The Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMI) has reaffirmed its opposition to the government’s proposal to extend the period before the first MOT test is needed from three to four years and is calling on independent garages to share their concerns in the official government consultation survey.
RMI director, Stuart James said: “This is an unnecessary consultation and there are a number of reasons why the benefits promoted by government are seriously outweighed by the pitfalls.
“At the three-year period alone this change will see 400,000 unroadworthy cars on the road for another 12-months and no official mileage recorded until year four.
“Although modern cars are better built than ever before, factors such as the condition of Britain’s roads combined with high mileages mean that modern cars should be checked more often but in many cases go for many months or even years without being seen by an industry professional.
“This proposal would, without doubt, cost consumers more in repair costs, incentivise ‘clockers’ and be detrimental to the UK’s excellent road safety record for no particular gain.”
The RMI is part of ProMOTe, a broad‐based coalition representing road safety groups, motoring organisations and industry bodies and all are opposed to this proposal.
Related: Gov officially proposes four-year MOT exemption
The industry has responded with evidence that shows extending the MOT would seriously endanger road safety.
GW reader, Nigel Tye of Tyetune in Kettering said: “In my experience as a garage/MOT testing station owner of 22-years, there are very few vehicles that pass their first MOT after three years.
“The most common failures are lighting, suspension and tyres.
“It is not uncommon these days for a vehicle to have covered more than 100,000 miles in the first three years, service intervals are far greater – two-years or 24,000 miles on some vehicles – [and] in my mind there is an awful lot than can and does go wrong in this period.”
Kevin of Chetwode Motors in Crewe says the Department for Transport (DfT) “will listen open mouthed” to vehicle manufactures boasting about “the quality of today’s vehicles”.
‘Not immune from worn tyres’
Kevin said: “Yes, they are better in respect of build quality but they are not immune from worn tyres or brakes.
“Few people now check anything on their vehicles including lights, washer fluid even engine oil so how can it be assumed by going another year these vehicles will remain safe.
“There is no obligation for anyone to have a service.”
GW reader Paul commented: “Get a couple of these pen pushers into a garage for a while and let them see the condition of some three-year-old vehicles at [the] first mot never mind four-years.
“In my humble opinion the mot should be mileage dependent anyway, it is usage that wears things out not only age.”
Individuals and organisations are encouraged to respond to the consultation here or by emailing [email protected] – full details about the proposals can be found here.
Join the debate and leave your comments below.
stuart gent
I cant believe we still wasting time and money chewing the same old cud clearly not just about the cars its about the people that drive them as well ,we said no already so listen and move on to the real issues !
stuart gent
I cant believe we still wasting time and money chewing the same old cud clearly not just about the cars its about the people that drive them as well ,we said no already so listen and move on to the real issues !
Neil backhouse
Extending the from three to four years is categorically dangerous!
Have been in the motor trade for 25 years and owning multiple garages for the past 10 I have seen some diabolical repairs and failures. Majority being down to failure and lack of maintenance, leaving these to progress for another year is going to result in RTC’s and death rates rising.
I have seen vans coming in for the first test were the rear trailing arm mounting points have snapped away(body side).
In order to rise the test to another year would rely heavily on consumers maintaining there vehicles highly. Which in most cases doesn’t happen as most consumers only pay for vehicle maintenance as a last resort.
Neil backhouse
Extending the from three to four years is categorically dangerous!
Have been in the motor trade for 25 years and owning multiple garages for the past 10 I have seen some diabolical repairs and failures. Majority being down to failure and lack of maintenance, leaving these to progress for another year is going to result in RTC’s and death rates rising.
I have seen vans coming in for the first test were the rear trailing arm mounting points have snapped away(body side).
In order to rise the test to another year would rely heavily on consumers maintaining there vehicles highly. Which in most cases doesn’t happen as most consumers only pay for vehicle maintenance as a last resort.
dave henwood
Four years ,people generally never look at there cars, it is money before safety again.The goverment trying to look good again,in my opion cars should be examined after 12 months.
You cant trust car owners to look at tyres etc,it just will not happen,they have more pressing priorities until the car breaks down and then they think the have lost a body part.
We recover vehicle on a daily basis that should never be on the road.
dave henwood
Four years ,people generally never look at there cars, it is money before safety again.The goverment trying to look good again,in my opion cars should be examined after 12 months.
You cant trust car owners to look at tyres etc,it just will not happen,they have more pressing priorities until the car breaks down and then they think the have lost a body part.
We recover vehicle on a daily basis that should never be on the road.
Pete Boyes
I totally agree that the system should just remain as it is. We fit around 5-6 springs a week as the roads are crap and many people don’t slow down over speed humps. Tyres also can be totally illegal, not only on tread depth but also from sidewall damage. If we know this why doesn’t someone in charge listen to us. Total lack of knowledge from our MPs!!!
Pete Boyes
I totally agree that the system should just remain as it is. We fit around 5-6 springs a week as the roads are crap and many people don’t slow down over speed humps. Tyres also can be totally illegal, not only on tread depth but also from sidewall damage. If we know this why doesn’t someone in charge listen to us. Total lack of knowledge from our MPs!!!
darran jackson
Im an AE and have been an mot tester for 20 years.This is just plain stupid.When a vehicle is presented for its first test at three years its usually just had its third year service and end of warranty check therefore most if not all faults are put right before its tested.Has any of the so called experts thought about that????.This means there figures are totally wrong.I could gave hundreds of reasons why to leave it as it is or even bring it forward to two years!!!!!!
darran jackson
Im an AE and have been an mot tester for 20 years.This is just plain stupid.When a vehicle is presented for its first test at three years its usually just had its third year service and end of warranty check therefore most if not all faults are put right before its tested.Has any of the so called experts thought about that????.This means there figures are totally wrong.I could gave hundreds of reasons why to leave it as it is or even bring it forward to two years!!!!!!
Steve
My car is 15 years old, done 155,000 miles. My works van is 2 years old, done 102,000 miles. Need I say any more?
Steve
My car is 15 years old, done 155,000 miles. My works van is 2 years old, done 102,000 miles. Need I say any more?
trevor ross
The mot test should be left how it is or the first test done after two years or a minimum mileage as stated above, the number of vehicles you get in with dangerous faults is unreal, when you consider this is usually the first safety check people have to have done, because they don’t have them serviced regular to see if the car is roadworthy, perhaps it should be law that you have to have your car serviced, then they would see what value for money a mot test is, plus I think there should be a minimum price for a test and not to be able to discount it either by price or other ways e.g free test with a service
trevor ross
The mot test should be left how it is or the first test done after two years or a minimum mileage as stated above, the number of vehicles you get in with dangerous faults is unreal, when you consider this is usually the first safety check people have to have done, because they don’t have them serviced regular to see if the car is roadworthy, perhaps it should be law that you have to have your car serviced, then they would see what value for money a mot test is, plus I think there should be a minimum price for a test and not to be able to discount it either by price or other ways e.g free test with a service