New law one on the way for classic car owners .

[optimusprime]

MSN

 

[ChipChop]

MSN

Historic status and hence MOT test exemption comes on the exact 40th birthday of a car. You have always been able to still test a car of any age though. The test centre will not refuse to test a 40+ yr old motor. No change as far as i can see.

 

[Chrishazle]

I read that article and was confused. If you have an MoT exempt car but put it through an MoT from choice and it fails, that article made me suspect you were then breaking the law to use it on the road. Not too bothered as I do not have a 40+year old car, both our current cars are 16 years old!

 

[optimusprime]

New law now is , every classic car must have a valid MOT Or have a letter through you door asking for a £2500 fine and up to 3 penalty points for unroad worthy vehicle I recon there is a number of classic cars on the road today without a valid MOT and this is what the DVLA want to stop

 

[daveenty]

New law now is , every classic car must have a valid MOT

Did you read the link you posted?

Nowhere does it suggest that older cars must have a current MOT. My classic certainly doesn't, nor will it be getting one in the near future. It's taxed (FOC) and insured but the MOT is voluntary as stated in the article you linked to. It does intimate that failure on a "dangerous" fault should prohibit the vehicle from being driven though this would be common sense to most anyway. There is nothing about an MOT being a legal requirement.

Historic status and hence MOT test exemption comes on the exact 40th birthday of a car. You have always been able to still test a car of any age though. The test centre will not refuse to test a 40+ yr old motor. No change as far as i can see.

Exactly this.

 

[optimusprime]

No more MOT when you feel like getting it done , its every year going off the law .Or get a fine .

 

[ChrisPDuck]

No more MOT when you feel like getting it done , its every year going off the law .Or get a fine .

I'll admit it's not a very clearly worded report, but I can't see where it says that. As far as I can tell, it's just telling us what proportion of voluntary MOTs have failed, but I'm not sure I trust the wording: "A total of 121,204 classic cars have undergone MOT tests with 20 per cent of them being classified as not unsafe for UK roads". Do they really mean that 80% ARE unsafe? I suspect a typo, because they also say "And one in five classic cars failed their safety tests between 2019 and 2021, according to the research", but that's presented as though it's a separate fact ("And one in five..."), so who knows.

 

[optimusprime]

Dont question me about this . We will see and hear more about it soon enough . Whem letters with a fine in get delivered .

 

[daveenty]

Dont question me about this . We will see and hear more about it soon enough . Whem letters with a fine in get delivered .

Try reading THIS LINK instead of the ambiguous one you put up earlier.

 

[pmcgsmurf]

We have lots of cars >40 years old.

None of them need an MOT.

Some of them we do put through an MOT, good way to track mileage and have a second eye on them.

Stands to reason if they fail an MOT then we are required to have the failed items fixed before using on the road.

 

[Doodle]

You see this sort of half-baked article every day in the lowbrow sections of the press - anything published by Reach, for example.

A vehicle found to be in a dangerous condition could see owners slapped with a £2,500 fine and three penalty points on their driving licence. That's always been the case, even if you had a valid MoT at the time. It's not specific to classic cars, and it's not getting rid of the exemption.

However, those people who don't bother with regular checks and preventative maintenance but do happen to own classic cars (I'm sure there are some) are more exposed if they don't get a yearly MoT to tell them their cherished motor is hanging out its ****.

 

[ChrisPDuck]

You see this sort of half-baked article every day in the lowbrow sections of the press - anything published by Reach, for example.

Half-baked indeed. This particular article seems to contain a solitary fact - 20% of classic cars fail their voluntary MOTs - which has been puffed up into 300 words and a misleading sensationalist headline.

 

[StMarks]

Half-baked indeed. This particular article seems to contain a solitary fact - 20% of classic cars fail their voluntary MOTs - which has been puffed up into 300 words and a misleading sensationalist headline.

Aka clickbait