4-1-1 Serious threat

My mp has been told

I agree they are all going to be a little preoccupied for the next few days / week's /months /year's without end. Wages & expenses will be earned and late night oil will be burned

Dear ‘your MP’,

Are you all aware that the government are again trying to implement 4-1-1???
This government are pushing for these changes from the existing 3-1-1 to 4-1-1.
At present a new car is MOT Tested after three years and then annually thereafter.
The DFT proposal is to increase that to four years then annually thereafter.
My own opinion is that MOT Testing should be 2-1-1, see reasons below.

Making these changes would be catastrophic for both my business and for the safety of cars being used on UK roads?
As a for instance : Car leased over a two year period regularly passes 100,000 miles on the odometer and is then sold by the lease company, through auction to either the trade or end-users.
Under the present 3-1-1, this car would not require an MOT for another 12 months, if the new proposals were enforced it would not require MOT Testing for another 24 months???
During this period the car could carry on doing very high mileages or could be mileage clocked and re-sold as low mileage to an honest individual unaware of the cars previous history.
My MOT Testing station often gets presented with a catalogue of dangerous components and parts found during MOT Tests, they include worn out and faulty brakes, steering joints, suspension joints, tyres and exhaust systems to name but a few.
One of my major concerns is, today's cars are much more reliable, servicing is not compulsory, modern cars will carry on going until a major failure occurs, we rely on the MOT Test to find these issues hopefully before they happen?
Remember in the UK “MOT Testing is compulsory” servicing is not?
If the DFT’s proposals of 4-1-1 are achieved, we are inviting thousands and thousands of un-roadworthy cars back onto our Motorways, towns and villages risking danger to many lives.
Many of the UK’s largest organisation’s including the RMIF, SMMT and the IAAF also agree that these proposals are wrong.
Statistics gathered within the Industry currently include:
Road safety:
• In 2013/14, 2,008,236 cars were tested at year 3.
• Currently 21.6% of cars fail their first MOT at 3 years old!
• If left to 4 years, fail rate would be circa 40%.
• If the percentage remains the same then 433,778 extra unsafe cars on the road in 2018.
• Increased risk to road deaths, which were + 4% in 2014, after years of decline.
Clocking Fraud:
• The MOT is the first time a vehicle’s mileage is officially recorded.
• The OFT claims there are 486,000 clocked cars in the UK.
• Many cars enter the second hand market at 3 years. • Delaying the introduction age will increase fraud risk allowing clocking companies to improve their business by
25%.
Increased pollution:
• The MOT is the only independent check on vehicles emissions.
• Vehicle manufacturers cheating on emissions leave the public concerned that their vehicles meet appropriate
standards.
• The UK is currently operating well above the European guideline for exhaust gas emissions.
Is this a good time to delay the first tail pipe test by another year?
As an MOT Tester of 24 years I cannot stress how strongly I oppose the DFT’s proposals.
All the above points out-weigh any proposals to change from the existing scheme.
As I said at the beginning of this letter, looking at the statistics legislation for MOT Testing should be 2-1-1.

Yours sincerely


MOT Tester's and Testing stations need to act against these proposals, you need to write to your MP and let them know your thoughts. Don’t delay we need to act as a Group and stop this craziness.

Just received an email of my local MP regarding changes to the annual test and he will vote against any change to 3-1-1. testing.

My MP got in touch with DVSA after I wrote, who responded by hoping that I attend the consultation. That should be interesting.

Type an email to your MP does not have to be 'Just the way it is'.

maybe we love working for peanuts,getting it in the ear,and oh that's down to us is it? not good enough !

The emails were sent out by mistake.



Hmmmmmmmmm

Before I send my Email is that guaranteed correct? I ask because as the computer prints off a failure sheet and a pass one for PRS faults I always assumed that it counted the (brief!) fail in the statistics.