Every year 35,000 cars are MOT’d at some 21,000 MOT centres.

Thank goodness for that I say because the Government tells us that in 2010-11 44% of vehicles failed their MOT test initially and 28% of vehicles had one or more car defects that were either missed by MOT test centres or incorrectly assessed.

This matters massively because the MOT is supposed to be a safety snapshot on the day and often it’s the only one older cars get each year.

VOSA (Vehicle and Operator Services Agency) data also showed that the roadworthiness of one-in-eight cars (12.4%) was being incorrectly assessed by MOT test centres.

Minister for Transport, Justine Greening said:
“Our garages are crucial to ensuring that Britain’s roads continue to be among the safest in the world. Most are doing good work but the latest data shows that there is room for improvement.”

“I want each motorist to be confident that a visit to the garage ends with their car repaired to a high standard by reputable mechanics rather than uncertainty about cost and the quality of service.”

“Giving drivers the very best information about garage performance is absolutely key to achieving this goal. It means that responsible garages will be well placed to reap the commercial benefits of transparency. Garages where performance is not up to scratch will find themselves under pressure to do more for their customers.”

Nicely said but drivers wouldn’t need performance information at all if all garages were regulated to perform to minimum and policed standards. As things stand, bad garages can pay to join good garage schemes, thus appearing to be responsible garages, without employing qualified or accredited mechanics.

And from the female motorist’s point of view, especially one who prefers her Yellow Pages Directory to any online listing, how is she to know that a garage listed as ‘Good’ doesn’t employ qualified mechanics to fix her car? Undoubtedly she thinks it does.

One interesting footnote to today’s Press release about all this states ‘The garage sector is regulated in several ways. The sector has to comply with business laws and consumer protection legislation. The MOT scheme is regulated by VOSA, an agency of the Department for Transport.’

All well and good but sadly, in our experience, none of this stops motorists being overcharged, patronised or sold things they don’t want to buy.

So I shall be interested to see how the Government assesses ‘reputable’ mechanics when they aren’t qualified or accredited as fit to do the job before being allowed to tinker with our brakes, for example.

All in all, I’m pleased to see that there will be a spotlight on garages again but wouldn’t it be easier to have one regulation system for all garages? Not just the ones who choose to self-regulate themselves via Motor Codes because the majority of these are franchised dealerships who have been told to sign up by their manufacturers but who presumably operate to higher standards than the Motor Codes Service & Repair code in any case? Which doesn’t include MOT centres as it happens.

And how will the industry judge value for money here? The likes of moneysavingexpert website tells motorists to use local authority centres where they’ll pay full price but aren’t sold anything they don’t need. But motorists will head for the discount deals and garages that may or may not be part of a ‘reputable’ scheme.

All to avoid the inevitable which is surely a fully blown regulatory scheme that outs the bad garages for once and for all.

FOXY Steph

You can read about 2010/2011 VOSA compliance survey data here. .

Or check your car’s MOT status  and history here.

This blog entry is as a result of an an email from Elizabeth in Leeds who is a Club member.

Her experience echoes that of other members who are baffled when an insurer pays out in what is typically a no fault accident situation. And who worry that their premium or No Claims Bonus might be affected.

What seems to be happening is that whenever there is a liability dispute (which, let’s face it, insurers encourage by telling motorists not to admit liability even when it’s clearly their fault) both insurers are accepting shared costs (called a ‘knock for knock’ basis) rather than taking this further to identify the guilty or fraudulent party.

Simply because it is often cheaper to pay out on this basis than argue the toss…

This is what Elizabeth tells us about her experiences. Her comments about dealing with uswitch remind me why it can make sense to shop in advance and double check a comparison website later I you aren’t happy as obviously deals can change…

“I have recently renewed my car insurance. I tried uSwitch about 2 ½ weeks before renewal and did not much like the premiums. I tried again 2 weeks later and the premiums were 250 pounds cheaper! I chose a company, which I knew was affiliated with my existing one, but it turned out that they are the same company. So I have ended up with the same company, but at the price I found on uSwitch.”

