2025 road tax

[Will]

Write to your MP if you feel so compelled. The response you get back will depend entirely of if said MP is a member/ friend of the House of Commons classic motoring club or not.

Not planning on writing to any MPs, but it’s interesting how defensive some get over what is after all a basic safety inspection! To my mind those who would object the most are likely to be the ones with possibly the most to hide

As already mentioned - no one has really given any compelling reasons why older cars shouldn’t be inspected once a year, which after all was the case until quite recently.

 

[ToeKnee]

Maybe you should ask the Police why their vehicles are MOT exempt? I am sure they will be able to give you a reason.

Up until a few years ago my taxi was MOT exempt, but it did need a test twice yearly to a higher standard than the gov mot to get a certificate of compliance issued by my licensing department.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Historics are maintained to a high standard by their owners and marque specialists.

Not so...there are lots of course that are but also there are lots of rough classics...or more specifically cars over 40 the have been registered as "historic" by owners to avoid tax and MOT !

 

[del320]

A lot of excitable views expressed over the last 20 odd posts - so I can't be ****d quoting them all.

An MOT confirms that on the day, the car is deemed safe and roadworthy. Rubbish!

Old classic cars need not be MOTd as they are seldom used and owned by knowledgeable enthusiasts. Rubbish.

The quality of an MOT is entirely down to the tester's knowledge, his mood, and if he had his Weetabix that morning.

Browse through my C124's history (JSG818) yards of advisories and many fails. But drill down...
Fail - headlamps too high, headlamps too low. Around 3k miles between them and they had never been used.
Fail - several times - front seats don't lock. Tester ignorant of vacuum locking system.
Fail - several times - broken springs. This is a good thing as many owners would be unaware.

Advisories - corroded brake or fuel lines are mentioned randomly as they seem to come and go.
Other advisories are so trivial that perhaps the tester just had time on his hands.

Now, as many know, I lashed out on a £20k restoration of the coupe. It looked pretty good and shiny but when the boys got stuck in they found the A-post so corroded that the car would have folded up like a wet cardboard box.

No MOT would have found that in a million years.

At the time, I specifically asked if the floorpan was OK and was assured it was...

Last year I submitted the car for an MOT and the enthusiastic tester stuck his screwdriver through a chassis leg. Completely invisible through layers of underseal - so that MOT was worth it!


You will see that I presently have a clean MOT with no advisories!

Overall, of course, we need a formal annual check on a vehicle's roadworthiness, but it is such an imperfect system. Even on this Forum, members crow that their car passed with no advisories forgetting it was solely down to the opinion of some joker at that particular time and day.

 

[ChipChop]

Not planning on writing to any MPs, but it’s interesting how defensive some get over what is after all a basic safety inspection! To my mind those who would object the most are likely to be the ones with possibly the most to hide

As already mentioned - no one has really given any compelling reasons why older cars shouldn’t be inspected once a year, which after all was the case until quite recently.

You are obviously just after an argument. Each to their own.

Regarding your musings over whether historic owners have something to hide photographic proof of restoration is commonplace, has been for as long as i have been into old cars. Very handy when selling an old motor. Your (suspicious) mind should now rest easy.

 

[ChipChop]

Up until a few years ago my taxi was MOT exempt, but it did need a test twice yearly to a higher standard than the gov mot to get a certificate of compliance issued by my licensing department.

My 190d is tested at the local authority test center. As you know they do not do repairs so their testers have no interest in finding faults where there are none.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Maybe you should take more interest in the parlous state of many PCP or leased new cars on the UK's roads, many "owned" by people with no mechanical sympathy. These are the cars doing the miles not classics. 3 years until the first MOT is a long time to ride around on thread bare tyres.

Tis true, tis true.

It used to be about one in five failing first MoT. Usually the cheapest cars and "working" cars. Shocking really.

But are 40 year old cars really "worked" or run badly on a budget ?

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

You are obviously just after an argument. Each to their own.

Regarding your musings over whether historic owners have something to hide photographic proof of restoration is commonplace, has been for as long as i have been into old cars. Very handy when selling an old motor. Your (suspicious) mind should now rest easy.

Hard to understand why you think that the third of a million 40+ year old cars routinely have photographic proof of restoration.

You must swing with a very wealthy bunch.

 

[ChipChop]

Not so...there are lots of course that are but also there are lots of rough classics...or more specifically cars over 40 the have been registered as "historic" by owners to avoid tax and MOT !

The owner of a 40+ year old car does not register their car as MOT exempt. It is automatically deemed exempt by the DVSA the moment it is 40 yrs old. Usually from the date on the V5.

 

[Will]

You are obviously just after an argument. Each to their own.

Regarding your musings over whether historic owners have something to hide photographic proof of restoration is commonplace, has been for as long as i have been into old cars. Very handy when selling an old motor. Your (suspicious) mind should now rest easy.

My 190d is tested at the local authority test center. As you know they do not do repairs so their testers have no interest in finding faults where there are none.

Ironically it sounds as though you’re the suspicious one by not taking your car to a regular MOT testing station/garage - presumably you suspect them of finding issues to generate work!

 

[Will]

Tis true, tis true.

It used to be about one in five failing first MoT. Usually the cheapest cars and "working" cars. Shocking really.

But are 40 year old cars really "worked" or run badly on a budget ?

I think people are confusing the different ‘grades’ of 40+ year old cars in existence.

