Yeah!! No MOT needed...

[Flat 6]

Hmm.. I don't think classic Porsche ownership and cost saving go together in the same sentence!

As I understand it, the Gov't decision is based largely on the fact that most (yes, OK, most but not all) owners of 40+ year old cars keep them in top condition and so they are less likely to fail an MOT?

As I said above, for me it's about some flexibility. Do you really think your '63 Healey has suddenly become dangerous the day after your MOT expires? I'm sure it's so well looked after it would pass every other year? I know mine are.

Ultimately the MOT is very useful as an independent check, particularly of brakes and perhaps shock absorbers but even problems with those should be apparent on a test drive. Most other things are points any classic car owner should be aware of. I'd say most owners would spot a suspension clunk or wayward handling well before it becomes an MOT failure. I have no desire to drive about in an unsafe vehicle, often with family on board, whether that be a 1975 Landie that does 55 max or a 911 that does almost three times that (almost...).

MOTs are there to stop people driving around in unsafe cars but I expect their target group are not us, more likely that 15 year old worn out shed that someone has to keep going because they are short of cash.

I'd be very surprised if insurance companies pay any attention to whether or not the car had an MOT but that's one I would be very keen to hear informed opinion on. Anyone out there from Hagerty?

Al.

[911hillclimber]

I really am not sure Classic Vehicle drivers are all good enough to be hands-on, or even know if something is wrong, or...even understand the car they are driving. The MoT at least ensures the vehicle is examined and a report issued. Maybe better than nothing at all.
The MoT forces the driver to look at the car in preparation, I think many have a car 'Serviced' and MoT'd at the same time, any repair work being done then and there or shortly after the test.

Last year I followed an MG TF from the Chateau Impney on the last Sunday afternoon. Great looking car, chrome wire wheels, looked great.

Along the a straight road the OS front wheel came off, spinner first just missing me and the wheel shortly after, bounced over me clear and into the windscreen of the modern AUDI A4 behind me.
The wheel carried on for several 100 meters after, well bent.
I stopped behind the nearly crashing MG.
The driver's father did the car and he had borrowed it, removed the wheels to clean them and put it all together.
He had not hammered the spinners tight enough, he had used a block of wood so as not to damage the chrome.

I found 2 others on the car almost loose, found the bent errant wheel and fitted the spare for him having found the spinner.
He could not operate the hydraulic jack I had or had any idea how hard to flog the spinners tight. He had NO tools at all with him.
The AUDI driver was really in-impressed.

This has always been an issue, many do not know cars so need to be forced to get the car to someone who does, the MoT man.

IIRC there is a document that details the DfT argument for the change to the MoT for unmodified cars over 40 year old.
An interesting read, I think KS posted it on the 'infamous' thread on this subject....

[IanM]

Hello,

When registering a used vehicle for the first time (or in my case an originally UK car (in need of a restoration) that's not been in the UK for decades), is an MOT required with the V55/5 form?

It is little confusing because the form V112 (declaration of exemption from MOT) requires the vehicle registration number.

So, where do you start?

Advice would be greatly appreciated.

[SeanP]

[quote="IanM"]Hello,

When registering a used vehicle for the first time (or in my case an originally UK car (in need of a restoration) that's not been in the UK for decades), is an MOT required with the V55/5 form?

It is little confusing because the form V112 (declaration of exemption from MOT) requires the vehicle registration number.

So, where do you start?

Advice would be greatly appreciated.[/quote]

As far as I am aware if it is old enough to be MOT exempt then it does not need one for first registration as you will be declaring it as a historic vehicle

[Dean.s]

mine did not need an mot to get it registered. log book came back with historic vehicle in the classification and the car has never been registered over here.

[Ignatzcatz]

When going through the process of registering my 356, I had to provide a MOT which was listed under its chassis number as of course a registration number had not yet been allocated to the car. And when this no MOT business started when I was taxing my old Harley I was unable to do it online but had to visit a Post Office and show a declaration which listed this exemption. It was a stupid waste of time because you don't pay any tax on the vehicle anyway, just go through the motions.
I am of the opinion that the MOT is an excellent check of your vehicle by an expert. I restored a MGB, fitted all new suspension bushes and was totally confident the car would sail through its test. However the tester spotted a torn anti-roll bar bush with the damaged part barely visible which I must have damaged when I fitted them. This was not a terribly dangerous fault, he did pass the car but you couldn't have seen this if the car wasn't up high on a ramp and it took a very trained eye to spot it.
I shall continue to put my cars through an annual test.

[IanM]

Thanks for the replies. I'm glad to hear that.

Would sending a SORN form together with the V55/5 be a good idea just in case?

Speaking of V55/5, what do I do about the questions that's related to certificate of conformity? (Q: 12-to-26, 28, 29, 34-to-56, 58-to-60).

Do I leave all of those questions in blank?

[KS]

Leave them blank.

[IanM]