| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
 Posted - 26/09/2013 : 10:22:31
|
There seems little consensus on whether voluntarily to MOT an exempt car, or whether to stick with the exemption.
The 'facts' - and most bodies seem strangely silent - seem to be that no MOT is needed, but that if an owner takes a 'voluntary' MOT and fails, then the DVLA and Insurance industry, etc., are automatically notified that the car is not roadworthy.
Insurance companies seem to state that the vehicle 'must comply with the law'.
Do expert opinions exist, or are we just crossing our fingers?
Bob. |
|
|
i.thomson
United Kingdom
402 Posts |
Posted - 26/09/2013 : 10:52:23
|
The DVLA certainly will know Bob, after all it is their test so to speak, but As far as I know the insurance industry do not have an automatic notification. What authority do you have for this?
Regards
Ian Thomson |
 |
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 26/09/2013 : 11:19:26
|
The MOT / 'Tax' / Insurance databases are linked since all three are checked when an application for a disc is made, as implied on the DVLA sites.
Looking at available 'club' comments - and I don't have access to all of them, of course, - indicates that a 'fail' of a test from which we are exempt may well have consequences; what these might be seems undefined.
An MOT is still needed if a registration is to be transferred. A potential buyer may be deterred by the absence of one.
Bob. |
|
|
|
spitfire
United Kingdom
371 Posts |
Posted - 26/09/2013 : 16:59:56
|
I wonder, Bob, on how many classic car sites this very question is posed?
I thought this exemption was linked to the coming, more stringent EEC proposed car testing. Where new equipment will simulated paved road surface and pound your suspension to the limit.
Another club, that runs an insurance brokerage, monthly reinforces the wisdom of letting a qualified test centre examine your pride and joy.
I would like to know exactly WHY this exemption was proposed in the first place.
As with the MOT test-
If it fits- It must work.
I had read that One classic insurer had intended to run their own safety test.
Under British, and ultimately EEC law, how can they create their own "other roadworthiness test?"
How long is your MOT a guarantee that your modern/other car is "safe?"
One hour, 363 days?
A car on low mileage, but laid up, can suffer types of fatigue more than a well used one.
So
If it is tested, it must pass...
If it is exempt, it ... is free to be driven through any legal minefield that might lie out there.
I would think an MOT document, at least puts your legal side, and your integrity, on a level playing field.
Often outnumbered- But never outgunned. |
|
|
|
George Eagle
United Kingdom
3229 Posts |
Posted - 26/09/2013 : 19:00:11
|
I have had my L2 Motd as noted in my posting under Running stripped - road legal.
I believe my insurers will be requesting an Mot Certificate when the current policy comes up for renewal very shortly.
George
L2023 |
|
|
|
Oz34
United Kingdom
2501 Posts |
Posted - 26/09/2013 : 19:49:39
|
Spit, I don't know who you're outgunning.
A Battle of Britain Spitfire had 8 303 guns; fairly puny. A B of B Bf109 only had 4, but 2 of them were 20mm cannon; more range & more hitting power. Some shortly after the Battle had a 3rd cannon firing through the prop hub.
Dave |
|
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 26/09/2013 : 21:12:41
|
I trust that you will let us know what level of 'request' for what kind of test arrives, George.
Since an MOT is no longer required by law, indeed, as it is recognised that older cars will not be able to pass the future test, perhaps we shall need something corresponding to the 'Engineer's Report' demanded in pre-MOT days.
Bob. |
|
|
|
graham4233
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 26/09/2013 : 23:18:34
|
I understand that for all vehicles, MOT'd required or not, that the driver has a legal responsibility to ensure that his vehicle is safe for use on the public road. Perhaps some insurers of classic/vintage vehicles are satisfied that owners will adhere to that requirement.
Graham, NA 0640. |
|
|
|
Oz34
United Kingdom
2501 Posts |
Posted - 27/09/2013 : 19:31:29
|
What is really needed is an annual engineer's report on the car that is acceptable to the insurance company. There is no need for it to be an MOT &, not being one, it would of course never go to DVLA or anyone else.
I'm sure quite a few members could compile a schedule of items to be checked but there may well be some for whom this would be a daunting task. Is it possible that some suitably qualified volunteer, or group of volunteers, might put together such a schedule which could then be offered to the usual insurance suspects for their approval? The production of this form, which would probably be suitable for all Triple M cars, with the testing garage's stamp on it ought to satisfy most insurers.
Just a thought.....
Dave |
|
|
|
Colin McLachlan
United Kingdom
988 Posts |
Posted - 28/09/2013 : 09:56:15
|
Dave, I know you're trying to help, but aren't you just re-inventing the wheel? What you are describing seems to me to be an MOT test. The only "advantage" I can see is that it doesn't go to the DVLA, which means that if your car fails your test, you can still "legally" drive it on the roads, at least until the insurance runs out. Perhaps I'm missing something.
BTW I'm pleased to report that the damage sustained by my PA on the Welsh Marches tour has now been repaired to better than new.
Colin
PA 0613
MG3242
Register No. 2591 |
|
|
|
Oz34
United Kingdom
2501 Posts |
Posted - 28/09/2013 : 18:34:22
|
Glad to hear your car's recovered Colin!
I think the real point is that the MOT as constituted is rather irrelevant to pre-war cars & a schedule of relevant checks will almost certainly be shorter &, in addition to DVLA not having any contact with it, may well be performed more quickly than their "standard time" & thus more cheaply. If it is well thought out, it should be possible to agree in advance with one's insurance company that its performance will satisfy them to the same extent as the MOT does for more modern cars.
