So as current UK legislation (law) states anything manufactured prior to 1960 doesn't need an MOT then you don't need one which is exactly what Hagerty said when I asked before going with them. You must keep the bike roadworthy though.
As Simon says... Roadworthy.
I always like to ask myself "what questions are you likely to be asked if it all ends up in an expensive smoking heap somewhere?" and "Do I have an answer that I would be happy to give in court?"
Q1. What steps did you take to ensure that your bike was roadworthy?.
Q2. If you decided not to have it MOT'd why not? What other arrangements did you make?
If your answer to question 1 is not "I had it MOT'd" then you should have an answer other than " well, nothing really" or " My bikes are always ok"
Similarly, the answer to question 2 should not be "Too expensive" or "Couldn't be bothered"
If you choose not to have an MOT and came up with another solution then you should document the steps that you have taken and think of some other questions...
A. What qualified either you or your chosen maintainer / inspector to carry out this work.
B. What did you check and when?
C. To what standards did you inspect?
The answer to 'A' could be "years of experience" or something similar. If you don't really know what you are doing then be honest with yourself and ask someone who does.
For 'B' then you could do worse than printing out the current MOT check list that testers use. You can download it from
DVSA HERE . Print it out, fill it in and date it at least once a year for any bikes that you are using.
The standards are all in the MOT inspection manual which is available
HERE. Far better to read it and know the answers rather than rely on what your mate down the pub said. Incidentally, it is changing in May so I had better get reading.
I make my living out of MOT tests but am very aware that the MOT is a bare minimum. A properly carried out maintenance scheme is always far better, provided that it actually gets done.