“By the way, I have chosen a high excess because I have found that if you have an accident with a lower excess, it gets added to your premium anyway. The financial penalty for claiming for small amounts is larger than the claim.”

“I had an incident nearly 2 years ago when someone claimed I had hit her car and caused damage. I was not aware of anything and there is no way that my car could have caused that particular damage. She harassed me to the point where I had to go to my local police station. They got her to stop. In the end my insurance company (not the current one) settled in error, having received no proof at all from her. I reported this incident to my current insurer last year, but now it seems to have disappeared from their records.”

“I have had numerous instances where damage has been caused to my car when I have not been there – and of course no one has owned up.”

FOXY’s advice is always to tell the insurance company the full facts and if you know nothing about any accident or you deny any liability ask them to confirm that they have recorded this as a no fault accident. In these circumstances it would seem unreasonable for the insurer to inflate your premium or downgrade your No Claims Bonus as a result.

And whilst the ‘knock for knock’ settlement system seems lazy and unscientific ie  ‘we’re not sure who’s guilty so let’s split it’ we do appreciate that the time this takes to sort out can be more costly than a 50:50 formula.

If any motorist feels her insurance premium has been inflated by a previous accident that was not their fault they should check whether that accident has been scored against them on their policy. If the insurer is unwilling to review this as a no fault accident and perhaps your no claims bonus has been affected, please let us know the details. And shop around for  a better renewal deal.

I should add that this is going to be doubly hard to police in the lead up to insurers imposing gender equality ratings from December 2012 onwards. This is when insurers will be allowed to charge ALL women drivers more than they have been paying despite the statistically safer driving record of young women drivers compared to young male drivers in particular.

There is nothing fair about this ‘equality ruling’ when it comes to common rating genders for car insurance premiums…

FOXY Steph

NB: FOXY Lady Drivers Club includes a female friendly accident assistance service to help members and their family after an accident. Providing you contact them before your insurer, they can advise you of your best option in the circumstances. If you don’t claim against/via your insurer but get our service to claim from the liable third party there can be no doubt of this claim adversely affecting your premium in future.

I have just had my third and final hand and arm plaster removed after a car accident that happened just over 8 weeks ago. I’m feeling mighty relieved and ready to get on with the rest of my life now.

But before I put this to the back of my memory, please bear with me whilst I remind myself about the misery of this and how other female motorists are likely to feel in similar situations.

Even though I run a motoring association for women, I certainly wasn’t prepared, mentally or emotionally, for the trauma of a car accident and painful injuries as a result.

But there was no avoiding the impact when a lady driver pulled out immediately in front of us when we were driving at c40 mph along an A road. What was she thinking of at the time I wonder? Certainly not her personal safety.

So these are some of the lessons I have learned from all this…

1    That what seems to be a no fault car accident isn’t always how the third party tells the story. In fact the other female driver contested liability saying that we were indicating left at the junction she was waiting to turn right from…

2    That some motor insurance companies will postpone a no fault claim resolution even when it’s obvious that it’s ‘their’ motorist that was at fault.

3    That some motorists presumably think that it’s a valid excuse to pull out in front of a fast moving car if it had an indicator flashing (which ours didn’t but even if it had, you can’t trust indicator lights that might have been left on in error…).

4    To have the contact details for a friendly support service like FOXY’s accident assistance service, especially when the accident is clearly not your fault, to get you mobile as soon as possible. We were on holiday in the UK so we didn’t know any garages and we didn’t have friends or family to call on for help. It was obvious the car was going to be a write off and even if it had been repairable we needed wheels to get us home and to carry on. As it happened, a small replacement car was delivered to our hotel before 9am the next morning. Couldn’t have been slicker.

