Location: Derby

Over the years being involved with these wonderful little cars, one thing has always stood out about the Austin Seven crowd, they are a trailblazing lot, so let's be the first to campaign for the return of the MOT!

Location: Near Bicester

Ivor,
You`ve got my vote already..................

Location: M25 near jnc 8

Ray,

"are you suggesting we should have a system where club membership is compulsory for someone to be able to sell a car - and that we should be restricted to 90 days driving a year?"

No.

"How is that policed?"

The cars have a log book filled in by the owner each outing. This can be checked by the police.


"Sorry,I don't quite understand. What about selling unrestored cars? Owners who don't belong to a club?"

If you read my posts, I suggested that there be introduced a compulsory 'roadworthy' for a car when it changes hands - similar to your present MOT. The discussion about Club Registration is secondary.


Tony.

Location: Melbourne, Australia

hi austin,
you make some good points,as i can see both sides of all this.
and yes the current MOT for our cars is out dated.

i see as a trader,you point out number 4 as a possible.so i`m sure you also feel unless prompted.people wont work on there cars when they should to keep them road legaly.(hence No 4.)

isn`t that what the MOT does!

and thats were all the scare mongary and speculation comes in,if we are not regulated by an MOT then what will we be regulated by.

the law may be slow to those who dodge it,but as more and more cars get sold in poor road condition as road legal.the law will catch up.
when it does will the discision on our cars be the same as the MOT here today and gone tomorrow.

its a long way down from this soap box.

Would I be correct in my assertion that, prior to 1960 and the MOTs introduction, owners were trusted to maintain their cars to a safe standard?

If this didn't work, why was the MOT introduced?

Hi Ray

No evidence at all, as far as Im aware. I was meerly pointing out what COULD happen. Many people may not be aware that this technology is in use now for MOT's in this country. Its up to people to make up their own minds what they think.

All the best

Stuart.

Location: Devon

Given the number of Austin 7 owners who are very concerned about your impending MOT removal, I set out the interesting section from the Victorian 'Roadworthy' details.

As Bill mentioned it is possibly good to have an alternative suggestion if arguing against complete removal-

"Although the owner of a vehicle is responsible for keeping the vehicle in a safe and roadworthy condition at all times, roadworthiness testing is undertaken to help minimise the possible hazard to road users including buyers of used vehicles where the vehicle may be in a potentially harmful condition, often without the owner being aware of it.
The roadworthiness requirements set out in this document relate to the inspections carried out by licensed testers for the purpose of issuing Certificates of Roadworthiness. They are based on the Standards for Registration, including the ADRs, wherever possible.
It is also important to remember that the roadworthiness requirements cannot be used to impose more stringent requirements on a vehicle than it would be required to comply with in a new and unaltered condition."

Note that final statement-

'It is also important to remember that the roadworthiness requirements cannot be used to impose more stringent requirements on a vehicle than it would be required to comply with in a new and unaltered condition.'

I believe this indicates testing will be applied at the standard applied in the 20-30's for Austin 7's

I will now go and sit in the corner and stop interfering

Tony.

Location: Melbourne, Australia

BTW - although I still think it a good idea to come up with some alternative when lobbying, I am of course aware that you lot don't pay Road Tax, so the idea of a "cheaper" (what's cheaper than nothing?) form of registration doesn't apply I suppose. Cheers, Bill

Location: Melbourne, Australia

Bill,

That is why I suggested an Austin 7 'MOT'inspection when a vehicle changes hands as an alternative, rather that any form of 'Club Registration or Permit' which I don't think is necessary or appropriate in the UK.

Dammit I interfered again

Tony.

Location: Melbourne, Australia

I think it's time to resurrect this thread as insurance companies have until the 13th of September to make a decision as to how they handle insurance for pre-1960's vehicles, that as of November will not be required to be subject of an MOT test.

There is talk amongst the insurance companies about policyholders having an RAC or AA inspection...

