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 MGA - No More MOTs for Pre-1960 cars

All in the UK,

thought this might be of interest...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18146326

be interesting to see how insurance companies react.

all the best,

Grant :-)
G Hudson

Barking mad!

I was discussing this at the garage a few weeks ago with owner of a MGB V8 and the proprietor. We concluded that the insurers will likely want an alternative certificate of road-worthiness.

The MoT test finds things that I can't easily test at home like the brake effectiveness and balance.

I don't think that £50 for an MoT is terribly expensive or arduous especially since the car is zero rated for road tax.
Dan Smithers

Agree completely with Dan. I for one will continue to take mine to the local garage for its annual "MOT" test or whatever we will then call it. They can spot things and do certain tests which I can't.
Bruce
Bruce Mayo

Suits me! I have no complaints and think it's a good thing.

As well as my MGA cars I also run "Mechanics Days" for the local branch of the Morris Minor Owners Club and until recently "Technical Sessions" for the local Jaguar Enthusiast Club. One thing is very clear from this and that is that the current MOT system doesn't work. Classic car use and maintenance is too irregular and fixing things (just) for the MOT puts the wrong focus on maintenance.

It will be interesting to see if there is any effect from the insurance companies, but I don't expect to see any as the frisks are considered very low. It could be an excuse to increase premiums slightly, but competition is quite high for the classic car business. Insurance companies love low risk!

I have one question though; how will it affect cars that do not have a V5C and are subsequently restored? I guess they will still need an MOT to get the registration number back (on the system).

All in all it will benefit the classic car business, increasing the appeal of older cars. No tax, no MOT, very low insurance. The more interest the better for all of us.
N McGurk

Suits me! I have no complaints and think it's a good thing.

As well as my MGA cars I also run "Mechanics Days" for the local branch of the Morris Minor Owners Club and until recently "Technical Sessions" for the local Jaguar Enthusiast Club. One thing is very clear from this and that is that the current MOT system doesn't work. Classic car use and maintenance is too irregular and fixing things (just) for the MOT puts the wrong focus on maintenance.

It will be interesting to see if there is any effect from the insurance companies, but I don't expect to see any as the frisks are considered very low. It could be an excuse to increase premiums slightly, but competition is quite high for the classic car business. Insurance companies love low risk!

I have one question though; how will it affect cars that do not have a V5C and are subsequently restored? I guess they will still need an MOT to get the registration number back (on the system).

All in all it will benefit the classic car business, increasing the appeal of older cars. No tax, no MOT, very low insurance. The more interest the better for all of us.
N McGurk

No idea why that appeared twice!
N McGurk

Grant

I have been telling everyone that on recent threads but it seemed no one wanted to believe me and were telling me that the plans had been scrapped.

Gyles intelligence services - ignore at your peril.

Steve
Steve Gyles

Steve,

We nod our heads to Steve Gyles and his intelligence information sources the GIS

John
J Bray

From my experience here in the USA, it may be the case that this is not as bad as you think. Here in the state of Pennsylvania (USA) no inspection (similar to your MOT) is required of antique registered vehicles (over 25 years old). Insurance companies for my antique vehicles (1954 TF, 1960 TR3 and 1982 911) have never asked about the condition of my cars, and only required pictures when I first insured them (for the 911, that was 20 years ago). The companies are very easy to deal with and the rates have been quite low and stable for good coverage (e.g., about $500 a year for the 911 with a declared value of $23,000 (US)). I suspect you are really going to appreciate not having to think about the MOT. Makes enjoying the cars that much simpler. Good luck.
Tom Going

I cannot see why the insurance companies should ask for anything extra. It is a condition of your insurance that the vehicle is maintained in a roadworthy condition. As the owner that is your responsibility as a condition of the insurance and if the car is not roadworthy then the insurance company will reserve the right not to pay out in the event of a claim.

The MoT test is only valid at the time of issue, 11 months on anything could have happened. With an old car eternal vigilance is required as unexpected things can happen and there is no legal test for that.

