Four year MOT exemption

System

The last car I bought had 90,000 miles on at 3 years old. It flew straight through its first MOT needing nothing despite not having a MOT in what would be the expected lifetime mileage of an average car. It continued to pass the next 5 MOTs in my ownership, the last one being about 160,000 miles, with nothing more than the odd blown bulb and one instance of low handbrake effort on the O/S caliper. It did however have full main dealer service history and a folder of receipts and I continued to keep up to its maintenance.

Regular maintenance and servicing is more important than an annual MOT.

unforeseen

The decision may well be based on the information from the MOT data that there are a negligible number of fails at 3 yrs so it can be safely extended to 4.

The argument that consumables wear out at the 2-3 he point is spurious. That all depends on usage. A car doing 5000 miles a year won't wear out it's tyres or brakes in 4 years on a normal driving style however somebody doing 20k plus a year will probably be on their 2nd or 3rd set of both probably within the same time. Adding a year is just adding an extra set. If they were going to drive on illegal tyres and brakes then they've already had 2 chances to do it.

Johno100

unforeseen wrote: »

The decision may well be based on the information from the MOT data that there are a negligible number of fails at 3 yrs so it can be safely extended to 4.

Last figures I saw said around 20% of vehicles failed their first MOT at 3 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/may/11/one-in-five-cars-fail-first-mot

And here's a breakdown of the reasons for failure at first MOT.

http://www.whatcar.com/news/first-mot-test-common-reasons-failure/

takman

It would be a good idea if people actually checked their cars, but alot of people don't!. People can't even be trusted to make sure their tyres are legal even when buying a car second hand they just assume it's all ok.

The reasons for MOT failures in the above post just shows the general lack of care people have when I comes to the roadworthiness of their car.

Apodemus

takman wrote: »

The reasons for MOT failures in the above post just shows the general lack of care people have when I comes to the roadworthiness of their car.

In part that may be correct, but the official figures also overstate the problem as many garages now present the car for MOT before starting work on it, even if it will fail, so that they have a list of items that require rectifying. Retests wiin a certain period are free, so there is no downside to the garage to do it this way, but it must hugely increase the number of apparent MOT failures. This will account for at least a portion of the tyres/bulbs/windscreen/washer fluid etc type of failures.

takman

Apodemus wrote: »

In part that may be correct, but the official figures also overstate the problem as many garages now present the car for MOT before starting work on it, even if it will fail, so that they have a list of items that require rectifying. Retests wiin a certain period are free, so there is no downside to the garage to do it this way, but it must hugely increase the number of apparent MOT failures. This will account for at least a portion of the tyres/bulbs/windscreen/washer fluid etc type of failures.

But what are the chances of the tyres getting to an illegal state or a bulb going just as the MOT is due!. Most of those people will have been driving round with those failures weeks or months before they take it for the MOT because they don't bother checking the car!.

If a car is properly maintained all the work should be done as it is required and not just when the MOT is due !

Nasqueron

scumsthorne wrote: »

The govt are only doing this as they are drastically increasing VED on new cars as of April 2017. This increase will badly affect new cars sales in the UK.

Paying up to £2k more VED in year 1 does NOT offset the cost of 1 years MOT.

Almost nobody is paying £2,000 more under the new VED rules

People buying £40,000 cars pay a total of £1550 over 5 years as a supplement but as there is now a flat standard rate of £140 groups B-E pay more, F-M pay less so few people would ever pay more unless they somehow got a £40000 car that was in band B-F

kmb500

MOTs are a joke anyway. You can get any car through them in any condition.

BeenThroughItAll

kmb500 wrote: »

MOTs are a joke anyway. You can get any car through them in any condition.

No you can't. What you're suggesting is it's possible to acquire an MOT pass record regardless of condition, which is not the same thing as 'getting a car through' an MOT.

jimjames

unforeseen wrote: »

I think it's good. As it has been 4years in NI for years without any detriment, I don't see a problem

Ridiculous idea in my view. MOT should be time and/or mileage based. My last car was bought at 3 years old with 110k miles on the clock. The days of 3 years being an age to check condition are long gone.