MOT Tests at 4 years

[Alaric]

The Mail has a piece about moving the first MoT test for new vehicles from 3 years to 4 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... years.html

The Mail doesn't mention the EU, but I think this is driven by an EU harmonisation directive, one of the few that imposes less stringent conditions than were dreamed up by the House of Commons.

[bungeejumper]

You could probably justify the change in terms of pure reliability. Even though some cars will be well past 100,000 miles by the time they come up for their first MOTs, the three year rule was introduced at a time (1967) when many cars rusted in three years, and when they needed the little nylon bushes in their suspension balljoints replacing at two yearly intervals. (Anybody remember that 16-piece malarkey, before sealed units came in?) And when exhaust systems barely lasted two years before they fell apart.

But personally, I also value the MOT because it's an annual sanity check on all vehicles. Headlight adjustment, state of the wheels and tyres, substandard bumpers, cracked windscreens, spongy brakes, missing particulate filters (i.e. deliberately removed by owners). Dead bulbs, de-baffled exhaust cans, dodgy body repairs, and ecus that have been tweaked for performance at the expense of emissions. All the kind of stuff that the plods haven't got the time to enforce.

I know, I know, an extra year before first testing isn't much. And the ultimate responsibility for safety is always with the driver, not with the MOT certificate, etcetera etcetera. But a lot of people (me included) still think the MOT record's worth checking when we're looking at a three year old car to buy. And one of our tools will have disappeared.

BJ

[Slarti]

You could probably justify the change in terms of pure reliability. Even though some cars will be well past 100,000 miles by the time they come up for their first MOTs, the three year rule was introduced at a time (1967) when many cars rusted in three years, and when they needed the little nylon bushes in their suspension balljoints replacing at two yearly intervals. (Anybody remember that 16-piece malarkey, before sealed units came in?) And when exhaust systems barely lasted two years before they fell apart.

But personally, I also value the MOT because it's an annual sanity check on all vehicles. Headlight adjustment, state of the wheels and tyres, substandard bumpers, cracked windscreens, spongy brakes, missing particulate filters (i.e. deliberately removed by owners). Dead bulbs, de-baffled exhaust cans, dodgy body repairs, and ecus that have been tweaked for performance at the expense of emissions. All the kind of stuff that the plods haven't got the time to enforce.

I know, I know, an extra year before first testing isn't much. And the ultimate responsibility for safety is always with the driver, not with the MOT certificate, etcetera etcetera. But a lot of people (me included) still think the MOT record's worth checking when we're looking at a three year old car to buy. And one of our tools will have disappeared.

BJ

I am aware of at least one person who claims to change their car every couple of years, just before the first MOT is due, so that they never have to have it serviced. I would hate to think what sort of mechanical state it would be in just before a 4 year MOT.

Slarti

[MonsterMork]

Yes, it is down to an EU harmonisation directive.

IMHO moving to a four year MoT is pants - defects that may have been apparent and test-failing at three years will now have another year before they are found and rectified. Or cause the vehicle to crash .....

Just because vehicles are manufactured to much better tolerances than they used to be, and they last longer than they used to, does not mean that the vehicle will remain roadworthy for longer than before. ISTR that the gubmint told us recently that something like 25% of vehicles fail their first MoT at three years old, so just imagine what state these vehicles could have been in another 12 months on before getting presented for a test .....

MM (qualified MoT Tester)

[kempiejon]

My only car from new failed the MOT at the first test, the fog light switch was sticky and although easy to turn on was an [expletive deleted] to get to turn off again. I think the test was the first time it'd been turned on.

[richlist]

In Spain cars have their MOT (in Spain it's called an ITV test) every 2 years.

So where is the European harmonisation where that's concerned?

[PinkDalek]

In Spain cars have their MOT (in Spain it's called an ITV test) every 2 years.

So where is the European harmonisation where that's concerned?

From memory, the harmonisation is for member states to ensure MOTs or their equivalents are undertaken at least every 4 years.

[stooz]

Lasting for 4 years does make it legal to drive a car not roadworthy. But is it not a loss in revenue for the gov?

