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

Many of us think no MoT test is a very good thing. If you want to get your vehicle/s tested you will still be able to do so, so where is the problem? For many years historic lorries have not needed a test, also tractors. They did not see a large hike in insurance prices, and the police do not stop them much for inspections.
Young policemen, and young MoT testers, will have little knowledge of king pins, trunnions, cable brakes etc. And their knowledge of the law is not likely to include which year of manufacture can still use trafficators. They will leave us alone, and surely that is a good thing. We know our vehicles and what we do with them. Does a little bit of play in a king pin really matter on a car that never leaves the village?
The Austin seven has seen a lot of things come and go - positive earth - lead in petrol - and now the ten year test has gone. Sevens managed fine for many years before testing was introduced.

Location: United Kingdom ooop norf

hi andrew,
you may well be right,were is the problem.

on the other hand we all know there will be a small number of people who will abuse the right.and put things at risk for the rest of us.

an old saying if it works dont try to fix it.

also some of us just dont trust change!

did anyone see the news yesterday? the government want to intruduce a two tier road tax system.with the higher rate being able to use the motorways.
and the lower rate side roads only.

so whats to come for our old cars.

sorry but for me when the government is involved,i dont trust change.

tony

I finished the restoration of my 1925 chummy last year and took it for it's first ever MoT as it had been off the road since 1953, ie before the test was introduced. If I had waited, it would never have needed a test!

Location: Stretham, Ely, The fens.

Andrew.At what point do you believe "a little bit of play" in the kingpins may become a problem?

Location: Wessex

You might find this interesting, regarding the voluntary MOT, backed up by official confirmation from VOSA, so a qualified person can judge how "little" that bit of play in the kingpin can be before it becomes dangerous!

As you may know I'm a member of ACE and this is the result of further enquiries regarding the MOT and our Austins, especially with regard to insurance consequences and we are pleased that the latest news from VOSA is more positive.

The July 2012 ‘Matters of Testing’ magazine, for authorised examiners and testers, page 4, holds an article stating “ … But owners of affected vehicles will still be able to take them for an MoT test on a voluntary basis. So, if a customer requests a test on a pre-1960 vehicle, you will still be able to carry out a test and issue a certificate in the normal way. And, of course, owners are still responsible for keeping vehicles roadworthy and legal, even if they don’t need an MoT test! “

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/MoT%20-%20Issue%2054%20-%20Jul%202012.pdf

This appears to suggest that, contrary to initial statements concerning removal of pre-1960 details from the VOSA database, that voluntary MOTs would still show up on the VOSA system.

To ensure that this apparent breakthrough wasn’t down to publishing deadlines curtailing updates, we spoke with VOSA press office asking them to clarify.

They replied “Although pre-1960 vehicles will become exempt from the requirement to have an MoT test, we know that some owners may wish to voluntarily continue to obtain MoT’s for their vehicles. The VOSA system will allow this. There is only one MoT computer system so there is no way that pre-1960 vehicle MoT tests can be excluded from the database once a test has been conducted. If voluntary MoT tests are undertaken they will remain on the database and form part of the provenance of that vehicle“

Hopefully this will allay insurance company worries and stop the need for an external engineers report. Our only remaining question is, “will this lead to a two tier insurance system with more expensive rates for non MoT’d cars, or will premiums simply rise across the board to cover possible issues?” If that is the case then we will all have lost financially by our latest legislation ‘gift’?

ACE will continue its dialogue with Insurance brokers and external consultants, for the sceptical amongst us!

Location: Near Bicester

Ian I think its after you grease them and then find theres still a litle bit play.but lets face it although original austin sevens are the best cars in the world the engineering is so basic regarding running gear etc,I dont suppose it warrants anyone on this site to form strong opinions for or against mot,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,s.There,s even a nice litle manual supplied with the car advising on maintanance,and as for the australians they have different laws in every state and the country is still to young to realise that over regulating is generaly only for the benifit of commerce.

Location: germany at present

Jim,

"and as for the australians they have different laws in every state and the country is still to young to realise that over regulating is generaly only for the benifit of commerce."

True and for our Austin Sevens I would suggest that Victoria has the simplest regulations with no annual testing for full registration and quite liberal requirements for Club red plate permits.
'Roadworthy' MOT type tests which so far are not very restrictive are required when a vehicle changes hands for both full registration and club permits.

Australa is a little larger than UK, so cross border disputes and not usually a great problem.

I do think that some regulation such as seat belt legislation has been more than just a money earner for the manufacturers.

Tony

Location: Melbourne, Australia

Hi
I am against the removal of MOTs for our cars as this standard independent check is helpful in a number of ways - such as when putting a car back on the road, and focusing the mind annually on the condition of certain items. Also, any other type of equivalent check is likely to turn out to be more expensive and harder to specify.

However, I am not convinced that the removal MOTs will result in a change to insurance premiums. These are based on the level of claims and the great majority of incidents arise from human error (and often not the Seven driver's error), so why should the general level of claims not stay low as it is now? In addition, the protection provided by the MOT is limited - not all potential failures are covered by the MOT - and problems can arise between MOTs, which often need to be sorted out straight away. Therefore, whilst the MOT sets a useful independent standard, I cannot see its abolition making much of a difference to insurance in practice.

I agree that there will have to be an awareness that this standard may no longer be there, which will involve a change in mindset. Personally, as my car gets quite a bit of use, I intend to keep it voluntarily MOT'd, so hope that this option will be maintained indefinitely.

Regards
Colin

I will use my judgement, depending on the intended use (miles, speed etc) and I will continue to monitor the situation. A young MoT tester cannot do that.

Location: United Kingdom ooop norf

Ivor, sorry to have to ask, but what is ACE? I googled ACE and came up with all sorts of possibilities!

Location: United Kingdom ooop norf

Well done Andrew. Let's hope everyone is as competent ,and conscientious ,as you.

Location: Wessex

http://www.the-ace.org.uk/

Thanks Ruairidh!

ACE is not all about hot rods and modified cars by the way it's for the benefit of ALL motor enthusiasts and run by volunteers and we all have contacts in the right places in the UK and overseas, the object to protect the liberty of the motor enthusiasts who actually drive their cars.

Location: Near Bicester

It makes a change to see hot rodders and purists standing together in a common cause. We all need to be vigilant these days.

Location: Derby

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

Ray, the cursory MOT sounds a bit naughty! I hadn't thought of that one as an unintended consequence.

Both the RP and my son's A35 have just passed their "voluntaries" with no advisories, but I'm confident that they both got a thorough inspection.

I'd continue to urge everyone to keep on getting their cars tested and to complain if it isn't done properly.

Location: Herefordshire

ts 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".Nice to see everyone having a moan again.This I found last year and nothing has changed.I find it a shame that some people are so insecure that they need the goverment to control everything in there lives.

Location: Germany

I'm with you on that one Jim.

Ian Mc.

Location: Shropshire

Overconfidence, more often than not, precedes carelessness.

That is very Confucius like, R, and probably unarguable against. My point is that I am disinclined to try and persuade the government to control something which they have decided to relinquish control of. I favour less government control generally, not more.

Ian Mc.

Location: Shropshire