Proposals to change the current MOT regime being considered by the
Government could create a risk management dilemma for fleets, says CFC
Solutions.
Press reports over the weekend indicate that a new system could be adopted
so that the first MOT happens after four years and then every two years,
rather than the current three years and then annually requirement.
Neville Briggs, managing director at CFC, said that in high mileage fleet
situations, the proposed gaps, notably for the first MOT, could be too long
to ensure safety and may potentially create a risk management headache for
employers.
He said: "Fleet managers who run a four year/80,000 mile cycle already know
that the current, three year MOT will often pick up minor - and occasionally
more significant - faults on a car that could be a contributory factor in an
accident. A vehicle that has covered 60,000 miles in three years may have
some problems.
"In an ideal world, these faults would be identified by the dealer as part
of the general service and maintenance regime or by drivers undertaking
regular, basic safety checks - but the overall condition of the vehicle is
not their responsibility and the three year MOT remains an important point
where a car or van receives a clean bill of health just at the point in its
life where it may be developing problems."
Briggs added that the proposed change could also put fleet managers in the
difficult position of downgrading their risk management requirements.
He said: "Fleets have spent the last decade dramatically increasing the
attention that they pay to issues such as safety and regular vehicle checks
but this proposal would actually reduce their obligations. It is difficult
to reconcile this with the health and safety requirements of comprehensive
fleet risk management policies."
Briggs said that the only positive that could be drawn from the move was
that it could reduce fleet running costs marginally.
He concluded: "The expense of the three year MOT would be removed but seeing
as the actual price of the test itself is quite low and that any resulting
costs will normally be safety-related, this seems very much like a false
economy."