When I first put my Box on the road in 1962, I had to provide an engineer's report and an MOT for the insurance company. 10 shillings and six pence for the MOT, £2 insurance third party fire and theft. Learner driver 20years of age!!

Location: Sunny Porthcawl

When my Father bought the Opal just over a year ago it had a valid MOT and had only coverd a few miles since its issue (100 or so).

On investigation both trackrod ends were found to be very badly worn, the radius arm bushes onto the chassis ball likewise. The brakes were very bad, for any seven, even though they are semi Girling brakes!
Most of this wear did not happen in 100 miles!

None of these things bothered us as we expected to have to do some work as the car was bought as a non runner from the estate of the previous owner. However it does make you wonder how many other old cars have had MOT's done by a man with a white stick?

Everything is sorted now, the car has a proper MOT and will be at Warwick.

Stuart.

Location: Devon

No one seems to have any suggestions and the MOT removal seems an accomplished fact, so I will say again-

All who are concerned should lobby the Government for an official 'roadworthy' check requirement for the older vehicles when they change hands, to be provided to the new owner.

If not I can see lots of buyer beware- although with old cars this has always been the case.

Tony.

Location: Melbourne, Australia

Tony, I was very interested to see you suggest a "roadworthiness" test for vehicles when they change hands. Can you imagine such a test being taylor made to suit our cars? I fear that such a test may not include all the hard won M.O.T exemptions; as the green lobby would surely take their chance to 'clean us up'.

Ray.

Location: Derby

Ray,

The Victorian regulations allow for each Club to develop and apply their own rules for approving a vehicles suitability for Club Registration, but this gives a problem with the Club insurance liability, so many Clubs (ours included) use the Road Authority sanctioned 'Roadworthiness Certificate', which must also be used for the sale of any registered vehicle whether full or Club.
As you note this gives a problem if the tester applies new car requirements to a 'vintage' car, much like your MOT.
We require 'sympathetic' testers who understand that rules state the tests should not require anything more stringent that that appplying 'when the vehicle was new'. Clubs develop lists of appropriate testers.
It could be possible that further rules will be developed in Victoria for our vintage and similar cars much as they have in South Australia although we will have to monitor what is to be included.

Tony.

Location: Melbourne, Australia

Thanks, Tony. I see what you guys have done with the influence of your clubs but what what about someone who has a rare car for which there is no suitable club? I have a right hand drive 1926 Dodge Brothers tourer (Australian bodied) and there are not enough others here to warrant a club.

Location: Derby

Ray,

It only has to be a club for car people- not necessarily a one make club. Are there any American Car Clubs? I believe The Vintage Sports Car Club here now recognises American cars

The Club has to have been authorised by VicRoads to approve members application for Red Plate (Club) registration. This would then require a Certificate of Roadworthiness issued by a testing garage unless the club also has decided to be the test authority

I hasten to point out that out Club registration allows for 90 days driving per year and costs A$130 p/a which might not suit full time vintage car users.
It is of course possible to have more than one car on Club registration

Tony.

Location: Melbourne, Australia

Tony, 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? How is that policed? Sorry,I don't quite understand. What about selling unrestored cars? Owners who don't belong to a club?

Location: Derby

The potential ramifications of this ill-considered decision are beginning to sink in.

It all sounds horribly complicated with all sorts of liability issues for Clubs that they are unlikely to take on in the UK.

How about we have a simple system whereby you take your vehicle to an authorised Testing Station every 12 months where, for a small charge, it is inspected and, if it meets a satisfactory standard, you get a certificate that says so and the details are entered onto a central database that the authorities keep.

It could be called an MOT test!!

Steve

There is nothing in the proposals that indicates it will be no longer possible to have an MOT test on a pre 1960 vehicle. It is simply no longer mandatory. Personally, I think this is a good thing, and I say this after a lifetime spent at a senior level in the motor industry.
However, there is nothing to stop you having your car MOTed every year if you so wish. Nor is there any reason why you cant ask the vendor of any car for an MOT certificate, if you deem that necessary (always assuming he agrees). Nor is there any reason why, if you can't find an old car sympathetic garage somewhere in your locality, that you can't ask a local Austin 7 expert to have a look.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

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

Location: Derby

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

Alan Fairless

Ray White

Alan Fairless

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

There isn't any fuss at the moment. It's just that we have left the door open for the thief to come in the night!

Ray.

Which particular thief are you inventing here?

Location: Derby

We've been beaten to it by Classic Cars Monthly!

Here's the text from the online petition:

The MOT test ensures all vehicles are maintained to necessary standards. Exempting pre-1960s vehicles will have widespread implications. Say no if you agree with just one of the nine reasons here.

1. Insurance premiums are expected to rise for all enthusiasts.
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.
4. Trade revenues from parts and labour will suffer.
5. MOT exempt vehicles may find future road use limited.
6. An MOT allows vital trade within understood guidelines of condition.
7. An MOT-exempt vehicle in an accident will be held to greater account, bringing enthusiasts into disrepute.
8. Allowing passenger-carrying commercial vehicles MOT exemption has huge cost implications for their operators.
9. Rising public liability insurance for events attended by MOT-exempt vehicles could become too expensive.

