You may have heard us mention this a few times over the last few years but we’re now getting near to implementing the roadworthiness directive. This follows recent Department for Transport (DfT) consultations.
Most of the changes from this directive will need to happen in May next year, but for now, we’ll provide you with an overview of what we expect to change. We’ll focus on the detail over the next few months
What this means
The directive is a very broad set of rules that covers everything to do with the on road condition of vehicles. It won’t mean huge changes for us, but there’ll still be changes in the world of MOT, including some positive steps to tighten-up the rules on emissions.
One of the changes related to the directive is how 'historic vehicles' are dealt with - something DfT consulted on.
As a result of this consultation, the government has decided that there’ll now be a ‘rolling 40 year old’ exemption from MOT, instead of the current fixed pre-1960 rule. However, this will only apply for those vehicles that haven’t been modified.
Changes to the MOT test
The directive will change how we categorise defects. From 20 May 2018, they’ll be categorised as either ‘dangerous’, ‘major’ or ‘minor’, to help focus drivers on what’s more important.
Whilst this will help us explain to them how to look after their vehicles better, we’ll need to be careful not to make things complex for us all.
Dangerous and major defects
‘Dangerous’ and ‘major’ defects will cause the MOT to be failed. We’re still working on how we’ll make this look for drivers, but we want to make sure that the dangerous defects stand out on the documentation. This is to make it clear to them that they shouldn’t drive the vehicle away in that condition.
Minor defects
Where ‘minor’ defects are identified, these can be considered along the same lines as advisories are today.
We’re still doing some research on how these sit alongside some of things we currently issue advisories for, and how best to display this information to drivers.
When things are clearer, we’ll blog about this again. Some of you will see us as we’re out and about doing our research, so please feel free to ask us about it!
Advisories
We’re considering ways of allowing observations to be noted that aren’t aimed at the car driver.
An example of this might be if there was something like an undertray fitted that was stopping a tester from getting to parts that they would otherwise inspect.
This could be useful information to have noted for an MOT appeal, but it wouldn’t appear on the notes given to the car drivers, because it’s not information aimed at them.
It would be good to hear your thoughts on this, so please leave your comments at the end of this blog post.
The other area on advisories that we’re considering changing, is whether we move away from manual advisories - if all the ‘test related’ and other standard ones are available and easy to find. This may be a contentious change for some, so we’ll set out our thoughts in more detail in a follow-up blog post to make sure we get your feedback.
Emissions Testing
There will also be some changes to the emissions test that will lower the limits for diesel cars. This will mean some changes to diesel smoke meter settings or software. We’re currently working with the garage equipment manufacturers to enable them to get ready to do this work.
We’ll update you on what needs changing later this month, to give you at least 6 months to schedule this work in.
The inspection manual
All of these changes will mean that the manual will change. We’ve already been getting feedback on an early version from our VTS Council members, and we’ll make sure this is captured in the revised version, ready to be published shortly.
Vehicle categories
The directive will require us to move to the standard EU vehicle categories, which will help to bring consistency, from vehicle approval through to on road use. However, we’ll keep to the MOT classes for garage authorisations, for now - so this shouldn’t change the way how we do testing too much.
Research with garages and customers
We’re determined that the directive, and the changes it will bring, should make it easier for us to accurately record MOT results and provide information that will help drivers to look after their vehicles.
This means that we’ll need to do a lot of research with garages and their customers, so expect to see us out and about.
In the meantime, we’d appreciate your feedback, below in the comments section, so we can plan the way ahead.
299 comments
Comment by mot posted on
re inventing the wheel again ,there is already a check box to mark dangerous and just rename advisory to minor .ffs someone gets paid a lot more than most to come up with that idea .
why not make it so if a dangerous fault vehicle can not be driven away only removed by trailer .
some customers already think an mot means the vehicle is safe for 12 months and been serviced all for 1p on some facebook ads .
why can I not get a cheaper passport or a deal on rd tax ? yet an official doc needed to be legal on rd can be sold for 1p with a service we all know in the trade it will require work for mot on the highly discounted mots .
