Andy Burnham warned over new MOT test hike as drivers already face £111 fees

Prime Minister Andy Burnham is facing fresh pressure over the cost of motoring as industry representatives call for a major increase in the maximum MOT test fee, prompting warnings that already stretched drivers could be pushed into making dangerous financial compromises.

The Independent Garage Association (IGA) wants the maximum charge for a standard MOT test to rise from £54.85 to £95, arguing that garages can no longer absorb the growing costs of operating their businesses while the official fee remains unchanged.

However, motoring experts have warned that a substantial increase could create further difficulties for households already struggling with fuel, insurance, maintenance and other essential expenses. New research from Confused.com suggests drivers spend an average of £111 on an MOT once booking costs and repairs identified during the test are taken into account.

The figures have intensified the debate over whether the current system adequately supports garages while remaining affordable for motorists. Although the proposed increase is intended to help testing centres remain commercially viable, critics fear that raising the upfront cost could encourage some drivers to delay essential safety checks.

For Burnham’s Government, the issue presents a difficult policy challenge. Keeping fees low may protect motorists in the short term, but garages argue that an outdated price cap threatens the availability of testing services. Raising the cap, meanwhile, could increase the financial burden on drivers who have little choice but to maintain a vehicle for work and everyday life.

With almost one in ten drivers surveyed reportedly admitting they have already postponed an MOT because of the cost, ministers face growing questions about how to balance road safety, business sustainability and the affordability of driving.

Garages demand an increase after years of frozen fees

Andy Burnham is facing calls to hike MOT test fees (Image: Getty)

The MOT fee dispute centres on the maximum charge that garages can impose for a standard test.

According to the figures in the original report, the current maximum fee for a car MOT is £54.85, and the cap has remained frozen since 2010. The IGA argues that the cost of operating a garage has increased significantly over that period, making it harder for independent businesses to provide testing services at the existing rate.

Garages must cover a range of expenses, including staff wages, equipment, premises, electricity, insurance, maintenance and compliance with testing requirements. The precise costs vary between businesses, but the association says many members are approaching a point where carrying out MOT tests is becoming commercially unattractive.

Stuart James, chief executive of the IGA, has warned that garages are struggling to absorb the increases in operating costs while continuing to offer tests at the capped price.

The association’s proposed £95 maximum fee would represent a substantial increase. It would give garages greater scope to recover their costs, although the actual price charged could vary between testing centres and would depend on how any revised cap was implemented.

Supporters of the proposal argue that the Government cannot expect garages to provide a regulated service indefinitely without considering whether the permitted fee reflects the economic reality of delivering it.

If testing becomes financially unattractive, garages may decide to allocate workshop space and staff time to other work that generates more revenue. That could leave motorists with fewer appointments, particularly in areas where independent garages provide a large proportion of local testing capacity.

Yet the industry proposal also raises an obvious concern: whether motorists should be expected to absorb the full effect of rising costs at a time when many household budgets are already under pressure.

MOT test fees are currently capped at £54.85, but campaigners want to see this changed (Image: Getty)

Drivers already paying an average of £111

Matt Crole-Rees, a motoring expert at Confused.com, has warned that an increase in the maximum MOT fee could have unintended consequences for drivers.

He pointed to research suggesting that motorists already spend an average of £111 on the process when booking costs and repairs identified during the inspection are included.

That figure is important because the official test fee represents only one part of the potential bill. An MOT may reveal problems that require attention before a vehicle can safely return to the road, adding repair costs to the expense of obtaining the certificate.

The distinction between the test fee and the overall cost matters when assessing the impact on household finances. A driver might budget for the inspection itself but discover that additional work is required, turning what appeared to be a manageable expense into a much larger bill.

Crole-Rees warned that motorists were already “watching every penny” to keep their vehicles on the road, particularly as fuel and insurance costs place further pressure on household budgets.

An increase in the maximum test fee could therefore create additional difficulties for people who rely on their cars to commute, transport children, attend appointments or carry out their jobs.