[modellingman]

In Spain cars have their MOT (in Spain it's called an ITV test) every 2 years.

So where is the European harmonisation where that's concerned?

For cars, the initial ITV falls due at 4 years, then every 2 years after that until 10 years old, then annually thereafter.

[swill453]

Lasting for 4 years does make it legal to drive a car not roadworthy.

I think you'll find it's never legal to drive an unroadworthy car, whether it has an MOT or not.

Scott.

[jfgw]

Lasting for 4 years does make it legal to drive a car not roadworthy.

I think you'll find it's never legal to drive an unroadworthy car, whether it has an MOT or not.

Scott.

If a bulb blows on the way out of the MOT test station, it is technically illegal to continue to drive the vehicle. The chance of getting prosecuted is slim, however. Delaying the first MOT test would allow drivers to get away with driving defective vehicles for longer.

Julian F. G. W.

[modellingman]

The Department for Transport (or DaFT as it is known to readers of Private Eye) published a consultation paper on the possibility of changing the first MoT test from 3 years to 4 years on 22 January. The consultation closes on 16 April 2017.

The consultation document makes no mention of EU harmonisation as the driving force (ho-ho) behind it but Directive 2014/45/EU sets out a number of requirements for harmonising periodic vehicle inspections. The directive's headlines, for cars, are an initial test at 4 years and subsequent tests every two years (Article 5, para 1(a)) and that member states should publish by 20 May 2017 proposals for meeting the directive and enact these by 20 May 2018 (Article 23, para 1). The directive runs to around 40 pages, so there is plenty of other stuff in it including quite a lot of technical material about the standards that periodic tests should apply. I don't know how these compare to the current MoT standards but I would be surprised if they were identical.

The Government consultation does not include changing the frequency of testing and the get-out clause here seems to be contained in item (4) of the directive's "whereas" pre-amble: Member States should be allowed to set higher test standards than those required by this Directive.

Therefore it is possible, depending on what responses are made to the consultation, that there will be no changes to the MoT for cars in terms of the timing of the initial test and the frequency of subsequent tests. However, the Government is currently saying that its current position is to favour pushing the initial test back to four years but it is undecided whether or not this should also apply to vans up to 3500kg.

[TopOnePercent]

The number of people that don't even get their headlights fixed unless it is MOT time is quite scary, and I think from memory, that 1 in every 2 cars presented for test fails. Without a greater focus on road side policing of vehicles that are obviously not road worth, I can only see a 4 year immunity from testing being a disaster in terms of road safety.

As a previous poster suggested, rep mobiles and commuter cars may well have six figure mileages by then. With no test on the brakes or tyres, there's no chance of them all being road worthy.

[swill453]

As a previous poster suggested, rep mobiles and commuter cars may well have six figure mileages by then. With no test on the brakes or tyres, there's no chance of them all being road worthy.

In my experience, high mileage company cars are probably safer than most, as the fleet managers make sure they are serviced on schedule, even up to two or more times a year.

Scott.

[UncleIan]

Lasting for 4 years does make it legal to drive a car not roadworthy. But is it not a loss in revenue for the gov?

Information is sketchy on the interweb, but as far as I can tell, the gov set the maximum fee a garage can charge for an MOT. I can't find anything that says the gov gets any of that money, though some old info talks about a charge for "the book of certificates", others talk about renting equipment, but I'd assume that's not equipment supplied by the gov.

Ian

[modellingman]

Lasting for 4 years does make it legal to drive a car not roadworthy. But is it not a loss in revenue for the gov?

Information is sketchy on the interweb, but as far as I can tell, the gov set the maximum fee a garage can charge for an MOT. I can't find anything that says the gov gets any of that money, though some old info talks about a charge for "the book of certificates", others talk about renting equipment, but I'd assume that's not equipment supplied by the gov.

Ian

The Department for Transport's consultation paper sets out some of the financial implications of any change from moving the initial test from year 3 to year 4.

