Which Class of MOT do I need ?

MOT testing guide for test stations - A. Introduction - Guidance - GOV.UK

The purpose of the MOT test, what it includes, which vehicles are tested and which are exempt, who carries out the test.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

Class 4
Class 4 vehicles can be:

cars, passenger vehicles, motor caravans, private hire vehicles, motor tricycles, quadricycles and dual purpose vehicles in all cases with up to eight passenger seats
goods vehicles not exceeding 3,000 kg design gross weight (DGW)
taxis and ambulances with up to eight passenger seats
passenger vehicles, ambulances, motor caravans and dual purpose vehicles with nine to twelve passenger seats


Class 7
Class 7 vehicles are goods vehicles over 3,000 kg up to and including 3,500 kg DGW.

They will be category N1.
 
Whooooooosh said:
Hi,

I'm new to motorhoming having had mine for only 10 months. The MOT is due in March and I have absolutely no clue if I need a class 4, 5 or 7 MOT.

The van has a body type of MOTOR CARAVAN and a Revenue weight of 3650 KG Gross.

It is absolutely not used for transport of goods, only personal effects for camping.

Anyone know the MOT Class it needs ?
Click to expand...
Normally, large motorhomes get a Class 4 test done in a Class 7 workshop.

The problem is size and weight. An individual MOT tester has to be approved and certified, but also the workshop, the lift, even the parking and the viewing area. All have to be approved.

So even if your local garage has the ability to work on large vehicles, unless the lift it uses for bigger or heavier ones has been approved for mot tests, they can't do it.
 
Last edited:
As a BTW, the standard cost of an MOT Class 7 is a little more than a Class 4. Also, MOT stations will often discount the Class 4 cost to compete with other test stations, but not the Class 7 MOT (Class 7 test stations are much less common so less need to compete).
So people who are getting Class 7 tests for their campervans and motorhomes are likely paying more than they need to for the same result - another years MOT.
FWIW, the place I go to charges £40 for the Class 4 test on my current 3850Kg Motor Caravan and the same for the previous 4600Kg van.
 
Good point. The local MOT station down the road charges significantly more to test my motorhome than my car. The commercial vehicle garage a few miles away does the motorhome mot at a lower price.
 
wildebus said:
As a BTW, the standard cost of an MOT Class 7 is a little more than a Class 4. Also, MOT stations will often discount the Class 4 cost to compete with other test stations, but not the Class 7 MOT (Class 7 test stations are much less common so less need to compete).
So people who are getting Class 7 tests for their campervans and motorhomes are likely paying more than they need to for the same result - another years MOT.
FWIW, the place I go to charges £40 for the Class 4 test on my current 3850Kg Motor Caravan and the same for the previous 4600Kg van.
Click to expand...
I paid £48 for a Class 4 MOT in early December 2022, which is still less than the official rate, IIRC, so £40 is a real bonus!

Steve
 
Drover said:
You could try the local council for a mot
www.money.co.uk

Council MOT centres: the route to a hassle free MOT? | money.co.uk

If you’re fed up with worrying about unscrupulous garages making your car’s MOT a misery, turning to a council MOT centre could be the answer.
www.money.co.uk www.money.co.uk
Click to expand...
if only that story was true! After a far-from-hassle-free-mot at the local Council place where they incorrectly failed it, I took my car to a local garage where they passed the car, including the "faults" found by the council tester. No work was done in-between tests and no charge from the garage except the standard MOT fee.

That was the last time I used those Council Cowboys!
 
wildebus said:
if only that story was true! After a far-from-hassle-free-mot at the local Council place where they incorrectly failed it, I took my car to a local garage where they passed the car, including the "faults" found by the council tester. No work was done in-between tests and no charge from the garage except the standard MOT fee.

That was the last time I used those Council Cowboys!
Click to expand...
When was this,,, the ones I have heard about say they are fair but wont do any work to rectify a small fault. that to me would be the bad part.
I have never used them as a mate is a tester at a local garage where ours fits under the roof... he wont pass anything wrong before you all get the wrong idea.....
He also said there are some right muppets on the required annual course who would be more suited sweeping the workshop floor.
So I get your meaning.
 
