MOT Exemption Consultation

[davepoth]

As is the EU way, we're being forced down a route that is a bit of a slippery slope. I don't like the idea that they're suggesting a mileage limitation if you go with a VHI inspection; it would be optional to start with but it would quickly become mandatory IMV.

[TooMany2cvs]

davepoth said:

As is the EU way, we're being forced down a route that is a bit of a slippery slope.

There is no forcing. There's no requirement to have ANY age-related MOT exemption. All the EU roadworthiness directive says is that, if there is one, it can't apply to vehicles under 30yo or which have been modified in substantial ways.

[Vanin]

I am happy to pay the £50 a year to have my 1952 Jaguar MOTd and to have someone else cast an eye over issues which I may have missed, just to protect me from myself. ( Even though I know I am the best mechanic in the world!)

More importantly, if there was an accident and it does not matter if it was my fault or not, a slick lawyer would have a good case if it was shown that the car had not been tested for some years.

[TooMany2cvs]

If you're on FaceBook, then the FBHVC are running the world's quickest, simplest one-question poll over this...

https://poll.fbapp.io/dmdcek

[Riley Blue]

Without exception, all my classic car owning friends disagree with the existing exemption and want testing to be mandatory on all cars, irrespective of age.

[2Btoo]

Vanin said:

I am happy to pay the £50 a year to have my 1952 Jaguar MOTd and to have someone else cast an eye over issues which I may have missed, just to protect me from myself. ( Even though I know I am the best mechanic in the world!)

More importantly, if there was an accident and it does not matter if it was my fault or not, a slick lawyer would have a good case if it was shown that the car had not been tested for some years.

Two excellent points. Even if they remove the need for my old Porsche to be tested annually I think I'll still be tripping down the road to my friendly garage for a second opinion on the state of the vehicle, and getting some form of piece of paper to say that they have had a look and like what they see.

[andyman_2006]

2Btoo said:

Vanin said:

I am happy to pay the £50 a year to have my 1952 Jaguar MOTd and to have someone else cast an eye over issues which I may have missed, just to protect me from myself. ( Even though I know I am the best mechanic in the world!)

More importantly, if there was an accident and it does not matter if it was my fault or not, a slick lawyer would have a good case if it was shown that the car had not been tested for some years.

Two excellent points. Even if they remove the need for my old Porsche to be tested annually I think I'll still be tripping down the road to my friendly garage for a second opinion on the state of the vehicle, and getting some form of piece of paper to say that they have had a look and like what they see.

---

I completed this survey, and fed back comments.

I agree cars still need to be tested, but the test needs to be in line with checks relevant to a car of that age, and not in the form of a failure system, but more like a service/inspection/safety check, and then the tester works with the owner to point out proper safety issues rather than a garage nit picking and touting for work and using the 'older' car in which to do this. Also i feel a lot of the checks done on a newer car are not relevant to a car of the 50's/60's and some 70's cars. A new system needs to be devised, and the current 8 point system in order to work out whether a car is modified seems a little inappropriate. Clear definitions on what modifications should be deemed acceptable need to be produced, especially where some cars dont have original parts produced and the mod is the only route to keeping it on the road.

I dont feel its simply a case of not testing historic cars, all need an inspection of some sort.

Andy

[TooMany2cvs]

andyman_2006 said:

I agree cars still need to be tested, but the test needs to be in line with checks relevant to a car of that age, and not in the form of a failure system

So what would stop somebody from still using the car on the road?

andyman_2006 said:

but more like a service/inspection/safety check, and then the tester works with the owner to point out proper safety issues rather than a garage nit picking and touting for work

I'm seeing a contradiction there...

andyman_2006 said:

Also i feel a lot of the checks done on a newer car are not relevant to a car of the 50's/60's and some 70's cars.

