MoT shake-up: have your say

Are they mad?

The system in N. Ireland currenlty requires MOT after 4 years and annually thereafter. MOT centres here are run by the Government and not just your local garage. So I think the MOT system here is more robust than on the mainland. Personally I wouldn't be in favour of any change. Even with current annual tests, you aren't to hard pressed to see some very dangerous looking cars on the roads.

By seamy85 on 14 April, 2011, 12:34pm

If it ain't broke, dont change it!!

This is just another pointles exercise by a pointless government. More money wasted on studies etc when the old system was just fine as it is.

By AndyG on 14 April, 2011, 12:59pm

why not?

In Germany they have a 3, 2, 2...... system and there doesn't appear to be carnage on the streets. How some institute works out 30 additional fatalities is beyond me they must have a great crystal ball. Finally opposition to this move by the RMI is hardly surprising as a main beneficiary of annual testing. It also begs the question on the level of self interest if over 30% of cars fail the test.

By tr_4_triumph on 14 April, 2011, 1:02pm

Just a belated inept small step! There should be State Testing Agencies

There really should be competent and efficient State Testing Agencies responsible for more than just vehicles operating in each major town, city and county! The present old system operating through strings of Joe Bloggs Garages is rather like setting up poachers as gamekeepers to catch poachers!

There should be official government agencies with first class newest level testing equipment with up to date manufacturers data and all online linked! Rather like the German Technische Überwachungsverein or TÜV which is responsible for all vehicle inspections in Germany.

In fact they are also responsible for all other technical safety inspections and laws covering lifts, escalators, boilers and many other technical products where public safety is involved!

By vandenplas4litre on 14 April, 2011, 1:49pm

Of all the things wrong with motoring today, the MOT isn't one of them. Given what 365 days of driving, and 30/40/50k a year that can easily be put on a vehicle, I'd want to know what's going with my car - and all this means is that services will include "inspections" which will increase prices (and we'll pay it).

By Dan_Willis on 14 April, 2011, 3:06pm

Germany

May have a 3, 2, 2, system but I think you'll find it's more expensive and much more thorough test.

By dilbert1969 on 14 April, 2011, 4:09pm

Total Insanity

As a fully qualified mechanic ive seen vehicles pass with advisories and then return the following year for a test with these components still in need of replacment a year later, our road conditions don't allow the average vehicle to survive damage free for 2 years, Some cars on the road dont even see an anual service and only get repaired when it fails MOT. these cars would be left to roam faulty causing accidents and probably loss of life.
I DONT THINK THIS SHOULD GO AHEAD - money will not be saved by drivers as the damage caused leaving a fault for longer will create a much larger bill.

By FullyQualifiedmechanic on 14 April, 2011, 10:00pm

germany

Cost including mandatory emissions tests for cars younger than 30 years is about £65 excluding the latter about £50. By a semi governmental organisation.

By tr_4_triumph on 15 April, 2011, 5:56am

Another cynical idea from our wonderful Gov

I bet there is an underlying reason for them wanting this, and I expect it has nothing to with the way it's used in the rest of the EU.
Somehow, you just know there is a larger fee coming for something like this as, I imagine they won't want to lose money from all those lost MOT's. They'll end up charging us even more per MOT, and consequently even more people will try and avoid the test.
The government create the problem, then say how they'll solve it, and then beat you about the head/wallet for more money for thr 'privilege' of driving on Britain's deteriorating road network.

By bob809 on 15 April, 2011, 4:00pm

under the law when a car has a mot does not mean ist 100% safe its was only safe when had mot .i think should hav looked at after first at 3 years as it not been looked at for 3 years leagaly and probaly two years later and then yearly after that after 6/7 years thats when big problems star.

By jono1982 on 15 April, 2011, 5:13pm

Feasible with the right level of support

As is suggested modern cars are capable of going for longer periods before major work is required in order to remain roadworthy.

But as stated it would need to be the correct balance.

