Vehicles from before 1960 are already exempt from MOT testing, but the DFT are considering extending this, possibly to 30 years old (which would be pre-1985 at present). There is a short survey, open to the public, about this. Owners of old bikes might wish to contribute their views: http://www.dft.gov.uk/classic-mot/motorbikes/
If I'm right the theory behind having no mot for old vehicles is that they are generally used very little and tend to be meticulously cared for. In my opinion reducing the time limit as suggested will bring into play a lot of vehicles that are still used regularly and perhaps not maintained to the perceived standard required. Steve
sounds great - until you have an insurance claim so most people with pre 1960 bikes are still getting mot's because it removes any case for argument with the insurance company
Really, most? Never heard of any so I would be surprised if 'most' do as people don't usually pay if they can go for free...
mot'd a right old bugati once that was used for hill climbs. when i say mot'd it i just wrote it a ticket. didn't know where to start and very little applied to it. lovely big car.mostly engine.
had an insurance claim lately................ any excuse not to pay out, had this shot 3 years ago when wifes car was taken, car insurance paid out eventually, house insurance from the burglary to get the keys never paid out to repair the damage incurred got a bike registered 1952, still get it mot'd, mot test is a total joke but if I ever have to claim there is no disputing that it was roadworthy on the day it was tested
Don't disagree with your reasoning at all but I would be very surprised if most did that's all, I'm sure it will be quite a small percentage. Out of interest has there been any cases disputing the road worthiness just because a vehicle was exempt and did the fact that an older vehicle not having an MOT affected the outcome of a case, purely because it was exempt?
as we all know an mot is only a roadworthy at time of test thing. had an appeal upheld against me once, what a ball ache that was,
So Insurance companies never have to pay, because they could argue that the vehicle, although roadworthy when MOT'd, was not roadworthy on the day of the incident. Folks, only crash your vehicle on the way back from a successful MOT or you're unlikely to get an insurance payout.
Sounds like it doesn't it :Wideyed: I don't think an exempt MOT vehicle will be judged any differently than an MOT'd one - if there was a defect with either it may effect a case the same. If exempt I can't see myself paying for a monkey to check to see if my bikes are roadworthy, I'd like to trust my own opinion on that one as I'm sure most would...