Drover said:
When was this,,, the ones I have heard about say they are fair but wont do any work to rectify a small fault. that to me would be the bad part.
I have never used them as a mate is a tester at a local garage where ours fits under the roof... he wont pass anything wrong before you all get the wrong idea.....
He also said there are some right muppets on the required annual course who would be more suited sweeping the workshop floor.
So I get your meaning.
Click to expand...
This was Oct 2015.
They failed on:
  • Nearside Front Brake pipe excessively corroded (3.6.B.2c)
  • Offside Front Brake pipe excessively corroded (3.6.B.2c)
  • Offside Front brake disc in such a condition that it is seriously weakened inside (3.5.1i)
  • Nearside Front brake disc in such a condition that it is seriously weakened inside (3.5.1i)
Now that all sounds very bad - except I knew the two brake discs were in a perfectly sound condition as I had replaced them myself maybe 6 months and 500-ish miles earlier.
I took the car to my garage to get the brake pipes replaced and also discussed the discs ... When they looked at the car they said there was nothing wrong with the discs apart from the expected pitting and what's more the brake pipes had nothing wrong other than surface rust (where I live, brake discs always get pitted from the day after they are fitted due to damp weather and little braking action - driving into the local town and back, a distance of 5 miles each way, I might brake twice for about 4 seconds).

So not only did they pass the car with no work between tests, they actually turned down work offered to them as not being required.
I had a discussion with the Garage owner and he had nothing but negative words about that testing station ....
 
From that I think I would have complained and reported them , tester and garage....hell they were bad.:mad:o_O
 
Drover said:
From that I think I would have complained and reported them , tester and garage....hell they were bad.:mad:o_O
Click to expand...
And certain people on the forum think whatever a MOT Tester says or thinks should be treated as gospel and never dared be questioned!
 
Tin hat time looming ... But a couple of thoughts:

1. A Council MOT Tester can be expected to examine the vehicle without any thought of bias towards a 'Fail' to generate extra work as an independent garage might be tempted to, in order to generate extra profits from the replacement of the failed items

2. A Council MOT Tester has a Vehicle Servicing/Repairs Budget that will be adequate to pay for impending repairs, probably at the 'advisory' stage, partly to cover his/her own back, and possibly as a public confidence measure in the event of an accident occurring. Remember the problems with Harry Clarke, the Glasgow Bin Lorry Driver who suffered from [undeclared] blackouts. Imagine how much worse the media reporting and Inquiry Report would have been had 'in addition, the Refuse Lorry, which had recently been MOT'd, had braking defects and other items that should have been replaced ...' or similar wording been added to the end.

I suspect that the Council MOT will err on the side of caution/best practice, but will cost you more by having work done sooner rather than later. The return from paying the extra cost should be peace of mind, though a mechanically skilled aware Member of the Forum may feel aggrieved that the Council MOT result was unnecessarily harsh.

I'm lucky enough to have a local garage who take a pragmatic view, knowing that I don't have a huge budget, but who also know that I would prefer to have an item replaced before it becomes a problem, and that paying a modest sum each year for running repairs, rather than, say, 2 'sailed through MOTs' followed by a huge MOT failure work bill works best for me.

Steve
 
Well .... the MOT Testing should be based on the same criteria no matter of the testing station is also a repair centre or not. I don't think any station should be erring onn the side of anything really, but basing what they report on what they see.
I also think the point of the Advisories (or Minor Defects as they are now referred to?) is where items which are serviceable but would benefit from being attended to are noted - I don't see it as the role of a Tester to move something from 'Advisory' to 'Fail' because he is of an opinion there should be no defects at all.
I am not a vehicle mechanic and don't actually do very much in terms of mechanical work to my vehicles except, oddly, Brakes, so I would and do tend to accept the results of an MOT unless they are blatantly incorrect (such as 6 month/500 mile old Brake Discs apparently on the point of disintegration for example) or if the tester is unable to follow clearly documented (and publically accessible) testing procedures.