Also address the training -it used to be free to train and have 5 yr refresher course now paying to take assessments or train a tester that can move on once I have paid to have him qualified ,would it not be better to raise the slot fees to keep the training and annual assessments free ?
Comment by Gary posted on
I don’t like the idea of getting rid of the manual advisories as I can type them out really quickly whereas it can take an age to find them in the system. Also if there’s something on/in the car you want to put down as an advisory to cover yourself and make the presenter aware and it’s not on the list then that will cause some problems.
Comment by Derek posted on
With regard to an option to highlight concerns relating to under trays fitted obscuring items that would otherwise be tested and then not detailing this to the owner. I find it difficult to comprehend; if we really want customers to be more aware of roadworthiness and to look after their vehicles better we should advise them so they can make informed choices.
You have highlighted different inspection terminology moving forward. My concern with this is that one of the EU directives which was not taken basically said that inspecting garages should not be repairing the vehicles, as is the case in other EU countries. It would seem to me that customers should have a real choice as to who repairs their car. We may find that garages would say a vehicle is in a dangerous condition when it’s not so it’s not taken elsewhere for repair.
It’s a little disappointing that after many years of emissions testing to a standard that has allowed the illegal removal of the internal diesel particulate filter material, the answer seems to be to reduce the testing levels. I am not convinced this will have any foreseeable or tangible deterrent effect. It seems likely to me that blasting a vehicle up the road that has been illegally modified just prior to inspection will be about all that is needed to pass.
Comment by Simon Edwards NTT/AEDM posted on
Moving away from manual advisories completely is a bad idea. You will never be able to put every advisory that is required on the system, one example I seem to be using more often is - Exhaust Silencer outer skin corroded. It’s very common now but if there is no leak not failable, but as a tester I need to protect myself if it starts to leak in the near future.
Comment by Freeman posted on
Once again it seem like you know more than the designers and manufaturers
Comment by Ron Mitchell posted on
Hi
I find that most customers do appreciate advisories, especially ones that could be a problem further down the line.
We definitely need to get them across to customers and they don’t see it as a danger but at anytime they can Re-book for a free check on any advisories that may have.
Look forward to further up dates
Ron Mitchell
Comment by Mr Turner posted on
Re; Changes to the MOT test section.
It reads,
we’ll need to be careful not to let make things complex for us all.
I'm no littarary but it doesn't read right.
Comment by Michael posted on
Some customers will take notice of Advisories,where others leave it till the following year when it fails. This vehicle could have been travelling around with a bald tyre for most of that year.
Comment by graeme gordon posted on
i use the advise under guards alot it would be a bad idea to remove manual advisories.the other ones i use are different size tyres on cars and tyres cracking .
Comment by Mr Stevens posted on
making an "advisory" the fact that an "untray" is preventing inspection is lazy and rubbish. if a car has such a thing, then the dvla should bring that up with the manufacturer of the vehicle so it can be designed out or easy to remove to inspect what you want to look at. I have an 18 year old car and some MOT stations have remarked that they can not check the sills either side of the vehicle owing to the plastic covering....well how the hell am i supposed it was/is an issue when I bought the car in 1999?
Lowing diesel emissions pass rates is also unfair. Again my 18 year old car currently passes current levels, lowering this may cause it to fail. The car is well maintained, serviced regularly, and in very good condition. Make the "NEW" diesels emissions lower , but punishing older cars (of which there are very few) is not fair. Keeping my car going is more environmentally friendly than scrapping it, and having to buy a new one with the manufacturing environment damage to the planet. Those of us who have "older" vehicles are few. Keeping acar many years is better than buying a new" one every year or 2 or 3!!
Comment by Andy Wise posted on
More confusing changes. Don't want to be a tester any more. Major changes every couple of years. It's getting ridiculous.
Comment by S D Ratcliffe posted on
Good ideas . Do not think new car should be tested after 4 years as reported in the paper if u change them .some people do not service there cars until mot time every year . New cars should be tested every year from new like hgv are .
Comment by Nick hobbs posted on
Great news
Comment by Oilburner posted on
It has been known for years that some businesses are making a lot of money out of removing or 'gutting' particulate filters. The filter is often obscured by an undertray which has to be removed to see whether a DPF is present, and even then an examiner may not be able to check if the DPF has been opened, gutted, and welded up. Currently it is not illegal to remove the DPF but it is illegal to drive the vehicle with DPF removed. A silly state of affairs.
