R Cubed Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) If someone was to get a truck ( over 3.5 tons ) M.O.T. ( not plated ) to confirm it being roadworthy, despite it not being a requirement, once plated would it then have to be done every year after or could it then be missed for several years ? Edited January 28, 2011 by R Cubed To get an MOT not being Plated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Do you mean getting a plating certificate, or passing an MOT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff66 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 you might be opening a can of worms! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Cubed Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 Do you mean getting a plating certificate, or passing an MOT? Errrrr well if it was over 3500Kg's it would need plating, wouldn't it or would an MOT place do a roadworthy check and issue a certificate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Cubed Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 you might be opening a can of worms! Cant really see that as this is only a query and as current regs deem it to not to require an MOT I was just wondering if once plated that then overruled the exemption ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferrettkitt Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 If you were to plate a pre 1960's 3500 kg and above would you're intention be to use the vehicle for carrying a load / business use? If you intend to use it to carry a load would that invalidate you're MV insurance and would you have to find a company that would insure you're vehicle commercially? The worms r out of the can Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Cubed Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) If you were to plate a pre 1960's 3500 kg and above would you're intention be to use the vehicle for carrying a load / business use? If you intend to use it to carry a load would that invalidate you're MV insurance and would you have to find a company that would insure you're vehicle commercially? The worms r out of the can No ! as the post title says as a roadworthy check to prove any maintenance which has been or would be carried out on it, would be of a safe standard and suitable to be used on the road. Edited January 28, 2011 by R Cubed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) The whole problem with an MOT is it only shows a vehicle is roadworthy on the day the certificate is issued. Having an MOT is no proof the vehicle is roadworthy. Thousands of un-roadworthy vehicles are sold everyday with current MOT. I suggest this exercise is a complete waste of time because if VOSA/ Police want to know whether a vehicle is roadworthy they will order an inspection. They will not accept an MOT as proof of vehicle being roadworthy. The solution to the problem is to keep the vehicle completely road worthy, and not to bother beyond that. If you know the vehicle is roadworthy you will have no worries if an inspection is demanded. You can have a MOT with only one day left to run and never having put a spanner to the vehicle since the last MOT nearly a year ago, but if the Coppers see bits dropping off, the MOT is meaningless. You will get done for an unroadworty vehicle even though it has a current MOT. Edited January 26, 2011 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 No ! as the post title says as a roadworthy check to prove any maintenance which would be carried out on it would be of a safe standard and suitable to be used on the road. Surely you could just take it for an MOT test? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) The whole problem with an MOT is it only shows a vehicle is roadworthy on the day the certificate is issued. Having an MOT is no proof the vehicle is roadworthy. Thousands of un-roadworthy vehicles are sold everyday with current MOT. I suggest this exercise is a complete waste of time because if VOSA/ Police want to know whether a vehicle is roadworthy they will order an inspection. They will not accept an MOT as proof of vehicle being roadworthy. The solution to the problem is to keep the vehicle completely road worthy, and not to bother beyond that. If you know the vehicle is roadworthy you will have no worries if an inspection is demanded. You can have a MOT with only one day left to run and never having put a spanner to the vehicle since the last MOT nearly a year ago, but if the Coppers see bits dropping off, the MOT is meaningless. You will get done for an unroadworty vehicle even though it has a current MOT. Which is precisely why - under the terms of an Operating Licence (required for commercial operation of an HGV) - it is mandatory to undertake statutory condition inspections (at typically 6 - 8 weeks intervals depending on severity of operating conditions) and keep records of same. If you read the question ("If someone was to get a truck ( over 3.5 tons ) plated to confirm it being roadworthy...") the idea being promoted is a voluntary test to ascertain if indeed the vehicle is roadworthy - there is no suggesttion that the owner would then seek to hide behind this test as a get-out in the event of problems. Not everyone is an expert HGV mechanic and I can quite understand if someone might wish to seek an informed opinion by means of a voluntary test. Even done it myself (mainly for brakes) I suggest this is a good idea if you want extra reassurance of the condition of your vehicle. Alternatively, if you are not confident in your own judgement of mechanical condition, why not use the services of a commercial garage which undertakes routine HGV inspections for commercial operators? There seems to be confusion between PLATING and TESTING - (and correct me if I'm wrong here) Plating is the initial inspection to ascertain the maximum carrying capacity of a vehicle, and is done at first registration and any subsequent alterations to the vehicle which might afect its capacity (e.g. adding an extra axle). Annual MOTs are sometimes mistakenly referred to as 'Plating', but they are just MOTs. Edited January 26, 2011 by N.O.