|
|
MOT
Jan 30, 2018 19:16:18 GMT
Post by snoopy11 on Jan 30, 2018 19:16:18 GMT
I'm not sure how much of the new MOT regulations has been discussed on here but I'm personally not completely sure what they are.
My only understanding is that from 20th May anything registered pre 1976 will not need one. In other words probably all of our cars.
It is my intention to take the car for a check but do we need to do anything. Is there a form or some sort of registration requirements we need to comply with.
What happens with renewing tax. Does everything automatically register and tax just gets issued.
On another note I have a Rover P6 currently with no mot and on sorn. It's R reg so may just make the 1976 rule this year.
I think that you can not take a car off sorn without a valid mot so how will that factor in.
In short. Anyone know what's going on
|
|
|
|
MOT
Jan 31, 2018 0:29:41 GMT
Post by Penguin45 on Jan 31, 2018 0:29:41 GMT
Eyup... Ok - there will be no obligation for 40 y/o cars to be formally MoT tested. However, the law has not changed - it is the owners responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is legally roadworthy, just as it always was. Just because your car had a valid Mot Certificate at 11.30am on Monday, it is actually worthless the minute you leave the test station - the onus is, was and still is with the owner to ensure that the vehicle is safe.
So - if you're completely confident in your skills and abilities, don't bother getting it tested. You can still have your car tested to the appropriate standard if you wish. I will, just for the peace of mind of having a second set of impartial, professional eyes check it over for anything I might have missed or got wrong.
Chris.
|
|
|
|
MOT
Jan 31, 2018 20:15:19 GMT
Post by snoopy11 on Jan 31, 2018 20:15:19 GMT
Hi Chris.
I completely agree with you in having them tested anyway. Mine certainly will be.
My question really is do we have to register the car as having reached an mot free milestone as needed with historic road tax or does the pre 1976 status automatically kick in
|
|
|
|
MOT
Feb 1, 2018 0:21:33 GMT
Post by Penguin45 on Feb 1, 2018 0:21:33 GMT
As far as I can tell, 40 y/o cars simply drop off the system.
Chris.
|
|
|
|
MOT
May 4, 2018 0:35:56 GMT
Post by dave1800 on May 4, 2018 0:35:56 GMT
Now that the UK crabs no longer require a compulsory MOT from 1st May, how, if at all has this influenced the timing and type of work you are planning to carry out (or have carried out) to ensure the cars are roadworthy? Do you think it is advisable to keep written records to support any possible insurance claim for example.
I think the sensible approach is to take a voluntary MOT at a time of year that suits you to provide a professional independent assessment of the safety components. The rolling brake test provides a report of the effectiveness and balance that I find invaluable.
David
|
|
|
|
MOT
May 18, 2018 6:54:20 GMT
Post by peppib on May 18, 2018 6:54:20 GMT
Talking to MOT tester yesterday whilst Merc being done. As of Monday when the new rules apply nearly every older car will be deemed dangerous - because ANY drop of oil visible will be a fail. Merc has oil visible on accelerator linkage so yesterday it passed, Monday it would fail. That is lubrication, not a leak, and is essential to the smooth operation of the system, but from Monday it would still be a dangerous fail.
Mo passed with flying colours last month, but like all old cars has an occasional oil drip. To comply with the new regs if you choose to have a test, the engine would have to be thoroughly cleaned and hope that none appears in the short time between cleaning and testing. Tester recommends a pre MOT inspection instead where all the checks are done but the vehicle isn't logged into the system so oil won't mean a dangerous failure. He knows many of his long time customers will be most unhappy when their relatively new vehicles fail and are taken off the road. Both he and the bodyshop guy in the garage next door feel the government want to clear the roads of older vehicles hoping people will buy electric cars. No chance of that for me - can't afford one for a start
MOT exemption form - you have to register to take your vehicle out of the system
www.gov.uk/government/publications/declaration-of-exemption-from-mot
|
|
|
|
MOT
May 18, 2018 8:33:51 GMT
Post by dave1800 on May 18, 2018 8:33:51 GMT
Hi Dave An interesting post and certainly something every crab owner needs to consider. They were never oil tight even when brand new as was true of many other cars of the time especially BMC FWD cars. Those early gear change cables on the crabs - one of the cures to avoid hydraulic lock was to drill a breather hole! If an owner gets a dangerous failure for reason of an oil leak the time and cost of rectifying it could be horrendous. Your tester's suggestion to get a pre MOT inspection and avoid being recorded seems the sensible way to go at this time. However, a quick Google seems to suggest varying definitions of an oil leak. The defitions seems to foucus on two areas, environmental contamination and potential critical safety issues. Clearly if it is from a power steering pump for example this is potentially dangerous. The definition of leak from a non critical area such as a tappet cover gasket seems very vague. Some sources are suggesting it is only a minor issue unless it is dripping but others seem to support your tester's sricter interpretation. If it is the latter I can see chaos ensiung and maybe sales of STP to thicken the oil  . Perhaps those considering a full test should just have the inspection at this time until there is clarification of this contentious issue? Thoughts? David |
|
|
|
MOT
May 18, 2018 16:19:19 GMT
Post by steve4487 on May 18, 2018 16:19:19 GMT
David
This is a copy of the new regulations. You can see from the 3rd line down that the fail criteria regarding leaks is that a car will fail the MOT if the leaks pose an environmental risk and NOT if there any leaks at all.
You can see the stupidity of these new regulations by reading the 4th line down where a reason for failure will now include if the brake discs or pads are missing. So presumably prior to these new regulations a car could have passed the MOT with missing brake discs and or pads.. Obviously this isn't, and wasn't the case but it just goes to show that idiots are now in charge of the asylum.