5    To check out all aches and pains at the hospital at the time. I broke my thumb and cracked my sternum which was bad enough so I had to go to the hospital anyway but my husband claimed to be fine at the time. Some seven weeks later after limping for most of this time his Doctor tells him he has ligament damage to the upper part of his brake pedal foot. Not surprising because he was driving at the time and hit the brake pedal hard as you would expect but perhaps if he hadn’t been so brave (or shocked perhaps) he might have got some practical advice about pain relief from hospital staff who probably see these sort of commonplace road accident injuries on a daily basis.

6    How to shower/wash hair/wrap Xmas presents and get dressed with one hand… You might tick of the job but it takes forever, is painful and the end result always looks second rate…

7    How lucky I am to have such a multi-talented husband. I hadn’t realised what a good cook, washer up and ironer he was and I look forward to sharing these chores with him in future .

8    Oh how much I have missed the independence of my own car and being able to drive it but thank you to all my friends who have ferried me around and done little things for me that mean so much…

9    And even when you think the pain has passed (I needed an operation to pin the thumb in place which then needed removing, ouch) and that painkillers are a thing of the past, you still need to take Ibuprofen regularly to reduce the swelling under the plaster which can be so uncomfortable and tight at night it can even wake you up…

10    Just how traumatic the whole episode has been for me and others in similar situations. I won’t forget and I will be forever sympathetic to those in similar situations. Just imagine how awful it would be to be involved in an accident when someone is killed or seriously injured.

Finally, after such a miserable time I now want to get on with the rest of my life.

The first thing we’re going to do is go car shopping for a more sedate BMW this weekend.

Then I can really get motoring in more ways than one… I have so much life and FOXY business to catch up with now.

FOXY Steph

Last night a friend and I went to see The Artist film in Brighton. Which, as an aside, was SO wonderful that I can totally recommend it.

This time it was my friend’s turn to drive us in her VW Polo and during the journey I noticed she had a dashboard warning light on needing attention. ‘I’ve been to the garage about it’ she said ‘and apparently it’s nothing to worry about.’

Well it would be if it was my car. I’d want it switched off for starters and the fact that a garage couldn’t do that suggests it hasn’t got the latest diagnostic equipment so how would they know for sure there’s nothing wrong?

And certain malfunctioning dashboard lights are now a reason for failing a car at MOT time.

So either way my advice is to get any potentially dangerous light looked at and switched off. Otherwise you might be risking something nasty, causing your engine serious problems and if your MOT is imminent I think you might need it sorted before then…

These are the lights that will be checked to make sure they are working properly, where fitted, in MOT tests this year.

• Electronic parking brake
• Electronic stability control warning lights (where fitted)
• Headlight main beam warning light
• Electronic power steering warning light
• Brake fluid level warning light
• Tyre pressure monitoring system warning light
• Air bag warning light
• Seat belt pre-tensioner warning light

It’s all a bit worrying because electrics can be tricky and expensive, especially for older cars.

Tell us if you have any experience to add to this please…

FOXY Steph

Last year Juliane Kokott a German mother of six and EU Equality Commissioner passed a ruling so that women drivers are to pay the same motor premiums as men from December 2012.

How she must dislike her own gender despite our safer driving records.

As such she has surely opened the door to potential claims of ageism and sexism in the face of statistical evidence that most young women are safer drivers than many young men who are known to cause the majority of the UK’s fatal, serious and very expensive road accidents.

But why has she done this?

Q    Will this ruling save young lives?
A    No. It might even encourage more young men to drive than before because of cheaper car insurance for them.

Q    If this was your insurance business would you charge cautious and feckless drivers the same premiums for the same cover?
A    Of course not.

Q    Who will benefit most from this?
A    Young men and motor insurers because female premiums will rise a lot and male premiums will fall a bit, leaving more profit in between.

Q    Who is footing this bill to include the cost of so many road accidents caused by men?
A    Female motorists.

Call it equality if you like but it isn’t fair on UK women drivers.

Expect to hear more from me about this throughout 2012 as car insurance premiums for women drivers start to rise…

What do you think?

FOXY Steph

A foxy lady driver who expected her high-tech hybrid to do what it said on the tin expects car maker Honda to pay for not delivering the 50mpg it promised, albeit after some 5 years of ownership.

