MOT exemption explained (sort of)

[scruff]

We had this in at work today, believe it has gone to all FBHVC clubs.

 

Pre-1960 Vehicles

 

I am writing to notify you of a change in legislation that may impact a number of your members.

 

From 18 November 2012, vehicles manufactured before 1 January 1960 will become exempt from the requirements to have a mandatory MoT test. I can confirm that these vehicles will still be required to be in a roadworthy condition when used on a public road.

 

Keepers of pre-1960 vehicles will still be able to take a voluntary MoT test at all approved testing stations if they wish to do so. This means that on or after 18 November 2012, keepers of vehicles who need to tax their pre-1960 vehicle(s) will not need to produce a valid MOT pass certificate when applying for a tax disc.

 

Any application to tax via the Post Office or Local Office will require a completed V112 (Declaration of exemption from MoT testing) where the customer declares that their vehicle is exempt. In addition, the DVLA electronic vehicle licensing system will enable customers with pre-1960 vehicles to tax without a MoT from 18 November 2012.

 

This exemption will also apply to vehicles where a date of manufacture is not on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) system, but the date of registration is recorded as being on or before 7 January 1960. We also apply this policy to the qualification criteria for the pre-1973 Vehicle Excise Duty exemption.

 

I can confirm that the Agency will continue to allow pre-1960 vehicles to either transfer or retain their registration mark using the current cherished transfer scheme provided a voluntary MoT has been passed. This is to ensure that vehicles are still in existence and prevent potential fraudulent claims for attractive marks.

 

Where keepers believe their current vehicle should be exempt due to the law change but their Vehicle Registration Certificate (V5C) does not reflect this they will need to write to the DVLA to request a change. The address to write to is DVLA, Swansea, SA99 1BA.

 

In order to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the vehicle records held at the DVLA, it is important that evidence provided to amend or add information already held on our system is accurate and truly reflects the vehicle for which it is issued. Therefore it has been decided that for these specific cases, requests will only be considered where it has been accompanied with either an extract from the manufacturer/factory record or an extract from the appropriate ‘Glass’s Check Book’. Both these documents will have a direct link to the chassis number that should already have been accepted and recorded on the vehicle record as part of the initial registration process. I can confirm that for these specific cases, DVLA will not accept general dating certificates as evidence to amend or update the date of manufacture. Such certificates will however, continue to be accepted for other purposes such as V765 claims and requests for age related numbers for recently restored or recently imported vehicles.

 

I trust this explains the situation.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Claire Rush

 

Corporate Affairs Directorate

 

DVLA

 

How about an Autoshite challenge - get a legal tax disc on the biggest pile of undriveable shite possible. Bonus points if it is in a hedge or physically snapped in half.

[Bobthebeard]

It has been said before, but what is the point of exempting 50 odd year old vehicles from MOT testing? Simply don't get it! Who benefits from that? The vehicle has to be kept in a roadworthy condition, sure, but how is that determined in the event of an accident/police tug/whatever? Presumably by an, err, MOT test. Seems weird. Who is gaining and what are they gaining from this legislation? Is it to save the government money? How?

Voluntary MOT? The GOOD folk running pre 60's chod will, no doubt still take this option, the bad will not, but voluntary MOT's? Voluntary VED would be great, as would voluntary fuel tax, but what are the chances of that?

Am stumped!

[michael1703]

Ive got a 58 rover p4 that needs taxing but has no MOT

 

If I go online and punch in the document reference number, when does the tax disc start from?

[Bobthebeard]

Ive got a 58 rover p4 that needs taxing but has no MOT

 

If I go online and punch in the document reference number, when does the tax disc start from?

 

Quite....

A proper can 'o' worms waiting to be opened with this legislation I suspect!

[gtd2000]

Ive got a 58 rover p4 that needs taxing but has no MOT

 

If I go online and punch in the document reference number, when does the tax disc start from?

 

Quite....

A proper can 'o' worms waiting to be opened with this legislation I suspect!

 

No such thing as an MOT or annual inspection in Florida and it all appears to work fine?

 

Why do you think a mechanic not looking at a vehicle for 1 day out of 365 is going to be a can o' worms?

[Bobthebeard]

The can 'o' worms mentioned is not particularly the cars, just how the legislation will be enforced etc. As in, if a car that is MOT exempt is pulled over, who deems it roadworthy or not? What is the process and who pays? Etc Etc. Basically what is the point of the exemption really! Not picking a fight here, am just totally confused as why this is deemed a good thing!

Surely a car that is checked one day every year is a better prospect than no checks ever? Plus in Florida cars never rust out presumably? Dry climate,* no road salt and so on...

 

 

*Edit, have no idea about the Florida climate really... Just must be better than ours!

[gtd2000]

I hear what you are saying of course but most people these days are driving around in fairly new cars.

 

I'm sure it's a very small minority that's running around in a rusty shit heap

 

You'll get that scenario even with yearly tests.

