Rob M
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,915
Club RR Member Number: 41
|
|
|
Utilizing that logic, you do not go and even look at the Beetle and the Landy. Simples What you are attempting to prove does not actually prove anything because, in essence, if the MOT history is available to you then it is available to every body else and they will be able to make a judgement call on whether any particular car is actually worth looking at, let alone buying. If people take such a myopic view then they may well get a damn good car but they will also be turning away from cars that are actually very good purely because they have had a history of MOT failures which was the then but not necessarily the now. Because a vehicle failed on chassis rot in 2007 and 2009, brakes in 2012, steering rack and front strut in 2015, it in no way means that the owner has not had the car brought up to standard over 2015 to 2017, does it? I'm not really understanding this, we are basically suggesting that an MOT is a stamp of roadworthiness for 12 months, it is not, and that buying an exempt car is going to be more problematical because a certain percentage may well be bodged up hounds, which is possible. However, In all cases you do your own checks, surely? If you are unsure you do not buy! That applied long before MOT exemption and, probably, long before most of us forum patrons were roaming the Planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think If a car has made it to 40 years old, its usually had a pampered life. Anything 40+ years old will probably not be a daily drive,and will be still used for pleasure only. I think you're wrong. That may often, but by no means always, be the case in the UK but here in New Zealand there are plenty of older cars, sometimes with enormous mileage on them, being used daily. That is why anything pre 2000 gets tested six monthly and there are no exemptions. As I have stated in another thread on a similar topic I am totally opposed to any exemption from regular testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i can imagine that mot exempt doesnt mean it doesnt need to be road worthy. So i can imagine the boys in blue will be pulling over plenty of 40+ year old cars just to make sure those tyres on a potential barn find havnt been on the car since 1982
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So situation normal then? I'd be surprised if your cops are any different to ours in that respect.
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 8, 2018 20:17:02 GMT by igor
|
|
|
|
|
easy solution here...you see a 40+ y/o car you want to buy , ask the seller to m.o.t it .... simples!! "exempt" should be re-phrased as "optional"! its not brain science/rocket surgery. I tried that with a good half a dozen owners and their answer was "it's MOT exempt, I don't need to get one and I won't be" or words to that effect. walk on then , sooner or later you will probably find someone that will oblige.
not quite sure why you have got your balls in a twist over a piece of paper (is it used to be) that on proves that a 40 year old vehicle was deemed to be road worthy for only 40 days in those 40 years , as the "certificate" legally offers no guarantee of road worthiness for the other 364 days of the year. personally I would rather trust my own eyes on a vehicles condition than relying on an essentially worthless (other than entitling you to legally drive on hm's highway) document.
|
|
'80 s1 924 turbo..hibernating '80 golf gli cabriolet...doing impression of a skip '97 pug 106 commuter...continuing cheapness making me smile!
firm believer in the k.i.s.s and f.i.s.h principles.
|
|
|
|
|
I tried that with a good half a dozen owners and their answer was "it's MOT exempt, I don't need to get one and I won't be" or words to that effect. walk on then , sooner or later you will probably find someone that will oblige.
not quite sure why you have got your balls in a twist over a piece of paper (is it used to be) that on proves that a 40 year old vehicle was deemed to be road worthy for only 40 days in those 40 years , as the "certificate" legally offers no guarantee of road worthiness for the other 364 days of the year. personally I would rather trust my own eyes on a vehicles condition than relying on an essentially worthless (other than entitling you to legally drive on hm's highway) document.
OK, for at least the third time, the MOT history will stop as of May 2018 when MOTs are no longer required. Yes I know MOTs can be dodgy, and yes I know they are only good for the day they're issued! I've had plenty of MOT fails based on things wrong with cars I didn't know about. Whilst it can be a pita at the time if it's down to safety then I'm pleased it's been raised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[/p][/quote]
I've had plenty of MOT fails based on things wrong with cars I didn't know about. Whilst it can be a pita at the time if it's down to safety then I'm pleased it's been raised.
[/quote]
Personaly, I think thats the point, in a nutshell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
walk on then , sooner or later you will probably find someone that will oblige.
not quite sure why you have got your balls in a twist over a piece of paper (is it used to be) that on proves that a 40 year old vehicle was deemed to be road worthy for only 40 days in those 40 years , as the "certificate" legally offers no guarantee of road worthiness for the other 364 days of the year. personally I would rather trust my own eyes on a vehicles condition than relying on an essentially worthless (other than entitling you to legally drive on hm's highway) document.