Heather Peters has taken her fight to the small claims court in laid back Los Angeles because experts think she has a better chance of winning her case in a court with more relaxed standards and could get a payout many times higher than she’d get otherwise.

If others follow her lead, she estimates Honda could be forced to pay as much as $2bn (£1.3bn) in damages estimated as 200,000 cars and drivers each negotiating $10,000.

And then there’d be all the other manufacturers cars that fail to perform as well as promised…

Heather is a state employee and ex-lawyer who seems to have a grievance here, whether it’s legitimate or not is another matter. She argues that the Japanese manufacturer knew her 2006 Civic Hybrid would not achieve the 50mpg as advertised. As the vehicle’s battery deteriorated over time, it barely achieved 30mpg, she said. Had she known this she’d never have bought the car apparently.

“The sales people said 50 miles per gallon, but they didn’t say if you run your air conditioning and you remain in stop-and-go traffic, you’re going to get 29 to 30 miles per gallon” she said. “If they did, I would have gotten [sic] the regular Civic.”

On their part, Honda said that Heather had never contacted the company to complain or express any concern about her vehicle’s fuel economy until she sent a letter in late November and then filed her suit shortly afterwards.

“Once the suit was filed, Honda immediately offered to inspect her vehicle and work with her on the findings, but those offers were rejected,” the company said in a statement.

The company also said it did not believe Heather was deceived.

“The window sticker that was attached to her vehicle (as required by federal law) clearly indicated that her mileage would vary depending on driving conditions, options, vehicle condition and other factors,” the statement said.

It’ll be interesting to see the court’s definition of ‘reasonable’ in terms of the variation between the 50mpg suggested and the 30mph obtained. That and bearing in mind the allegation that Heather hadn’t contacted Honda before last November.

Watch this space; especially other disgruntled car buyers who feel the same as Heather.

FOXY Steph

Have you ever faced a fraudulent accident claim that wasn’t anything to do with you? If so, please tell us what happened.

Wendy is a member of FOXY Lady Drivers Club and lives in Hampshire. She wrote to us recently after reading our December Club newsletter including details of a recent car accident and FOXY’s accident management support service.

And whilst we do hear about fraudulent insurance claims we hadn’t heard Wendy’s unusual experience before.

This is what she told us…

“Last year we did NOT have an accident but someone made a claim against us in December for an accident that was supposed to have happened in the previous August. The insurance company paid out against it because my car has a crack in the number plate which they said could have happened in an accident even though I can supply witnesses to prove it was cracked on the drive when my daughter left the hand brake off and it rolled into the garage door. I even have the dent in the garage door!

I never reported an accident because I did not have one. The only related thing we could think of later was when 2 men in the car in front in a stationary traffic queue got out of their car and spoke to my daughter, who was driving on her own. They said they thought she had gone into them but then agreed that she probably hadn’t and there was no damage…”

————————————-

The problem is of course that nobody is going to report an accident that did not happen.

But Wendy wants to caution people to report anything out of the ordinary like this in future just in case someone tries to scam you later. At least it may help and may even prevent the same thing happening again?”

Thank you for bringing this to our attention Wendy and I hope enough women read this to be on their guard in future.

Wendy is waiting to see how her insurance premium is affected at renewal time. It will be most unfair if she loses out as a result of a non-existent accident… as claimed by a motoring rat.

FOXY Steph

FOXY Lady Drivers Club supports today’s research findings that the cost to the UK of scrapping the annual MOT could be as much as £1.5 billion.

Government claims that reducing MOT frequency will also reduce the financial burden on motorists are challenged today in a report which shows the opposite – that proposals to scrap annual testing will hit both motorists and the UK economy hard.

The report by Pro-MOTe is titled “A cost too far” and includes research that the average female motorist would be more than £57 worse off under a less frequent MOT system than she is today.

