MoT exception 2 : This time Junkman is in charge

[doobietoo]

Faker, on 24 Sept 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

For the mot exemption your vehicle must be registered as a historic vehicle on the v5. This is also required for tax exemption. When the changes come in to force, you can be sure restrictions for use will be imposed. Vehicles that have been heavily modified from standard won't comply and will still have to be motd. If you want to continue to use your classic with no hinderance keep the v5 sdp and mot it as normal. No restrictions.

 

no restrictions on use have been imposed on pre-60 vehicles in the last 3 years despite identical dire warnings voiced at the time.

[panhard65]

When I have had pre '60 cars I always got them tested eventually. Exemption made it easier to import the old French shite as you could legally register it and put some miles on it bedding brakes in etc before the mot. It seems that the buyers of my old cars haven't bothered with mot's since mind as they all show up with the last test being the one I did before selling them on. Even though I am in the trade and like to think I know what I am doing it is always good to get a second opinion and the use of brake rollers to give a better idea of what the brakes are doing. The best idea would be to have a much simpler test for older cars to check brakes and tyres. I think part of the problem is the older guys who worked on these cars when new and have a better judgement on the amount of play etc are now retiring and the younger ones have no idea how to test them. 

[oldcars]

I'm with Junkman on this. The MOT is a bit of a chocolate teapot but everyone thinks it's Royal-fucking-Doulton.

 

The actual evidence is out there rather than ideas/biases/opinions in peoples heads.

 

Pre-1980 cars here are NCT exempt. I get to drive in other countries too (if it's legal at home, it's legal on tour).

 

No carnage going on here. Hell, they don't test motorcycles or tricycles at all.

 

I can even use the car whenever I like, no restrictions.

Go get the reliant back on the road

[Cavcraft]

How can something like a recovery vehicle not need tested?? Especially with the abuse they must receive...

 

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk

 

​I suspect it comes from garages being trusted to maintain their vehicles to a decent standard  For some stupid reason if they're over 3.5 tonnes and spec lift only, they get exemption. That's possibly because of some archaic law that states (those particular vehicles) can collect legitimately broken down motors, ala the old Harvey Frost equipped LandRovers. You could, and probably still can, get a form from the DVLA, fill it in and your truck was MOT exempt. The problem there of course being that every fuckwit and his dog who knew their crispy chassised Tranny would never make another test applied for one and claimed they were MOT exempt.

It's all bollocks because technically if you took a car for scrap, to the auctions or to sell it to someone using your spec lift, you're breaking the MOT exemption law because you're carrying 'goods' as opposed to a broken down vehicle which itself must be MOT'd and taxed. Even if you put the battery, wheels or whatever from the motor you picked up onto the back of the spec lift body after you've dropped it off, you're carrying goods and need an MOT. It's a joke to be honest and often VOSA don't seem to know themselves. I wouldn't urinate on an MOT exempt recovery truck if it combusted.

[Faker]

no restrictions on use have been imposed on pre-60 vehicles in the last 3 years despite identical dire warnings voiced at the time.

I hear you. But it is coming. Large vans and certain vehicles are already excluded from areas such as London. EU countries have already banned classics from city centres (eg Paris). It will only be a matter of time.

[Eddie Honda]

When the changes come in to force, you can be sure restrictions for use will be imposed.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whilst it is something to be guarded against. I heard all this shite when Ken Clarke introduced tax-exemption over 20 years ago. 

 

EU countries have already banned classics from city centres (eg Paris). It will only be a matter of time.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's why the FFVE got an exemption for histroric vehicles then https://www.amicale-citroen-internationale.org/2016/paris-historic-vehicles-ok/

[danthecapriman]

My preferred method would be a relaxed MOT, annually, for anything over 30 years old.

So, the basics: brake efficiency/or brake inspection, lighting, quick structural check to see if it's about to snap in half, visual emissions test only as per current pre 75 mot test.

It's just enough to check basic safety and it could roll on as a vehicle reaches the age of 30.

