Jump to content

Gov.uk details about 40yr MOT exemption


Pete Lewis

Recommended Posts

I’ll be taking my Herald for an ‘MoT’ type inspection annually, as given I’m the one rebuilding it, and I work in IT not the automotive trade, I’d feel much more comfortable with a professional checking on my work.

One thing that I was unclear on was whether registering for VHI exemption was directly linked to road tax exemption, and therefore getting an MoT, would trigger the need to actually pay Road tax.

From reading through the PDF the Pete posted it appears not, so I’m inclined to just forego VHI exemption, and continue getting the car tested as usual.

Karl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bordfunker said:

getting an MoT, would trigger the need to actually pay Road tax.

I've heard that happened to some of the 60 year olds, don't know if it's true. They went for an MOT, lost Heritage Vehicle status without knowing and got a reminder to renew Road Tax asking for money. Probably apocryphal or a cock up.

Doug 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, clive said:

Ah, but you shouldn't use the car on the road. Despite not requiring an MoT, it still needs to be safe and capable of passing one.

That is the biggest issue with this nonsensical change. People think they can use their car unchecked and the standard of maintenance no longer matters. It does.

 

It hasn't been on the road since 2012, due to said welded patch. Plus, even though it legally doesn't require an MOT,  it's still not going on the road until the patch is welded properly, and if my intended MOT test of April 20th tells me it's not a pass, then it's off again. I've just replaced all four braided brake hoses as despite showing no signs of wear, they've been fitted for fifteen years; flushed and replaced the brake fluid, replaced both handbrake cables and the rear shoes, none of which  really required doing, so I don't think I'll be cutting any corners with or without an MOT.

I'll be more concerned about the lowers and modifiers who will have a field day once they're no longer required to be checked annually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/04/2018 at 1:25 PM, AidanT said:

Post office? What's that?:lol:  Pay your  £0.00 on-line and it has all that's needed

Last time I did it it knew the car had an up-to-date mot so I assume next time the progran won't even bother looking !!

Aidan 

 

 

The program hasn't bothered looking for a while. I have taxed a couple of cars that did not have the MOT they should have had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather have my car MOTed as it give me peace of mind that it is safe to drive...the price of an MOT is reasonable compared to the potential consequences of not getting it done and something happens because one wants to cut costs or forgets to check something.

My car is a1973 Mark IV Spitfire so will be exempt shortly but I am still getting an MOT done.

Quite frankly I think this is a bad idea for older vehicles for not having a mandatory MOT but that just my view...perhaps an MOT is mandatory for older vehicles but there should be no fee to pay for this service for older cars. At least then one can be confident that older cars on the road are safe.

Nautam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our Post Office recently moved from the chemist with the loss of two very knowledgeable staff. It opened up again next door in Booze Bargains. Booze Bargain's staff can just about manage stamps, forget about forms!

Last week I read Booze Bargains are in receivership. Local gossip says the PO is moving to Costa Coffee on the corner. Visits to our PO are going to become more expensive.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i believe the thinking behind this daft change is that statistics show classics are rarely involved with accidents , and owners keep them in good condition

as  you see the snags on here ,  many  find or uncover in ownership that  used ones for sale or  previous owner bodges are a complete nightmare

often unsafe .   stats are useful but rubbish in = rubbish out 

keep getting it checked , is a wise 2nd opinion worth its ££s  for knowing al is well

who can tell if the brakes are all equal. who goes underside and pokes at the rust ....it doesnt happen 

Pete

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All brakes are created equal; certain pads make them superior... :)

And just been under mine, poking at the rust and dashing a quick spray of Waxoyl on the stuff.

I'll also furtively admit to polishing the petrol line along the main rail of the chassis, which has brass connectors but a metal joiner in the middle that was rusted and let the rest down... so it all got a nice light cleaning and retouching. I want to dazzle the MOT man so that he misses the welding... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pete Lewis said:

i believe the thinking behind this daft change is that statistics show classics are rarely involved with accidents , and owners keep them in good condition

as  you see the snags on here ,  many  find or uncover in ownership that  used ones for sale or  previous owner bodges are a complete nightmare

often unsafe .   stats are useful but rubbish in = rubbish out 

keep getting it checked , is a wise 2nd opinion worth its ££s  for knowing al is well

who can tell if the brakes are all equal. who goes underside and pokes at the rust ....it doesnt happen 

Pete

 

 

Pete, I totally agree. But I would say that having spent time in QA!

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the problem is the owners who know of an issue, but wait until the MoT to fix it. With no more, those owners probably won't bother as they don't see it as an issue. 

Hopefully the plod will pull some cars for random checks and so on, but I doubt it. Bah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎08‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 1:13 PM, Pete Lewis said:

without VHI  you will pay road tax  thats not required ,    get the VHI by applying at the post office then up date road fund on line ,  no more forms 

My car has Historic status, its a Historic Vehicle, HV,  it says so on the V5. Historic vehicles pay zero road tax. Vehicles of Historic Interest, VHI, are a different thing, they are exempt MOTs. Your car can be both HV and VHI, but can remain just HV? VHI has nothing to do with road tax.  Is VHI compulsory? What happens if you don't apply?