[scaryoldcortina]

It's pretty simple imo. MoT exempt or not, a car on a road needs to be roadworthy. In fact, you could drive a non exempt car around with no test and as long as it would pass one the worst penalty available is a £100 fine. If the police/vosa want to check your car, they do a MoT (you have the right to stipulate when and where they test it too). All that has changed is that owners of pre-60 vehicles are about £50 per car per year better off.

[Bobthebeard]

But what is the point of exempting pre 1960's cars? Why??

I may be thicker than Mr Thick but still don't understand why it has been done!

[scaryoldcortina]

It probably has a lot to do with the small overall percentage of pre 1960 cars on the road, combined with them being "awkward" to test on modern facilities (OPTL and ATL systems)

[Bobthebeard]

That answer makes sense! Thankyou Scaryoldcortina!

[michael1703]

I agree about the roadworthyness bit, but there aren't enough police on the road let alone car savvy knowledgeable police about so unless there is a concerted targeting of pre 60 cars I think a lot will slip

 

Roadworthyness can be very hard to prove if the cop wants to have you,they can find something

 

Years ago I got pulled over by the police and they went over my bike with a fine toothed comb and the only thing they did me on was "under inflated tyres" I was a teenager at the time and didn't question it but the older/wiser/grumpier me would contest it and bring up the calibration tolerances/manufacturer recommended pressures/temperature of the tyre when measured etc etc

[Bobthebeard]

Back to the can 'o' worms then!

The road worthiness thing will rumble on and on IMHO

[messerschmitt owner]

I'll be taxing my Schmitt.

[Cavcraft]

I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing, we 'did' that argument before.

I have a question, though: For those plate rapers out there are they going to need an MOT to get the number off their old vehicle or not? If not then it'd be a nice little earner to buy up shagged out ditch find cars, taxing them then offloading the reg. no. for a nice few quid. Or just ringing them.

[scaryoldcortina]

I can confirm that the Agency will continue to allow pre-1960 vehicles to either transfer or retain their registration mark using the current cherished transfer scheme provided a voluntary MoT has been passed. This is to ensure that vehicles are still in existence and prevent potential fraudulent claims for attractive marks.

 

Changes to testing rules won't make any difference to the type of people who swap ID plates around to get numbers off dead cars, it's been happening for years and won't stop imo.

[Junkman]

There are several factors that speak for the exemption.

 

- The small number of pre 1960 cars still existing.

- The vast majority of those cars are cherished collectors items, very well looked after by their owners and in much better condition overall, than just being roadworthy. They hardly ever fail an MoT test anyway. OK, there are exceptions, of course, but the overwhelming majority of pre-1960 car owners do take care of their prized (and often priced) possessions.

- Most of those cars are not used for daily commutes. They are mainly used to attend organised meetings, rallys, and the odd pleasure drive.

- They are driven very few miles a year. A poll conducted by Practical Classics not too long ago revealed that the annual mileage of the majority of those cars is less than 1000.

- The MoT test stations are no longer equipped to properly test these cars, neither are there many testers left who have the required knowledge. The cars merely have to comply to the legislation in place at the time of manufacture. If modern lighting, safety, speed rated tyres, etc. rules would apply, most would be off the road anyway.

 

I think it is a good thing. The assumption that most owners do take care of their old cars is justified, and the few black sheep you'd have with or without a mandatory MoT.

[dollywobbler]

The vast majority of those cars are cherished collectors items, very well looked after by their owners and in much better condition overall, than just being roadworthy.

 

The thing is though, this is just bollocks. I cherish my cars and look after them as well as I can, but do I always get a straight MOT pass? No. Sometimes there's something I've missed or that I can't easily check. I don't often get a fail and that's because once a year, I go over the car carefully to make sure it will pass an MOT. Remove the MOT and you remove the key reason to check your own vehicle.

 

It may be a sweeping generalisation and a bit tin foil hat, but I get the feeling that the majority (not all) of owners of pre-1960s cars might have Tory sympathies. Practical Classics seemed to find that the vast majority of classic car owners DO NOT support this change.

[messerschmitt owner]

To take a number off will involve an mot.

[Morgan84]

There are a lot of worn out jallopys sitting in barns which haven't been on the road in years because they weren't MOT compliant;all this means now that there is going to be a few more old puddle jumpers out on the roads.The problem as I see it is that modern cars are considerably faster than older cars,and many older vehicles,and by that I mean cars of the 1920's-1950's are not always the most spritely at pulling away. We have busier roads,with more vehicles moving at faster speeds,and suddenly,we have a older car trying to 'keep up'. The problems come when the older car cannot possibly stop as well as a more modern disc braked car,and it cannot handle like a modern car;when these cars are at their 'best',in the modern environment,you have to be carefull.

However,when we have a car which possibly has brakes which don't work as they should ie out of balance,or poor efficiency,and we possibly have worn out steering boxes or suspension components,we now have a 'potential' problem.What happens in a emergency situation,or at speeds of say 30-40 mph when suddenly the car has to stop,or make a sudden maneuver ? What if the brakes aren't working correctly,or the handling is impared,or in fact the car is physicaly weakened and falling to bits ? This is down to the owner/driver to make sure the car is roadworthy. How many people have a brake decelerometer in the shed to check the brakes are ok ? How many owners have sufficient mechanical knowledge to know if somethings safe or not ?