Regards
Steve
Some new items will be tested during the MOT.
They include checking:
if tyres are obviously underinflated
if the brake fluid has been contaminated
for fluid leaks posing an environmental risk
brake pad warning lights and if brake pads or discs are missing
reversing lights on vehicles first used from 1 September 2009
headlight washers on vehicles first used from 1 September 2009 (if they have them)
daytime running lights on vehicles first used from 1 March 2018 (most of these vehicles will have their first MOT in 2021 when they’re 3 years old)
|
|
|
|
MOT
May 18, 2018 23:42:03 GMT
Post by dave1800 on May 18, 2018 23:42:03 GMT
Hi Steve
Thanks for the clarificaion. Dave (peppib) noted that his tester suggested "any drops of oil would constitute a fail such as that on the carb linkages" so it would appear there is room for confusion as to what constitutes an environmental issue. I'm not sure if this was the same tester who happily passed Dave's crab when it was structurally unsound?
An interesting point arises from the pre MOT inspection if a tester observes an issue that falls in the dangerous category would he be legally bound to ensure the owner doesn't drive the car away or obtain a signed disclaimer? How would the insurance stand I wonder if the pre MOT inspection indicates a failure resulting from an oil leak. The insurance issue also applies to vehicles where the owner does not have a pre MOT inspection but knowingly drives a car with an oil leak?
As you say more nonsense, I can't understand why they didn't just implement a less stringent MOT for older vehicles just focusing on critical safety aspects such as structural integrity, brakes, suspension etc. That would have achieved the objective of keeping unroadworthy vehicles off the road.
David
|
|
|
|
MOT
May 19, 2018 6:50:56 GMT
Post by peppib on May 19, 2018 6:50:56 GMT
Hi Steve and David
Firstly tester is he same one who didn't spot the rot!
As for the oil. Yes it is an environmental issue. It is the testers opinion when to fail a vehicle BUT if he passes one with oil showing or a drip which is subsequently pulled for that leak, then the tester is liable to a fine of over £1000. He says he won't take that risk as he is only paid £8 an hour for his testing duties. (He makes his money doing jobs other than MOT's and is allowed the use of the premises and equipment. He is the only person there. The absentee owner is a retired architect)
So really I suppose it depends on how well you know your tester and how lenient he may be
Dave
|
|
|
|
MOT
May 19, 2018 13:18:57 GMT
Post by dave1800 on May 19, 2018 13:18:57 GMT
I can understand where he is coming from which is why it may need clarification. However, an oil leak can be like a lamp failure and start suddenly so unless there is evidence of a long term leak it would be difficult to pin this on the tester.
I think from Steve's list that the interesting one is brake fluid contamination. There are a range of testers on the market starting at <£5 that measure the conductivity and hence the level of water absorbtion, others test the boiling point but are more expensive. Again the word "contamination" is ambiguous in my view. To be safe it's advisable to change the fluid regularly - 2-3 years?
David
|
|
|
|
MOT
May 20, 2018 17:03:50 GMT
Post by steve4487 on May 20, 2018 17:03:50 GMT
In reply to Davids comment regarding oil drops and its the MOT tester's opinion as to whether or not to fail a car. My understanding is that it is not for the tester to decided whether he thinks a car should fail or not but for him to apply the regulations as written. If it was left to the MOT testers opinion then he would be able to make up the rules and not apply them as intended. That would be the same a s a Police officer making up the law to suit himself as he saw it when in fact he is there to apply the law and not do what he thinks is right.
I can see these new regs producing no end of issues. One thing to remember is that is a car fails you can appeal and have the reasons for failure reviewed. Anyone that thinks a few drops of oil is an environmental issue is frankly mad when you consider what else is produced by a car.
Steve
|
|
|
|
MOT
Aug 11, 2018 7:35:36 GMT
Post by dave1800 on Aug 11, 2018 7:35:36 GMT
The removal of the MOT requirement for our cars in the UK came into force earlier this year. I wonder how many have opted for the optional informal test to ensure braking systems and other areas that may be difficult for some of the home mechanics to check adequately?
Tony W has informed me that this year he has observed the slowest demand for spare parts that he can remember. This may of course be due to many factors including the weather and the diminishing number of cars on the road, but do you think there may be less urgency to work on the cars now the statutory requirement has been removed?
David
|
|
|
|
MOT
Aug 12, 2018 8:00:28 GMT
Post by peppib on Aug 12, 2018 8:00:28 GMT
David - it is still an offence to drive an unroadworthy vehicle so necessary repairs have to be done. The difference is it is up to the owner, if they choose, to use their own judgement rather than accept guidance from a qualified tester
As for using the cars in the hot weather - mine starts fine in the garage, but take it out in sunshine and turn the engine off and she won't restart until I pop the bonnet and waft it up and down to disperse accumelated heat which causes fuel vapourisation.
She will be out today though as it is persisting heavily!
Dave
|
|
|
|
MOT
Aug 12, 2018 9:37:36 GMT
Post by dave1800 on Aug 12, 2018 9:37:36 GMT
Hi Dave
I appreciate it is the owner's responsibility to ensure the vehicle is in roadworthy condition. The MOT test did focus owners' attention on carrying out a range of checks by a fixed date. I believe without this discipline there are many other tasks around the house for example that may take priority. One of my friends in the UK has experiened such pressures but he is very responsible and has deferred using his car until he can check it out thoroughly. I'm not sure if everyone will follow his example.
I know the MOT test isn't perfect as you experienced with structural rust on your car that Chris has so expertly remedied, but it does provide a degree of comfort for owners and other road users.
If the UK experiences very hot summers in future it may be worth fitting a small 12v fan with a timer to keep the carb cool after a run. These are cheap and plentifull nowadays.
David
|
|
.