Comment by Nicolas Chiddle posted on
On the most part this seems positive but removing manual advisory’s is a bad idea. There are always going to be things that aren’t covered and not being able to make a note would only make our job more difficult, I don’t see any advantage for the customer or tester in doing this.
Comment by Dan posted on
>>However, this will only apply for those vehicles that haven’t been modified.
All cars of that age have been modified in some sort of way.
How is the dvsa going to tell if a car has been modified and therefore needs an mot test? Something as simple as switching the original (faulty) radio out for a new aftermarket unit, adding "owners club" stickers, or even updating old drum brakes to discs are modifications - how is this going to be gauged?
This exemption seems to be a nod to all the goody-two-shoes who complained about them being exempt & seems like a completely idiotic move in all honesty; all cars over 40 years old should be exempt, no matter what. Anyone modifying a 40+ year old vehicle is going to take far more pride in the vehicles aesthetics and safety than, say, someone driving a brand new vehicle - the number of people who newer vehicles and don't even know how to top up their oil, adblue or even screenwash is astonishing... people like them are the real danger on the roads, not classic car owners.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Dan
Dft is working on this definition now - and we will share when available. It will then be for an owner to declare whether it does or doesn’t meet that definition.
Comment by Angry driver number 1257527887878578122755 posted on
Don't like this at all, making it so that there are 2 levels on which a vehicle can fail and MOT and then trying to get them to not drive the vehicle from the mot centre. Blatant attempt to get more cars off the road.
Comment by Geoffrey Rawlings posted on
Hi as someone who takes about 4to six cars a year to mot selling cars in spare time I feel that because there's an advisory section some mot testers feel ablige to enter somthing in that section for instance I took a ford Ka in and he advisory lower arm bush split every Ka over forty thousand miles will be exactly the same it's a manufactures defect dose not affect the vehicle.when I pointed this out he deleted it . obviously if trying sell a car thats just been given a full mot a bit contradictory to than have a list of advisory detailing what's wrong with it.
Comment by Geoff purdy posted on
MOTS vary in price from garage to garage 25 quid being the cheapest I have seen but you can guarantee your car will fail . Should be a set official price everywhere and mot stations should only do the test and not be a combined MOT and garage repairs shop as its a licence to print money as they can fail your car just to generate business and money for the garage ,you have no way of knowing if there up to their usual tricks .
Comment by Pete posted on
Advisory box is a must for all testers as i cant believe every eventuality will allready be in your failure criterior and WE need to cover are backsides
Comment by Denis posted on
I really think it is about time the mot went in house dedicated outlets to carry out the mot and that is there only function
Comment by Mark White posted on
There’s no need to advise undertrays and covers fitted when they are fitted as standard.
If it can’t be seen it can’t be tested
Comment by D K Clarke posted on
I think this sound a recipe for disaster, there are going to be a lot of old cars on the road not in road worthy condition,I have over forty years experience in the Motor trade, as a garage owner, an AE and a nominated tester, there is a good old saying if it ain't broke don't fix it, in my opinion the MOT system needs some small changes but nothing like you are proposing, glad to be retiring in two years
Comment by Tim Watts posted on
Under trays should be of no special interest.
If the trays are original equipment then the vehicle will be tested as presented.
Excuses about poor visibility while the trays are in place doesn't mean anything apart from providing the tester with a poor excuse which he will get beaten with in the event of critical failure.
This is a manufacturing issue not mot unless we start stripping.
Unfortunately pre test removal is now impossible on some vehicles as the complete underside is hidden from any visual inspection.
Disasters waiting to happen.
Comment by Andy posted on
Surely people know what the major problems are because that is what it has failed on. The minor problems are the advisories. Everything else doesn't really matter. If you are that fussed about undertrays fitted, then ask the manufacturers if they have them fitted. A big change you could make to the system is to show what advisories were issued last year and see if they have been repaired or not.
