Jump to content

Gov.uk details about 40yr MOT exemption


Pete Lewis

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, AidanT said:

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 

I just asked my local MOT garage where I've had my car MOTd for years and they are very happy to carry out the test without logging it, they already do this for a couple of customers with pre 1960 cars. No issue for them, they still make money. In fact they charge a lot less than some garages at £30 per MOT anyway and free re-tests within 14 days and they understand classic cars so are aware of the foibles of old cars...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Colin Lindsay said:

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. 

Reading the document it says.... "Changes of a type that can be demonstrated to have been made when the vehicle was in production or general use (within 10 years of end of production)"

last spitfire was 1982, so did anyone build a Gitfire before 1992?? I think I could demonstrate that.

Also I Think SAH offered parts to do a 6-cyl conversion. May also find that certain parts were fitted to different market cars so could be considered factory fit.

Brake upgrades are not a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

I am surprised that, the Insurers, haven't made a move on this one. Maybe they have not caught up yet?. Their liability under 3rd Party, regardless of the culpability of the vehicle owner, could run into millions if a badly maintained vehicle, killed or seriously maimed several people?.

I half expect that some of the more responsible ones could start to ask for documented evidence of Inspection, or maintenance records, at some point.

Whilst, as has been pointed out by several posters, the MOT, is only valid to the kerb side. It IS evidence of intent, and would prove valuable in mitigation at the very least.

As with all these things, there is also the "conspiracy theory". That which has been pointed at on "Social Media". Goes along the lines of "one day a bad accident will give the Government the power to remove ALL older cars". Which will have the Auto industry and the "green" hangers on, cheering, and true enthusiasts drowning their sorrows.

Pete

P.S. Something else which just occurred to me. What would be the position of the likes of TSSC legally if say an "unsafe" car was involved during an Event?. Do they have to introduce "scrutineering" ahead of participation, in order to cover the Club?.

P

Edited by PeteH
added P.S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good points. We may well see clauses pop up in insurance about maintenance etc. And I heard on the grapevine that there are some concerns about cars being fit to enter driving events. Static shows are not a worry, but things such as 12 car rallies, and even parade laps etc are.

And what about breakdown cover?? I know tucked away in teh small print there is usually something about a car being maintained. It could become an issue if things literally start falling off/breaking. 

Maybe we should have a look at the way the IoM does things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, how about this for an argument. 

Mot is obtained by classic car owner in say April. Weather, circumstances, whatever, the car then sits for 6 months not driven. Things change and owner goes out in it - doing the usual oil, water air checks.

Has a crash because the brakes have delaminated or something has seized? But its ok it has an MOT?

How is that different to having an owner, having done a check in April either him/herself (and documenting it even!) or getting a 3rd party inspection done and doing the same thing?

Both at the time of the accident are effectively not roadworthy. Whats the difference?

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no issue with those that continue to get an MOT nor those that don't as both need to be roadworthy when on the road.

As for conspiracy, nah I don't believe it, they are not that clever.

Anyway cost ot lack of petrol will see Classic cars off the road in the next 20years anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chatting to my MOT guy yesterday he mentioned that they used to get about 20 people bring in pre-60 cars before the change to those tests. They accurately identified the owners that would not return after the change, it being those who regularly had failures each year.

he also mentioned that there has so far been NO official communication from the government about the changes coming next month as yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colin, are we surprised? 

 

Mark, I know what you are saying, but say one caliper was starting to seize, and the car is used for a few hundred miles a year. At least it would get picked up at the next MoT, but he issue is going to be those who don't check their cars properly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the forgoing points are equally valid. However my concern is toward "liability", and the ability of insurers to wriggle out in the event of a "genuine" accident. Keeping an MOT, or MOT type inspection and written record of what was examined. Is IMV a sensible "Bum covering" move.

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I know Clive and that is always going to be the case. 