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34434

Location: Near Bicester

Think we should all sign takes 2 mins .before its to late

Location: Dunbar east Lothian

Think carefully before you do that.
If you want to be subjected to a new MOT procedure,with new requirements and with no age related concessions, then sign it. If you think your brakes, lights, emissions, suspension and steering are up to modern standards,(really up to it) sign it.
Otherwise, accept what you've been given, you can always ask your garage to do a safety check, but insistance that we be judged by the MOT test as it will develop is not a good thing.

Location: Buxted

What benefits are there in not having an annual safety test on your vehicle irrespective of it's age?

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?

Location: Buxted

I wasn't picking on you Austin and I know your thoughts on the matter, my questions are serious and I am genuinely interested in getting an answer to them.

I agree with Austin when he says this is based on opinions, that's because all the petitioner has, but I still believe that this whole thing has not been thought out properly.

At present, we have thousands of MOT testers who are using common sense at MOT time, many are old car enthusiasts and the vast majority of those will be old car savvy and will know exactly what presents a danger to other road users...Sandy spotted his old tyres were on the road to total failure because he is vigilant, there will be many old car owners that might have missed it, however an decent MOT tester will have spotted it.

At my last MOT my tester put my car through the emissions test (which it doesn't have to comply with, of course) and it beat the three year old BMW that had just been failed before my car went through, which doesn't prove anything other than the fact that it doesn't matter how old your car is, it can still fail!

I may not agree with the points raised in the petition, but I feel it might just bring this fundamentally flawed decision to be reconsidered by the powers that be and to try not to fix a system that isn't broken.

Location: Near Bicester

I dont think the petitions in based on opinion, most of it is plain horse manure.

Just re-insured one of my MOT exempt vehicles today, will re-tax it tommorrow. £37.06 inc premium tax.

The other one wants insuring next month, sadly not as cheap as I also have to insure it for £5,000,000.00 against a boiler explosion .

I really don't think some of you realise how many vehicles are allready MOT exempt.

As for accidents, I've had a mate have his steam lorry involved in an accident. The insurance was no problem. All repairs payed for, and the poor thing is back on the road.

An MOT exempt vehicle is not a new thing, nor is it remotely unusual. The insurance companies are quite use to dealing with them.

P.S Is it only me who lives in the real world?

Having read all the differing opinions about what will or will not happen; and not wishing to be branded a scare-monger, I have given this a lot more consideration and come to the conclusion that the chances are that things will continue much as they are.

Provided that those who wish to have an M.O.T inspection are not prevented from having one, the change will be irrelevant for them. I suspect many will continue with the M.O.T. tradition and simple market forces will encourage people to equip their cars with an M.O.T. history if it makes them cheaper to insure or make them easier to sell and fetch a higher price when they do sell.

Most of us want what is best for our cars and if we think an M.O.T inspection is the right thing to do and we are not prevented from doing what we want, then the people we need worry about are those who are prepared to take risks with safety. As owners, we are about become even more personally responsible than before, so if the police start to take more of an interest in our cars, then a M.O.T. certificate will at least show willing on our part.

I do worry that the petittion has too much opinion and too few facts. I worry that parts suppliers will suffer and no one seems to care much about the plight of those M.O.T. testers who have shown understanding and common sense with our cars. I probably worry too much full stop.

Ray

Location: Derby

You're quite right Hedd,I'm fairly sure ,that,like me,many of us are unaware of this MOT exempt situation.As a matter of interest perhaps you'd be kind enough to enlighten us all with a list of the type of vehicles in this happy state?

Location: Bristol

Vehicles less than 3500KG

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_065277.pdf

Vehicles more than 3500KG

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_067674.pdf

The list doesn't seem like a lot untill you start thinking about it.

The STGO stuff currently covers most of the bigger 'vintage' military tack.
The living vans some of the travellers lighter vehicles.
The pre 1960 HGV (not actually on these forms), covers pre 1960 trucks is the equivalent of what the government intends for us. I think I'm right in saying that you can actually drive a pre 1960 HGV on a car licence provided it is unladen.
Then you have agricultural use - farm tractors, farmers can run up to 25ton gross with the trailer twice the weight of the tractor!
Larger >3500kg steam powered vehicles. I run one currently, with one in the wash. Steam Tractor and a steam roller.
Motor Tractor/Locomotive covers anthing built to tow a trailer (though this was under consultation in 2011 - nothing has come of it yet), but not carry load. This is your typical 'ballast box' lorry. Take off the 5th wheel, fit a ballast box, and you are MOT exempt.
Funeral vehicles - hearse & limo, no seat belts required either.
Recovery vehicles - ever wondered why there are so mant 'wreckers' preserved?