Location: Near Bicester

I renewed the insurance on my Ruby a couple of weeks ago and asked them about this. They had "no plans" to make changes and told me how wonderfully safe we all are! On thing's for sure - if you have to pay for an insepction it'll cost a hell of a lot more than an MOT

Ivor, can you tell us where this info is to be viewed please?
Incidentally, the wording of the legislation ending compulsory testing for pre-60 vehicles includes the right of the owner to continue to have a vehicle tested voluntarily. If we continue to do this and supply this information to our insurance companies it may counter their argument for higher premiums or RAC/AA inspections.
I was also interested to see that FBHVC in newsletter 3 2012 mention that their online petition results about MOTs varies with most other petitions and submissions from member clubs. The FBHVC committee is "looking closely into this"!!!
Steve

Location: south west of Bath

I think the chickens may be coming home to roost

(Then again, I may be wrong. Let's hope so.)

Location: Derby

Steve, this information came from one of the leading classic insurance companies and is currently only available via internal documentation, but as soon as I can get a copy, I'll post it here.

Each of the insurance companies will no doubt have their own way of dealing with this, but if one see's a way to reduce their risk, the others soon follow!

I'm planning to ask my regular MOT man to test the car as usual and provide the results on his headed notepaper or a blank form.

The fact is that all pre 1960 vehicles will be deleted from the VOSA database.

But they will all remain on the DVLA database, of course...is it all going to be worth it?

Location: Near Bicester

Will taking up tiddleywinks be a less regulated hobby?

Location: Sheffield Even Lovelier (when summer arrives)

Ivor. That's quite a bombshell. So with no print out to show for it, the M.O.T. cannot be verified!?

Could it be that the tester may refuse to take the car out with a Tapley meter or even apply any of the old car concessions? So we may not be able to voluntarily have our cars pass the test and have to pay through the nose for an AA or R.A.C. inspection to get them insured?

Location: Derby

careful dave,

you will have the tiddleywink police apon you spouting the rules and regs.

my only advice is never tiddley before you wink

Yes Ray, that's correct, from the information I have received, pre 1960 vehicles will be removed from the VOSA database, so any MOT or MOT type test will not be recorded officially.

My real concern is what the insurance companies will; demand to ensure they are insuring a roadworthy vehicle.

I hate appearing to be the profit of doom, but these facts come from a very good source and I wouldn't post them here if I wasn't convinced of the facts.

I'm just hoping the insurance companies see sense.

Location: Near Bicester

So, presumably the researchers at the Insurance Companies have missed the fact that neither the AA or RAC offer vehicle inspections for the age range in question.
Sorry, but until I see this in writing from a reliable source, forgive me for being sceptical.

It's good to know that there are guys like you on the case; whatever the outcome, we will not become victims of any kind. Our cars mean too much to us to let anyone just push us aside. Surely, the hobby is worth too much to the economy for it to be allowed to shrivel ?.

Location: Derby

Sorry cant do the link .google. impact assessment for historic vehicle mot exemption review then down load impact assessment PDF this is a must read .especially page 26 voluntary mot test .could some kind person please do the link regards Frank

Location: Dunbar East Lothian

Link here

Jeff.

Location: Almost but not quite the far North East of England

Steve, yes I thought this looked an 'Interesting' statement. I don't recall a 'Members' petition from within the Club(s) I belong to, only a pointer to the 'On-line Petition', perhaps (though I don't know) each member Club submitted a single viewpoint from their Committee.

Location: Near Lands End UK

Having briefly spoken with Chris Cunnington from the Federation the weekend before last, I gather that the whole survey was internet-based. The committee of the Federation were surprised at the outcome which supported the "MOT's to be abolished" lobby, so I'm told.