Comment by Ian A posted on
if it isnt broken then dont fix it. I fail to see why the dvsa needs to change the present system at all. It is a fact that due to the wastefull excesses of national government and the increase burden placed on tax payers to pay for these excesses the majority of road users dont service their vehicles as they should be according to the manufacturers stated service intervals as they are struggling to pay there household bills let alone service the car that they depond on for their jobs. therefore the only attention a vehicle normally recieves is that of the MOT test and many vehicle owners that we know of merely want the repairs carried out to their vehicles to get a pass cert many dont seem bothered to attend to the advisories mentioned to them
Comment by Philip NT & QC posted on
What do you mean "accurately record MOT results and provide information that will help drivers to look after their vehicles"
The system that is in place today of recording MOT results is accurate and concise . It gives us testers an opportunity to Pass fail or advise testable items that affect the safety of cars on the road. Why are car manufacturers getting involved with decisions on mot procedures, I tell you why, because if we as testers continue to fail advise or pass items of road safety it affects car sales , there by we as testers are costing the manufacturers money. Car Manufacturers lobbiest should not be allowed to lobby the government for their own capital gain. Every item that I make a decision on while testing is for safety reasons and for the drivers best interest. And not for the government, the car manufacturers or for my boss to make money out off. And that why I recommend that the system that is in place now should stay as it is. It gives the driver car owner the best information on the condition of there car so please leave well enough alone...
Comment by Mr sapru posted on
Some of these changes are good in principle, as a car owner any additional clarity is always welcome however from a consumer point of view, what I would really like is some built in leeway for drivers to be able to act on the test results.
For instance, advising drivers that dangerous and major defects exist and the car shouldn't be driven away DOES mean that many garages will seek to exploit drivers and charge inflated prices for repairs. I've personally experienced and have known many others experience garages who also fraudulently fail people so they can make money on repair costs - it can never be proven until another garage points it out to you.
It also needs to be a law that garages can't charge a second time for the test regardless of when you come back for the retest. Particularly if dangerous and major defects exist, the cost of repair may be very high - booking the car in for repair can take time as well as then having to reschedule the test may take weeks. So practically speaking adding to the expense by recharging for the test only serves to drive the wrong behaviors by owners and garages.
Comment by Russell Smith posted on
We already and have done for years advise if covers/undertrays/side skirts are fitted inspection is restricted .
Manual advisory is a great option don't remove it. It can be used to bring other items to the owners attention that may at a later time of test fail.
Comment by Tom Severn posted on
A sensible development to have a way of recording advisories that don't affect the driver. I dread explaining about the child seat ( "I can't take that out 'cos its dangerous without it)! or ("I wish I had known, I could have took it out") etc., etc. and the undershields ("So you havn't done a proper test and my car could still be dangerous") ! etc., etc.
However whilst on the subject, I think it is unnecessary commenting on the plastic covers at all. If the car left the factory with them fitted as standard, it is a waste of time and effort having to record that fact at every test.
Comment by Colin Stewart posted on
This just sounds like more needless beurocracy. Major or dangerous defects already fail the test,minor defects are already pass and advise and if DVSA stopped meddling with the test and removing things that used to be tested,you wouldn't need manual advisory.
If my employer would let me shred my mot card and stop testing I would do it tomorrow because I'm fed up with all the changes every five minutes.
Comment by Honest thomas posted on
If undertray were fitted to a new vehicle,then the manufactures fitted them as standard. If they therefor stop an mot inspector from doing his job properly, there are two options.
1) they should not have been allowed in the 1St place.
2) and probably the best way forward, is tell the mot inspectors to get there hands dirty and look behind the covers.
If clips or fastenings brake,then tell the owners before replacement and SHOW them the faults. This then gives the owners faith in the inspectors and genuine faith in there mot.
I am a member of the public and I
only use a mot station were the inspector shows me personally what's wrong, no matter what it is. I then say thankyou fix it.
If the car doesn't warrant the repair I scrap it and start looking for a replacement which I immediately take to get inspected to make sure that the mot is 100% accurate.
What is the cost of an mot compared to my kids lives when I have been bitten very badly by an inspector who never even tested a vehicle I bought. It was scrapped on the spot.