There is the headline benefit of savings to motorists: based on 2013 registrations and an assumed cost of £45 per MoT, this is estimated at £109m (pa) which reduces to £100m if vans are excluded from the change.

The paper notes (in para 3.36) that the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) administers and monitors the MOT scheme. To recover the cost of this it charges a ‘slot fee’ from the test fee paid to garages for every vehicle test pass. The estimated reduction in DVSA's income is £5m pa (£4.5m pa if vans are excluded from the change).

Although the consultation paper makes a reasonable fist of identifying other impacts of any change, it is weak on final quantification. This is a bit surprising as DaFT is hopelessly wedded to cost-benefit analysis (of the naivest type) when it comes to major investment decisions such as road infrastructure. The loss of income to garages that conduct MoT's is noted but the impact is assessed only to the extent that there will be 8.3% (7.5% excluding vans) fewer tests.

Amongst the other facts and statistics the paper quotes, some of which have been speculated on by previous posters in this thread, are:

• the failure rate for Class 4 vehicles (cars and light vans up to 3000 kgs) at the year 3 MoT is 17% and for class 7 vehicles (vans over 3000kgs and up to 3500 kgs) it is 36%
• 35% of the year 3 failures for Class 4 vehicles are for Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment, 21% for Tyres, 18% for Drivers View of the Road and 11% for Brakes
• at year three, the average mileage for a car is around 32,000. Vans have an average mileage that is over 70,000 at the same age
• vehicle defects are a contributory factor in around 3% of road accidents
• the estimated increase in fatalities and serious injuries from changing the initial MoT to 4 years is 1.47-3.53 pa for fatalities and 18.86-39.26 pa for serious injuries (though these estimates are heavily caveated)

[quelquod]

My last MOT fail was down to a broken front spring. No obvious indication it had broken, noise, difference in ride or height, so I wasn't aware until the MOT. I dare say it would have been found at the next service, but of course servicing's not compulsory. According to the local newspapers there's a lot more such damage to running gear these days due to the state of the roads, so I'd think extending the MOT period wouldn't be justified.

(Mind you, the test is pretty tough - only the very tip of the spring where it is thinnest had broken off and disappeared - so I'm not convinced it was dangerous at all).

[TopOnePercent]

As a previous poster suggested, rep mobiles and commuter cars may well have six figure mileages by then. With no test on the brakes or tyres, there's no chance of them all being road worthy.

In my experience, high mileage company cars are probably safer than most, as the fleet managers make sure they are serviced on schedule, even up to two or more times a year.

Scott.

Sure, I agree with that, but when they sell them, what you have is a very high mileage car with lots of worn parts that will soon need replacing. And a potential buyer who will spend next to no money on the car for what could be 12-24 months before the first MOT.

[MonsterMork]

In my experience most car drivers these days are clueless when it comes to looking after and maintaning their vehicles. They are also utterly clueless when it comes to what is required for an MoT -
Genuine conversation yesterday with a customer:
Me - sorry, it's failed on such and such
Customer - but it was working last night!
Me - well I'm afraid it ain't working now
Customer - well can't you pass it anyway cos' it worked last night?
Me - :
Libel laws prevent me from stating my thoughts on customers such as this ......
And don't get me started on the woman who came in last week with a school-run motor with - windscreen a: cracked and b: peppered with stone chips, only one working brake light, and no working headlights (yup, BOTH bulbs blown) "I didn't know, when I drive at night it's only in town and there are street lights so I don't need my headlamps" ............

To cap it all, if you want some utterly scary pitcures of what gets presented for an MoT take a look here:
https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/ca ... r-stories/
Please read through every one of them, all three pages of them, my favourite is probably the one with the seat belt stapled back together after it had been damaged. Yes, staples. To hold a seatbelt together ........

Now go to the gubmint website and tell them to kick out this stupid idea of an MoT every four years!

TesterMork

[swill453]

Now go to the gubmint website and tell them to kick out this stupid idea of an MoT every four years!

I don't think anyone's suggesting that.

The proposal is simply that the first test gets moved from 3 years to 4 years. It'd still be annually after that.

Scott.