2025 road tax

[Will]

Apparently 20% of MOT exempt vehicles presented for inspection fail anyway.

That’s quite concerning bearing in mind that’s the ones which are presented voluntarily!

 

[ALFAitalia]

And amazingly many fail on really obvious stuff... lights, tyres, wipers, cracked screens etc. No excuse for that.

 

[ChipChop]

An MOT test record is part of a vehicle’s history. Likewise service history and receipts etc.

Of course they are bought on condition, and the test is a snapshot of that once per year.

Sure the MOT testers cannot remove panels and covers but you only have to look at some of the seriously bad test histories of some older cars to see just how much *can* be examined regardless.

A car that is kept so well by an enthusiast should therefore have absolutely nothing to fear by being inspected once a year - it would only be those who have bodged over rust and corroded brake lines etc that may not like the idea of having someone scrutinise their ‘pride and joy’

Historics are now worth money thanks to nostalgia. A corollary of increasing values is old cars have money spent on them. You appear to be harking back to the old days of Arthur Daly, chicken wire, newspaper and fibreglass matting in sills. Still no doubt happens but not the norm at all nowadays.

As for testing a historic down to the owner. Their choice.

 

[Will]

Historics are now worth money thanks to nostalgia. A corollary of increasing values is old cars have money spent on them. You appear to be harking back to the old days of Arthur Daly, chicken wire, newspaper and fibreglass matting in sills. Still no doubt happens but not the norm at all nowadays.

As for testing a historic down to the owner. Their choice.

Someone who owns such a valuable and desirable car should have absolutely no qualms then spending a maximum of £54.85 once a year to ensure that all is well. What with classic insurance and free VED there’s really no excuse!

Did you not see my post above that 20% of 40 plus year old vehicles failed when tested? I’m sure the chicken wire and fibreglass ones aren’t as likely to be presented for test either!

 

[Pontoneer]

An MOT test record is part of a vehicle’s history. Likewise service history and receipts etc.

Of course they are bought on condition, and the test is a snapshot of that once per year.

Sure the MOT testers cannot remove panels and covers but you only have to look at some of the seriously bad test histories of some older cars to see just how much *can* be examined regardless.

A car that is kept so well by an enthusiast should therefore have absolutely nothing to fear by being inspected once a year - it would only be those who have bodged over rust and corroded brake lines etc that may not like the idea of having someone scrutinise their ‘pride and joy’

Absence of a test history does not point to a bad car : cars can have simply not been used for a while without needing to be tested , and nowadays care can be exempt . Many owners keep their cars for a long time without any thought about selling .

Obviously , if selling a car , a recent test certificate would be an advantage , but for owners with no plans to sell , it is no detriment .

 

[ChipChop]

And amazingly many fail on really obvious stuff... lights, tyres, wipers, cracked screens etc. No excuse for that.

Not rust then?

 

[ChipChop]

Someone who owns such a valuable and desirable car should have absolutely no qualms then spending a maximum of £54.85 once a year to ensure that all is well. What with classic insurance and free VED there’s really no excuse!

Did you not see my post above that 20% of 40 plus year old vehicles failed when tested? I’m sure the chicken wire and fibreglass ones aren’t as likely to be presented for test either!

Each to their own. You appear to have a grudge against people who drive old cars. Not paying their way being the inference. Personally i like to see old cars out on the road being driven.

If the chicken wire and fiberglass is not within xxcm of a mounting point then it would not fail anyway, such is the current UK MOT test.

 

[Will]

Absence of a test history does not point to a bad car : cars can have simply not been used for a while without needing to be tested , and nowadays care can be exempt . Many owners keep their cars for a long time without any thought about selling .

Obviously , if selling a car , a recent test certificate would be an advantage , but for owners with no plans to sell , it is no detriment .

Sure there will always be exceptions to rules - but generally buyers qualify cars and part of that is checking a car’s credentials - such as service records, MOT history, receipts etc.

If there were two identical cars for sale and one showed a regular test history with reassuring results (and mileage records) I would suggest that car would be more desirable to the majority of buyers.

 

[Will]

Each to their own. You appear to have a grudge against people who drive old cars. Not paying their way being the inference. Personally i like to see old cars out on the road being driven.

If the chicken wire and fiberglass is not within xxcm of a mounting point then it would not fail anyway, such is the current UK MOT test.

No grudge against old cars or the people that drive them - it doesn’t benefit me financially whether or not they pay a very modest annual test fee.

Simply a discussion of the merit of an independent inspection to ensure vehicles are roadworthy once a year.

 

[Pontoneer]

What possible good reason is there for *not* inspecting any car used on the road once a year? All the talk of much older cars and standards etc - what did they to do before? It’s not some insurmountable task to check even the basics on an older vehicle as they used to up until relatively recently (2018?)