Location: Just east of Sandy

In my Bristol Club "FBHVC NEWS" for June 2012 I had a look at the survey breakdown:
"According to a study by FBHVC in 2011 some 420,000 to 440,000 people in the UK have an interest in vehicles over 30 years old. The MOT consultation elicited 3,973 useable responses with 74% thinking the MOT should be relaxed in some way and the other 26% wanting MOTs to continue. The 74% wanting change breaks down as: 59% agreeing pre-60 vehicles should be exempt; 8% pre-'45 vehicles and only 3% wanting it limited to pre-'20. 4% wanted some relaxation but disagreed with the above categories. In case you think the survey results were biased by many more pre-60 owners responding than others, this is disproved by the results breakdown. Statistically a return of 1,000 responses should give a result of 95% accuracy. The MOT survey had nearly four times that number"
Now I'm not so sure and nor are the FBHVC committee it would seem. The Dept for Transport seems to have the result it was after.
Sandy's point about the survey may well be right in that some individual clubs put in a concensus view of their club but it seems likely that many more people from pre-60 clubs may have responded individually.
Steve

Location: south west of Bath

I can't imagine that a committee representing a body of members, be it 20 or 2000,
would consider it a good idea, when the survey is open to anyone, to choose to place one vote instead of reccomending all it's members to respond.

Did any Austin Seven Club invite their membership to give their views? or did they all just refer interested parties to the on line survey?

Location: Derby

The Scottish Austin Seven Club encouraged all it's members to give their views BY filling the survey in individually.

R

As we did in Devon too.

Stuart.

Location: Teignmouth

When I heard of the MOT business I wrote to 'Honest John' (Telegraph motoring) AND to the minister of transport responsible (or irresponsible);_
"Dear Sir
Below is a copy of a latter which I have sent to the 'Telegraph' Motoring department regarding the 'Can of worms' which you have opened.I have not found a single supporter of the scheme,yet, after discussions with many enthusiasts and workers in the vintage car movement.I look forward to your comments.

"As a long time owner of vintage cars(Austin Sevens), I was aware of the suggested change to the MOT test for older vehicles.The best option seemed to be a two yearly test based on the low mileage covered by these cars. The news that the test is to be scrapped (From Nov 2012) has come as a surprise to most owners especially when the Minister announced that he was 'trying to save the motorist money' - a strong smell of rodent here.
Unfortunately like most ill-thought out government schemes this is going to lead to trouble.Insurance companies want some assurance that a vehicle is sound, and will either increase premiums or demand an independent test:this is when the fun starts - simple though it may sound, few engineers are willing to place their name to a piece of paper which confirms the state of a vehicle, without the backup of the Ministry:in fact most garage insurance policies would forbid this practice. As a result the only practical way around this is for the owner to have a voluntary MOT test - back to square one.
Having run a business supplying parts for pre-war vehicles for a number of years I do not have faith in all owner drivers.Some are highly skilled engineers whose cars are in first class condition, but some of my customers struggle to fit a replacement headlight bulb, and yet do their own 'maintenance'.
A two year test or reduced (cheaper) test would have been the sensible solution. Please publish the danger of uninspected cars, before we have a single accident which will allow the Ministry to outlaw vintage and classic vehicles altogether, or limit their use as is the case in Australia and other countries.. or is this the ministers ulterior motive.........."
Regards
Mick Kirkland , Newport Shropshire. "

Location: Newport Shropshire

the key to this piece for me is what the servey was asking people."relaxed in some way".

NOT ABOLISHED ALTOGETHER.

this servey should stand for nothing.as the question is different to what actualy happend.

The MOT survey arrived in my email in box in mid December but we were away until after Christmas. The survey period was very short (mid November to early January and over the Christmas period)and because Bristol has no newsletter in December and the Jan edition would not have appeared until after the consultation closed I posted "MOT SURVEY - DO IT NOW" on Austin Seven Friends on January 5th. Our members and, I suspect, many other people had no chance of finding out about it nor being able to participate. The fact that the survey received under 4,000 responses from a supposed 400,000 plus interest group combined with a very limited time and a holiday period I think has been partly to blame for what appears to be a skewed result. However it is the FBHVC that the DfT consults and supposedly takes notice of as representing our opinions! This is why I bang on about taking part in any survey the FBHVC conducts and, whatever you think about the surveys (I have been critical of the current Skills survey) I would urge everyone to make their views known.
Tony, I quite agree with your point. The survey did ask direct questions but as you rightly say, the word 'relaxed' gives a quite different slant on the result; especially as when this was discussed on our forum there were some very strong views expressed on all sides.
Cheers, Steve

Location: south west of Bath

I've just heard that VOSA will NOT be deleting information on MOT's and the information will appear on the official list. I will confirm once hard copy arrives.