It also shows that the overall cost to the UK in increased costs of road deaths, injuries and damage, as well as 40,000 lost jobs and reduced tax revenues, will be some £1.44bn.

The research compares costs of the existing 3-1-1 MOT system (where cars over three years are tested every year) with the 4-2-2 system more commonly used elsewhere in Europe (where cars over four years old are tested every two years).  It estimates that under 4-2-2, the average motorist would incur annual SAVINGS of £24.44 a year made up of:
- £20 a year in saved MOT fees
- £3.30 a year in saved personal time
- £1.14 a year in saved fuel costs as a result of fewer visits to a MOT station

But the average motorist would incur annual INCREASES of £81.81 under 4-2-2 from:
- £30.59 in additional repair costs
- £46.05 in additional insurance premiums
- £5.17 in additional fuel costs of £5.17

The research was carried out using data from the DfT and the Treasury, and motor industry sources.  Pro-MOTe is supported by the RAC, AA, road safety campaigners, industry groups and insurance companies to campaign against plans to reduce MOT frequency.

Commenting on the report, Pro-MOTe co-ordinator, Bill Duffy, said:

“This research shows that scrapping annual MOT testing would not only be dangerous but prove very expensive too, to both drivers and taxpayers alike. The Government has suggested that reducing the number of safety tests would reduce the financial burden on motorists.  Yet the truth is exactly the opposite.  Moving to two-yearly tests would mean extra repair costs, extra insurance premiums and extra fuel costs for already hard-pressed motorists. And the cost to the UK economy in lost jobs and higher costs arising from the additional accidents that we would see due to less frequent testing would be significant.”

Hear hear Bill. This is a poorly considered proposition and it’s time it was scrapped. This is also costing road safety, consumer organisations like ours and directly affected motor industry businesses a lot of unnecessary time and money attempting to do this research for our Government.

An interesting and possibly previously ignored dimension here seems to be that insurance companies plan to respond to the scenario of an increased number of unroadworthy cars by raising premiums for us all.   Then motorists would surely hold the Government responsible for another rise in the cost of motoring…

So it’s time to shut the UK’s back door to this proposal now. Heaven knows we all have more productive things to be getting on to benefit not threaten the UK economy and its motor industry.

FOXY Steph

For further information go to the Pro-MOTe website or contact Ed Owen at EdO@pro-mote.org.uk or on 07774 759653. Pro-MOTe was launched in October 2011 to press the Government to drop plans to reduce the frequency of MOT testing. The launch report “Dangerous, expensive and unwanted” is available at http://www.pro-mote.org.uk/assets/download/PRO-MOTE_launch_report.pdf

Supporters of the Pro-MOTe campaign include AA, Andrew Page, Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel, Autoglass, Aviva, Brake, British Cycling, Confused.com, Driver’s Edge UK, Euro Car Parts, FOXY Lady Drivers Club, Garage Equipment Association, GEM Motoring Assist, Halfords Autocentres, Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation, Kwik Fit, MOTEST, MOT Trade Forum, MOT Club, National Tyre Distributors Association, Parts Alliance, RAC, The Retail Motor Industry Federation, Road Safety Analysis, Road Safety GB, The Scottish Motor Trade Association, Tyre Industry Federation, UNITE.

Bristol Mum Sharon Appleyard has won Tesco Cars’ inaugural ‘Parent Driver of the Year’ award – a nationwide competition to find the parent that goes above and beyond the call of duty in providing the ultimate ‘parent taxi’ service.

Winning the hearts and minds of the Tesco Cars’ judging panel, Sharon was shortlisted alongside three other finalists before being crowned the overall winner, receiving the very welcome £1,000 Tesco voucher prize in time for Christmas.

Sharon was nominated by her daughter Amy, for giving up endless amounts of time in chauffeuring her and her two brothers to an extensive range of after-school clubs and weekend activities.

Sharon said ‘I was shocked to hear I had won Tesco Cars’ Parent Driver of the Year competition because all the finalists were equally deserving. It’s natural for parents to want the very best for their children and driving the distances I do gives my little ones those important opportunities to grow and develop as individuals. Ultimately it’s something I get pleasure from, but it’s obviously fantastic to be rewarded this way.

