The Jensen Owners' Club

As it's been a while since the requirement for an annual MoT has been removed, I was wondering how many of us have decided not to do so...

You answer first Richie.

I still MOT my car each year for peace of mind, my garage can test things I cannot so it helps.
Richard

If you do not, and you are involved in an accident, how do you prove to your insurers that the car was even road-worthy ?
Heaven forbid that you are part of an accident that involves a death or life-changing injuries to another party, then an MOT at £45 would be a mere pittance, compared to the injured party, who would have a field-day against you.
Cheap at twice the price. The onus is always on you, me, us all to dot the 'i's' and cross the 't's'.
Just my five penn'oth.

The trouble with the MOT system was it was an unlevel playing field. Some stations would be "lenient" with classics and big chains generally would not. Classic car owners were savvy enough not to take their cars to Halfords for a ½ price MOT and expect to pass. When Halfords failed my road worthy Jensen I threatened them with court action as my car was perfect and, hey-presto - all the faults were down to an "inexperienced tester" un-familiar with older cars (with rear disc hand brakes!) and it was alright after all! I was so annoyed I presented my evidence to Greg Knight MP. His secretary said they were aware of the "nod and a wink" special handshake situation and would add my experience to the file....

Richie, this is like asking a trick question because some will say "yes" and don't.

I've still got my HGV license, even though I don't drive anymore, I was going to let it laps but as some one said too me, "it's worth keeping even if you don't use it, a medical every five years to keep it is better than waiting for something too go wrong'

I've got my next medical next year when I'm 60 years old.

So MOT for your 50 year old car... Money well spent.

I voted first - and yeah, I certainly do and will continue to do so.

RogerBrotton wrote:If you do not, and you are involved in an accident, how do you prove to your insurers that the car was even road-worthy ?
Heaven forbid that you are part of an accident that involves a death or life-changing injuries to another party, then an MOT at £45 would be a mere pittance, compared to the injured party, who would have a field-day against you.
Cheap at twice the price. The onus is always on you, me, us all to dot the 'i's' and cross the 't's'.
Just my five penn'oth.

You won't need to prove it was roadworthy. They would have to prove it was not roadworthy which would be quite hard to do. If you have a historic vehicle without an MOT you are in compliance with the law as the law stands. It is exempt from MOT testing and you are legally allowed to drive on the public roads like that. You do have a responsibility to keep the car in a roadworthy condition but how you do that is not specified and is left to you. An MOT test, a "non-MOT" garage inspection, personal inspection if you are competent and knowledgeable enough will all be valid. A competent and knowledgeable DIY mechanic can easily pick up the MOT manual and go through their car and satisfy themselves on the roadworthiness, or otherwise, of their car. The manual is quite precise and clear on what is required for each item tested.
I did look through this when this was first proposed by the Government and the statistics show that there are very few accidents (and I'm sure no deaths or serious injuries) caused where the unroadworthy condition of a car, especially historic cars, was a factor. There was a case a few years back where the driver of an MGB, with a valid MOT, was killed in an accident and this was attributed to old tyres but apart from a visual inspection of the tyres for tread depth, splits or severe cracking, tyre age is not part of the MOT yet clearly in this case although the tyres passed the MOT they were not roadworthy. The statistics also showed that the rate of MOT failures among historic cars, and the reasons for those failures, was very significantly lower than the rest of the vehicle fleet.

The driver of the car is legally responsible for the road worthiness of their vehicle. If you are not sure if your your car is road worthy then MOT it, but if it passes it is still no guarantee that the car is fit for purpose, and the driver will still be responsible. For example if you have a car with a remote brake servo it could look new on the outside, pass the MOT and then fail on the way home. You will have no come-back on the MOT station as at the time of the test it was OK.

Correct. The MOT only certifies it was roadworthy at the time of the inspection. It does not confer any subsequent roadworthiness.

Having your 'Classic' MOT'd shows good intent......not bothering, is trying to get away with it. Generally, our classics are easy to maintain, simple electronics, the rest is plugs, points and petrol. It's all doable.....and it could all save an awful lot of paperwork; not to mention lawyers at £250 an hour, and chickens to be plucked! !
For peace of mind, and a good night's sleep, it's a no brainer.

Yes I do, it’s nice to get a good look underneath and check out if there’s any work or cleaning that needs doing as I only have a jack and axle stands. Got a great garage near me and I go through the mot with him and he points out any issues.. I also think it’s part of the cars history to have the old mot’s and receipts, I have a box file full of paperwork which shows everything that has been spent on her and think it’s part of the cars journey and DNA .
Cheers Alistair

I have to. Too many modifications.

I still have to have the APK, the Dutch equivalent of the MOT in the UK. I use my old Subaru dealer to do the test as I can stay with the car and adjust if necessary as the technician is not familiar with all ins and outs of old cars. If he thinks something is amiss he points it out to me on the spot and we may have a discussion about it and I can rectify if needed.
E.g. if the mixture is to rich he does not know how to go about it and I can adjust the carburetion myself or if there is a remark about play in the front wheel bearings of the J-H I can point out it is supposed to be like that etc.
So you need a flexible garage who does the job correctly but allows you to adjust or some consideration for the age of the car.
Kees Oudesluijs

Hi Ritchie
I have all ways MOTed my jensen and will continue to do so.
When I bought it the hand brake did not work so I booked it in for one.
At that time I had not worked on it but told him of the faults and go over it with a microscope.
He gave me the list and did that and more to make sure it was safe.
I think it was the worsed thing the government ever did it's madness.
The best way to justify it is how can you do a pressure test on your brakes.
I always stand and look for any in balance on the machine.
It's good to have some one look over any work you have done.
I'm am very lucky I know my mot man and all way asks what's been done since the last one.
When sherree had the XF it went for an mot and service and I insisted on it having the Dunlop SP tyres that where on it from new and dealer parts fitted even down to brembo brake pads.
I all ways used to say the grand scheme of things the most precious people to me are it that car so what it needs fit it.
And with the Jensen it's been the same buy the best today is on offer.
Now he looks after Katie's car and the same applies.
I just wish he would make them pay the bill instead of me.