MOT Requirement

[Rod1883]

John - that's a bit worrying.

I imagine it depends on whether original specification or "type" counts as original.

 

A Girling rear axle was a common change in the day because of half shafts - so does that become "original". The whole thing is a potential can of worms and I suspect some sort of FIVA/EU/HM GOV conspiracy to get old cars off the road and/or their use heavily restricted.

 

I guess my thoughts that one day I might fit a TR4A engine are out of the window or I'll fall foul of the power issue too

Edited September 15, 2017 by Rod1883

[Peter Cobbold]

I think the 8 point check is here: https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/radically-altered-vehicles

 

John

Yes, we'd need 8 points on this list to declare a classic is MoT exempt under criterion 2:

 

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

 

PROBLEMS

Replacement chassis have not been supplied by Triumph for decades. Where do repro professionally supplied chassis stand? f/glass panels?

Suspension? what about shocker changes? spring rates? polybushes? geometry?

Axles? stub axles swapped for stiffer , rear shafts/stub axles changed to aftermarkets on IRS

Steering- rack changed to higher ratio? power steer mods? solid rack mounts? box to rack conversion?

Engine .............as judged by the original block number...or changes to cam etc etc - supercharger? carb to PI? overbore?

 

I suspect a legal eagle ( not me , mind) would argue that in the event an owner causes a serious accident, a lawyer could interpret that list to run rings around anyone claiming exemption from an MoT. Very few TRs indeed have not been modified in some way under each of those headings. The scoring is not specified.

For long-term TR owners know their cars intimately, the list is confusing neough. Worse, new owners could so easily be caught out with previous undeclared mods, or changes they do not even recognise as non-standard.

 

Why run the risk of being a guinea pig to find the limits of claiming exemption...I'll be continuing to get the TRs MoT'd.

Peter

Edited September 14, 2017 by Peter Cobbold

[john.r.davies]

Worry not, Rod. A/ they're are 14 points to be got, an axle is just 2. And B/ do you, our anyone in TR know a DVLA vehicle inspector,who might know TRs?

 

If it looks authentic it is, and anyway there'll be a posse to swrear it is!

John

[Rod1883]

Peter

It's not just the MOT (I get my TR2 MOT'd every year for my peace of mind anyway) - it's the car's right to its identity, registration number etc etc

Edited September 15, 2017 by Rod1883

[TR5tar]

 

Why run the risk of being a guinea pig to find the limits of claiming exemption...I'll be continuing to get the TRs MoT'd.

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

I imagine most of us will continue with the MOT, I know I will, but if the underlying aim behind this is to take older cars off the road, then the next step will be to alter the MOT requirements to make it impossible for our cars to pass.

 

Darren

[Peter Cobbold]

Peter

It's not just the MOT (I get my TR2 MOT'd every year for my peace of mind anyway) - it's the car's right to its identity, registration number etc etc

 

Rod,

I think its identity is OK as it predates 1988.

They are re-using that points list to allow owners to decide if their car is deserving of exemption from an MoT.

Peter

Edited September 15, 2017 by Peter Cobbold

[Peter Cobbold]

 

Hi Peter,

 

I imagine most of us will continue with the MOT, I know I will, but if the underlying aim behind this is to take older cars off the road, then the next step will be to alter the MOT requirements to make it impossible for our cars to pass.

 

Darren

Darren,

I suspect that's the ultimate reason. Because UK MoT will need to be changed comply with EU if UK registered vehicles are to drive there, hard or soft Brexit.

Peter

[TR5tar]

Rod,

I think its identity is OK as it predates 1988.

They are re-using that points list to allow owners to decide if their car is deserving of exemption from an MoT.

Peter

 

And what happens if we choose not to apply for the exemption? Would that mean that the government automatically assumes that the identity of the car is changed sufficiently enough not to qualify?

[ShaunC]

I hope my cars don't get hit by a classic that isn't MOT'd due to incorrect assessment (and therefore not insured!).

[Peter Cobbold]

 

And what happens if we choose not to apply for the exemption? Would that mean that the government automatically assumes that the identity of the car is changed sufficiently enough not to qualify?

If that is HMG intention and all 200,000 owners dont select exemption then the classic car movement dies, all £4Bn pa of it. The FIVA definition of a VHI that is driving DoT decisions would only embrace the very few 'survivor cars'. They will be able to claim exemption legitimately.