 

There's a lot involved in the current MOT that is ridiculous and pointless on such old cars and the time it takes to test all this stuff should be better used actually removing the wheels and checking the brakes for example.

 

Anything majorly modified or altered should stay as it is with a full and thorough test as it's no longer a standard vehicle and probably been cobbled together by some guy in his shed. Things like stretched tyres, excessive sized wheels sticking out of wheel arches, cut springs etc should be checked for and outlawed.

[DodgeRover]

For the mot exemption your vehicle must be registered as a historic vehicle on the v5. This is also required for tax exemption. When the changes come in to force, you can be sure restrictions for use will be imposed. Vehicles that have been heavily modified from standard won't comply and will still have to be motd. If you want to continue to use your classic with no hinderance keep the v5 sdp and mot it as normal. No restrictions.

There is no way to keep in the plg class there is a letter on file on the ACE website from the dvla stating that there is not possible to have a historic eligible vehicle and pay the road tax on it or revert it back to the plg tax class

[RayMK]

Go get the reliant back on the road

 

I noticed that in the government proposal documents for the MOT exemption being discussed, if introduced, it will not include three wheelers and motorcycles until 2022. My Reliant (MOT expired 6th August) does barely 400 miles per year.  Because of this low usage and its age I give it a roadworthiness check every time I dig it out of the garage (Lights, brakes, tyres, wipers, leaks and nothing falling off).  Even with an MOT, driving it is still terrifying for the first few miles.

[Faker]

There is no way to keep in the plg class there is a letter on file on the ACE website from the dvla stating that there is not possible to have a historic eligible vehicle and pay the road tax on it or revert it back to the plg tax class

Seriously?! Once a veh turns 40 it automatically becomes a historic vehicle on the v5?!

[danthecapriman]

Seriously?! Once a veh turns 40 it automatically becomes a historic vehicle on the v5?!

It doesn't automatically become 'Historic Vehicle' once it reaches 40 and is eligible you have to apply for it to become HV from PLG by filling in the changes section of the V5 and sending back to DVLA, who will then change the tax class to HV and send you a new V5 with the change made. I don't think you can change it back to PLG again though.

If the eligible vehicle doesn't get re registered as HV it will remain on it's original PLG tax class and the owner will continue to pay road tax as normal until someone makes the change.

 

I did this with my mk2 Capri to get free road tax but if they do start looking at anything registered as HV getting a limited use restriction it means I've screwed myself over. It's all speculation though as they haven't said either way if this is the eventual intention or not. I just see the government do something like this and wonder why! What's in it for them and why do they want to save me the cost of an annual MOT?

[garethj]

I don't see much wrong with the current system to be honest.  I know there are good and bad experiences, but when you think how many thousands of vehicles are MoT'd every day across the country the percentages say there's bound to be a few iffy ones, it's largely on one human's interpretation and humans make mistakes all the time even when there's tight rules.

 

Hang on while I get my soapbox out, ah, that's better.

 

The biggest problem in running an old car, and this ties into the frequent "I buy a new car because old ones break down" threads, is that getting a decent mechanic with experience of older cars to do a good job for reasonable money is almost impossible.

 

You've got a new car?  No problem,into the main dealers you go.  If it's brand new then the warranty picks up any component failures.

 

You've got a newish car?  To the dealers and get bent over the desk while they insert a pineapple in you and charge you £90 per hour plus the usual laugh of £15 for screenwash and £25 for greasing the door catches.  I've got a tub of grease that I bought back in 1994 for £10 and there's still about 3/4 of it left.

 

You've got a slightly older car?  Take it to kwick fit or similar and get a slightly smaller pineapple but often shoddy work done on things that never needed replacing.  I know that a sample size of one isn't statistically significant but the last time I had tyres changed they had "a quick look over the car" and diagnosed about 400 quid's worth of work.  Of course it passed the MoT the following day without an advisory (and both me and my friendly mechanic knew it would be fine after examining the car)

 

You've got an older car?  How good are you with tools and following instructions, knowing what we all do about Haynes manuals?  Hope you've got somewhere under cover to work and time to do it?  Most people have none of these things.  The alternative is to find a friendly mechanic who knows about cars and doesn't have a 3 acre site made of chrome and glass as an overhead.  These are very rare as being a mechanic can be a bit of a shitty job and most customers don't understand that you've spent 2 hours of your time and his money getting that last exhaust stud out.