Such as?

andyman_2006 said:

A new system needs to be devised, and the current 8 point system in order to work out whether a car is modified seems a little inappropriate. Clear definitions on what modifications should be deemed acceptable need to be produced, especially where some cars dont have original parts produced and the mod is the only route to keeping it on the road.

Let's just remind ourselves of the 8-point system here...

DVLA said:

Keep the original registration number

Your vehicle must have 8 or more points from the table below if you want to keep the original registration number. 5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame.

Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer) 5
Suspension (front and back) - original 2
Axles (both) - original 2
Transmission - original 2
Steering assembly - original 2
Engine - original 1

...and that's currently how the original identity of a car is kept. So, by your logic here, it's perfectly acceptable to modify a car so much the identity is lost, but it still qualify for the MOT exemption?

Aftermarket chassis to original spec, if not exact design, are accepted as qualifying for the five points.

[Allan L]

The 8 point system may be fine for what it was devised to do, but "they" are suggesting it be used more widely.
The DVLA use of "original" in the 8 point definition is too restrictive as it implies that the item is the component fitted during manufacture whereas what would be more appropriate is "original type". When a car has been active for over a century various parts may have been replaced by other less-worn examples of the same kind and who can say for certain one way or another. Chassis and engines carry numbers which should be recorded and other components may carry numbers but most do not and it isn't formally required that they be recorded. Why the original engine is worth one point when a front and rear suspension (possibly four leaf springs) scores 2 is hard to understand.
The real hostage to fortune would be a pre-Great War Peugeot where the serial number was stamped on every component down to quite surprisingly small bits. New nuts and bolts would be un-numbered but safer than original items!

Edited by Allan L on Thursday 29th September 11:19

Edited by Allan L on Thursday 29th September 11:20

[Slidingpillar]

As far as I can tell, the DVLA 8 point rule is something they apply at a rebuild/restoration. Not as a continuous process. If they did, although a veteran or vintage has continuous and documented history, routine maintenance will have made their continuing exemption rather unlikely. Conversely, a ratty 1975 car would be exempt. Plainly not what was trying to be acheived at all.

For that reason, I've suggested in my submission to the survey, that they rely on the V5c date. DVLA are clamping down on incorrectly registered cars and that issue should be theirs alone.

I've also said forty years is too recent, as the present 1960 exemption has not had time for the full effect to be felt.

Those wanting a MOT lite, reasonable, but part of the reason why 1960 was used a few years ago, was the fact that most modern testers have not even seen a truly old car and have little idea. That issue won't go away, and nobody yet has proposed a testing regime - that actually has knowledgeable testers.

The one question they should have asked, and have not is, what your or years are your cars affected by this?
For the record, mines a 1930.

[TooMany2cvs]

Slidingpillar said:

As far as I can tell, the DVLA 8 point rule is something they apply at a rebuild/restoration. Not as a continuous process. If they did, although a veteran or vintage has continuous and documented history, routine maintenance will have made their continuing exemption rather unlikely. Conversely, a ratty 1975 car would be exempt. Plainly not what was trying to be acheived at all.

For that reason, I've suggested in my submission to the survey, that they rely on the V5c date. DVLA are clamping down on incorrectly registered cars and that issue should be theirs alone.

And that clamp-down is based around originality.

But let's go back a step... If there is an age-related exemption (and there doesn't have to be), then there must be an originality test as part of it. That's the sole factor that's driving this revision - the EU Roadworthiness Directive has to be implemented before the date by which Brexit is likely to be resolved. To have a "historic" exemption that doesn't include an originality test is in direct breach of that directive.

So there's really two main questions being asked :-

- Should there be an age-related exemption?
- If there is, how should the originality test be done?

What age/date the line is drawn at is almost a minor detail - it just has to be at least 30 years ago.

[aeropilot]

Slidingpillar said:

Those wanting a MOT lite, reasonable, but part of the reason why 1960 was used a few years ago, was the fact that most modern testers have not even seen a truly old car and have little idea. That issue won't go away, and nobody yet has proposed a testing regime - that actually has knowledgeable testers.