 

But most of our cars have been modified in some way that may or may not meet the two criteria ( 15% and 8 points). No responsible person would declare their car meets that points list- the slightest mod could well remove the points eg polybushing could eliminate suspension points. The list has far too few details to know how the multitudes of mods will be scored.

 

A false declaration will invalidate insurance cover. I cannot see insurers taking such a lackadaisical approach to self-declaring roadworthiness. The insurers hold the answer, if they stipulate "no classic goes on the road without an MoT." And then we wait to see if DoT will destroy a £4B pa business...including the classic insurance business!

 

The letter from Pope I copied above gives an email address. We could swamp that with queries about the criteria.

 

Peter

[barkerwilliams]

Surely the point is that few of us are technically competent (officially) to decide if our car is roadworthy, therefore a MOT is an annual certificate of roadworthiness from an officially recognised tester. I quite welcome that third party oversight of my car and will continue to do so.

 

I have seen nothing to suggest that repairs, for example to the chassis are not allowable, and as there are no "new" chassis as the only ones I know about are the extensively repaired ones (ex turrets).

 

If you start at the extreme of a Hot Rod, custom chassis, some rather large engine from the US, and a Ford Pop body no one could claim it is an original Popular. By comparison all, well most, TR's are pretty close to original. Almost all have been repaired or restored to varying degrees a necessity to keep them roadworthy. There is not a stately home, steam engine or the Battle of Britain aircraft that could be regarded as 100% original , not even HMS Victory is 100% having had a few cannon ball holes repaired and re-decked with modern timbers.

 

Alan

[Bodiam]

If, as I intend, we don't claim exemption and carry on having our cars MOT'd, is there any suggestion that our historical vehicle status will be lost and we would therefore be liable to pay VED?

 

I haven't seen any suggestion that this is the case, but the law of unintended consequences has a habit of intruding at times like this.

 

Has anyone picked up anything on this aspect?

 

John

[Peter Cobbold]

Everything is allowed ( within RTA requirements) if the car is MoTd.

 

Our problems will come if/when the MoT is revised to align it with new EU Roadworthiness rules.

From what I recall the EU want high tech testing centres able to evaluate modern electrikery, and computerised to avoid fraudulent garages. DoT may have realised that classics dont fit EU ideals. The DoT would prefer us to all to claim exemption, but dare not give carte blanche for safety reasons. Its a typical political fudge. What they fail to recognise is a car that looks outwardly standard probably has a multitude of ( safe) modifications under the skin...and that applies to the vast majority of classics. DoT may be under an impression that most classics are completely unmodded 'survivors' - and may well be surprised by the low take up of exemption claims... and of the need to continue testing classics.

 

Our insurers hold the key to ensuring all classics contimue to eb MoT'd . A seriuos premium penalty for un-MoT'd cars .

Peter

[Peter Cobbold]

If, as I intend, we don't claim exemption and carry on having our cars MOT'd, is there any suggestion that our historical vehicle status will be lost and we would therefore be liable to pay VED?

 

I haven't seen any suggestion that this is the case, but the law of unintended consequences has a habit of intruding at times like this.

 

Has anyone picked up anything on this aspect?

 

John

John, No, but its a ploy the DoT could use to drive classics towards claiming exemption. I think behind all this is the DoTs intention to overhaul the roadworthiness testing to new EU standards and the present garage-based MoT system does not fit and has to go. The DoT is in a quandary- it would like us all to claim exemption But dare not declare all classics automatically exempt because of safety issues. So it puts the burden of proof - and the legal liability - on the owner...and insurer.

We must wait to hear what our insurers plan to do with owners claiming exemption. Perhaps insurers will negotiate a classic MoT scheme with DoT, such as approved classic-testing garages run at insurers expense and hence our expense.

Peter

Edited September 15, 2017 by Peter Cobbold

[RobH]

What is to stop you claiming exemption when renewing tax, but for peace of mind having an MOT carried out anyway?

[Bodiam]

What is to stop you claiming exemption when renewing tax, but for peace of mind having an MOT carried out anyway?

Rob,

 

What I had in mind was the situation where the owner doesn't particularly want to claim exemption, perhaps because they aren't absolutely certain they qualify because of, for instance, poly bushes and other similar alterations, and intends to carry on having the MOT done so as to avoid any doubt about the exemption.