Maybe tests can be performed by the garage at the annual service, with additional focus instilled in them to ensure certain areas of vehicles were roadworthy, ie, brakes, suspension, steering, etc, and that the older the vehicle gets the more is checked.

Then the MOT tests can be incorporated into and around this scenario.

By taurean4 on 15 April, 2011, 10:00pm

It's not just age

As others have mentioned there is a World of difference between a 3 year old car with 20k on the clock and one with 50k on the clock. Just the fact that some tyres don't last more than 15k miles means they need regular checks.

The current system might not be perfect but at least it provides a regular inspection that on one day of the year a vehicle was fit for use.

By anonemouse70 on 18 April, 2011, 9:48am

Wow

Feel for all of you on the other side of The Pond. Here in the PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia) we only have to worry about a smog cert biannually after the vehicle is 4 years old. No safety inspections whatsoever! And here we put waaaay more mileage on a vehicle in a year. The only time I have e er had a vehicle safety tested here is when I bought back a wrecked car from my insurance company and had to have the lamps and brakes checked so that I could resell in on a salvage title. Really scary what you see on the roads here-both cars and drivers!
If I had my druthers,I'd see a TüV style system here.

By RIFLEMAN on 18 April, 2011, 3:53pm

Stupidity

We often see 2 year old cars with 70,000 miles on them and in dire need of repairs. I own a Bosch Car Service Centre and there is no question of customers getting any unnecessary work done so changing the test to every two years only means motorists only save £25 per year (assuming the 2 year test isn't more expensive) so the only real way motorists will be "saving" is by not having necessary repairs done that the current MOT deems unsafe.... is this what you want? If the motorist wants to save money try acting against the tax on fuel.

By skyliner38 on 19 April, 2011, 8:54am

Stupidity

We often see 2 year old cars with 70,000 miles on them and in dire need of repairs. I own a Bosch Car Service Centre and there is no question of customers getting any unnecessary work done so changing the test to every two years only means motorists only save £25 per year (assuming the 2 year test isn't more expensive) so the only real way motorists will be "saving" is by not having necessary repairs done that the current MOT deems unsafe.... is this what you want? If the motorist wants to save money try acting against the tax on fuel.

By skyliner38 on 19 April, 2011, 9:18am

Must be political!

You only have to observe cars at night to see the problems, 1 in 5 tend to have defective lights. Thats just a visible thing - what else lies beneath? Frightening!
Bill Wilkinson

By acorn59 on 19 April, 2011, 9:54am

Lol...

With the state of our roads (especially Gloucestershire) I'm surprised most cars aren't shaken to bits after 2 months. What's the beef anyway, if the system works, leave it alone.

By craiglife on 19 April, 2011, 11:00am

Leave it as it is....

I think the system should be left as it is - The 'fully qualified mechanic' bloke above highlights the reasons why - a lot of people dont bother with routine car maintenance so stretching MOT intervals would be a bad thing as there would be the risk of more dangerous cars on the road.

By cousins11 on 19 April, 2011, 3:22pm

pointless

another waste of taxpayers money investigating 1or2 year mot intervals,its probably something that the goverment have no choice to do as everything is led by Brussels.The MOT is good as there can be serious problems discovered that most motorists would not be aware of when driving.Many people dont maintain their cars properly which is understandable in these tight times when fuel is over £6 a gallon and car dealers charging £100p/hr for servicing plus ever increasing insurance policies.

By nickbsmooth on 19 April, 2011, 5:42pm

spikemillican

HOW MANY CARS FAIL THE FIRST TEST AT 3 YRS OLD???

I GET FREE MOTS AS LONG AS I HAVE MY VOLVO - SOME THINGS ARE ADVISORY -I DONT DO A BIG MILEAGE - I GET THE CAR SERVICED AT THE SAME TIME.

OUR VANS AT WORK CAN DO UP TO 70000 MILES IN A YEAR - HOW MANY OF THEM FAIL THE MOT AT 3 YEAR OLD.