 

If we had more mechanics, we wouldn't all be tied to main dealers and the whole fabric of the used car ownership would change.

[Eddie Honda]

if introduced, it will not include three wheelers and motorcycles until 2022.

That's when EU member states agreed to all test 2/3 wheelers. About half don't at the minute.

 

So depending on when the UK actually decides to formally exit may/may not change what happens and when.

[RayMK]

Yes, I read that bit as well.  I'm not too fussed either way regarding MOTs,  provided that all classics are limited to 40mph if using an exemption clause.  That way, I have a fighting chance of keeping up with some of the traffic.  Even bloody tractors seem to cruise at 35-40mph on the road these days. 

[Uncle Jimmy]

In my 'umble opinion, very often the more faster and powerfuler a car the less an owner understands how it works, including the braking system. I think our MOT system is GR8 and should be in place for all motors.

[Uncle Jimmy]

My last house was a fucking death trap. The PO used putty to repair the condenser on the boiler and also wired up a metal outside light with no earth. Total wazoc. There is no annual safety check on houses.

There must be similarly deluded car owners and 'restorers' out there.

As such I think a yearly test should be mandatory for all vehicles.

I've yet to be driven into by an Edwardian semi.

[meggersdog]

I see my fair share of older vehicles and as Scary says perished rubber and brakes that don't are quite common.I've had my fair share of flexible and metal brake pipes burst on the rollers too.Although not common, a balooning flexi-hose can only really be seen with an assistant.It's not only the older cars either but I'd sooner see something like that and it burst on my rollers than having to stop sharply and then finding out.We had an MGB (1976) in last week which looked all nice and shiney.The chap bought it with 8 months MoT so has been running it as his daily ever since.Yep a completely siezed wheel cylinder on the nearside rear but the offside front trunion was bollocksed.He assumed it handled like shit because it was an old car.

[They_all_do_that_sir]

So, assuming it starts and runs, I can drive this home....

 

Look at this on eBay http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/222253829257

 

You might think "have some common sense man!" BUT is there not a risk someone non car savvy will say "I can buy an oul classic for under a grand and not need an MOT!" and just blez around thinking the shit brakes are normal because old and the chassis is supposed to flex.....

 

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk

[Squire_Dawson]

There's a lot of OMG SCARY ideas about being able to take a wreck and legally drive it away. What a load of bollocks. Anybody who has taken a car that's been off the road for years will know it needs a lot of work to just start the engine and drive it, let alone take to the road. What a load of nonsense. You seldom even see old cars on the road nowadays anyway. As for restricting me using my own vehicle, which is better maintained than many 5 year old cars, you can bloody well get lost.

[surprisingskoda]

You think nobody will chance an old classic that's been laid up forever? Let me tell you, I've had people want to drive home in accident damaged cars I've sold before. Old men and youngsters under 17 alike, cars that have been hit, different sized wheels on them, without mirrors and lights... Just because you wouldn't do it, don't assume that there aren't thousands of other people out there who would!

 

I can tell you as well that the pre-'60 exemption came in just when I bought a 1936 car that hadn't been used on road for 6+ years. I laughed my little head off as I blezzed about in it for a couple of days before I realised it had no brakes and wouldn't steer straight.

 

And the final tidbit is that we took a trade in recently of a 16 year old BMW that had failed it's MOT. It drove 100%, we couldn't see why it would fail. Took it for MOT, found it had very unequal brakes. They worked, but not evenly. Stripped all down to find a front caliper with rust in the bore stopping it working fully and the handbrake a little loose on one side. There's no way we could have found those faults without the MOT, and fixed them before they got steadily worse then locked the brakes at 70mph with a family on board. Multiply that out to a 40 year old car and no MOT poses a lot more risk...