 

Is it then likely that the failure to claim exemption in these circumstances is likely to lead to VED exemption being lost?

 

Maybe a hypothetical question at this stage, but I just wonder whether there are any clues out there as to what might be the outcome.

 

John

[Peter Cobbold]

What government body would, without an ulterior motive, give drivers the use of the roads for free and in cars with no MoT ?

Find the motive and we have the answer.

Summat's up.

 

Peter

[RobH]

John - no-one in their right minds is going to take any notice ot trivia like poly bushes. If you are really worried just buy black ones and no-one will know.

 

There are oodles of original equipment parts which are now unobtainable for older cars ranging from brake linings to supension parts so even the most original of vehicles will have some remanufactured or replacement bits somewhere. That can't be what the bureaucrats are after - its major alterations they are concerned about, like changing the body style from saloon to two-seater or fitting an altogether different type of engine, which means the car is no longer 'historic'. They are leaving it to self-declaration against fairly poorly-defined guidelines so there is plenty of wriggle room as you can only do it 'to the best of your knowledge' and it also must come down to how long ago the changes were made. If they were intending to be draconian about it they would have to instigate some form of independent inspection and arbitration.

 

Peter - your paranoia is showing again.......I'm sure its all down to cost. We are not getting the roads for free either, we pay fuel duty just like everyone else. That far outweighs VED and don't forget that some new cars are VED exempt too.

[Guest ntc]

John - no-one in their right minds is going to take any notice ot trivia like poly bushes. If you are really worried just buy black ones and no-one will know.

 

There are oodles of original equipment parts which are now unobtainable for older cars ranging from brake linings to supension parts so even the most original of vehicles will have some remanufactured or replacement bits somewhere. That can't be what the bureaucrats are after - its major alterations they are concerned about, like changing the body style from saloon to two-seater or fitting an altogether different type of engine, which means the car is no longer 'historic'. They are leaving it to self-declaration against fairly poorly-defined guidelines so there is plenty of wriggle room as you can only do it 'to the best of your knowledge' and it also must come down to how long ago the changes were made. If they were intending to be draconian about it they would have to instigate some form of independent inspection and arbitration.

 

Peter - your paranoia is showing again.......I'm sure its all down to cost. We are not getting the roads for free either, we pay fuel duty just like everyone else. That far outweighs VED and don't forget that some new cars are VED exempt too.

Spot on

Also cars less than two years old will now not need mot until four years old.

[AndyR100]

John - no-one in their right minds is going to take any notice ot trivia like poly bushes. If you are really worried just buy black ones and no-one will know.

 

There are oodles of original equipment parts which are now unobtainable for older cars ranging from brake linings to supension parts so even the most original of vehicles will have some remanufactured or replacement bits somewhere. That can't be what the bureaucrats are after - its major alterations they are concerned about, like changing the body style from saloon to two-seater or fitting an altogether different type of engine, which means the car is no longer 'historic'. They are leaving it to self-declaration against fairly poorly-defined guidelines so there is plenty of wriggle room as you can only do it 'to the best of your knowledge' and it also must come down to how long ago the changes were made. If they were intending to be draconian about it they would have to instigate some form of independent inspection and arbitration.

 

Peter - your paranoia is showing again.......I'm sure its all down to cost. We are not getting the roads for free either, we pay fuel duty just like everyone else. That far outweighs VED and don't forget that some new cars are VED exempt too.

Indeed.... some refreshing realism!

[Peter Cobbold]

John - no-one in their right minds is going to take any notice ot trivia like poly bushes. If you are really worried just buy black ones and no-one will know.

 

There are oodles of original equipment parts which are now unobtainable for older cars ranging from brake linings to supension parts so even the most original of vehicles will have some remanufactured or replacement bits somewhere. That can't be what the bureaucrats are after - its major alterations they are concerned about, like changing the body style from saloon to two-seater or fitting an altogether different type of engine, which means the car is no longer 'historic'. They are leaving it to self-declaration against fairly poorly-defined guidelines so there is plenty of wriggle room as you can only do it 'to the best of your knowledge' and it also must come down to how long ago the changes were made. If they were intending to be draconian about it they would have to instigate some form of independent inspection and arbitration.