OK, for at least the third time, the MOT history will stop as of May 2018 when MOTs are no longer required. Yes I know MOTs can be dodgy, and yes I know they are only good for the day they're issued! I've had plenty of MOT fails based on things wrong with cars I didn't know about. Whilst it can be a pita at the time if it's down to safety then I'm pleased it's been raised. Yawn!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ so why are you still checking in then? You've not added anything to the conversation other than to say:- >>> Kinda rubbish though, if I gave you any one of my cars reg numbers there will be no fails. Not that any of them have ever been dangerous per sa, but moreover I have a very ‘good’ tester, you might say. He knows me & he knows I’m sound, concequently, never a single fail. >>> If your cars were taken to another tester on the same day of the original test, would they all definitely pass? I like MOTs because there's a chance they may help keep dodgy cars off the road. At least failing a car gives the owner the chance to make it ok again and when it passes there's a pretty good chance of that. However come May time, ignorance will be bliss for some forever more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I agree that the MOT system is very flawed anyway, and some sellers tell lies, when it comes to buying a car I'll happily travel the country to see what I hope is the right car, and the MOT database is a fantastic tool to check first. Whatever you think of MOT's the database has been very revealing many times.
There are plenty of cars advertised as being in "Mint condition" or "superb throughout" or many other similar things that seem to be worth going to view, often being advertised at the price of a concours example. Many of them when you look at the database have for example, rot fails many years running, then passes a few days later.
My experiences tells me that these are bad cars with a lovely shiny paint job.
I managed OK before the MOT database and will in future, but the difference is that I have several times driven the length of the country to find out that the car is bad and the seller is a liar who hopes he can fool you into paying concours money for a freshly painted heap.
With the database I have a much better chance of spotting the car that isnt for me and can make a better educated decision about whether I want to spend time and money travelling.
Its not perfect but I'd prefer to keep MOTs, it is useful history because many MOTs are perfectly legitimate reflections of the car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've got a car I'm very slowly restoring that has been off the road since pre-2005 so no online MOT history.
When I eventually finish it, there is no way I will not be getting an MOT on it as I can 100% guarantee I will have missed something or something will not be up to scratch.
Maybe it will be that 40+ cars that have MOTs will get a premium when re-sold over ones that have dropped off the MOT radar?
|
|
|
|
slater
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 6,390
Club RR Member Number: 78
|
|
|
MOT is a worthless peice of electronic data to keep the police off your back. Nothing more. It guarantees nothing. I can get one on anything for £50quid without even showing the car. Its illegal Yeh but it's happening all the time.
Check your own car (or hire some to do it for you) regularly or don't complain when your paralysed in smash or in clink for driving an unmaintained motor.
Above all stop flogging a dead horse of an argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't even live in your country but I looked for a car with lots of documentation with it, when I went to buy there. I got one with ALL mot's and tax discs, history etc. So I would not have bought it, if the PO hadn't bothered to keep the history up. I keep everything to do with all my cars. And here in Ireland the NCT (National Car Tax...sorry Test) is valueless, as any vehicle involved in an accident is examined by a specialist and insurance on any car over 10 years old not previously insured, is very very difficult or/and expensive. So I agree...keep testing and keep the history alive. PS Slater & Rattlecan that is rude.
|
|
|
|
slater
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 6,390
Club RR Member Number: 78
|
|
|
Rude? You just don't like the facts
What does MOT history tell you? It had a hole in the sill 3 years ago? It doesn't tell you if the owner wagged it up with newspaper and filler or forked out for a full restoration. It doesnt tell you that it didn't have a hole in the other sill 5 years ago but the owner wagged it up before the test. Its meaningless really there's no substitute for examining a car when you buy it. If your spending big money the owner shouldn't mind you getting it up on the ramps for a good inspection first.. That way you might actually be able to see what condition it's in!
|
|
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,256
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
|
|
I know people on both sides of the fence. Some who look after their cars and others who don't and some of the examples are surprising.
One bloke I know has cars that are worth around £70+k when combined. I see how he runs his dailies ; if it can't get an MOT then he'll fix it. On some things he will deal with (i.e things that stop it starting or moving). But he'll happily run on bald tyres without a care in the world.
I do hope he doesn't do the same for his older cars with the exemption!
I also know of one car which is worth £20k but IMHO it is dangerous to drive! The steering being vague I can accept; it's a 'boxed car after all. What I can't accept are a brake pedal that creeps to the floor on occasion, a gearchange so bad for all gears that it is pot luck as to if you get second or reverse, where the latter is almost impossible to select; 5 minutes just trying to get a gear anyone? And yet the car still goes to a few shows every year now and again!
However, it meets the 8 point rules and the bloke is a long time enthusiast. My point? Not all enthuasiasts are the same and going along the lines that cars must be kept original doesn't help either, partly for a second reason I'm coming onto.
So it's not that simple. Before I get to the parts quality situation getting terrible for cars, partly down to "enthusiasts" wanting something for nothing, and how classic cars are now seen more as investments the whole thing is getting a little murkier!