Interestingly, brakes and balance has been mentioned a few times. My 4x4 discovery when it was brake tested, it was done with one of the weight things in the foot well as you can’t use a roller type - or at least not the usual type. So the balance was never checked except by feel.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Anglefire said:

Yes I know Clive and that is always going to be the case. 

Interestingly, brakes and balance has been mentioned a few times. My 4x4 discovery when it was brake tested, it was done with one of the weight things in the foot well as you can’t use a roller type - or at least not the usual type. So the balance was never checked except by feel.

 

That`s interesting?. My old Shogun used to get the full Rolling Road Treatment. As did the S2 Landy before it failed MOT. And was sold on for "Spares or Repair".

In fact, the Only ones that got the "Tapley" treatment, where the two American R-V`s, where the Brake system was a bit "Bespoke" and then only to test the handbrake..

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PeteH said:

That`s interesting?. My old Shogun used to get the full Rolling Road Treatment. As did the S2 Landy before it failed MOT. And was sold on for "Spares or Repair".

In fact, the Only ones that got the "Tapley" treatment, where the two American R-V`s, where the Brake system was a bit "Bespoke" and then only to test the handbrake..

Pete

I think you could decouple the hubs on the S2? Same with the shogun - can be made effectively 2wd. The discovery would try and do things with the centre diff probably. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, thescrapman said:

Reading the document it says.... "Changes of a type that can be demonstrated to have been made when the vehicle was in production or general use (within 10 years of end of production)"

last spitfire was 1982, so did anyone build a Gitfire before 1992?? I think I could demonstrate that.

Also I Think SAH offered parts to do a 6-cyl conversion. May also find that certain parts were fitted to different market cars so could be considered factory fit.

Brake upgrades are not a problem.

That's possibly true and as you can see, it's causing a lot of debate even among enthusiasts. However: there's a point raised here - if someone converted a Spitfire before 1992, that's fine if it's THAT car. Does it apply to all conversions since? The legislation says "when THE vehicle was in production or general use"; is that referring to them individually, or to all? In other words, you can show that YOUR car was converted back in the day, but can someone else, who has just done it, use your example to justify his?

And in addition: brake upgrades are not a problem, but the absence of them is... it's a whole can of worms and going to be open to a lot of argument and debate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know they supplied a 2.0 litre to 2.5 upgrade, but the catalogues that I've just flicked through show upgrades to existing engines, or like for like exchanges, but in any case catalogues like this are going to be a great help when interpreting the legislation.

The more details we can obtain now, the more help we'll be to members when they apply for exemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAH parts were available from the spares department of most of large Standard Triumph Services Workshops who would also fit them if required. SAH were the factory recommended supplier of tuning parts.  A new car fitted with them was still covered by the Warranty.

Back in the 1960's I purchased SAH tuning parts through a Stevensons of Tunbridge Wells who were a main ST dealership.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/04/2018 at 6:54 AM, PeteH said:

Hi

I am surprised that, the Insurers, haven't made a move on this one. Maybe they have not caught up yet?. Their liability under 3rd Party, regardless of the culpability of the vehicle owner, could run into millions if a badly maintained vehicle, killed or seriously maimed several people?.

I half expect that some of the more responsible ones could start to ask for documented evidence of Inspection, or maintenance records, at some point.

Whilst, as has been pointed out by several posters, the MOT, is only valid to the kerb side. It IS evidence of intent, and would prove valuable in mitigation at the very least.

As with all these things, there is also the "conspiracy theory". That which has been pointed at on "Social Media". Goes along the lines of "one day a bad accident will give the Government the power to remove ALL older cars". Which will have the Auto industry and the "green" hangers on, cheering, and true enthusiasts drowning their sorrows.

Pete

P.S. Something else which just occurred to me. What would be the position of the likes of TSSC legally if say an "unsafe" car was involved during an Event?. Do they have to introduce "scrutineering" ahead of participation, in order to cover the Club?.

