed when driving the car as no experience of pulling to my right but certainly something I will now rectify. I still think there is real value in MOT to highlight such issues. Richard |
| R E Knight |
| Bryan, You asked question To MOT or Not to MOT. You will find a long historic debate on this thread. In my opinion I have both my Y Types MOT'd and have only once had it fail, but had points of note highlighted to me, which I then aim to have rectified. I would say on whole few Y type owners have their cars MOT from some searches I've done on known VRM in the past using the DVLA website that any member of the public is free to check. My personal view is safety has to come first and protecting a valuable asset for small fee when it comes to MOT makes sense, I have often heard of owners say to me that they know more than the MOT tester as these are old cars and the test is no longer suitable for older cars as the test is too rigid, to a degree I can see their point but it boils down to personal opinion at the end of the day. If your car has MOT certificate, at least it gives some argument in the event of incident that you can go back to the insurance company to hopefully pursuade them it was road worthy and kept on top of. Richard |
| R E Knight |
| To join the conversation, without reading the long history in this post. In NSW, Australa there is an annual vehicle inspection, for vehicles older than (I think) 5 years. Other States have different arrangements, eg the ACT, less than 5 kms from where I live, used to have annual inspections but changed to random inspections a few years ago. Random can mean never. I am of the view that the small inconvenience and expense once a year is more than worth the benefit of an independent vehicle inspection. I have not had any problems with inspection of "modern classics" and for the past couple of years have been happy with the process for my YT. Ewan |
| E.J. Ward |
| Note the MGCC Y Register interesting post on Facebook page about current situaton regards MOT Exemption....
"MGCC Y Register An 'MoT check' on cars of the Y's age is easy to DIY anyway. Its brakes and handbrake including the cable and flexible hoses, pipe leaks and master cylinder security, lights main-dip-rear, tyres including sidewalls, steering linkage, front suspension bushes and kingpins, rear suspension bushes and spring leaves, wheel bearings, driver's seat security (ie wooden floor not rotten), steering wheel mounting, wiper action (with windscreen washer action if fitted BUT not needed if the windscreen opens), chassis rot near main mounting points including body mountings, door latches (ie they must work!!), exhaust pipe security and effectiveness (ie no leaks), bonnet latches, rear refelectors (a law that came in retrospectively in 1954), brake lights, suspension dampers including leakage, rear axle 'U' bolts (often loose), clutch and brake pedal must not be worn so they strike each other or nterfere with each other's action (ie put on the brake, then press in the clutch, if the brake remains down when you take your foot off it, you need a new shaft in the pedal-box). Takes about 20 minutes. The above view is fine for those with mechanical know how, equally I accept there is a view that MOT is not designed for older cars, and parts of the test are therefore pointless. However simply no matter how good a mechanic one is, everyone is capable of a mistake and also overlooking an examination, I do wonder how often those who do choose NOT to MOT their cars, do the checks as set out in the Heritageinsurance videos. I like the idea of a roll back reduced state, less red tape, for once in respect of MOT'S I sadly do not agree to this theory. Also how do modern testers get to know older cars and obtain this knowledge if older cars never go for checks? I often hear people go on about having their cars be seen, go out drive them, the same applies to the garage getting to see them at MOT test time, I personally support the small garage with "Customer Service" when it comes to the MOT, and for a hobby it is one thing I don't mind spending £40 on yearly, if only to get the opportunity for a quick view in the pit, rather than jack up on axle stands. Each to their own I guess. |
| R E Knight |
| It's curious how the MOT exemption seems to divide opinion, as Richard says, some of us don't even know which end of a spanner to hold. Richards first paragraph about DIY MOT's, came across as fluent gibberish, not your grammar Richard, impeccable as always, just the content.