In the meantime I'm pleased that my MGA, which also doesn't need one, has nevertheless just passed again.
Dave |
|
|
|
spitfire
United Kingdom
371 Posts |
Posted - 28/09/2013 : 19:03:25
|
Bob's opener was trying to establish a "consensus whether owners' felt the need to voluntarily MOT or not.
I will be MOTing mine.
Why?
A scenario.
A driver of a mint MGA Twin Cam is jollying along some lovely A roads at 55mph.
A chancer in an MOTed rust bucket, also jockeys with the A , glancing in his rearview mirror THEN rams his anchors on.
The A rear ends the banger.
The A owner brakes, but is caught out by the scam,
The businessman passenger in the A gets a shard of glass in his eye and has to cancel a business flight.
The chancer sues for whiplash injuries and flaunts his insurance and current MOT.
The businessman files for a third party injury and loss of income.
The A owner's insurance company state, "Either you were driving recklessly or the car was faulty. You have no MOT document to prove your claim of the vehicle's roadworthiness."
This causes the insurer to sue their own client for the businessman's claim... and if contested.. costs.
Why? Because legally they are no longer on a level legal playing field, and the owner was driving an unroadworthy car, voiding their responsibilities in their contract.
A car can have an MOT for 350 days and fail on eight counts.
I bought a J with nine months MOT to run.
Took it to my mate's MOT station... It would have failed about eight areas. Fact.
So the MOT is little more than a snapshot in time.
What does an MOT test cost?
It is an extension of your insurance cover, in a sense.
Insurance companies can walk away from claims, if they feel you have been negligent.
The MOT shows that you have made "every effort" to prove your vehicle is roadworthy.
An MOT tester is Tested, aswell as the car. VOSA have created a legal testing framework.
An engineers report may well exceed the MOT criteria, but why use "another" testing system that VOSA haven't devised?
This is based on the reply from a broker on this very issue.
Everyone is waiting to see how it all plays out.
If there is the likelyhood of a fatality, you will get an engineers report.
The police conduct it.
Often Outnumbered  |
Edited by - spitfire on 28/09/2013 19:33:44 |
|
|
|
DodgyBrit
United Kingdom
17 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2013 : 12:14:51
|
Like many other owners of older cars, I too would like to know the real reason the M.O.T. requirement was dropped. Why an arbitrary date of 1960? As with most other political decisions it would seem the idea has not been thought through and will have unforeseen consequences. One thing that keeps cropping up is that the M.O.T. testers these days are unfamiliar with old cars and don't understand them. Personally, I have never met a tester who could not establish if an old car was roadworthy or not but I doubt that ignorance of old technology is the reason for abandoning the test after all our cars are inherently simple devices compared with today's offerings. As far as new test equipment is concerned, I would expect exemptions for older cars to apply as there is for emissions etc.
I believe we all now have to take greater responsibility for the condition of our cars if an M.O.T test is not carried out. If the car passes it's M.O.T. there is a sense of relief that it has been checked by an expert and our maintenance work was found to be satisfactory. The M.O.T is a kind of "standard" which is generally recognised and gives one a little peace of mind that at least the car has been examined thoroughly and - if nothing else - has benefitted from a second opinion. Do none of us make mistakes? I may be 'out of step' but having been an M.O.T. tester's assistant in my youth I can recall some D.I.Y. errors which make me wince even now!
Perhaps, rather than welcoming the M.O.T. exemption, we should all be getting it done voluntarily; maybe not every year which for low mileage cars seems excessive but then again, what evidence have you that the car is roadworthy should the police stop you. Many policemen are still unaware of the changes as they were not notified. It does at least show that an effort has been made and as it has been pointed out here, insurance companies will seek to find a way of not paying out if there is an accident. All it will take is a fatality involving a pre 1960 car with no M.O.T. and the press will have a field day!!
Ray.
|
Edited by - DodgyBrit on 29/09/2013 12:16:53 |
|
|
|
Colin McLachlan
United Kingdom
988 Posts |
Posted - 30/09/2013 : 08:04:21
|
Agreed!
Colin
PA 0613
MG3242
Register No. 2591 |
|
|
|
Oz34
United Kingdom
2501 Posts |
Posted - 30/09/2013 : 09:35:07
|
I think your last sentence is the nub of the argument Ray. Other than that, I fail to see how, if the insurance company has previously agreed, in writing, a check schedule more appropriate to the car & such a test, to that schedule, has been carried out in the previous 365 days, it could wriggle out. But then I'm just a simple soul, not a lawyer.
Dave (who is still getting MOTs done) |
|
|
|
leckstein
USA
411 Posts |
Posted - 30/09/2013 : 12:24:53
|
This discussion always interest me. In the US most, if not all, states exempt classic cars, 25 years or older, from testing. Without getting into the restrictions (which deal with limited yearly mileage and not being used for daily transportation etc.) every MG pre 1980 would qualify. All mine do.
Contrary to what is being discussed in this thread about the UK, here in the US Insuring these untested classic old cars is a lucrative business at rates far below insuring a more modern, tested car.
In reality driving limited miles (1500 to 2500 miles a year) makes casualty rates very low. Insurance is based on spreading the risk, and most classic car owners are careful drivers driving safe cars. I would think that fact should be true in the UK as well, and insuring our cars would be a good risk with or without MOT.
Mike L |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
