all the talk of the 4-2-2 mot, four years for the first mot then every two years after that, apparently its in the interest of the motorist saving them money, but they ( the goverment) appear to be losing interest in the scheme at the mo as there is quite a bit of backlash from the motoring industry.
but anyhoo that aside, all this talk about saving money is pie in the sky, what the goverment give in one hand they taketh from the other, taken from one of our trade mags
The statutory nature of the MoT fee means that at present motorists do not have to pay VAT on the test but should statutory status be removed the cost to the motorist would increase. If the next review of the mot fee resulted in such changes, VAT would be applied from April 2008 onwards.
"There are suspicions that the government may be considering tampering with the statutory status of the MoT test," said Ray Holloway, RMIF director of independent membership.
"If this were removed, VAT would then apply, bringing with it a whole new revenue stream for the national coffers."
The RMIF said it would be closely monitoring developments and vehemently opposed any measures that would downgrade the status of the MoT test.
so there you go the goverments idea of saving you money !!!
"reg" wrote in news:f5bv6u$lr8$ snipped-for-privacy@aioe.org:
So MOTs would be voluntary? You could then drive around in a death trap until the Police catch you, necessitating an MOT (plus VAT) to get it road legal again. This means that you could be stopped every month or every time the Police notice you have a light out, meaning a visit several times a year, if you are unlucky, to the MOT station for an MOT (plus VAT). Could be a money spinner.
So, either a voluntary test, (unlikely), or a test fee+VAT every two years instead of a test fee without VAT every year? I think most people would go for that.
Two years is too long for some cars. It is fine for a car which is properly maintained, but some receive absolutely no maintenance at all and their drivers rely on the MOT to point out the faults - where upon they are repaired just enough to get through, until the next one. Better would be a system of allowing the tester to decide whether the vehicle was sufficiently well maintained to be safe for two years. Rather open to abuse by the tester perhaps?
I have also never had a vehicle which would pass its first 3 year test with any remedial work. So my idea would be a quick and cheaper test of just the basics for the first couple of tests perhaps.
AIUI various European countries have a system of two year testing, and little or no increase in accidents attributable to what we would consider unroadworthiness. That's apparently what led to the suggestion of two yearly MOT testing in UK.
The message from Harry Bloomfield contains these words:
Anyone know what the failure rate is at present? At two yearly intervals you could expect it to be perhaps three or four times that if people don't change their maintenance habits - which they won't.
My Focus (2.0 ESP) is 6 this month (happy birthday little Focus) of which I've owned it for just over 3 and still hasn't needed anything doing to it other than front brake pads (changed at 30k shortly after I bought it) which it could possibly fail an MOT on. OK I suppose you could stretch a point and say that if I'd been stupid enough to have taken it in for one at the exact time one of the wiper blades had a rip in it without replacing it first it could have failed.
The original exhaust is still fine, the tyres it came with are still ok after a further 15k in my hands and they were half worn when I got it, the suspension bushes seem sturdily made compared to the Mondeo that preceded it, not a single bulb has ever blown and the rear brakes had so little wear when I looked at them I'm not going to bother again for a few more years.
Barring depreciation it's certainly some of the cheapest and most reliable motoring I've enjoyed. I paid £6k and it's worth about £3k now so not quite so cost effective as the old Fiestas I used to pay £1500 for and then scrap after 3 or 4 years but it's in a different world to drive and that's well worth a grand a year as far as I'm concerned. From now on the depreciation ought to slow a good bit anyway but given how well the Foci are made the driving experience should continue at the same level for a long time to come. The Festers used to fall apart with rust eventually but the Foci seem to be pretty bullet proof in that respect. Here's hoping anyway.
As an aside this whole depreciation thing strikes me as mightily strange where cars are concerned. Parker's says my car was about £14k when new and it's heading for a fifth of that now. Is it only worth a fifth of what a new one is? I can't personally see anything wrong enough with it that detracts from the driving experience or the reliability. I utterly fail to see the attraction of a brand new car in the first place. Constant worry that someone is going to scratch it with their car door in a car park, ripoff dealer servicing prices if you want to retain the warranty and a resale value that's heading south faster than swallows migrating in the winter.
If you wanted to turn mine into a new car again I suppose you would need to replace the windscreen which has a few tiny stone chips and scratches, touch up the similar areas on the paint, all the service items, brakes, clutch, bushes, bearings, suspension, tyres, etc, you'd have change left over from two grand and nothing to worry about for another 6 years. The Zetec engines are bulletproof anyway and the manual gearboxes don't wear out. I'm damn sure I'd rather do all that than pay the £17k or £18k that a current similar model would cost.
That`s why I bought the car I did (52 plate passat). Cheap enough to buy and a lot more comfort than anything else in the price range. Plus when it gets pinged I`m annoyed, but not as annoyed as I would be if I`d just paid the best part of £20k for a car. It`s needed a few jobs doing to it, and will need a bit more attention over the coming years, but at 131000 miles on the clock it`s only to be expected. Brake disks and pads needed swapping, had a service and there`s a clunk coming from the front offside, but I don`t think it`s mechanical. It got a bit of a knock to the front end (someone reversed into it in a car park) which moved the bumper back a touch, and has disconnected the bumper from the underbelly plate. Now the plate can lift up and down, and clunks when going over any kind of bump. Anyoe know if removing the bellyplate is a bad idea for any reason, as the clunk is annoying me, and I don`t want to get used to a car clunking as I drive it! :-)
The suggestion is a two year MOT. I suggested that for some cars and their owners it might be too long a period - to which I suggested a possible solution.
True, but could that not happen anyway if the MOT is made into a two yearly?
A three year old vehicle is very different from a twelve year old in what they might fail on. I was suggesting instead of the first test at four years, that it should stay at three years - but with no need for it to check absolutely everything. For instance it could completely ignore the body structure, as I have never known a three year old car fail on that - but as it stands the first test still requires this to be checked out.
And you`d say it was acceptable for a vehicle to fail for those reasons do you? Those minor things are very easy to spot and very easy to fix, if the owner isn`t bothered about lights being out, or the wiper blades not working properly, what else are they not bothered about with their car? Brakes? Tyres? Hell, Halfords would fit a new bulb for you if you give them a few quid, ditto for the blades. There really is no excuse for a car having a blown light or faulty wiper blades for more than an hour or two while you go and get the bits you need, and it`s scary that people wouldn`t think to test these items before their car went for an MOT. :-)
Playing devil's advocat, why would you check them just before going for an mot, if you would have halfords change them for a few quid why not let the mot tester earn the few quid?
And if the tester decides to charge you for a re-test? Or charges you £10 per bulb simply because he can? Why not fix the problem as soon as it happens, rather than waiting for a test to point an obvious problem out to you?
The point is, no one should be checking them just before an MOT, or relying on the tester doing it. Obligatory lights should be checked regularly, and the condition of the wiper blades should be obvious to even the most technically challenged driver.
If a wiper blade gets a nick in it, or a bulb fails on the drive home from an MOT, does that mean it is OK to leave it for 11 months and 30 days?
In addition to that, a high-milage car would be likely to have had at least two services in a year; if the blindingly obvious has been missed, what else has not been checked?
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.