MoT and what to do for now

[swill453]

But why would they want "validated registration details" for the 0.000001% of historic cars that do damn all mileage, and not want the same thing for 99.99999% of the rest of the cars on the road? The issue of the registered keeper being different from the insured person is the same for both, so that cannot be the reason.

As for a DD ensuring there is funding; funding for what? All the DD can take is the road tax, which in the case of these is zero.

They need to have some way of tracing a registered keeper. Parking tickets and motoring offences are examples of why.

An annual VED application, or a one-off VED application plus an ongoing DD does the job for them.

Scott.

[AF62]

But why would they want "validated registration details" for the 0.000001% of historic cars that do damn all mileage, and not want the same thing for 99.99999% of the rest of the cars on the road? The issue of the registered keeper being different from the insured person is the same for both, so that cannot be the reason.

As for a DD ensuring there is funding; funding for what? All the DD can take is the road tax, which in the case of these is zero.

They need to have some way of tracing a registered keeper. Parking tickets and motoring offences are examples of why.

An annual VED application, or a one-off VED application plus an ongoing DD does the job for them.

Scott.

I am not disagreeing they need to have a registered keeper, but that is what the V5 is for. Failing to update it with the new keeper is a criminal offence.

What I am saying is the DD does not assist in any way in determining who the registered keeper is. The DD does not have to be to the account of the registered keeper, and in days gone by you could go and buy a tax disc and pay in cash.

They have the details of the insured, both for those who have to pay and those who don't, so that makes no difference - although that also doesn't help who the registered keeper is since the insured doesn't have to be the registered keeper.

So nothing you do when you actually have pay the VED helps them determine the registered keeper, so why the hoops to jump through if you don't need to pay.

[swill453]

So nothing you do when you actually have pay the VED helps them determine the registered keeper, so why the hoops to jump through if you don't need to pay.

I'm not trying to defend the system or say it's perfect. However I do understand why they might want regular contact*, in one way or another, with a keeper, even if there's no VED to pay.

* - and by "contact" I'm including DD payments, despite your caveats.

Scott.

[9873210]

If you mean "few" or "almost none" just say that.

Because I meant neither.

Using “few” would significantly overstate the number and using “almost none” would understate it.

0.000001% is more of an understatement than "almost none". With 30 million registered vehicles 0.000001% is an unqualified "none" (rounded to the nearest car).

If you're going to use numbers don't just make them up. Or at least make them plausible enough that they don't insult your readers.

[dealtn]

I'd think it's actually the banks that wouldn't (necessarily) be able to cope with a £0 Direct Debit.

Banks can cope with a £0 Direct Debit, as it's just an instruction to allow a 3rd party to debit your account. A £0 Standing Order would raise an eyebrow though!

[swill453]

Banks can cope with a £0 Direct Debit, as it's just an instruction to allow a 3rd party to debit your account.

They wouldn't actually put through a £0 transaction though. DVLA wouldn't see anything.

Scott.

[dealtn]

Banks can cope with a £0 Direct Debit, as it's just an instruction to allow a 3rd party to debit your account.

They wouldn't actually put through a £0 transaction though. DVLA wouldn't see anything.

Scott.

DVLA would be the debiting party not the bank! In fact the bank might put a £0 debit through if one was requested, but it would depend on the bank, and whether that flagged as an error or not.

Not hugely important with respect to the thread, and I know very little about cars let alone MOTs, but I do have quite a bit of experience at banks.

[AF62]

If you mean "few" or "almost none" just say that.

Because I meant neither.

Using “few” would significantly overstate the number and using “almost none” would understate it.

0.000001% is more of an understatement than "almost none". With 30 million registered vehicles 0.000001% is an unqualified "none" (rounded to the nearest car).

If you're going to use numbers don't just make them up. Or at least make them plausible enough that they don't insult your readers.

Sorry, didn't realise one person here demanded scientific precision.

So just for you 0.00699117390902412%

[bungeejumper]

That's quite a lot of spurious precision for a figure that can presumably only be guessed at.

What I want to know is, how many invisible DVLA inspectors can dance on the head of a direct debit for £0.00? And will they do so for all eternity?

