Feedback on the proposal of a two year MOT interval

Government proposals to lengthen the MOT interval to every two years have been met with fierce criticism from automotive organisations, brands and personnel. At the time of writing, more than 7,000 people have signed a petition against the idea. Here, we share some of the feedback:

“The counterproductive measure will see motorists paying more for their car maintenance and increase danger on the roads,” said co-founder of Bookmygarage.com, Karen Rotberg.

While nearly a third of vehicles failed the MOT the first time, even more worryingly nearly one in 10 (8.49%) of vehicles failed the test on at least one dangerous item. By relaxing the MOT interval to every two years, up to 2.57 million cars and vans will be on the roads with dangerous defects, according to the real-time comparison site. It is not uncommon for vehicles to fail MOT tests on safety critical components. DVSA data, based on Class 3 and 4 MOT tests conducted between October and December 2021, showed approximately 7% of vehicles failed on brake defects, a further 7% on tyre defects and 10% on suspension defects.

Karen said: “This could be genuinely dangerous for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians and we would be seeing cars on the roads with serious defects. And when it comes to the cost of living, this proposal won’t help at all. Having your vehicle checked less regularly is akin to putting off visiting the doctor and just like with healthcare issues, things can get a lot worse if you delay.”

The Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation Chief Executive, Mark Field, said: “Each time the MOT test frequency has been called into question, it has been proven beyond doubt that extending the test frequency would actually mean an increase in repair costs for drivers, insurance premiums and harmful emissions, as well as reducing road safety as there will be an increase in defective vehicles on UK roads.

“It would also be a significant blow to thousands of independent garages and the entire automotive supply chain, who were able to remain open throughout the coronavirus pandemic, ensuring the safe and affordable mobility of essential workers and members of the public.”

Avia Autos owner, Hayley Pells, said: “It is surprising, given the decision to end the six-month extension during the pandemic prematurely (when it was actively demonstrated how important this cost-effective check is to road safety), that this VAT-free inspection is considered as poor value for money.

“In order to maintain the legal obligation of the motorist for road worthiness, the only option would be a VAT-applied solution. I question if this is of better value to the motorist and have concerns regarding the safety of more vulnerable road users.”

CEO of LKQ Euro Car Parts, Andy Hamilton, said: “MOTs are a critical means of protecting drivers at the wheel. The purpose of an MOT is to ensure vehicles are roadworthy – they can help to identify issues with key systems and components, including brakes and tyres, before they begin to compromise vehicle safety.

“Every year, MOT testing standards are rigorously refreshed to ensure garage technicians are equipped with the latest knowledge and skills to maintain maximum vehicle safety – so effectively halving the time they spend in the workshop could lead fixable problems to worsen. The suggestion that this move will save consumers money is a red herring, as it risks exposing drivers to costly repairs further down the line. The MOT has also arguably never been more important. The ‘new normal’ of hybrid working means many people are driving far less frequently than before the pandemic, which has a knock-on effect on vehicle health. Brakes, for example, can begin to corrode when there isn’t sufficient motion to prevent rust from building up, and particulate filters can become blocked if vehicles aren’t given the chance to burn off any deposits.

“As well as these vital safety considerations, MOTs are also a key revenue driver for independent garages. So any move to scrap annual testing, stripping away this source of regular work, would place huge pressure on an industry already grappling with challenges from supply chain disruption and skills shortages, through to the rise of so-called captive parts by original equipment manufacturers and dealerships.

“In practice, a reduction in the frequency of MOTs is unlikely to save consumers money. A more effective solution would be to promote the availability of MOT testing within the UK aftermarket – independent garages have the flexibility to offer more competitive prices than dealerships, with equivalent – if not better – service quality. We would encourage the government to rethink this suggestion and explore more effective ways to reduce the squeeze on household finances.”

Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Chief Executive, Mike Hawes, said: “The industry shares the widespread concern over rising prices and the squeeze on household incomes. Safety, however, must always come first and, whilst today’s vehicles are more reliable than ever, regular MOTs ensure safety-critical components, such as brakes and tyres, which wear out as a function of as a result of normal operation, are properly inspected and maintained.

“Stretching MOT intervals will undermine the safety net at a time when vehicle miles driven are increasing. To ensure the safety of our roads, drivers, passengers, pedestrians and other road users, inspections and maintenance must be carried out annually following their first presentation in year three.”