SOHC.co.uk Forums > CB350/400
MoT or Not?
Green1:
I will carry on with out an MOT on my classics.
Its not hard to check things over on the bench once a year.
A classic car I think I would have checked as its harder to get underneath to check things over.
I took my Aprilia for its test last year and he picked up on a small amount of play in the rear shock linkage.
I have striped the rear end recently and found no play in the back end at all.New bearings seals and shock has now gone in with half a tin of fresh grease in everything so if it gets picked up again there is something fishy going on.
I checked my Transit tipper over just before its test recently everything was working great as the tester drove it up the ramp all the rear lights went out on one side. A quik wiggle of the loom all was back before the ramp had finished rising.
Lobo:
Not relevant to this UK forum, though interesting is that here in QLD / Oz a Roadworthy Cert is only required when selling on a vehicle. Which means there are plenty driving around in 10yo vehicles which have never been tested since leaving the Dealership 😱. Honestly I’m not sure how it ‘works’, given modern Ins Companies reluctances to pay out, coupled with Joe Blogs tech knowledge / maintenance of his vehicle.
Personally I like the system, but then I tend to be meticulous about my vehicles.
mike the bike:
When I was a field service engineer, I used to keep track of how many missing brake lights I would see in a day. It was rarely less than 12, my record being 29.
Most of these drivers would take their vehicles for a MOT like that without checking the lights.
Bryanj:
To be honest when i was running old bangers i would not even change a bulb, just take it in and either fix what failed or scrap the car if too much cost, never let anything serious go but also mot'd every 6 months as at that time the failure did not overide the pass so i had time to fix it
McCabe-Thiele (Ted):
--- Quote from: Bryanj on December 06, 2020, 04:14:52 PM ---To be honest when i was running old bangers i would not even change a bulb, just take it in and either fix what failed or scrap the car if too much cost, never let anything serious go but also mot'd every 6 months as at that time the failure did not overide the pass so i had time to fix it
--- End quote ---
An interesting point you raise about a failure overriding a pass when re-tested before the due expiry date - this line of argument seems to be propagated by testing stations that rightfully worry about duty of care to the customer.
My understanding is that the MoT is valid until it expires so a test failure does not actually invalidate the old test as a matter/point of law. Also of course an MoT test is not proof of a vehicle roadworthiness. The issue then revolves as to the category of the failure as to if the vehicle can be legally used on a road to take it to a place of repair etc. If the existing MoT is "Overtrumped" by the Test failure the the VED would have to be refunded by DVLA as it does not meet the requirement of having a valid test certificate
Similar uncertainties surround the validity of Insurance with regards to faults with a vehicles roadworthiness if say a tyre is below the legal limit or does not meet original specifications. In law Insurance Companies cannot escape Road Traffic Act Cover liability once a certificate of insurance has been delivered to the insured person. If this was the case vehicle insurance companies would wiggle out of their responsibilities due to minor irregularities. (Yes they can dodge the comprehensive cover but not the Third Party Road Traffic aspect that is the only legal requirement) The obvious exception is where the driver/rider is disqualified or the policy has been obtained by a false declaration / deception.
To invalidate Third Party Cover the Insurance Company have to go through a legal process called "Voiding" the policy with a legal requirements to obtain the surrender of the Insurance Certificate from the insured party. At least this was the case when I worked in Police Prosecutions over 20 years ago. I concede correction on the points raised if new legislation has changed caselaw.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version