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 No ! as the post title says as a roadworthy check to prove any maintenance which would be carried out on it would be of a safe standard and suitable to be used on the road. Don't you mean 'maintenance which HAS been carried out HAS been done to a safe standard? :cool2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferrettkitt Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) No ! as the post title says as a roadworthy check to prove any maintenance which would be carried out on it would be of a safe standard and suitable to be used on the road. I do believe thats called servicing followed by the 12 month MOT any decent garage would warn you of any potential problems with a vehicle if you take it in for servicing Edited January 27, 2011 by ferrettkitt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-Five-Two Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Any Goods Vehicle Testing Station will carry out a voluntary check of your pre 1960's truck, for your own peace of mind on any work you may have done. They will charge you for it according to what you ask them to check. For example you could have just a brake test, which will get you a computor print out showing how well, or not, your brakes performed (at the time of test). On the other hand you could opt for a full inspection which will be done to the same standard as for an MOT. However, for a pre 1960 vehicle they would not normally issue an MOT because your old truck is unlikely to conform to the current regulations. Hazard lights for one, were not required back then, but now they are, so unless you have retro fitted them recently you wont get an MOT. No MOT means no plate, so no using it for anything other than social, domestic or pleasure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I'd go with NOS. That's what I do with the Dodge. She goes to my friendly neighbourhood garage they check all the vital bits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmon Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) I'm not sure anything has to be retro fitted to comply with an MoT, seat belts, hazards, rear fog, windscreen washers etc,. It just has to be equipped as it was when originally road legal i would have thought?? Taking it for an MoT would probably cost less than an inspection at a garage and even though not required by law would certainly prove good intention to have a road worthy vehicle if nothing else, it would probably add some value and protect your personal liability I would think but I'm no expert in these matters... Interested in other opinions Quentin Edited January 26, 2011 by marmon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Trouble with old vehicles are the exceptions. If a 'new' part, such as flashing indicators are fitted, then they must work and comply with regulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmon Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Here is a scenario, 59 Dodge brake pipe cracks due to fatigue, not rust, looses brakes down hill gets hand brake on but still runs over small car and hurts someone. There are many failures old vehicles can have unless given aircraft style maintenance, a lot of these potential failures will not be detected on an MoT Owner driver A is an ex mechanic and Mot inspector who carries out and keeps good service and repair records but he has no Mot. Owner driver B is a good handy self taught mechanic but has no formal qualifications he also keeps good records. But has no Mot. Owner driver C has his vehicle professionally serviced and MoT yearly. Owner driver D maintains his own vehicle but has it Mot'd every year. I would say in front of a judge driver A is on very shaky ground, driver B had certainly better bring his toothbrush, driver C should have no worries at all and driver D I would have thought will be OK. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooTallMike Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Any Goods Vehicle Testing Station will carry out a voluntary check of your pre 1960's truck, for your own peace of mind on any work you may have done. QUOTE] This should be true but unfortunately is not. Mitcham VOSA station refused to carry out a voluntary inspection of the Ward LaFrance stating that it would fail as it did not meet current regs. No amount of arguing that it did not have to meet modern regs would persuade them so I gave up. A much better idea, as suggested above, would be to have the vehicle inspected by an independent commercial vehicle garage. Our ERF is pre-test inspected each year and we believe it to be good value for money at around £60 and for us it means only one visit to the test station. This will not give you an MoT or test certificate but as AntarMike points out, these are worthless the moment you drive out the door anyway. However it gives you an independent