[captain_70s]

He assumed it handled like shit because it was an old car.

I had this, when I first bought the 1300 and thought it gripped the road like a bar of soap because old Triumph, then I changed the cheapo tyres and realised you could actually go around corners without nearly dying. Sometimes.

 

It can also be hard to spot gradual deterioration when driving a car, I didn't realise the 1850's brakes were as bad as they were or that the steering had such an excessive amount of play until it failed it's MOT and I hopped back in the 1300 for the first time in a year. Previously I'd been comparing the 1850 to my 2012 Corsa so the fact it didn't really steer or stop or grip was put down to "because it's a 1960s design". Once I took the 1300 for a spin around the block I couldn't believe I'd been driving the 1850 on a daily basis, or that I'd managed to not crash it (again) given how much worse it was than a nicer example of the same model

[dugong]

The larger issue here - as others have mentioned - is what the DfT/DVSA/DVLA do with the definition of 'substantially altered', which is up for debate at the same time.

I'd rather testing remain as it was. Far fewer pre-1960 vehicles are/can be used every day.

 

Opening up the floodgates to a rolling 40 year cut off means in the worst case scenario there's far more iffy Minors, Beetles and Amazons driving around.

[coalnotdole]

I'm happy with the curremt situation and wouldnt want it to change. My fleet of 60's and 70's cars all need an MOT and theres peace of mind knowing that your heap gets a check over by an objective third person once a year. £35 well spent in my opinion.

 

They have occasionally found stuff that I've missed, I once sent a rebel estate in for a test and it failed on a leaf spring bush and an innefecticve handbrake mechanism. I had been previosly unaware of both faults, easy enough to put right. I appreciate that testers and the quality of testing vary but any test has got to be better than none.

 

I'm also massively against any usage limitations and would quite happily carry on getting my cars tested to avoid any of that authoritarian wank.

[Felly Magic]

One thing that worries me is larger historic vehicles such as trucks and buses, with their added complexities of air braking systems, and in many cases, multiple axles. These often get parked up for long periods of time, and condensation builds up in the lines and tanks, and rots them from the inside out. I can guarantee that there are quite a few on the show circuit that aren't well maintained, or maintained by people who haven't a clue what they are doing, and make full use of the MOT exemption. I dread that one day on a road run, an old lorry or bus will have a prang, and it will be examined by the ministry, and turn out to be a death trap

[Jifflemon]

So, assuming it starts and runs, I can drive this home....

 

Look at this on eBay http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/222253829257

 

You might think "have some common sense man!" BUT is there not a risk someone non car savvy will say "I can buy an oul classic for under a grand and not need an MOT!" and just blez around thinking the shit brakes are normal because old and the chassis is supposed to flex.....

 

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk

 

Let me make that one step worse.

 

You can then put a v8 in there but keep the drum brakes. Now, they'll argue that you need to notify your insurance, but if you do that, they raise your premium right?

And if you send off the log book to get the engine CC and number changed, you'll lose that historic status, and thus your freebies.

 

Sound far fetched?

 

I know of one person driving around in V8 powered morris 8, that he "built" himself with limited knowledge. 

[AMC Rebel]

I'm happy with the curremt situation and wouldnt want it to change. My fleet of 60's and 70's cars all need an MOT and theres peace of mind knowing that your heap gets a check over by an objective third person once a year. £35 well spent in my opinion.

 

They have occasionally found stuff that I've missed, I once sent a rebel estate in for a test and it failed on a leaf spring bush and an innefecticve handbrake mechanism. I had been previosly unaware of both faults, easy enough to put right. I appreciate that testers and the quality of testing vary but any test has got to be better than none.

 

I'm also massively against any usage limitations and would quite happily carry on getting my cars tested to avoid any of that authoritarian wank.

 

Totally agree with this.

 

One point I made in my penance thread a while back - I discovered recently that although the French did have mileage restrictions for their historic registrations, this actually ended in 2009.  I can't see there being much enthusiasm outside of Mumsnet etc for this kind of thing, and in any case, it would be bloody difficult to enforce.