Comment by Paul posted on
Thank god i’ve only got a couple of years left as I can see more trouble than a little it’s bad enough now with DVSA operatives coming into the workplace now and treating us with contempt when this lot hits us and a mistake is made WELL !!!!!!!
Comment by Jd posted on
Having read this blog, there isn't a fat lot to comment on. It does seem clear from some of the language however, that that there is a move to present info in a simplistic manner. It is maybe worrying that car owners/drivers have little grasp of the basic workings of their vehicles. I think rather than dumbing down of mot reports , maybe a little education is needed. Despite vehicles taking on more technology over the years, they are still made up of the same simple mechanisms of cars of 20 years ago. People should understand how and why the brake pedal works, what the steering wheel is connected to, what the suspension is made up of. If your mot checker tells you your brake pads are low, it is not difficult to make a judgement as to whether repair is needed now or in a years time. My wifes car had warnings for low tread from 2nd mot until 4th mot before they actually needed changing, without some judgment and common sense, tires would have been wasted and money wasted. My cars have picked up warnings one year, that dissapear the next at the same garage.
Dont over simplify test reports, simple facts are all that are needed.
Comment by Dom posted on
The rolling 40 year exception will be ok as long as the car is not involved in an accident, then it should be tested before going back on the Road
Comment by Russell Barker posted on
Is it just me, or is this just completely over complicating something that doesn't need over complicating!
Comment by chris burland posted on
i have not found one owner of historic vehicles that agree with no testing they all know fools whos cars are not fit for the road ,i know of an a30 with holes in floor and and other defects that make it unfit ,the owner has it on trade insurance and has taxed it , just to show how foolish it is not to test ,he keeps it off the road but can drive it if he wanted . this is added to by lack of police on the roads now lest likey to get stopped
Comment by robert vickers posted on
Sounds a good idea but is this still an m.o.t test or is it going to be a pre check service inspection, that's how the major dealers work with there inspection sheets and reports and the red,amber,green system they use, i just thing at the end of the day we are mechanics and keeping up with today's technology in the car industry is hard, and people keep changing things at the dvsa. please give us break!!!!!
Comment by Jan Tindale posted on
on the issue of advisories the heading could be renamed to testers notes or testers observations or similar
on the issue of removing manual advisories VERY bad idea year after year we as testers were taught to use advisories to cover ourselves and now you suggest taking away a way of doing such a thing and leave the tester open to all sorts of prosecution when a test goes bad would you stand behind the tester and back him? I think NOT
Comment by peter freeman posted on
As a result of this consultation, the government has decided that there’ll now be a ‘rolling 40 year old’ exemption from MOT, instead of the current fixed pre-1960 rule. However, this will only apply for those vehicles that haven’t been modified.
What do you consider to be "Modified" - better brakes, better steering ( PAS ), better tyres than the original type fitted, better lighting, engine modified to deal with unleaded fuel - to name but a few.
Comment by Ian Cooke posted on
How about making bringing in a Diesel particulate filter check, and class it as a major fail if this has been removed as part of the emissions test
Comment by P Richards posted on
i must say I like it. Just get on with it. more clarity needed so all testers are on same wave length.
Comment by andy cripps @ phillip waters posted on
Please do not remove the manual advisory function all together. Even if you have lots of "standard" ones there needs to be a facility to add testers notes/advisories. By all means give testers guidelines but don't remove it all together.
Comment by Ml posted on
Please leave manual advisory as used a lot for general corrosion and smeary wiper blades etc that u have no presets.
Comment by John Morris posted on
What about registration plates? I had a car failed on a minor technicality of spacing and was charged £40 for new plates just to get it passed. This is not a reason for mot failure
Comment by brian posted on
really good idea about the under trays as a few testable items are hidden by them.
this used to be on a manual advisory
Comment by Kevin Gascoigne posted on
40 year cut off is a joke and makes a mockery of everything I strive to do in my MOT work. Please send someone to look at the typical 40 year old cars we test. Better still ask them to explain how a car can be untested on the roads to the victim of an RTA caused by an unroadworthy car.
Comment by Peter hadland posted on
Yes kind of agree with improvements to advisory items . Think it would be better for customers & testers all round.