Location: Near Bicester

I have just been speaking with my M.O.T inspector this morning. (My Range Rover failed on brake pipes - it's amazing how much more you can see when it's up on the ramp!) and he said that he will still be able to print out an official M.O.T test certificate (or refusal) because VOSA and DVLA are linked; so all the information will still be available for him to do so.

I asked him how much he thought the ruling would affect him and he thought "not much" because most of his customers liked to have "peace of mind" and also, that the insurance companies would probably like to know that the car to be covered was in a roadworthy condition.

The latter arguement, however, I am unsure about because you can have insurance at present without an M.O.T certificate, can't you?

Location: Derby

After speaking to my brother in law who has his own MOT station yesterday regarding the possibility of VOSA removing the records of pre 60 cars he assured me that this would not be a problem as all vehicles which should be on the VOSA list some times are not and there is a system in place to override the computer and impute missing vehicle data .he assured me there was nothing to worry about

Location: Dunbar East Lothian

That's good news Frank.

Location: Derby

Well I have one of my cars in pieces (for about 9 years, so far) and it's covered by RH insurance.

..... because when I queried with my Household Insurance Co., they were vague enough about whether the parts etc., were being covered by their Insurance to make me cover it with RH's - and a lot less £'s too than the extra fee the household Insurance Co., wanted to add to our premium. RH have never queried a lack of MoT or Road Fund Tax (at zero £'s rate). over the last 9 years.

Location: Near Lands End UK

I was thinking along those lines, Sandy. Also, even if your M.O.T. had expired, I think you are still covered by the insurance; although whether they would resist paying a claim in the event of an accident I wouldn't like to say. What if it then becomes a police matter?......

"ello,ello, what - no M.O.T. sir?"

...."but you don't need one for old cars now....."

" I think you had better come along with me Sir"

Location: Derby

Just received the following from the (Not Quite), minister of transport in answer to my letter (published on this forum earlier this month:

"Dear Mr Kirkland,

Thank you for your email of 3 July to Mike Penning MP regarding MOT test exemption for pre-1960 manufactured vehicles. I have been asked to provide a reply. I am replying as a member of the project team responsible for this policy area.

You have raised a number of points in your email; I have addressed these points as they were put.

On your point about reducing MOT frequency for vehicles of historic interest - this option would not meet the Government's reducing regulation agenda and is likely to make enforcement complicated as MOT test for vehicles over three years is currently done on an annual basis. Furthermore, law does not require an odometer to be fitted, working or calibrated. There is no duty on any motorist to report or declare recorded mileage, so it would be impossible to monitor whether a vehicle will be rarely driven in a period of a year. There is also likely to be widespread abuse and a whole new industry peddling mileage fraud.

With regards to motor insurance, the insurance industry representatives have said that they do not expect an immediate impact on insurance premiums simply from a change in the MOT requirement of itself. Any change would depend, all other factors being equal, on whether insurers noticed any change in the claims experience of these vehicles. They stated that vehicles are not generally rated by their age. Owners of pre-1960 manufactured vehicles should be able to get full details of the terms and conditions of their motor insurance from the insurance provider.

The Government has no plans to restrict the usage of pre-1960 manufactured vehicles once they are exempted from the MOT test on 18 November 2012.

Finally, I would like to point out that owners of pre-1960 manufactured vehicles will still be legally required to ensure that their vehicles are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road.

I hope you find this reply helpful.


Mr Jeaur Rahman
Roads Strategic Projects
Department for Transport
3/22 Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 4DR

Location: Newport Shropshire

Mick, thanks for posting that letter; the contents of which are about as well thought out as the policy.

If owners of pre 1960 vehicles will "still be legally required to ensure that their vehicles are safe and in a proper condition to be on the road"....who sets the standards? That's why we have the M.O.T.