As I hinted at earlier the government also had a HGV MOT consultation last year, basically they were looking to keep the 1960 exemption, but try to tighten down on the other mainstream stuff done to avoid MOT and exploit the loopholes, that is recovery, motor tractor/locomotive, living van etc. What the focus was that if it was a post 1960 lorry, or closely lorry based it 'should' have a MOT, if not and clearly specialist it should be exempt. The consultation was about how to legislate correclty and fairly for that philosophy.

This caused a lot of worry in the vintage military world, a lot of guys run stuff that does not conform to the civilian C & U regs under either special types or Motor Tractor/Locomotive. The special types exemption is widely believed illegal as they may be military vehicles, but they are not being used for military purposes, they are too wide mostly, or the brakes are not up to C & U. If the motor tractor/locomotive exemption was removed much of the tack would be un MOT'able leaving them with a big problem. Some of the forums got so uptight about it they banned discussion. I even know of one guy who has sold his machine because after having looked into it, he believed that he (and others doing the same thing) were running illegally despite being road registered, insured and taxed.

This is a bit of a minefield, and nothing has come of it, the word is that nothing is going to in the short term as it will be more expensive to administer and set up, and the saving in terms of lives is not great.

As there is some confusion over Tony P's submission, to clarify : Cars in Victoria of any age must be issued with a Roadworthy Certificate (your MOT) when first registered or re-registered, or when they change hands. Whether it's an Austin Seven or any other car - old or modern - you may elect to pay the full Registration fees if you wish to use your car every day. What Tony described is not "Registration" for which an annual (high) fee must be paid, but old-car owners are offered the choice of a "Permit" system which is what he has described. With the "Permit" system, one is offered again a choice - paying for 45 or 90 days use in a calendar year. Payment for this is made annually but is considerably cheaper than full Registration costs. This is mainly for those owners who only use their cars on Runs or Rallies run by their own Club or by other Clubs licensed to issue Permits. Use includes even running down to the local shops. Every trip must be recorded in an issued Log Book and Police can and do pull you over to check that your book is already filled in for that trip. They can identify which cars are on the "Permit" system by the special Red number plates issued. As in other cars, a Red-plate car must be Roadworthied each time it changes hands. Most Clubs insist on a Roadworthy Certificate when first on the system or when changes hands, some (few) Clubs only require an annual check by someone qualified. It all means that a multiple-old-car owner doesn't have to pay full fees for every car, because he can only drive one at a time. In summary where Tony has said "Registration", please read "Permit". For many years there was a grey area as to how "legal" a Permit car was, but that has been resolved with the Authorities and Insurance companies. When one is lobbying the Government to change a Law, it most times helps if one offers an alternative. The above system or similar idea may well be offered to obtain a change of attitude. Good Luck, Cheers, Bill

Location: Melbourne, Australia

Thank you Bill - what I tried to say - the permit allows the same useage of the car as full registration, including third party insurance for when you hit the proverbial Rolls, but only for 90 days per year. Comprehensive car insurance is also cheaper (well, it is for Austin 7's).

You still can (and some do) keep your Austin 7 fully registered at about four times the cost.

Earlier in the discussion my initial suggestion was for vintage car owners to lobby for a 'roadworthy '(MOT) check when a vehicle changed hands as an alternative to the planned total removal - I didn't suggest the use of a Club permit scheme (although it is another alternative).

Tony.

Location: Melbourne, Australia

Hi all

Just to shed some light on what MAY be to come in the MOT.

On Wednesday I was in a garage in Exeter with our new to us modern (dead posh, its only done 110k miles!).

This garage has just set up a brand new MOT bay, from scratch, at a cost, I was told, of nearly £40K. The MOT lift and brake tester are all automated, for one man opperation, with no MOT assistant requred.

The brake tester weighs the car, works out the efficencies and spews out a pass or fail print out. The lift has shaker plates to test the streering and suspension and belive me, you would not want to put an old car on it! The 4 year old VW Polo I saw being tested had its front wheels moved in and out sideways noticably during the test procedure! All in all, if this is the standard that MOT's are going to be carried out to in the future there is no way an Austin Seven would even be testable, let alone pass the test.

This is intended as an observation, not an argument for the exemption. However we, in the old car world do need to be aware of changes which are taking place.

Ten years ago I spent several weeks carrying out warranty training for GM/Opel in Cyprus. Even then they had a rig to test shock absorber efficiency during their "MOT". Not that you would have known they had one from some of the wrecks driving around on the roads!

My point being, the technology is out there to make our MOT test very difficult for an old car to pass, without the MOT standards changing. All it takes is the exemptions and relaxations to be removed and we would be stuffed.

Food for thought I hope.

Stuart

Location: Devon

Stuart Palmer

Hi all

Just to shed some light on what MAY be to come in the MOT.

"All it takes is the exemptions and relaxations to be removed and we would be stuffed."

Is there any evidence to suggest that this might happen?

Is this why the Government want's us out of the picture; so that the test can be automated?

Location: Derby

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 Hawkins

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: 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

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.