BJ

[AF62]

That's quite a lot of spurious precision for a figure that can presumably only be guessed at.

Spurious, pah! Guessing, what do you take me for.

The UK government has lots of civil servants who like collecting lots of data and then publishing it on gov.uk. So no that is an accurate number, and given the previous criticism I thought rounding 0.00699117390902412% to 0.007% might be misleading.

[DrFfybes]

They have the details of the insured, both for those who have to pay and those who don't, so that makes no difference - although that also doesn't help who the registered keeper is since the insured doesn't have to be the registered keeper.

So nothing you do when you actually have pay the VED helps them determine the registered keeper, so why the hoops to jump through if you don't need to pay.

Because when the brief was drawn up for the software system, the Systems Analyst was told to design and implement an automatic link to a secure simple GDPR compliant payment acceptance system for VED.

Only after 6 months of coding and £££ had been spent did old Geoff in the DVLA pensions department ask did he still get free tax on his 1947 Spagthorpe.

Paul

[swill453]

MoT extension scheme coming to an end at the end of July https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... march-2020

My car just made it by 3 weeks. I may not wait the full extra six months but I'll get it at a time of year that will suit me for the future.

I guess it means MoT centres will have a fairly lean 4-month Apr-Jul spell for a few years.

Scott.

[richfool]

MoT extension scheme coming to an end at the end of July https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... march-2020

My car just made it by 3 weeks. I may not wait the full extra six months but I'll get it at a time of year that will suit me for the future.

I guess it means MoT centres will have a fairly lean 4-month Apr-Jul spell for a few years.

Scott.

Thanks for the update.

My car's MOT expires on 30th July 2020. Does that mean I don't need to renew it or take any action before 30th January next? Or just pick a convenient date between now and then to get it done?

[baldchap]

Did the wife's today. Had been automatically bumped to October, but why wait till then?

We got over 2 free months, and as stated above, June should be quiet for a few years.

[swill453]

My car's MOT expires on 30th July 2020. Does that mean I don't need to renew it or take any action before 30th January next? Or just pick a convenient date between now and then to get it done?

Yes, you'll be one of the last ones to get a 6 month extension. It doesn't show up online until a week before the due date. So if your VED is due on 1st August you won't be able to renew it until around the 23rd July.

Scott.

[chas49]

MoT extension scheme coming to an end at the end of July https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... march-2020

My car just made it by 3 weeks. I may not wait the full extra six months but I'll get it at a time of year that will suit me for the future.

I guess it means MoT centres will have a fairly lean 4-month Apr-Jul spell for a few years.

Scott.

Thanks for the update.

My car's MOT expires on 30th July 2020. Does that mean I don't need to renew it or take any action before 30th January next? Or just pick a convenient date between now and then to get it done?

Yes - you can just wait (but do check that the extension gets updated on or just before the due date). Given this decision by the government, there's now going to be a more uneven pattern of MOT tests falling due leading to peaks and troughs in demand for test slots. So there may be some advantage in just sticking to the original date

[DrFfybes]

Yes - you can just wait (but do check that the extension gets updated on or just before the due date). Given this decision by the government, there's now going to be a more uneven pattern of MOT tests falling due leading to peaks and troughs in demand for test slots. So there may be some advantage in just sticking to the original date

There always has been - especially when the reg plate changed once a year and something daft like 20% of the years' car sales happened on the same week in August. Once cars are re-sold they tend to get MOT'd be a selling dealer so that eventually spreads them out.

Paul

[daveh]

Damn, just taken my car in for an MOT (it was due on 27th December after its 6 month extension), maybe i should have waited, but I thought they were now saying that it needed to be done earlier (by August) as lockdown has been eased. I clearly mis-read the news article. Well at least I'll get it checked over and they have already said the brakes need replacing due to corrosion and pitting of the disks (possibly due to lack of use over the winter and spring). Hadn't failed the MOT on brakes (yet) but they were just doing that.

[swill453]

Yes I'm now going to wait the full 6 months extra for my campervan, the last thing I want is the MOT expiring in the middle of summer when I'm likely to be away abroad.

Scott.