annual inspection with a written report. I would have thought a court of law would look kindly on this if you were ever called upon to defend yourself. - MG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmon Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I would love a letter just stating that I asked for an MoT test and was refused due to vehicle age! Maybe I'm paranoid but it always seems to be about passing on liability these days, there is no such thing as an accident any more, someone must be blamed, Just rather it wasn't me... I agree if they won't test then I think the next best option would be a yearly safety inspection from a reputable garage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-Five-Two Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Mitcham VOSA station refused to carry out a voluntary inspection of the Ward LaFrance stating that it would fail as it did not meet current regs. No amount of arguing that it did not have to meet modern regs would persuade them so I gave up.- MG Quite surprised to read that, I would have thought they would have been a bit more helpful. But that said there are 2 test stations near me, and they are as different as chalk and cheese. One being a miserable bunch which even the trade tries to avoid, and the other couldn't be better, even when they have to fail you they do it nicely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel demon Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Which is precisely why - under the terms of an Operating Licence (required for commercial operation of an HGV) - it is mandatory to undertake statutory condition inspections (at typically 6 - 8 weeks intervals depending on severity of operating conditions) and keep records of same. If you read the question ("If someone was to get a truck ( over 3.5 tons ) plated to confirm it being roadworthy...") the idea being promoted is a voluntary test to ascertain if indeed the vehicle is roadworthy - there is no suggesttion that the owner would then seek to hide behind this test as a get-out in the event of problems. Not everyone is an expert HGV mechanic and I can quite understand if someone might wish to seek an informed opinion by means of a voluntary test. Even done it myself (mainly for brakes) I suggest this is a good idea if you want extra reassurance of the condition of your vehicle. Alternatively, if you are not confident in your own judgement of mechanical condition, why not use the services of a commercial garage which undertakes routine HGV inspections for commercial operators? There seems to be confusion between PLATING and TESTING - (and correct me if I'm wrong here) Plating is the initial inspection to ascertain the maximum carrying capacity of a vehicle, and is done at first registration and any subsequent alterations to the vehicle which might afect its capacity (e.g. adding an extra axle). Annual MOTs are sometimes mistakenly referred to as 'Plating', but they are just MOTs. You are indeed correct, plating is for axle weight purposes only and not connected to MOT Any vehicle over 3.5 Tonnes comes into the plating regulations, hence the fact there are 1000's of vans out there all under 3.5t I am sure there will be a 'get out' clause somewhere if the vehicle is not to be used for commercial reward own goods etc etc ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I suspect testing became erroneously referred to as plating in the early days as the first trip most trucks had to an inspection was to be plated when the plating and testing regulations first came out (was that in 1969?). That was when many old trucks went to the breakers yards as they stood little or no chance of passing a test or achieving plating :cool2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julezee001 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Plating is still important for an HGV test, as it shows the axle weights, and the gross vehicle weight. These are used to calculale how effective the brakes are on an HGV. Whilst the system is computerised, occasionally someone takes an old MV/truck in for a test, which isn't pre-programmed. My Militant was downrated many years ago from 22500kg to 21500kg, specifically to help it pass the brake test, and that is the weight recorded on it's plating certificate. Jules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
croc Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 You are indeed correct, plating is for axle weight purposes only and not connected to MOTAny vehicle over 3.5 Tonnes comes into the plating regulations, hence the fact there are 1000's of vans out there all under 3.5t I am sure there will be a 'get out' clause somewhere if the vehicle is not to be used for commercial reward own goods etc etc ? Do we really want to start on the pre 1960 exemption from the good vehicles (plating and testing) regulations?:coffee: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Cubed Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 You are indeed correct, plating is for axle weight purposes only and not connected to MOTAny vehicle over 3.5 Tonnes comes into the plating regulations, hence the fact there are 1000's of vans out there all under 3.5t I am sure there will be a 'get out' clause somewhere if the vehicle is not to be used for commercial reward own goods etc etc ? Oh I thought that Plating was the commercial version of a car MOT seems its not. So what I meant to say then was MOT. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.