For some households, a car is not a luxury that can easily be abandoned. People living in areas with limited public transport may have few practical alternatives, while workers with irregular shifts or long commutes may depend on a vehicle to maintain their employment.

This makes the MOT debate more than a disagreement between garages and motorists. It touches on the wider cost of participating in everyday economic life.

One in ten drivers have delayed an MOT

The Confused.com research cited in the report suggests that almost one in ten drivers, or 9%, have already postponed their MOT because of the cost.

The finding raises concerns about whether financial pressure is beginning to affect compliance with an important road-safety requirement.

An MOT is designed to assess whether a vehicle meets minimum roadworthiness and environmental standards at the time of the inspection. It includes checks of key components such as brakes, tyres, steering and suspension, along with other relevant safety requirements.

The inspection cannot guarantee that a vehicle will remain free from faults throughout the year. However, it can identify defects that might otherwise go unnoticed and help ensure that serious problems are addressed.

If drivers delay testing because they cannot afford the fee or repairs, defects may remain unresolved for longer. The consequences could extend beyond the vehicle owner to passengers, other motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Crole-Rees warned that higher costs might tempt some motorists to postpone their test or seek to avoid the requirement through a fake certificate.

Driving without a valid MOT where one is legally required can lead to a fine of up to £1,000. There can also be insurance complications, depending on the circumstances and the terms of the policy. Separate penalties may apply if a vehicle has dangerous defects or other legal requirements are breached.

The warning highlights the potential contradiction at the heart of the debate. A higher fee could help garages continue providing tests, but if it encourages more drivers to delay inspections, it could undermine the wider objective of keeping vehicles roadworthy.

That outcome is not inevitable, and the survey does not establish how many additional drivers would delay testing following a fee increase. Nevertheless, the existing figures give policymakers reason to consider affordability when reviewing the cap.

Calls for MOT tests every two years

The pressure to reduce motoring costs has also fuelled calls to change how frequently vehicles are tested.

According to the research cited by Confused.com, more than one in six drivers surveyed, or 17%, believe an MOT should be required only every two years to reduce costs.

The proposal would offer motorists the prospect of fewer routine inspection bills. However, it would also mean longer periods between mandatory tests for vehicles currently subject to annual testing.

The argument for a less frequent schedule is likely to appeal to drivers who regard the annual MOT as another unavoidable expense in an already expensive year. A longer interval could reduce the number of inspections motorists must pay for over a given period.

But there are important questions about the potential consequences for road safety. Vehicles can develop faults as they age and accumulate mileage, while the rate at which components deteriorate varies according to how a vehicle is driven, maintained and stored.

A two-year interval could therefore leave some defects undetected for longer, unless accompanied by other effective safeguards.

Any change would require careful consideration of vehicle age, reliability data, accident risks, maintenance practices and the availability of alternative checks. It would also need to account for the difference between the routine inspection and a driver’s ongoing responsibility to keep a vehicle roadworthy.

An MOT certificate is not a substitute for regular maintenance. Drivers must continue to address defects that arise between tests, regardless of the inspection schedule.

The Government would consequently face a choice between reducing the frequency of a formal requirement and maintaining regular checks while looking for other ways to make them affordable.

Neither option can be assessed solely by the immediate amount a driver might save.

Why the fee cap matters to independent garages

For the garage industry, the issue is not simply whether motorists should pay more. It is whether the existing maximum charge allows businesses to continue offering a service that drivers are legally required to obtain.

The IGA says some garages are making difficult decisions about how to use their workshop space. If repairs and servicing provide a better commercial return than MOT testing, businesses may increasingly prioritise those activities.

Such decisions could affect the number of appointments available to motorists. Drivers might have to travel further, book earlier or struggle to find a convenient testing slot if local garages reduce their testing capacity.

Independent garages are an important part of the UK’s vehicle maintenance network. Their availability can be especially significant for motorists who depend on local businesses rather than larger dealership networks.

A shortage of testing appointments could also create problems for people whose MOT expiry dates coincide with busy periods or who need their vehicles for work.

However, increasing the fee cap would not automatically guarantee that more garages offer tests. Businesses would still need to consider local demand, staffing, equipment and the overall profitability of their operations.

