Vehicles manufactured before 1960 will be exempt from MoT testing, roads minister Mike Penning has confirmed.
The new law, which takes effect from November 18, aims to cut the red tape faced by owners, who otherwise “tend to be enthusiasts who maintain their vehicles well” Penning said.
“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.
"Owners of classic vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that they are safe and in a proper condition but scrapping the MoT test for these vehicles will save motorists money," Penning added.
In Britain, cars registered before 1960 make up 0.6 per cent of vehicles on our roads today, but are involved in just 0.03 per cent of accidents, according to statistics.
AA president Edmund King said: "Cutting the red tape of an MoT requirement for classic pre-1960 cars is a victory for common sense."
Join the debate
Add your comment
MOT Exemption
My car is just 3 years old today and it is being serviced as it always is each year. Being a new Japanese car there is absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, wrong with it. It has had a new set of tyres, it gets an annual change of oil, new oil filter and air filter, the brakes are checked and are fine etc etc. However because it is so ancient i.e 3 whole years old it must be examined by an official Ministry of Transport inspector to confirm what everyone knows. i.e that there is nothing wrong with the car. And yet, a car that is 52 years old, which could, and most probably does, have countless problems with it, especially if it was built in Britain, needs no such check, needs no certificate and will not cost the owner the extortionate sum than an M O T costs. This then is the logic of the stupid, the irrational and the idiots that comprise of those that make our laws.
Hourly rates
I can see the interest from both for and against here, and having served my apprenticeship over 30 years ago as a mechanic/paint sprayer, my experience gives it's own dilemmas with this issue.
On one hand, the mechanic who carries out the servicing and repairs to his/her customer's cars may not have the bodywork understanding to assess when a 'bodywork' defect can become a 'structural' defect. Basically, prettiness versus safety!
The flip side being that when a painter/ panelbeater/welder carries out certain 'bodyshop' proceedures the requirement may exclude noticing that whilst having the N/S/F wing welded back to the A post, followed by the relevant paintwork to finish the job, (just as an example), that the rear dif housing shows signs of fluid loss that is waiting to lock up the rear axle!
My second point ties these issues in with cost.
An MOT carries a fixed maximum cost anywhere within the country, whereas garages charge independantly of each other for an hour's labour.
Any sensible vehicle owner, irrespective of it's age would rather pay the maximum fixed fee for the MOT (many discounts are offered even upto half price), than the hourly rate for labour to inspect the items covered by the MOT test.
My personal thoughts for a solution would be to have an exemption from the vehicle FAILING the MOT test which should standardise the level of diligence owners of classics show, but have the emphasis on the insurance industry to decide whether an owner who has had a written condition report is capable of following the advice it affords.
Alternatively, the insurance industry will reject applications for insuring cars that don't carry an MOT certificate. They have no direct responsibility to the government, but to us, the public. Either way we should stand together for the good of the our collective interests before the authorities make our minds up for us.
Each to his/her own opinion, but as a biker I have lived through these calls and seen imposed actions by the industry to counter government decissions.
Best of luck to us all
Dangerous
I drive classic minor....I want to have an MOT..it gives me an indication to its roadworthiness! I maintain it to the best of my ability, yet it rarely passes its MOT without something needing doing!!! Will the governement pick up the tab if I have an accident as a result of something I have missed!! More importantly can the government justify the deaths caused as a result of unroadworthy vehicles?? Sure I would love to be released from the doom of the MOT...but not at the price of others!