 

Peter - your paranoia is showing again.......I'm sure its all down to cost. We are not getting the roads for free either, we pay fuel duty just like everyone else. That far outweighs VED and don't forget that some new cars are VED exempt too.

Rob, You are assuming that 'wriggle room' is put there for our benefit. My view is the exact opposite: the wriggle room is put there for the benefit of legal system and HMG. The history of this decision began with the EU Roadworthiness Directive in which FIVA persuaded Brussels of an extraordinarily narrow definition of VHI - one that we would recognise as a 'survivor car'. Seen against that background the 15% and points scheme will have the desired effect of getting most classics off the road. That's because MoTs as we know them will be scrapped too conform to EU-wide scheme of government-run test centres. Its all in past Roadworthiness threads.

HMG do not have to instigate any special inspections for classics, and that's exactly what they intend to avoid. Either we self-declare exemption ( at our own risk because of the wriggle room working against us), or the cars will not be MoT-able when the testing regime changes are implemented. Only VHIs according to FIVA and EU will be left on the roads.

This is not a time to view DoT's actions with rose-tinted spectacles and uwarranted optimism. Only a couple of thousand of us responded to the consultation, roughly three voters per MP. DoT/HMG obviously are confident they can steamroller the scheme though parliament. And keep EU happy that all british vehicles permitted on the roads, apart from the ultra-rare FIVA-approved 'survivors', are tested to the new EU-imposed standards.Classic car owners are a tiny minority of the electorate and we have failed to make enough political noise.

 

Peter

Edited September 15, 2017 by Peter Cobbold

[RobH]

Nope - paranoia. HMG just aint that canny. The DoT are civil servants with little corporate technical knowledge and in their ignorance they are leaving things as grey as possible - and the wriggle room works in our favour even though it may not have been deliberately intended so. Any half-reasonable lawyer can drive a coach-and-horses through what they have written.

[Peter Cobbold]

Nope - paranoia. HMG just aint that canny. The DoT are civil servants with little corporate technical knowledge and in their ignorance they are leaving things as grey as possible - and the wriggle room works in our favour even though it may not have been deliberately intended so. Any half-reasonable lawyer can drive a coach-and-horses through what they have written.

I shall watch from the sidelines as you try defeating an ambulance-chasing lawyer - technically smart too - armed with that set of criterion 2 points.

No problem in him//her finding where you fell foul of the points scheme, none at all. " You declared the suspension was standard and deserving of 2 points: Tell me, were polybushes fitted by Triumph? my experts tell me they were not even invented in 1960.So you agree the suspension is not standard? yes? So those 2 points were claimed by you illegally "

The wriggle room is for their benefit not ours. Only a 'survivor car ' will stand that level of interrogation.

Claiming exemption is for the fairies. Being found to have made a false declaration will invalidate insurance....and your home can be taken in compo. Now is that parnanoia ?

 

Peter

Edited September 15, 2017 by Peter Cobbold

[RobH]

Peter - you are confusing MOT testing with roadworthiness. The two are not the same. A car may pass an MOT today but be unroadworthy tomorrow. An MOT means no more than the car was OK on the day it was tested. Having poly bushes does not make a car unroadworthy - in your scenario my defence lawyer would point out " would the car have passed an MOT with poly bushes? Of course it would".

Edited September 15, 2017 by RobH

[j-eichert]

Maybe a small remark from Germany (as part of the EU): We do have our TÜV (and some competitors), this is our testing authority.

 

- for historic vehicles there has to be an extensive test, to be allowed to run the "H"-number plate (actually an "H" at the end, behind our digits. This has to dien once - here its is tested if the car is "original" enough.

- modifications regarding safety are allowed (exchange wire brakes for hydraulic brakes, use halogen bulbs etc)

- modifications, that could have been done more than 30 years ago, are allowed too BUT this is sometimes difficult to prove and discuss.

 

- you have to have your car tested every 2 years at a TÜV-station. The includes all tests, that where relevant at the time when the car was registered first.
​ This means: No need for safety belts up to TR4, no need to test the emissions (TR3) or only check CO (up to TR6), no need for electronics on board like OBD ....

 

At least here there seems to be no trick get make old cars "illegal" .

 

With my TR3: It has to brake, the lights have to work, the horn has to work and the suspension should be ok (mo excess play) as well as no massive rust on the frame.

 

Regards, Johannes