A LOT OF SMALL GARAGES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE WOULD NOT SURVIVE IF THEY DIDNT HAVE THE MOTS TO BRING CUSTOMERS IN, AND WOULD NOT SERVICE THE CAR OR VAN IF IT WAS NOT FOR THE MOT - VERY FEW GARAGES NOW EVEN SELL DIESEL.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE LEFT AS IT IS

By davemillican on 19 April, 2011, 9:47pm

Invitation to anybody who thinks 2 years is better!

Come and spend a day at my MOT station. See what the cars are like. See the how tough it is to FAIL some things which seem wrong. See the state of some of the cars people will drive.

Car often fail at 3 years for thngs the driver could AND SHOULD be fined for driving with, neber mind the cost of repairs!

The 25 - 35 quid you get charged (by the way the governemnt max price is 56 quid) is not even 10p per day to ensure you don't kill yourself or someone else.

My last point is there are a lot of very responsible motorists out there whose cars pass first time... they are welcome at my garage too!

By def90cars on 20 April, 2011, 5:30am

my MOTing is better than my typing BTW

By def90cars on 20 April, 2011, 5:31am

Box of Money on 4 wheels

Having been both sides of the fence , managing and being a garage customer, the average UK consumer gets totally ripped off by many so called garages who see MOT's as gauranteed income. How shall I put it - a big box of money with four wheels to be off loaded to the garage at every opportunity. The trouble is that most customers have no clue about what goes on under the bonnet. It breeds total contempt for them, especially when Garage Service departments see a woman. That really is not a sexist comment . I feel very strongly that women who are mostly single very often get a very very raw deal. The MOT is just one great money spinner that rips off the vulnerable and most often than not poor customers who cannot afford the exhorbitant charges for parts and labour. Before anyone says anything about don't run it if you cannot afford it, well a car really is an absolute essential for most "Normal " people. Public transport just does not cut it what ever way you look at it if you have family, friends and actually want to see more than the inside of your front door. It is used because people have to use it when there really is no alternative. I remember giving my car a good look over 2 years ago. It needed front brake disc pads as they were needing replacement within 2000 miles. So I replaced them. Took the car in for the £50!! MOT and the car failed . Guess what on. Front Disc Pads. UK customers get a raw deal with motoring. Most faults appear long before they actually break. That is the nature of the beast. Slow failure is designed into components. Ever heard the " My cars got a funny noise coming from the front" or back or whatever. Most components take time to actually fail and usually give planty of warning. I doubt very much if 30 lives are saved. Who knows and how is that one worked out. It is a con like most motoring issues. Two years sounds about right to me if the fee is kept the same. Why not do it on mileage if you are that worried. Every 25,000 miles . Or have a license for high mileage vehicles like the Black cab system. That'll cost you in spades. They say ignorance is bliss. It can also cost you shed loads of hard earned cash. I'll vote 2 years with a very clear conscience.

By PeterJK on 20 April, 2011, 3:30pm

Comment above

Peter JK
That is complete rubbish. The mot only covers some of the legal requirements for a car to be on the public road. If you feel you are being ripped off then maybe you should choose your garage more wisely. Perhaps one working to an OFT code of practice! Another thing, if customers feel they are being "ripped off" (as opposed to having a car they cannot afford to keep on the road) they can and should complain to consumer direct and have something done about itinstead of tarring every garage with the same brush.