For what it's worth, mine goes through the MOT every year, scroll down on their Facebook page and see their complimentary comments: https://en-gb.facebook.com/VerwoodMOT/ In order to keep my HGV licence, I have to have a medical every year, likewise an annual medical is a requirement of my life insurance policy. You would have thought that being older than my car I would have earned exemption by now. |
| R Taylor |
Quote Also how do modern testers get to know older cars and obtain this knowledge if older cars never go for checks? My YB was ready for collection after going through its MOT, the battery was flat so I was starting it with the handle just as the young mechanic was bringing out his battery booster. He got quite excited and said "Wow that's the first time I have ever seen a car started like that" |
| Peter Vielvoye |
| I recall taking the Y to pick up a take-away meal in Romsey one night. It was raining and so I had lights and wipers on. Must have forgotten to turn them off (or side lights at least) and came out to a flat battery. By-standers offered me a push start but I said "hang on a minute" and got the crank handle out. They were amazed too Peter. Such is the fun of having a Y! Paul |
| Paul R Barrow |
| Its a very good idea to get a second opinion but even then its not fool proof. My Anglia suffered a total brake failure only a month after its MOT. There is a fixed brake pipe across the rear axle held in place by brackets one of which had failed, this resulted in the pipe rubbing against the spring which suddenly failed outside the church we were attending. I don't believe in divine intervention but it does seem a bit odd. However I still don't push my luck. Bryan |
| B Mellem |
| Bryan I concur with your comments entirely. As an MOT Tester once said to me, the test is great ... but should never be relied upon as to the vehicle's road-worthiness as it only carries a tail-light warranty: once the vehicle is off the premises and the tail lights are out of sight there is no telling what could go wrong down the road and over time. It merely proves that while the tester had the vehicle, the vehicle met specific requirements. Paul |
| Paul R Barrow |
| Sometimes myth becomes reality simply by usage, so I looked up the legislation. It reads: "The EU directive of the European Parliament and of the Council, Chapter II, Exceptions, Article 4 states: ‘Member states may, after consulting the Commission, exclude from the scope of this Directive, or subject to special provisions, certain vehicles operated or used in exceptional conditions and vehicles which are never, or hardly ever, used on public highways, including vehicles of historic interest which were manufactured before 1 January 1960 or which are temporarily withdrawn from circulation. Member states may, after consulting the Commission, set their own testing standards for vehicles considered to be of historic interest."
That paragraph includes the directive: "certain vehicles operated or used in exceptional conditions and vehicles which are never, or hardly ever, used on public highways, including vehicles of historic interest which were manufactured before 1 January 1960 or which are temporarily withdrawn from circulation." Given that not only MG Y-Types but also a myriad of, 40 year old or more cars, are regularly used as every day cars, it does seem somewhat inappropriate to define them as being never, or hardly ever, used. Call me a cynic but there has got to be a cost advantage to some government department somewhere, or this exemption simply wouldn't be so. |
| R Taylor |
| Its sure there those who inherit the old mans pride and joy and decide to run it as cheap daily transport but usually in time the old car becomes unreliable, and what with parts difficult to obtain along with the high cost of repairs is scrapped. I know some so called classic car enthusiasts will buy a restored car and run it until it fails and then buy another car. Its much cheaper than the cost of restoring a car oneself. Either way it will lead to classic cars becoming scarce. Bryan |
| B Mellem |
| Lifted directly from the website news page of the MG Car Clubs Y Type register.
**I hope you are all following the Roadworthiness Testing articles on the FBHVC website < www.fbhvc.co.uk > and how the new rules soon to be introduced by DVLA affect the classification of a “Vehicle of Historic Interest” (VHIs). The relevant regulations are The Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 No.850. Section 7 deals with VHIs and road fund licenses and the exemption of an MoT. The ‘exemption’ for the current pre-1960 for an MoT is to be withdrawn, without examination of their ‘originality’. It is to be replaced with a new ‘exemption’ for vehicles over 40 years old which qualify as Vehicles of Historic Interest by reason OF NOT HAVING BEEN SUBJECT TO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE (my capitals). Only changes carried out after 1988 will be considered. “Substantial Change” is the key word here, you need to read that regulation to see what is and what is not acceptable. If the vehicle has been changed substantially, it will get a Q plate and be subjected to the requirement for an MoT and not be tax-free. I bet that made a few of you sit up? It will be on a ‘self examination’ system but be warned, if you lie on the form and they find out, you will be charged with Fraud (tax evasion) and get a criminal record. What amazes me is that so few people even know of this rule change. Neil*** Anyone decided to sell up yet? Classic Car Doomsday on horizon for all those changed cars, simply adding indicators are change after all. Bit like prediction of Brexit doomsday what a load of .... ... .... ...t Richard |
| R E Knight |
| I fitted flashing indicators in I think 1968 does this constitute a major change or a still pre 40 year car, in the 1950's twin reflectors was made compulsory and so too twin rear lights, I think the fitting of windscreen washers was made compulsory in 1970's. It will become difficult to say if the bodywork alteration of a vehicle to accommodate these regulations represents changes to original specification. If say a different gearbox was fitted to a Clyno who can say this is non standard since many manufactures often sourced different parts during a production run. No I think we can sleep easily on this matter so long as the car hasn't been fitted with a heritage body. Bryan
|
| B Mellem |
| Would a Y type fitted with a 5 speed gearbox be classed as substantially modified and thus be ineligible for VHI status? Brian (M) the windscreen washer regulation only applies to vehicles fitted with fixed (non - opening) windscreens, thus Y Types do not actually need them, although if fitted they must work. David |
| D P Jones |
| Quite correct Dave, I have fitted a 5 speed box so that I can travel at a safe speed on the motorway without revving the con rods to pieces. In 1948 there was no such a problem, however I agree that a 10% diff ratio change would be less obvious, but then would require greater double de-clutch skills.