You do wonder if the whole 'investor' side has tainted the industry somewhat. Make no mistake, it's great to see an interest in the retro business. But it's worse to see it abused as well!
As for the police pulling over 40 year old cars? Good luck ; you don't see many police about these days!
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 9, 2018 13:05:43 GMT by ChasR
|
|
|
|
|
I don't even live in your country but I looked for a car with lots of documentation with it, when I went to buy there. I got one with ALL mot's and tax discs, history etc. So I would not have bought it, if the PO hadn't bothered to keep the history up. I keep everything to do with all my cars. And here in Ireland the NCT (National Car Tax...sorry Test) is valueless, as any vehicle involved in an accident is examined by a specialist and insurance on any car over 10 years old not previously insured, is very very difficult or/and expensive. So I agree...keep testing and keep the history alive. PS Slater & Rattlecan that is rude. Thank you. The first guy to get the importance of the history part of the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rude? You just don't like the facts What does MOT history tell you? It had a hole in the sill 3 years ago? It doesn't tell you if the owner wagged it up with newspaper and filler or forked out for a full restoration. It doesnt tell you that it didn't have a hole in the other sill 5 years ago but the owner wagged it up before the test. Its meaningless really there's no substitute for examining a car when you buy it. If your spending big money the owner shouldn't mind you getting it up on the ramps for a good inspection first.. That way you might actually be able to see what condition it's in! I was thinking more aggressive than rude, but fair enough! The MOT history tells you quite a lot if you actually read into it. That hole in the sill would be the first thing I'd look at on the car, and how well it's been done would make me look a lot more closely at it. I'd also ask the owner who fixed the sill and listen for excuses, ask to see the receipt if he had it done 'professionally', watch him breaking out in a sweat etc. I never said anything about not inspecting a car before I bought it so no idea where that statement of yours came from? Just out of interest, how many cars have you gone round to inspect and have got them up on ramps? I've never bought a car off anyone with a ramp or access to one! Who said anything about spending big money either? A lot of assumptions made by yourself there. You've no idea what I buy/have bought and for what £££.
|
|
|
|
b3nson
Part of things
Posts: 886
Club RR Member Number: 22
|
|
|
I’d be suprised if anything of decent value won’t be having MOTs done anyway as alot of insurance companies require proof of roadworthiness for current exempt vehicles and an MOT is the easiest way of doing it. I agree the MOT history is a useful tool when looking a history of a vehicle, mileage etc. I would also imagine however that if a car has been maintained correctly by a like minded previous owner there should still be plenty of history they can present when asked. If there isn’t then it’s a actually a good indicator they haven’t looked after it properly. The main area of problem will be at the cheaper, less desirable end of the market when the good car bargains are going to be harder to separate from the bad ones. But that’s all part of the gamble with cheap old cars right?
|
|
'99 Fiat Coupe 20V Turbo '08 Panda 100HP
|
|
|
|
|
easy solution here...you see a 40+ y/o car you want to buy , ask the seller to m.o.t it .... simples!! "exempt" should be re-phrased as "optional"! its not brain science/rocket surgery. Whilst it varies a little in different states, I believe the Australian system makes some sense here. Whilst basically 'exempt', vehicles are required to undergo their equivalent of an MOT after a change of ownership before the new owner is permitted to register/use it on the road, with the onus on the driver to keep it up to spec inbetween times. A requirement like this in the UK system for exempt cars would make some sense, and possibly encourage vendors to have a vehicle tested as an extra 'selling point'. It would also stop people wheeling vehicles back out onto the road after 20 years parked up with an MOT fail and carrying on regardless. It doesn't get past the lack of MOT history but at least there's someone keeping an eye on things.
|
|
|
|
reliantreviver
Part of things
"It will be getting fixed up come summer..." (year undefined)
Posts: 412
|
|
|
I'm not opposed to the MOT exemption, but do agree that the current ability to access MOT history online is a very valuable thing, it can only be of benefit to someone considering a car for sale.
So for those instances where a car ceases to have a continuous MOT history but remains "on the road" then it requires a potential buyer to do more work, make a journey, make arrangements, cause a nusiance. There are a great number of aspects of the MOT test that cannot be easily replicated on a vendors driveway or test drive.
As an aside, I recently saved myself some bother in negotiations over a set of not so common Mitsubishi alloy wheels. Was all set to buy them from a car being broken up in Scotland, was going to arrange a pallet delivery etc. Plugged the reg in online and found the advisory of - "All road wheels destorted but not significantly damaged"
Meanwhile you can run my daily's reg and find the advisory "excessively undersealed" stated a few years back ha!
|
|
Current: Reliant "750" Super Robin, Scimitar SS1s - 2 x 1300, 1 x 1600, 1 x 1800ti. 76 years off the road between them! Also - Mitsubishi Galant Sport and Hyundai Coupe Gen3
|
|
|