I don't think (as far as I am aware) that I have had an MOT test that has artificially failed a car in order to generate work. The nearest has been a old Peugeot 306 MOTed at Kwik-Fit and an Advisory given on brake pipes. We told them to go ahead and do the advisory work and replace them even though the car had passed already.
Now this may be interesting to you, Steve .... a couple of months after the MOT, the car was written off when it slid on black ice and hit a kerb and was deemed beyond economic repair (it was only worth around £1,000 IIRC). The insurance company (the Co-op) actually agreed to include the cost of these brake repairs in the settlement as it was a recent optional repair (and we got more payout than was paid for the car initially). If it had been a repair required to pass the MOT, that repair cost would have been ignored I am sure.
If the MOT tester was of the mindset of "I think this should be replaced, so going to fail it regardless of MOT guidelines", it would have actually cost us a couple of hundred quid ;)
 
along the lines of just because it is doesn't mean it should be :unsure:

The wife has a car, on servicing it came back with a advisory for tyres low on tread....they had a minimum of 3mm on them. You cant make it up really can you..wear markers are 1.6 mm. Bloody grease monkeys.

Many moons ago when I sold the lorries I had I went for an interview with vosa... all was good until the wages came up...I just said no thank you and left..... some testers were farm labourers who had no work. I am not kidding but hope the requirements have changed ....

Class required for motorcaravan is 4
 
wildebus said:
Well .... the MOT Testing should be based on the same criteria no matter of the testing station is also a repair centre or not. I don't think any station should be erring onn the side of anything really, but basing what they report on what they see.
I also think the point of the Advisories (or Minor Defects as they are now referred to?) is where items which are serviceable but would benefit from being attended to are noted - I don't see it as the role of a Tester to move something from 'Advisory' to 'Fail' because he is of an opinion there should be no defects at all.
I am not a vehicle mechanic and don't actually do very much in terms of mechanical work to my vehicles except, oddly, Brakes, so I would and do tend to accept the results of an MOT unless they are blatantly incorrect (such as 6 month/500 mile old Brake Discs apparently on the point of disintegration for example) or if the tester is unable to follow clearly documented (and publically accessible) testing procedures.

I don't think (as far as I am aware) that I have had an MOT test that has artificially failed a car in order to generate work. The nearest has been a old Peugeot 306 MOTed at Kwik-Fit and an Advisory given on brake pipes. We told them to go ahead and do the advisory work and replace them even though the car had passed already.
Now this may be interesting to you, Steve .... a couple of months after the MOT, the car was written off when it slid on black ice and hit a kerb and was deemed beyond economic repair (it was only worth around £1,000 IIRC). The insurance company (the Co-op) actually agreed to include the cost of these brake repairs in the settlement as it was a recent optional repair (and we got more payout than was paid for the car initially). If it had been a repair required to pass the MOT, that repair cost would have been ignored I am sure.
If the MOT tester was of the mindset of "I think this should be replaced, so going to fail it regardless of MOT guidelines", it would have actually cost us a couple of hundred quid ;)
Click to expand...
I've not got an axe to grind on this topic, David, I was just offering another point of view, based on my experience of working in the public sector generally; and working on the Local Authority Job Evaluation Scheme [Equal Pay] specifically, where I was one of the Evaluation Team that interviewed the MOT Testers about their job content.

I have experienced the joys or otherwise of a well known chain of one stop Vehicle Tyre Fitters/Servicing/MOT Testers loading the MOT Fails to generate extra workshop business, but I never took my vehicle to that Chain again!

Steve
 
I look at this as what should happen in a perfect world where Testers follow the prescribed process and are not given 'fail' targets or the like. I know that is not necessarily reality but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be a goal.
 
There are plenty of incompetent testers.

My motorhome has air suspension. Its MOT history makes interesting reading.

One year (before I owned it) it failed because the rear suspension was on the bump stops. Then it passed at a different testing station with four more miles in the clock. Presumably the second tester had started the engine and gave the air pressure time to build up.

In my ownership, it failed (the do not drive sort) because of inadequate service brakes, efficiency below 50%. The brakes seemed fine to me, so I took it to a different garage who found the brake efficiency to be 83% which they said was good. They reckoned the other tester had recorded the wrong vehicle weight.

They also found a defect that the other garage has missed completely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top