Sorry I went on about uprating the brakes but I stand by the published braking distances. Recently I was forced to apply full braking on my well loaded 1960 Anglia and on a dry surface partly locked up the front wheels leaving two black lines on the road surface, clearly no shortage of brake performance there. I admit if a Y type is hurtling down hill at a 100 plus the brakes will most likely fade but I intend to avoid that eventuality. Bryan |
| B Mellem |
| There is I know a school of thought that the Y brakes are not up to the hazards of modern roads, but in view of my emergency experienced recently it was clear that had the brakes been more effective I would have lost control of the car. I have never read of fitting ABS to brake conversions which perhaps should be considered as an important part of the system. Twin leading shoe drum is very efficient giving a degree of servo assistance, any more efficiency would almost certainly tend to exceed 1g deceleration where perhaps there is insufficient car nose weight for the tyres to grip. This only my concern which is perhaps questionable. Bryan |
| B Mellem |
| Since the last MOT on my car, I've had LED lights fitted, and what a dramatic difference they make to night driving. Something in my memory tells me that there was a thread, or at least some discussion, about LED lights. Does anyone know if they are an automatic MOT failure? Should I be looking to swap the bulbs back before putting the car through it's MOT? |
| R Taylor |
| Did you do the interior light too Robert? If you do me a good write up we can add it to Hints and Tips. Paul |
| Paul Barrow |
| Didn't do the interior light Paul, but almost every other light, just two exceptions. For some reason, the front side lights, that's the ones mounted on the front wings, when fitted with LED's, made the indicators flash like they were on amphetamines. The front side lights double up as front indicators so there must be a wiring problem there, but as everything worked correctly when the original lamps went back into the front side lights, I just left it well alone.
The semaphores have LED's and now flash in time with the front and rear lights, the rear lights and stop lights are LED, so too are the headlights, the difference makes night driving so much easier. The only other lights that are not LED are the front spot lights, I have them wired to an under dash switch to allow me to flash a thank you to other drivers, same way that you do with the steering column stalk on modern cars. After the problem with the front side lights I thought it best to leave the spot lights well alone. I do hope that you are admiring the month on March on your calendar. Those Y Types get everywhere. |
| R Taylor |
| Why dont you use the floor dip/beam switch Robert? |
| Paul Barrow |
| I find it cumbersome, just as I found it cumbersome when I started driving in 1964. For me it's not nearly as quick and efficient as a stalk switch. Is that heresy to admit? |
| R Taylor |
| No - I just find the floor switch in my Ys and ZA so convenient :)! |
| Paul Barrow |
| Hi All,
Just been reading up on the latest MOT regs, to be covered for no mot, every year you will have to fill in a form V112 at the post office or on the online site that will be setup. this all starts on MAY 20th The onus will remain on the registered owner to make a valid declaration to the DVLA. Whether declared exempt or not cars have to be in a roadworthy state when driven on public highways otherwise a fine of up to £1000 and 6 penalty points can result.Your tax exempt won't need a mot provided it isn't "substantially altered" sensible safety modifications like better brakes are allowed under the new regs. Owners of modern classics will face harsher rules which explain defects in more detail( advisory minor, major, and dangerous. John YB0362 |
| JC Jebb |
| Spent a little bit of time doing some research on DVLA vehicle search on some Y Type UK based registration’s not surprisingly few had a valid MOT, most expired in 2013.