Over all I have no issue with the withdrawal of the test. It has been filling up with more and more requirements that are not relevant to us. The government is supposed to be committed to reducing "red tape" and other such regulations but every time something is to be withdrawn there seems to be an outcry. Nobody is stopping anyone having an independent check and without the paperwork it should be cheaper than the existing scheme.

Neil, you have a good point about unregistered cars - imported MGAs for example. The closure of local DVLA offices will also affect this as they have traditionally done the legal tests. we will have to wait and see on this one.

Malcolm
Malcolm Asquith

Steve,

I remember your earlier postings. Finally now, through the trusted BBC, you are vindicated! ;-)

All the best :-)
G Hudson

Grant

Fingers crossed. It has to go through Parliament to get the official laying on of hands to become law. You may have also read the FHBVC response on the other thread. They are concerned that pre 1960 commercial people carrying vehicles (old buses and coaches) will also be exempted.

I am sure that many of us will still have our cars examined annually for peace of mind. So I guess what it really does is take the pressure and stress off us early MGA owners in tying in the annual examination with the Road Fund Licence renewal.

Steve
Steve Gyles

It has not taken long for people in the motor trade to start expressing their views. One of the major UK Classic Car magazine editors who has an account on Linkedin has just emailed me with an e-Petition he started:

http://tinyurl.com/bt2x3t4

I have not made my mind up about it yet. What do you all think?

Steve
Steve Gyles

Looking at his points I don't think he is making a good argument.

1. Insurance premiums are expected to rise for all enthusiasts.

Premiums are rising anyway and I have not seen any comments from any insurance company about this.

2. Previously non-transferable, registrations without an MOT could be sold off.


3. If the number plate loophole isn’t closed BEFORE the exemption becomes law, many dormant classics could be scrapped.

I have no idea what the current regulations are so don't know if the changes will make any difference.

4. Trade revenues from parts and labour will suffer.

I have no idea what he is on about here.

5. MOT exempt vehicles may find future road use limited.

Scaremongering with no evidence.

6. An MOT allows vital trade within understood guidelines of condition.

Again, what on earth does this mean.

7. An MOT-exempt vehicle in an accident will be held to greater account, bringing enthusiasts into disrepute.

Again, scaremongering with no evidence.

8. Allowing passenger-carrying commercial vehicles MOT exemption has huge cost implications for their operators.

Don't know anything about this.

9. Rising public liability insurance for events attended by MOT-exempt vehicles could become too expensive.

More scaremongering.


There is a case to be made for retaining the MoT or similar but this load of ill thought out rubbish does not help the case. If he is really the editor of a magazine he needs to have some English lessons.

Malcolm
Malcolm Asquith

I agree with Malcolm, that petition is all "if"s and "but"s. There is a lot of resentment from people with post 1960 vehicles and most of this seems to be "sour grapes" driven scaremongering.
N McGurk

Malcolm

I tend to agree with you. I have firmed up and will not sign it. Obviously, I could potentially gain financially from the abolition but that is not my intention as I will be one of those who will have the car 'inspected' each year.

For me, it is the reduction in bureaucracy both for me and the DVLA that appeals. No longer the worry to co-ordinate the MoT with insurance and road tax renewals (they all seem to happen at once). I can do the 'inspection' at my leisure.

I guess that is all there is to it. I am obliged to keep my car in a roadworthy condition because that's what the law states, so no change there. If you are involved in an accident the police have the opportunity to examine all the vehicles involved. A valid MoT does not exempt your vehicle from such an inspection. If your car is not roadworthy you will be held to account.

If I need new parts to keep it roadworthy I will buy them through the trade, so no change there.

For the law abiding classic car driver this is just an exercise in the Government's cost reduction. I am all for the removal of unnecessary bureaucracy and expenditure of my tax. There will always be those who buck the law, but they do already, so no change there.

Steve
Steve Gyles

This thread was discussed between 21/05/2012 and 01/06/2012

MG MGA index

This thread is from the archives. Join the live MG MGA BBS now