Confused of Twyford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it from a post elsewhere who rang the dvla today, if you apply (like I did at the weekend) for historic tax, you get vhi automatically as long as you say at the time it’s not substantially modified. You can still get it mot’d

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/04/2018 at 6:29 AM, clive said:

 

Mark, the guidance is muddy about engines. Different number of cylinders probably means no exemption. But can you argue a vitesse and herald are essentially the same cars? Likewise spit and GT6? Possibly. But if Mr X has claimed the exemption with a gitfire, and is standing in court having just killed somebody in an accident, would you feel confident?

Gitfires would seem to be fully covered under modifications in period. There is plenty of written proof of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One change to the MOT Law that comes in at the same time and affects all cars not just 40 year old ones but may influence whether to have a formal MOT or not. As from 20th May, if your car fails an MOT even if there is time to run on the old MOT you will no longer be allowed to use it, where as currently if it fails and you have put it in early then unless it's a serious fail you can use it until the old one runs out. This hasn't been that well publicised and I found out from a petrol prices.com  newsletter last week. (here's a link to the article   https://www.petrolprices.com/news/new-mot-rules-fines-2500/ )

My local MOT testing station is however happy to do the MOT type test but without logging it on the system, in fact several places already do this for pre 1960 cars and there is a scheme of registered garages backed by our honorary TSSC president Fuzz Townsend called "Classic Friendly" which was set up to do just this on pre 1960 cars. That way you still have the full test and the handwritten check sheet from the test station with any fail points or advisories but if they are not critical fails you can continue to drive it while you get the parts to fix it or if it's a serious safety issue you'll have the benefit of chosing to lay the vehicle up until it's fixed.

It also means you can chose to ignore non essential things like a failed emission test or cracked number plate that don't make a car unsafe and unroadworthy. Certainly my Dolomite can only pass an emissions test if it's set up too weak to run properly so I'll certainly be opting to have an MOT type test carried out but not logged on the system and ignore emissions, after all the same car a couple of years older isn't subject to emissions testing anyway which just shows how pointless it is!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cookie

The problem with fuzzes MOT list is it's far too small unless it's changed lately Last time I looked I would have to drive over 100 miles to my nearest listed station

Maybe someone could have a word with Fuzz?

Aidan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi.

To some extent, the issues that will arise will be around the fact that a vehicle without an MOT, can currently be flagged up to the Police/VOSA. On their in car equipment. Registering for VHI, will flag up as not required, and should not attract a "pull".

The downside of this, could? be that a small minority of the "unscrupulous" will latch on to that fact, to allow the use of vehicles which are or could be potentially unsafe of dangerous.

Statistically, one day such a vehicle will be involved in a serious lost of life. That IMV is when the "poo hits the fan" and moves to ban ALL "historic" "bangers" will be the result of a "Public Outcry", followed by the usual Government Knee Jerk Reaction.

As someone who was affected by the "loss" of a Sporting Firearm, when under similar circumstances, after Dunblane, Sporting hand guns where so seriously restricted it became not worth while trying to keep it, I have been there, and got the tee shirt so to speak. There was also a severe financial penalty paid too, as the weapon had little or no value. (To the extent that some found their way into the "Black Market" where prices where allegedly substantially higher). Not mine I hasten to add..

Putting a "six pot" into a Herald (for example) providing the brake/suspension was similarly upgraded, might not be seen as "Substantial change" as the factory produced such a Vehicle (Vitesse). Likewise the GT6 engine in a Spitfire, again with the caveat that the necessary brake.suspension changes where carried.?

Edited by PeteH
spellin and additon of text.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2018 at 6:52 PM, thescrapman said:

Gitfires would seem to be fully covered under modifications in period. There is plenty of written proof of that.

Really? You couldn't go out and get a 6-cylinder spitfire from the dealership, nor could you buy it as a kit at the time, nor is it a simple drop-in conversion. A few people have done it in the years since, but that will not stand up legally, even with Insurance, let alone VHI.

"Alternative cubic capacities" means, to me, an engine that may be 1147 in a  Herald but 1500 in a Spitfire, with the same cylinders and block. The notable quote here is "If the number of cylinders in an engine is different from the original, it is likely to be, but not necessarily, the case that the current engine is not alternative original equipment."

So the owner of a Gitfire may have to prove where he got the engine, when, and how and why it was converted - if he declares uprated brakes, or suspension, then his vehicle becomes more heavily modified and less likely to be eligible for VHI. If he doesn't, and claims they're original, then his Insurance may claim on any payout that he failed to declare modifications. Catch 22!

 A lot of the 'discussion' on forums at present is owners of heavily modified vehicles trying to convince themselves, and other forum users, before hoping the same arguments will work on the DVA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colin, changing springs and shocks (for say lowered/uprated or adjustable shocks) is not a suspension change. You have to change the type or method of suspension/steering, so coilovers at the rear could be an issue, but keep the rear leaf spring in some form and all is good. Likewise brakes don't  get a mention. And people never change the steering mechanism, it is very good.

Now the bit about gitfire etc is this

changes of a type, that can be demonstrated to have been made when vehicles of the type were in production or in general use (within ten years of the end of production)

Which does imply common changes like 6 into 4 should be OK. But would I want to rely on that personal judgement?

However, I still maintain it is madness not to get an MoT certificate. That opinion may change if VHI is required for free road tax. But I still reckon it is all a path to restricting the use ofVHI's to minimal mileage/shows only. Which may not worry some people, but no use for me! If I then have to start paying road tax, so be it. But that is just speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...