Comment by Roy pears posted on
Please don't remove the manual advise it's really handy to advise presenters of items they may need to know about i.e. Body damage ,perished tyres,cracks in windscreens ,sill covers under trays etc
Comment by James redmond posted on
Before changing everything on regular basis maybe you need to let public know about stuff you’ve already changed, and customers need to see everything we advise because it’s us that gets the first confrontation when there not happy, and hiding an advisory that you think isn’t important to them is not the way, why document it if it’s not going to be transparent for all users???? To many changes that are not necessary and the public need a scheme they can get used to that isn’t changed year on year to justify your jobs!!!!!
Comment by Brian Murphy posted on
I think the first thing to look at is how the current MOT documents appear when printed. All the failures should be together and all the advisory items together. The current printed format is a complete mess.I like the idea of undertrays etc being noted but not printed to protect the tester. The primary aim should be for the customer not just the MOT professional to be able to easily read and interpret the data. Often I spend as long explaining test results as doing the test. I would also like “central” to be changed back to “centre” as it’s grammatically correct and less confusing.
Comment by Ste Wheddon posted on
Will it bring in the age of tyre.? Ans any legislation?
Comment by d baston posted on
Please,keep manual advisories
They are very helpful and give the tester more latitude,thanks
Comment by Lee posted on
I think you should keep manual advisory’s because the inspection manual doesn’t put it in your words what you are trying to say about the component your looking at and sometimes your just trying to let the customer know to keep an eye out in case the part get worse.
Comment by Mike Haynes posted on
Personally, I think it would be a mistake to finish with manual advisories< you would need to make sure that everything was covered, far more difficult than an NT writing a description that can be understood by the customer.
Comment by Stephen parker posted on
Sounds as if there will be a lot of "grey areas" in the so called moving forward,and I think you should look at trying to educate drivers how to maintain their vehicles and we should have open days and invite drivers to come ,and we could explain how the mot system works .Over the years I have been testing this subject of maintenance is always overlooked and I am sure the general public think that mot stations just fail vehicles for the work that they can acquire from this
Comment by P posted on
Another load of rubbish to rid the road of old cars
Comment by keith brown posted on
under tray fitted was always in the non component advisory section on the old system, but when the new system was rolled out there wasn`t even a non component advisory section at all! you`ve put the section back in with the usual child seat fitted, nail in tyre etc but no under tray fitted wording, why? and at the4 end of the day if the vehicle presenter doesnt understand something thats printed on their pass/fail then all they have to do is ask.
Comment by Richard Studholme posted on
How will you know if a 40 year old car has been modified? What constitutes a modification? How will a young tester know if a 1275cc Midget engine has been fitted to a 948cc Morris Minor? Are not disc brakes fitted to a Sprite that previously had drum brakes an improvement? Surely the best thing is to keep the MOT for these over 40 year old vehicles, and make it bi annual? These cars are very largely maintained by amateurs which makes it even more necessary that they are checked thoroughly. And how will anyone, given that info, even know if their car's exempt?
The best way is not to complicate the test. If it's dangerous.. fail it. If it's not.. pass it. I can't for instance see how a split ball joint rubber can render a car unsafe within 28 days if there is no play in the ball joint at time of test. If it's on the car, and is safety related it should work. In 28 days it's all academic anyway. We've been asked to pass marginal almost bald tyres for years based on the RFR given in the manual for a passenger car. And lowering the limit on diesel cars.. it's just a back door for the government to get numptys like us to take the blame when they have to be scrapped.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Richard
Dft is working on this definition now - and we will share when available. It will then be for an owner to declare whether it does or doesn’t meet that definition - as now if it's presented for test then it should be tested. The changes on the diesel test will better reflect the emissions levels that modern diesels should be able to meet with fully operative emissions control technology.
Comment by David Endean posted on
I'm not sure this will have the desired effect, you are assuming that the average driver will take on board what we as testers put on their certificates.
I recently failed a car with a brake fault that I considered dangerous and marked it so.
We pointed this out to the owner who continued to load his wife and small child in the car and drive off, saying, I'll go and fix that!!