They can't have it both ways.

Location: Derby

Presumeably my RN saloon which according to the V5c was first registrered in 1982 will still require an MOT. I brought this error to the DVLA's attention some time ago and that it should be 1932 but to no avail.

The date is of manufacture, not registration.

Charles

The decision whether your car should or should not have a M.O.T.test rests with you, I would suggest. You could ask your local police to clarify the situation from their point of view then at least you would know where you stand in the eyes of the law if you decide to not have your car tested.

As far as the DVLA are concerned, I would be inclined to persist with them. They have made similar errors which I have had to deal with and in general, they want to get things right; perhaps it's just such a large organisation, it takes a while to get to the right person or department.

Location: Derby

Well in my experience of fitting tyres and mots, older cars are generally kept in a much better state. Its rare I get a car from the 60's with the tyre worn to the core. I think most owners of older cars are just a little bit more sensible. So no MOT, No tax. All someone needs to do now is place a nice little 1.00 litre modern engine in an old car and you'll be set to go.

Location: Northampton

Hi

As some will know I'm one of those "special" builders (no not the cowboy bricks and mortar variety!)

I was led to believe that when finished the car I would need an MOT, certificate from my club, a fee and an inspection from the DVLA to get the car on the road and an age related registration number issued.

I guess now we just leave out the MOT????

Fills me with horror as I am sure I'll miss something vital in the build. I'll be getting an MOT whether needed or not!

Howard

Location: Mid Wales

I have recently spoken to two fairly senior Police officers; one a Chief Inspector of constabulary and the other a Detect. Chief Inspector; both friends of mine and neither had heared about the impending M.O.T. change for pre 1960 cars. It would seem the Government did not invite an opinion from the Police - they probably knew what their reaction would be!

Location: Derby

I have the 'pleasure' of being the person who issues Valuation Certificates for the Essex A7Club. Having just renewed Pearl's insurance with RH I received, amongst numerous other papers, one containing the following:

"DECLARATION
I declare that the answers given above........................and that the car described here is in roadworthy condition ............."

There is then a space for the document to be signed and dated.
HOWEVER when I queried with RH whether this signed document should be returned to them I was told that that was not necessary. "Just keep it"!!!!

I am in the process of attempting to establish with RH the benefit of "Agreed Values" in a rising market compared to "Estimated Value" prior to a write off. 17 days without a reply so far! Watch this space.

Location: Colchester

its amazing the amount of studies which have been done in the real world hedd.I just googled "percentage of mechanical failure causing road accidents" came up with this one!"This study in recent years that has most closely approached a valid experimental design was conducted in Norway and reported in 1992 (Fosser 1992). A total of 204,000 cars were randomly assigned to three different experimental conditions: 46,000 cars were inspected annually during a period of three years; 46,000 cars were inspected once during three years; and 112,000 cars were not inspected. The number of accidents was recorded for a period of four years. No differences in accident rates were found between the groups. However, the roadworthiness of inspected vehicles improved compared to those not inspected. The experiment did not have any unintended side-effects".

http://buzz.bournemouth.ac.uk/the-road-ahead-how-has-a-new-mot-law-affected-the-classic-car-industry/

Ruairidh. The division is palpable. One error, however, (unless I read it wrong) is that the law is an E.U. one. On the contrary, I heard they even want to bring in a test for trailers which our Government is apparently against.

One development which I had not foreseen was when I took my '30 Swallow saloon for it's "voluntary" M.O.T. Unlike on previous occasions when the tester gave "Trundles" a thorough going over; this time the tester (who I have known for 15 years) hardly gave the car more than a cursory glance. "stop alright, does it?"
I felt quite unhappy that he couldn't be bothered to even put it on the ramp and look underneath. In the past we had always had a friendly chat about the car but this time he just wanted paying and most of the time was spent waiting for the printout. Needless to say, I went away with a "pass" as I always do but this time without the peace of mind. I will not say where I went but I probably won't be taking the Swallow there again. I may not bother with the M.O.T. at all if it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Location: Derby