I ‘d like to say a big thank you to everyone who voted for me; my friends, family, the general public! Also a big thanks to my daughter Amy for nominating me and to Tesco Cars of course for making this Christmas a bit more special!”

Rebecca Ryan, Marketing Manager of TescoCars.com said; ‘We were overwhelmed by the hundreds of heartfelt and impassioned nominations we received for this competition. There are some truly wonderful mums, dads and even grandparents out there, but unfortunately there can only be one winner. Congratulations to Sharon and her family from all of us at Tesco Cars.”

The Tesco Cars’ Parent Driver of the Year competition followed recent research that found thousands of parents are driving their children more than 200 miles a week, excluding the school run – almost a third of a London taxi driver’s weekly mileage. The extra mileage could potentially add around £1800 a year to the family fuel bill.

The study showed on average parents make three trips per week, covering 50.2 miles to transport their children to various events and activities. Dads will drive their children 10 more miles per week on average than mums and parents in Wales recorded the highest average mileage, around 65 miles.

And well done Sharon for being such a worthy winner too.

FOXY Steph

FOXY Ladies in need of help running their cars or with motoring matters in general might do well to join FOXY Lady Drivers Club in 2012.  Think of us as a girl’s best motoring friend at times of stress or to save you money without sacrificing safety or quality…

Dear Justine Greening…

We know you have a lot on your plate and you probably didn’t expect to get the transport job in such a hurry but, on behalf of  motoring mums and daughters across the UK, can you please reassure us VERY SOON that the UK will be maintaining its MOT status quo in favour of safer roads in future.

This means saying NO to the EU; opting for the UK’s 3-1-1 MOT model and not the EU’s 4-2-2 version in the face of previous government figures showing that this will cost us lives and ’000s of jobs.

Just to remind us all, this is what the MOT industry experts are saying to encourage motorists and motor industry colleagues alike to sign the Pro-MOTe petition…

Edmund King, AA President
“All too often you spot cars driving with a headlight, tail light or brake light out. The only time many of these drivers do anything about it is when the car goes for an MOT test or if traffic police pull them over. The Government’s idea to extend the MOT test intervals may be portrayed as an olive branch to drivers by reducing the burden on them, but the AA and three-fifths of our members believe it is a false saving which could lead to more expensive repairs later, and that’s before the safety argument. The Government should state that they will not change the frequency of MOTs.”

Jonathan Fox, of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel
“At a time when we have the lowest rate of road deaths in any equivalent developed country, conversely our MOT failure rate has increased by 12% over the last five years. Moving away from our current annual examination to an MOT every two years is misguided and this can only result in even more defective vehicles on our roads than at present. The only conclusion that can be extracted from these poorly thought out proposals is that we see an increase of injuries and deaths on our roads at a time when they have never been safer.”

Nigel Bartram, Senior Motor Underwriting Manager at Aviva
“We believe MOT timings should remain unchanged. The MOT is the only time some vehicles receive any safety checks and maintenance – this applies particularly to older cars which are often driven by younger drivers – and to reduce the frequency of this check could cost lives.”

Julie Townsend, Deputy Chief Executive at Brake, the road safety charity
“As a charity supporting families whose lives are devastated by road death and injury, we are aghast that the Government is proposing such an appalling backwards step. We should be doing everything we can to stop people being killed and injured on roads, to prevent families suffering so terribly, and to reduce the economic burden of these casualties. That means having a robust system to ensure vehicles are roadworthy. Downgrading the system so MOTs are only required every two years is a nonsensical and inhumane policy that would mean many more needless tragedies.”

Martin Gibbs, Policy and Legal Affairs Director, British Cycling
“We would be concerned at any changes to the MOT system that is likely to increase the number of unsafe vehicles on the road. Cyclists, perhaps more than any other road users, rely on the Government to create a safe environment on the road and the MOT system is a key part of that.”