Cars taken to shows and displayed are generally the exception to the rule. There’s a lot of old rust bucket barn finds out there which as it stands are exempt from any scrutiny, simply relying on the ability of absolutely anyone who chooses to take it out on the public road as to whether or not it is safe.

I’d wager a bet that there’s a few cars out there that have been parked up since they failed an MOT test years before and have not had the issues addressed, that upon reaching 40 years old would be magically deemed as roadworthy.

Statistically maybe seen as a low risk overall but does raise the question of ‘why not?’ when the test fee is so low

Photographic proof of restoration but seemingly a phobia of an annual examination - literally makes no sense.

 

[ChipChop]

Hard to understand why you think that the third of a million 40+ year old cars routinely have photographic proof of restoration.

You must swing with a very wealthy bunch.

Photographic proof of restoration is commonplace. One of mine from many moons ago, an old BMW. New inner sills sections, full outer sills, lower rear quarter sections, lower rear valance, new front wings, engine out & bare metal respray. Captured for posterity.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Photographic proof of restoration is commonplace. One of mine from many moons ago, an old BMW. New inner sills sections, full outer sills, lower rear quarter sections, lower rear valance, new front wings, engine out & bare metal respray. Captured for posterity.

View attachment 167415

My point is that it's not a significant part of the 330,000 cars in existence, not that it doesn't happen at all.

Of course you spent £10+k restoring an early 2002. Time and money well spent, but a labour of love, I'm sure

But this one hasn't been renovated, at all, so won't have such evidence, and I know a lot of owners who own similar vehicles from 1985 and MUCH earlier

Even a pre- 21st century renovation is unlikely to have a full photographic evidence of restoration. We didn't have the obsession with photography back then.

Auto Trader UK - New and Used Cars For Sale

Find your next car with Auto Trader UK, the official #1 site to buy and sell new and used cars. Over 400,000 cars online. Simple, easy, quick!

www.autotrader.co.uk

 

[ALFAitalia]

The owner of a 40+ year old car does not register their car as MOT exempt. It is automatically deemed exempt by the DVSA the moment it is 40 yrs old. Usually from the date on the V5.

True...but I said TAX and mot. Has to be changed to "historic" on the owners doc to qualify for zero tax.

 

[ChipChop]

My point is that it's not a significant part of the 330,000 cars in existence, not that it doesn't happen at all.

Of course you spent £10+k restoring an early 2002. Time and money well spent, but a labour of love, I'm sure

But this one hasn't been renovated, at all, so won't have such evidence, and I know a lot of owners who own similar vehicles from 1985 and MUCH earlier

Even a pre- 21st century renovation is unlikely to have a full photographic evidence of restoration. We didn't have the obsession with photography back then.

Auto Trader UK - New and Used Cars For Sale

Find your next car with Auto Trader UK, the official #1 site to buy and sell new and used cars. Over 400,000 cars online. Simple, easy, quick!

www.autotrader.co.uk

View attachment 167416

Low mileage barely used historics have their own set of problems. Most of them barely run well enough through lack of use to make it to there local test centre if the owner was that way inclined. Still worth owning just for that magnficent MB Tex interior though imo.

 

[ChipChop]

True...but I said TAX and mot. Has to be changed to "historic" on the owners doc to qualify for zero tax.

Against the historic taxation class as well then? Logic being these cars are hardly used hence RFL is free.

 

[Will]

Against the historic taxation class as well then? Logic being these cars are hardly used hence RFL is free.

Great, pay per mile would be perfect for such usage

 

[DSM10000]

Granted there will be some numpties , but virtually all older car enthusiasts I know , and see at shows , are mechanically reasonably competent , and also get their cars tested . I don't currently have any exempt vehicles , and would be inclined to get mine tested anyway , but I can still see the case for someone mechanically competent , who perhaps has an older car and only takes it out once or twice in the summer , not being compelled to have it tested .

There are quite a lot of assumptions being made.

"mechanically competent", by what /whose definition? "only takes it out once or twice in the summer"

The times a vehicle is used per annum really is not relevant. Corrosion of body structures , degradation of seals, fuel lines, brake lines all occur if a vehicle is used or not

Vehicles used by the public on the public highway really should be subject to an annual test.

 

[Will]

My point is that it's not a significant part of the 330,000 cars in existence, not that it doesn't happen at all.

Of course you spent £10+k restoring an early 2002. Time and money well spent, but a labour of love, I'm sure

But this one hasn't been renovated, at all, so won't have such evidence, and I know a lot of owners who own similar vehicles from 1985 and MUCH earlier

Even a pre- 21st century renovation is unlikely to have a full photographic evidence of restoration. We didn't have the obsession with photography back then.

Auto Trader UK - New and Used Cars For Sale

Find your next car with Auto Trader UK, the official #1 site to buy and sell new and used cars. Over 400,000 cars online. Simple, easy, quick!

www.autotrader.co.uk

View attachment 167416

Interestingly even on such an apparently tidy and very low mileage example, the MOT test history does show it has failed on items as basic as tyres being lower than 1.6mm tread depth and faulty lights.

A few advisories and an older failure for brakes too…

 

[ChipChop]

Great, pay per mile would be perfect for such usage

Always wondered who keeps voting Sad Khan back into office. Now i know. £2 per mile in central Londinium was his idea so i hear. Happy with that?