Yes,there are some very nice older cars on the roads which have no real problems,but there are also piles of crap which don't get proper maintainance,or have owners who only spend money when forced.There are also some bad DIY motorists out there who think they know what they are doing.Not all classic vehicles are owned by mechanically minded people

[michiel]

We've had this exemption since 1-1-2008, cars that are put back on the road have to be tested one last time, imported cars get an MOT-style test when they are registered and that's it. I haven't seen any figures about more accidents/deaths/mobile death traps due to this arrangement...

[scaryoldcortina]

There are a lot of worn out jallopys sitting in barns which haven't been on the road in years because they weren't MOT compliant;all this means now that there is going to be a few more old puddle jumpers out on the roads.

 

I'm not so sure. Barn find cars normally have other problems than just needing a MoT, I can't really see the average man suddenly deciding to drive a Ford Prefect justt because it doesn't need a MoT.

The problem as I see it is that modern cars are considerably faster than older cars,and many older vehicles,and by that I mean cars of the 1920's-1950's are not always the most spritely at pulling away. We have busier roads,with more vehicles moving at faster speeds,and suddenly,we have a older car trying to 'keep up'. The problems come when the older car cannot possibly stop as well as a more modern disc braked car,and it cannot handle like a modern car;when these cars are at their 'best',in the modern environment,you have to be carefull.

 

Speed limits, however have not changed. Yes, the driver of an older car needs to be aware of his vehicle's limitations and drive accordingly, but so does everyone else, right?

 

However,when we have a car which possibly has brakes which don't work as they should ie out of balance,or poor efficiency,and we possibly have worn out steering boxes or suspension components,we now have a 'potential' problem.What happens in a emergency situation,or at speeds of say 30-40 mph when suddenly the car has to stop,or make a sudden maneuver ? What if the brakes aren't working correctly,or the handling is impared,or in fact the car is physicaly weakened and falling to bits ? This is down to the owner/driver to make sure the car is roadworthy. How many people have a brake decelerometer in the shed to check the brakes are ok ? How many owners have sufficient mechanical knowledge to know if somethings safe or not ?

 

It's up to the driver to make sure their vehicle is safe to drive. Having me or you check it once a year doesn't mean it is impossible for it to break later. Knowing that your brakes are right doesn't require mechanical knowledge either, just common sense! I test mine every morning before I get into any traffic by applying the brake in a straight line. If the pedal feels "off" or the steering pulls I know I have a problem. If I couldn't fix it myself, I'd be calling a garage.

 

Yes,there are some very nice older cars on the roads which have no real problems,but there are also piles of crap which don't get proper maintainance,or have owners who only spend money when forced.There are also some bad DIY motorists out there who think they know what they are doing.Not all classic vehicles are owned by mechanically minded people

 

This is true of all cars, of all ages. Some of the biggest piles of crap I see are in the 10-15 year old bracket, and some 3-7 year old cars are a bloody disgrace.

[nigel bickle]

So, when I collect this 1953 Peugeot at the end of the month

 

 

I can just get it running, UK register & tax it -straight off? Park it in the road like to annoy a specific neighbour....

[Volksy]

I wonder what insurers will make of all this, I've a feeling they will insist on some kind of check of the vehicle annually.

[Junkman]

So, when I collect this 1953 Peugeot at the end of the month

 

I can just get it running, UK register & tax it -straight off? Park it in the road like to annoy a specific neighbour....

 

No, you will have to MoT it in order to get it registered. But that's the only time you'll ever have to MoT it.

[nigel bickle]

Cant see that ''in the rules''.

 

Show me where, please.

[Junkman]

Cant see that ''in the rules''.

 

Show me where, please.

 

You are right, that has been binned as well.

[Junkman]

The vast majority of those cars are cherished collectors items, very well looked after by their owners and in much better condition overall, than just being roadworthy.

 

The thing is though, this is just bollocks.

 

It is the official justification for the new legislation and it is based on hard facts and figures. Pre 1960 cars practically never fail a test, that's why the MoT test exemption was considered in the first place.

If you can't maintain your cars so they could pass a roadworthiness test at any time, fine. However, this is not what is commonly found with pre-1960 cars.

[Stixy]

Will this be a "rolling" exemption ?

[Morgan84]

Earlier this year,I tested a 1961 Landrover.The assumption of a old Landrover is " Owned by a enthusiast who takes great pride and care in it " This owner does his own repairs ....

 

Steering idler on front crossmember insecure held in by 2 of the 4 bolts ,and jumping about when steering operated

Front flexi hoses chafing on steering components

55% front brake imbalance

Excessive freeplay felt at the steering wheel

Steering wheel insecure

Brake pedal anti-slip provision worn away completely

Plus a list of advisarys

 

The owner hadn't noticed anything wrong with the vehicle ....

 

Imagine if that had been a 1959 Landrover