In terms of classic and historic vehicles - an MOT inspection record forms part of a vehicle’s history and is one of the first things most used car buyers will look at. A lack of test history to me would give indications of a less meticulous owner and I would approach such a car with more caution.

What did they do before ? I'm not sure , but wasn't the MOT test only introduced in the 50s or 60s ? And even then it didn't cover half the stuff it does now . I rather think that before then there wan't any requirement to have cars tested .

Even now , cars are only required to be tested to the standard that existed when they were built .

 

[Pontoneer]

An MOT test record is part of a vehicle’s history. Likewise service history and receipts etc.

Of course they are bought on condition, and the test is a snapshot of that once per year.

Sure the MOT testers cannot remove panels and covers but you only have to look at some of the seriously bad test histories of some older cars to see just how much *can* be examined regardless.

A car that is kept so well by an enthusiast should therefore have absolutely nothing to fear by being inspected once a year - it would only be those who have bodged over rust and corroded brake lines etc that may not like the idea of having someone scrutinise their ‘pride and joy’

Most failures will be on recent cars that have had zero maintenance carried out by owners who are completely disinterested and ignorant .

 

[DSM10000]

What did they do before ? I'm not sure , but wasn't the MOT test only introduced in the 50s or 60s ? And even then it didn't cover half the stuff it does now . I rather think that before then there wan't any requirement to have cars tested .

Even now , cars are only required to be tested to the standard that existed when they were built .

But the lack of formal testing in the past isn't in any way an argument not to test now regardless of the standard to which they are tested.

 

[Will]

What did they do before ? I'm not sure , but wasn't the MOT test only introduced in the 50s or 60s ? And even then it didn't cover half the stuff it does now . I rather think that before then there wan't any requirement to have cars tested .

Even now , cars are only required to be tested to the standard that existed when they were built .

Genuine question - why do you think they were introduced in the first place?

Of course, cars have always been tested relevant to the standards that apply to them - no one is arguing against that

 

[Will]

Most failures will be on recent cars that have had zero maintenance carried out by owners who are completely disinterested and ignorant .

How do you know this?

Even owners who think they know their car well may be surprised at what a second pair of eyes can spot - literally no harm in it, and the best possible outcome is a first time pass

 

[Pontoneer]

Sure there will always be exceptions to rules - but generally buyers qualify cars and part of that is checking a car’s credentials - such as service records, MOT history, receipts etc.

If there were two identical cars for sale and one showed a regular test history with reassuring results (and mileage records) I would suggest that car would be more desirable to the majority of buyers.

You still hark back to cars being sold - the majority of older cars are cherished and kept for many years , if not decades , by the same owners - selling or buying simply does not come into it .

 

[Will]

You still hark back to cars being sold - the majority of older cars are cherished and kept for many years , if not decades , by the same owners - selling or buying simply does not come into it .

I’m just illustrating that there is a benefit of a test history - funny enough MOT exempt/40+ year old vehicles do change hands from time to time!

 

[Pontoneer]

How do you know this?

Even owners who think they know their car well may be surprised at what a second pair of eyes can spot - literally no harm in it, and the best possible outcome is a first time pass

I know this because the vast majority od cars one sees broken down by the roadside are the rubbish cars only bought by those with no interest in cars or driving , and mainly from the far east .

I generally know my own cars pretty intimately , and in the last couple of decades have only been pulled up for emissions , which is not something I have the kit to check for by myself at home . That is more of a concern for city dwellers than those of us in rural settings , where a few % on emissions makes no real impact and is not in any way a safety concern ; and in any case can be tweaked by the tester , and then the poor running resulting from the tweaking can be easily rectified on returning home .

 

[Pontoneer]

I’m just illustrating that there is a benefit of a test history - funny enough MOT exempt/40+ year old vehicles do change hands from time to time!

I already stated that if selling such a car there can be a benefit from a recent test pass , but for the majority of owners who are not selling , it makes no difference .

 

[Will]

I know this because the vast majority od cars one sees broken down by the roadside are the rubbish cars only bought by those with no interest in cars or driving , and mainly from the far east .

I generally know my own cars pretty intimately , and in the last couple of decades have only been pulled up for emissions , which is not something I have the kit to check for by myself at home . That is more of a concern for city dwellers than those of us in rural settings , where a few % on emissions makes no real impact and is not in any way a safety concern ; and in any case can be tweaked by the tester , and then the poor running resulting from the tweaking can be easily rectified on returning home .

So on assumptions and anecdotally - just as I assume that those who perhaps wouldn’t maintain their cars well/bodge things etc would be less likely to take a car in for an MOT if the could avoid it

 

[Will]

I already stated that if selling such a car there can be a benefit from a recent test pass , but for the majority of owners who are not selling , it makes no difference .

It’s certainly not the main purpose of the annual MOT test, I mentioned it as an added benefit to preserving some history for owners of older vehicles which ultimately will provide reassurance for eventual change in ownership.