Gareth Kloet, Head of Car Insurance at Confused.com
“Driving is one of the most dangerous things people do on a daily basis. It’s vital that all drivers are doing regular maintenance checks of their vehicle to ensure our roads are kept as safe as possible. Currently, more than a third of the vehicles presented for their first MOT fail the test. Confused.com is passionate about road safety as shockingly, five people are killed and a further 65 are seriously injured on UK roads every day. For us, a yearly MOT is a must. Many may argue that cars are more reliable now than when the test was first introduced in 1960 and as a result, yearly checks are not needed but why take the risk? No amount of car safety or reliability features will make the roads 100% safe and the importance of regular car checks should not be underestimated.”

Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia, Chairman & Managing Director, Euro Car Parts Ltd
“If this crazy proposal is adopted, many millions of motorists will abandon preventative maintenance and drive for up to 2 years with dangerous tyres, brakes, lights etc. The cost to the nation in death, injury, car accidents, breakdowns and increased emissions will be truly massive … all for a measly £15 to £20 annual ‘saving’ per car.”

Steph Savill, Founder of FOXY Lady Drivers Club
“Many women rely on the garage industry alone to keep their cars safe. Not just the ones we own but also the vehicles that other motorists drive. We know from experience that many motorists (male and female) are scrimping on car servicing to save money today so an annual MOT might be the only time a garage professional can spot a potentially dangerous car. On behalf of all motoring mums and daughters we want to be reassured that our cars will be MORE, not less, SAFE on UK roads in future. We are supporting PROMOTE and the UK 3-1-1 MOT model because the 4-2-2 EU MOT version could cost us lives and motor industry jobs.”

Dave Garrett, Chief executive, Garage Equipment Association
“The GEA has an interest in retaining the integrity, quality and consistency of the MOT. Although motor vehicle technology has improved over the years, MOT failure rates remain high, with many vehicles failing their first test because of inefficient brakes and worn tyres. Therefore in order to meet the European object of reducing road deaths by 50% by 2020, the MOT frequency for cars must remain the same at 3-1-1. It may also be advisable to reduce the MOT frequency for Vans to 1-1-1, as many so called “white vans” have covered over 250,000 miles before their first MOT.”

Bill Duffy, Chief Executive of Halfords Autocentres
“Halfords is a friend of the Motorist and we want to help them reduce costs and to travel as safely as possible. We believe that extending the MOT frequency would be bad news for drivers and bad news for road safety and the environment. We know, from the tests at our own garages, that without an annual safety check up millions more cars would be driving in an unroadworthy condition. We also see the financial consequences for drivers who don’t get repair work fixed in a timely manner. It always leads to higher bills later and that isn’t what we want for our customers. There’s no doubt that the MOT test is an affordable and basic component of road safety, protecting road users and pedestrians. It saves lives, keeps people safe and it saves motorists money. We welcome a review of the MOT system to make improvements to help the motorist. But reducing MOT test frequency is a bad move for motorists and society as a whole.”

Brian Spratt, Chief Executive, Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation
“The Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation (IAAF), representing manufacturers, importers and wholesale distributors of vehicle components, and independent garages, service centres and MOT stations, welcomes the PRO-MOTE campaign to reject government proposals to reduce the frequency of MOT testing. The IAAF is certain that these proposals will have a serious adverse effect on road safety, the environment, and employment in the independent motor trade, and we can see no merit in the proposals. The IAAF is committed to ensure the effectiveness of the MOT system and its benefit to road users, and will continue to lobby the appropriate authorities and work with other organisations to achieve that end.”

David White, Customer Services Director at Kwik Fit
“A reduction in MOT testing is going to hit many businesses hard, particularly local small and medium-sized companies. The industry as a whole takes on about 10,000 new apprentices every year and it seems inevitable that this will be significantly scaled back if MOT frequency is reduced.”

John Ashton, Director of the MOT Club
“If 4-2-2 is adopted who will check the one million vehicles that hit the market after a three year lease contract, many of which have extremely high mileage?”