I wonder if Insurance were optional, how many would choose to forgo and risk not spending money for cover? For the cost of an MOT, I strongly believe as a mostly DIY mechanic you have some kind of basic check, in the event of an unfortunate incident, especially if the other motorist is at fault. Unfortunately in a world where few take responsibility for their own responsibilities of which insurance companies can be the worst, why would one give them an opportunity to argue, “sir, your cars not had a check test for 5 years, perhaps the accident was result of your vehicle’s lack of maintenance” I hear the argument often rolled off tongue of many owners “well, I know more than the MOT tester, I know my car the best, and MOT is out of date for our era of cars” ...whilst I get points of the argument, what I am not convinced is the owners not making honest held mistake of simple human error of making mistake, surely second opinion only once year is worth £50 notes for peace of mind. Richard Knight YT and YB |
| R E Knight |
| Richard,
i don't quite see how checking the DVLA data base would give you any information on mot's on classic cars as any mot on your classic would not be logged with Swansea as it's just an unofficial check for the driver only benefit Surely you should be looking for info on how many classic cars involved in accidents where below mot standards.As for the MOT a devil of a lot of testers have not got a clue when they get under fifty plus year classic, my own YB was failed for a leaking rear flexible brake hose!! when i pointed out he was looking at the Jackall hose he was a bit miffed. I can also recall a time with the tester thinking i had a moggie instead of an mg, no play in the swivel link/kingpin ass allowed because you could have the suspension collapse, true for a moggie but when did you last see a collapsed y suspension, so out with the manual look appreciable wear allowed etc etc i could go on. John YB0362 |
| JC Jebb |
| John, If you get an MOT it will show on the DVLA website, not an unofficial examination of which you refer which is not ministry of transport test, of course would not be on their site as it’s not MOT. My advice would still be get MOT pick test site which understands older cars. Richard |
| R E Knight |
| Classic car weekly the edition currently on shelf has the headline that figures from DVLA show number of classic cars going in for MOT have halved. As paper says, if people don't have to do something then they won't, or as the old saying goes there is always tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes.
My view is better to have second opinion and test, than no formal tests, crash and inspector advise something wasn't right, and no payout. My sound like remainer scare story on Brexit, but one thing UK always had was safe rules on road, until adopting daft EU idea of scraping MOT for classic cars. Mad idea. Richard |
| R E Knight |
| "crash and inspector advise something wasn't right, and no payout. " MOT or no MOT this still applies - the onus is on the DRIVER to ensure the vehicle is roadworthy FULL STOP. |
| Chris at Octarine Services |
| There are various items in the current MOT that do not and cannot apply to our cars but the fee is just the same. I prefer to have a pre MOT check by the nearby accredited garage which confirms that the car was up to MOT standard for the items applicable to the car. In an unfortunate event I have my document which confirms the car was roadworthy at the time of the test. Clearly this will not show on the DVLA records Bryan |
| B Mellem |
| Chris, the onus being on the driver is all well and good. Many classic car owners are competent at looking after their vehicles and many, like me, are not.
My YB has just failed the MOT because, and this is straight off the failure sheet: "Brakes imbalanced across an axle by more than 50%." Replacing the brake cylinders got it through the retest. The issues there are a faulty braking system, but I wouldn't know, I didn't even know that there's two cylinders. That's why it's important to have an expert check the vehicle out once a year and that should be compulsory. As I said in a text to Richard last night: There's going to be a catastrophic casualty involving an unroadworthy, MOT exempt car that's not had an MOT in years, then we will all suffer the backlash. |
| R Taylor |
| The law makes no distinction between modern cars and old timers - if you do not have your vehicle serviced regularly, by yourself or a garage, then you leave yourself open to being prosecuted for driving an unroadworthy vehicle and finding you are not covered by insurance - even simple things like checking tyre pressures and condition could render the vehicle unroadworthy.
The presence or otherwise of an MOT certificate is immaterial. Driving a car home after failure of an MOT test is driving an unroadworthy vehicle - as was the driving of it TO the test. Probably fortunately for us, VOSA and the police are more concerned about heavy vehicles so the chances of getting pulled over for a check are remote - perhaps ALL vehicles should be subject to roadside checks but I can't see that happening. |
| Chris at Octarine Services |
| An interesting advert on radio talks about plane being ok and flown with no checks implying it would be okay. It then asks would you be okay with that implying to listeners they wouldn't, so why drive car having not checked brake fluid levels, tyre pressures etc etc.
I believe the same applies to tests, one expects planes and boats to have annual checks regulated otherwise unscrupulous businesses would not bother, same for unscrupulous owners, or car being off road for years, tarted up, sold on perhaps with defects but no other checks and sold as seen, surely can't be right? Of course it's responsibility of driver on the given day to ensure the car is safe and roadworthy, but like Robert has stated, some owners don't have required knowledge to spot all safety issues a test would pick up, others would simply be too casual. Clearly it's each to their own and subjective view with those for and against the change. |
| R E Knight |
| In addition, all MOT results can be seen on www.gov.uk if my car has fault, get it fixed, next year MOT shows no reference to that fault,come same time of the car, would use it as sales pitch to prospective buyer that it helps show car was upkept and maintained |
| R E Knight |
| Took the YT for it's anniversary test on Wednesday before it expired on 5th May, I think it is important to ensure that the car stays road worthy during the current lockdown and it was an opportunity to at least drive it to the MOT test for some much needed exercise. Another 12 months before the next test. Richard |
| Richard Knight |
This thread was discussed between 13/11/2011 and 17/04/2020
MG MG Y Type index
This thread is from the archives. Join the live MG MG Y Type BBS now