The Government would therefore need to examine whether the proposed increase would meaningfully improve testing capacity and whether other measures could help garages manage costs without placing excessive pressure on drivers.

The political challenge facing Andy Burnham

The proposal puts Burnham in a difficult position because both sides can point to legitimate concerns.

Motorists want to keep the cost of driving under control. For many people, a car is essential to employment and family life, and any additional expense can be particularly difficult to absorb when several bills fall due at once.

Garages, meanwhile, need sufficient income to pay staff, maintain testing equipment and keep their businesses operating. A fee cap that fails to reflect rising costs could threaten the commercial viability of the service.

The Government must also consider its road-safety responsibilities. It cannot judge the system exclusively by how much motorists pay or how much garages earn. The availability and quality of vehicle testing are important factors in ensuring that cars meet the required standards.

A decision to raise the cap could attract criticism from drivers who see the increase as another financial burden. Refusing to change it could prompt warnings from garages that fewer businesses may be willing to provide tests at the existing price.

The political consequences would depend partly on the details of any decision. A carefully explained increase accompanied by measures to improve access and transparency might be received differently from a substantial rise introduced without a clear account of its necessity.

Equally, a decision to retain the current cap would need to explain how the Government intended to address the industry’s concerns about rising costs and the potential loss of testing capacity.

At present, the proposal described in the source report is an industry demand rather than confirmation that the maximum fee has been increased. Drivers should not assume that the suggested £95 charge has automatically become the new legal cap.

Could drivers be offered protection?

If the Government decides to review the fee, it could consider several questions before making a decision.

First, ministers could seek detailed evidence about the costs of providing an MOT and the extent to which the current cap affects the availability of appointments. This would help establish whether a rise to £95 is justified or whether a smaller adjustment could address the industry’s concerns.

Second, the Government could examine how testing prices are communicated to consumers. Clear information about the maximum permitted charge, the cost of repairs and the distinction between the inspection and additional work would help drivers understand their options.

Third, policymakers could consider whether targeted assistance is appropriate for particularly vulnerable motorists. Any such support would need clear eligibility rules and a credible funding mechanism, rather than simply transferring the cost to other taxpayers or businesses.

Finally, ministers could monitor whether changes to the fee have any measurable effect on the number of garages offering MOT tests, appointment availability and compliance with testing requirements.

These measures would not eliminate the tension between affordability and commercial sustainability. They could, however, help ensure that any policy change is based on evidence rather than assumptions about how drivers and garages will respond.

What happens next?

The IGA’s demand for a £95 maximum fee has put the future of MOT pricing under renewed scrutiny, while the Confused.com research highlights the financial pressure already experienced by some motorists.

The current £54.85 cap has remained unchanged since 2010, according to the report, but garages argue that the costs of delivering the service have risen substantially. Drivers, meanwhile, are concerned about the combined expense of testing, repairs, fuel and insurance.

For Burnham, the decision will require a careful balance between keeping road use affordable and ensuring that the testing system remains viable.

Raising the cap could help garages meet their operating costs, but it could also increase the upfront expense for motorists who are already struggling. Keeping it unchanged might protect drivers in the short term while leaving unresolved questions about the availability of testing appointments.

The most serious risk would be a system in which financial pressure encourages motorists to delay essential checks or leave safety defects unresolved.

An MOT is a legal requirement for vehicles that fall within the relevant testing rules, not an optional service that can simply be postponed whenever money is tight. Any reform should therefore aim to make compliance practical and affordable while preserving the effectiveness of the safety system.

Ultimately, the debate is about more than whether an MOT should cost £54.85 or £95. It is about ensuring that drivers can meet their legal responsibilities, garages can continue providing a necessary service and Britain’s roads remain safe.

Until the Government sets out its position, motorists should check the applicable fee and book their tests in good time rather than assume that the proposed increase has already taken effect. Burnham’s challenge will be to find a solution that addresses the industry’s concerns without making an essential safety check increasingly difficult for ordinary drivers to afford.