Indeed, and as someone pointed out on this matter in another post, one of the reasons 1960 was picked as cut-off was that was the year that the MOT test was first introduced.

I don't have a problem with the current 1960 date exemption staying as is, on that basis if nothing else, but, not so comfortable with it being a more recent date, or a rolling one.

[Slidingpillar]

TooMany2cvs said:

And that clamp-down is based around originality. snip

But let's go back a step... If there is an age-related exemption (and there doesn't have to be), then there must be an originality test as part of it.

Not sure about that, but I'd need to read the actual directive. My understanding was the exempt vehicle had to be a Vehicle of Historic Interest but quite how that is defined or tested is up to the country that enacts the legislation. So you could have a test of originality that cost hundreds - and therefore pointless, or just accept the V5c date or anything in-between.

But whatever you choose, the 8 point test was never designed to be used in this way.

[Slidingpillar]

Right, done some trawling...

Directive is here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri...

And the bit where the excitement starts in definitions is:

EU Directive on Roadworthiness said:

7) ‘vehicle of historical interest’ means any vehicle which is considered to be historical by the Member State of registration or one of its appointed authorising bodies and which fulfils all the following conditions:

-it was manufactured or registered for the first time at least 30 years ago;

—its specific type, as defined in the relevant Union or national law, is no longer in production;

—it is historically preserved and maintained in its original state and has not undergone substantial changes in the technical characteristics of its main components;

So it all hinges on the last sentence. Within that definition, one can certainly argue the 8 point rule is a very rigorous way of telling this, and a lot stricter than needed.

In any event, you can now bore yourself to sleep at bedtime tonight!

Edited by Slidingpillar on Thursday 29th September 15:46

[TooMany2cvs]

Slidingpillar said:

So it all hinges on the last sentence.

And that's something that the EU have left to member states to decide for themselves. The despicable slackers...

[Slidingpillar]

And if the UK didn't have a practice of gold plating EU stuff, no one would have a problem.

[Storer]

OK. My project is not going to be as original. The engine will be much larger, a different fuel, the body will be totally different and the use domestic rather than commercial.
It will be possible for me to achieve the 8 points needed under the proposals despite the original registration date being 1962.
I have contacted and discussed my project with my local VOSA testing station and they see no issues as they will test to the V5 details and current regs. It will pass those tests.
This will enable the 'vehivcle' to retain it's original registration number. No bloody Q plate and the associated stigma.......

The finished vehicle will have a fairly substantial value counted in the ten's of thousands of £'s, so a Q plate is a big downer.

Why do we still need the stigma of a Q plate these days. If the vehicle is not 'new' then date the plate from the chassis or engine. I am not building a 'kit', everything non original will be bespoke engineering and almost certainly over engineered.

The idea is top produce a piece of rolling theatre that puts a smile on people's faces. A good proportion will be original but the finished product will bear no semblance of the original vehicle.

It will not be a classic vehicle, just something based on a "classic" rolling chassis.

[Slidingpillar]

Simple really. You could use a ladder section chassis from virtually anything old, say a '32 Ford, box it in, use modern day mechanicals, and then call it a '32 Ford.

Boyd Coddington used to do this in the states, and yes, he got into trouble there too.

Sensibly applied, I don't think anyone reasonable has a problem with 8 point rule - when it is used as intended.

[TooMany2cvs]

Storer said:

It will not be a classic vehicle, just something based on a "classic" rolling chassis.

So it won't be an old vehicle, just something that uses some bits from a old vehicle. So why should it be registered as old, and treated as old?

It clearly isn't new, because it's using second-hand bits.
So what age is it? You can't really say. So a plate that says "We don't know what age this is" seems to be about right, don'cha think? And that's a Q.

[aeropilot]

Slidingpillar said:

Boyd Coddington used to do this in the states, and yes, he got into trouble there too.

Yes, but Coddington was a tosser