Jim Punter Chairman of the MOT Trade Forum
“On average, every day, MOT Testers inspect over 72,000 vehicles to make sure they are safe to drive on the road, and are fully roadworthy. Of these, over 2,200 vehicles are found to have defects, which, Testers consider, render them dangerous to drive. These vehicles are either repaired or scrapped by motorists which ensures that significant numbers of deaths and serious injuries on our roads are avoided every day. Any action on the Government’s part to reduce MOT Test frequency would leave these vehicles uninspected and still in use on the roads despite their dangerous condition. I would urge the Government to seriously re-consider, and abandon this dangerous, unwanted, expensive and irresponsible policy.”

Richard Edy, Director, National Tyre Distribution Association
“The NTDA is proud to support the PRO-MOTE campaign to maintain the current frequency of MOTs. Tyres are safety critical items which constantly wear. It is imperative that they are regularly inspected and properly maintained. Many motorists rely on their annual MOT for the inspection of their tyres, any extension or lengthening of the MOT frequency is likely to have a major impact on road safety and contribute to increased deaths and major injuries on our roads.”

David Bizley, Technical Director, RAC
“The current MOT testing regime has stood the UK in good stead and ensures that there are relatively few accidents directly attributable to unroadworthy vehicles. RAC therefore supports the retention of the current arrangements and is an enthusiastic supporter of PRO-MOTE.”

Richard Owen, Finance & Operations Director of Road safety Analysis
“In our work with the road safety profession we regularly carry out detailed analysis of collision records. It is clear through the statistics that vehicle defects cause a tiny percentage of all crashes with fewer than 2,000 crashes in 2010 attributed to defective vehicles. With less frequent vehicle checks we would undoubtedly see large increases in these types of collisions.”

James Gibson, spokesperson for Road Safety GB
“Road Safety GB is keen to support the PRO-MOTE campaign – the evidence shows that changing the testing regime will reduce safety on our roads. The MOT test has been in place for over forty years, we all know that vehicles have become more reliable in this time but many components still require regular safety checks. An annual check for vehicles over three years old isn’t excessive, especially when we think of drivers who fail to carry out even basic safety checks like checking tyres or lights from one MOT to the next!”

John Ball, RMI MOT Chairman
“Our members’ garages constantly see the worsening state of cars and vans as motorists are cutting back on maintenance. Three-year-old vehicles at first test are also a concern, despite their improved design, with high failure rates on safety critical items like tyres, brakes and lights. What’s more, reducing MOT frequency will add to the financial burden on motorists and undermine thousands of small and medium-sized businesses putting at risk thousands of jobs, including many apprenticeships.”

Douglas Robertson, Chief executive, Scottish Motor Trade Association
“At the SMTA Annual Dinner in November 2010, Scotland’s First Minister, the Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP, publicly supported the SMTA’s opposition to any reduction in the frequency of MOT Testing that may be proposed by the UK government. In welcoming this support the SMTA acknowledged that much work to garner all party support within Scotland and the United Kingdom was still required and that would take place once the UK government’s review proposals were formally made public. Rather than opposing a reduction in testing frequency, the SMTA will be proposing an increase in frequency following confirmation by VOSA that failure rates have increased since the last UK Government Report on MOT Testing in 2008. The SMTA with over 800 members is the leading trade association for the retail motor industry in Scotland.”

David Seward, Chairman, Tyre Industry Federation
“25% of MOT test failures are for tyre-related causes. Putting two years between MOT tests will greatly increase the number of vehicles being driven on unsafe and illegal tyres.”
______________________

Granted the UK MOT industry can do a better job in future but that’s what we should all be concentrating on – making our garage industry a better place for motorists by highlighting all evidence of measurable quality and outing the bad apples that continue to let the good garages down. And not having to spend all our time attempting to fend off a crazy EU proposal that should have been dismissed as such ages ago.

We are sure you understand and appreciate our concerns Justine…

FOXY Steph