P

Pete,

The issue is no different to what has already been in place for pre 1960 cars for several years, it's just that the cutoff date for exemption moves from 1960 to 1978 this year. Insurance companies already have the issue today, in fact they already have the issues even when a car is MOTd. They cover this in the small print stating that the car must be in a roadworthy condition. Remember that having an MOT means nothing once you leave the test station as something could go wrong to make the car dangerous on the way home, the MOT test just means it was roadworthy when tested not that it will remain roadworthy for the next 12 months.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, Not to sure that would hold up in court. True all driver's should ensure their vehicle is roadworthy before using it and as you say the MOT may not be worth 12 months. However, most drivers are not mechanically experienced or qualified to ensure their vehicle is roadworthy. Therefore the MOT does show some intent to meet this requirement. Without an MOT a lack of due diligence's may be leveled at the driver. The introduction of no MOT for cars reg before 1960 was only a few years ago and is not long enough to see how things pan out e.g. Any test cases? 

In the end it's all about risk and what as a driver you do to manage it.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general I think that anyone who has a classic wants to ensure it is well looked after and maintained, possibly due to it retaining or appreciating in value but mainly for the enjoyment of owning and driving it. (Dare i say loving it) and also drives it accordingly 

This is why classic car insurance is so comparatively cheap 

I will be getting an annual check / assessment, but will go with what my local (classic car owner) MOT garage suggests is best

Who are these people who drive cars that will now fall into the new mot exemption that don't care about their car?  Surely the same ones that don't have insurance or even a licence!

Aidan 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously haven't met some of the classic drivers I have met. 

Many seem to want to get away with as much as possible, and take the attitude that as it doesn't get much use, it is OK to cut serious corners. Largely the older generation. For goodness sake, my 87 year old dad popped over today for a quick oil change on his Focus. Due an MoT soon. I mentioned the split CV gaitor that is leaving grease, he asked if I could wipe it to get it through the MoT. He got a negative answer, and I am booking it in the local garage. But many of similar age have the same attitude, avoid spending if you can (even if you can afford it!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I agree Clive. I know quite a few classic bike owners who will mend and make do rather than spend a tenner on something new. It’s a mind set rather than actual lack of cash. Obviously living in Yorkshire we have short arms and deep pockets anyway. 

However some of the young lads at work are always modding their newer cars but it’s all for show. Spending money on things their mates can’t see ie safety doesn’t count. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, clive said:

it is OK to cut serious corners. Largely the older generation. 

Clive, you've just cost me half an hour desperately searching the Internet... but sadly to no avail; one of our great local cartoonists Rowel Friers brought out a series called "Sure, it'll do" with some tremendously funny observations on how Ulstermen will settle for anything rather than complain, or spend money. I just couldn't find any but there were some superb examples of botching and make-do which, as Al Capone said, we laugh at because they're funny, but also because they're true.

Given that a considerable number of boy racers can't even wait to arrange insurance before getting their cars on the road, I don't think repairs or maintenance will deter many of them either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is those boy racers are not driving cars over 40 years old. And they will be pinged by the ANPR cameras etc and hopefully caught. The old gits who don't maintain their classic have little incentive to do anything as many will believe (probably correctly so) that they won't get caught. Worse than that, some will think they are OK driving a car that they know has serious faults, simply because of the no MoT situation. 

The bloke I spoke to last year honestly thought it will be OK for him to take a vitesse that he bought as an unfinished restoration, take the body off and extend the chassis, lose some outriggers and then stick a Bugatti type body on it.  Then use it with zero checks. When I pointed out he needed an IVA he got angry, saying iy was his car and he could do with it as he wished. I have no doubt at all that is what he has done, or is in the process of doing. People building kitcars and using the donor logbook or indeed any logbook from a vehicle over 40 years old simply to avoid ANY checks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

Sorry I was talking about people of normal intelegence, the ones that after spending money on a car are happy to spend 30 pounds on an MOT  Clive surely this guy would be driving the car without insurance as well then - it's a lot more than an MOT!

Mind you theres nought as queer as folk!

Aidan 

 

 

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...