By skyliner38 on 21 April, 2011, 7:41am

MOT

This obviously inflames passion on both sides,for and against. Its pretty clear that advanced cars built today which are only 3 years old will not require an MOT unless they have been abused and more importantly not serviced correctly. However thats the rub,how good is the service provided by garages?How many garages play upon the customers ignorance especially main dealers? Worst of all how many garages will delibrately find fault on newish cars just to get work and fleece the customer? Sadly,its all to common which means you cant always trust garages who carry out MOT's also.The statement by yet another sterile politician that they are going to do the hard pressed motorist a "favour" is insulting at the very least,just who is that idiot try to impress?.The motorist has been the cash cow for decades and those who have no choice but to use a car have been milked dry,despite the "you have never had it so good" greenies comments.The current MOT system is worthless and only covers the car until you drive off the forecourt where zealous law enforcement can still nick you for an unroadworthy vehicle so lets have a root and branch change where the MOT's are carried out by qualified personnel who have no profit motive but will inspect the vehicle and pass or fail it based on safety first and be held responsible for the safety of that vehicle for longer trhan 5 seconds!.Whether or not the MOT should be one or two years depends upon the car and its age,some are built better than others.As we are part of the EU for our sins I guess it will end up as every 2 years.What does need to happen is that the "cost" comes down not goes up.Of course pigs might fly!

By samuraironin47 on 21 April, 2011, 8:03am

Lets face it, the current set up needs revising, your car could pass an MOT and within a week a component could break or fail which could mean and MOT failure, however because you have that all important pass certificate you do not have to get the car re-MOT'd and you can drive around for a year oblivious to the fact you could be a danger to yourself and other road users. Cars are exspensive items to buy and maintain too many people think they should last forever and not spend a penny keeping them roadworthy, the MOT system in this country is a snapshot in time it does not address the requirement for continuous safety and roadworthiness. Change it, the sooner the better.

By maindealer on 21 April, 2011, 9:37am

follow the German example!

Just look to Germany for a system (TUV) that works.
The TUV approach not only requires inspections but also ensures that nobody can fit inappropriate wheels, tyres or engine mods.

By timchappell4 on 21 April, 2011, 12:17pm

Roll on can't wait. Great news.

By johnbmwx6 on 21 April, 2011, 3:54pm

Maybe garages con people when its time for an MOT, but shouldn't we be cracking down on the garages who do this instead of increasing the interval?

the MOT is a safety net and cars often don't get repaired until the MOT, which is sometimes too long and makes themj dangerous and repairs end up costing more. My car only gets repaired because i know a biit about it and actually care when its going wrong. Very bad idea to make it 2 years, especially for older cars.

By Anomalee on 22 April, 2011, 1:41pm

MOT

Great if we get away from these profiteering MOT garages, test should be done by government run garages that way the standard would be all but the same. then as in europe a garage cert for repairs before retest. not unlike trading standards. Finally MOT cert like a TAX disc should be displayed along with insurance

By rustyrig on 25 April, 2011, 12:40pm

egolligos

Good idea. Why not get rid of it totally. I have just paid £48 for a test!!! on my little Suzuki Wagon-R. Family in Cacada are highly amused that we have to have mot on cars and have to pay also for a tv licence. In Canada for example, each vehicle owner is responsible for the general condition of their car. If there any faults discovered when stopped by the traffic police, there is a heavy fine to pay and the vehicle is off the road until fixed.

By egolligos on 28 April, 2011, 6:18pm

Stop Blaming the Garages

1. You can compnai to VoSA if you think you have been mistreated. The garage can lose its licence if it fails cars that are good or passes cars that are bad.
2. Have you been to Canada? Traffic density is low. Speeds are low. Cars (in my experience having lived there!!) are rough when they get older and many people think nothing of crap brakes and tyres!
3. An MOT is only current for the moment is it issed... but that won't change if it goes to 2 years or 20 years!
4. If you take you car in and it passes why are you complaining? It s credit to your maintenance and values! Do you complain about paying insure and not claiming??????

Go to any MOT station on ANY day and see some of the cars that come in and the state they are in! Rememebr that car could be following you one day and when you make the mergency stop for something do you really want it behind you?????????

By def90cars on 29 April, 2011, 6:13am

p.s.

if 30-40 quid a year for an MOT is too much then you shouldn't be driving a car! You clearly can't afford it!

By def90cars on 29 April, 2011, 6:14am