|
|
Jul 27, 2019 10:28:46 GMT
|
If you are driving around in a car that is over 40 years old but has not had the classification changed to historic vehicle you are driving a car without an MOT. I'm fairly sure that this is incorrect. MOT and VED exemption are two different things, that apply from a similar (but not the same) date. They are separate from each other. As an example, my bike became MOT exempt earlier this year when it became 40 years old. It isnt tax exempt (not exempt but no charge, you know what I mean) though until next year. I went to the post office to put it on the road this year with no forms, no MOT document and no MOT on the system, and some cash. I walked away with a receipt for tax that I'd payed for. The Post Office Lady who was familiar with the rules had seen no evidence of MOT, because it didnt need one. My bike comes up as taxed when checked online and has not had the classification changed to historic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2019 13:51:54 GMT
|
If you are driving around in a car that is over 40 years old but has not had the classification changed to historic vehicle you are driving a car without an MOT. I'm fairly sure that this is incorrect. MOT and VED exemption are two different things, that apply from a similar (but not the same) date. They are separate from each other. As an example, my bike became MOT exempt earlier this year when it became 40 years old. It isnt tax exempt (not exempt but no charge, you know what I mean) though until next year. I went to the post office to put it on the road this year with no forms, no MOT document and no MOT on the system, and some cash. I walked away with a receipt for tax that I'd payed for. The Post Office Lady who was familiar with the rules had seen no evidence of MOT, because it didnt need one. My bike comes up as taxed when checked online and has not had the classification changed to historic. You no longer need an MOT to tax a vehicle, you can do it online with just a V5C or tax reminder document, it is already tax exempt so no issue you don't pay anything. To be MOT exempt the vehicle has to be a historic vehicle and say so on the V5C which is why it has to be sent off to DVLA after you have declared it complies by signing the V112. The V5C will be returned with classification of "historic vehicle" within that classification it is MOT exempt. Age does not change the vehicle classification only going to the post office with the correct documentation does this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2019 14:43:44 GMT
|
Haven't read the entire thread so apologies if I'm repeating or contradicting others.
In my experience you don't need to declare it as MOT exempt until you renew the tax. That's the point where you fill in the V112 and (in theory) hand it to the post ofice when they do the tax renewal.
My first experience of this was that the post office gave me the V112, I filled in the V112, and then when I tried to hand it back they refused to take it, saying it was nothng to do with them.
So after arguing to toss with them about their own form for twenty minutes I wet home and phoned the DVLA who said they'd update it on the system for me instead.
Year two though (a few weeks back) and I renewed my tax, filled out a V112, and the post office took it off me.
It's basically MOT exempt anyway. The V112 is a time-sensitive declaration that you have't done anything to it since you last taxed it that would make it a car that needs to be MOTd.
|
|
Last Edit: Jul 27, 2019 15:36:50 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2019 14:59:43 GMT
|
Haven't read the entire thread so apologies if I'm repeating or contradicting others. In my experience you don't need to declare it as MOT exempt until you renew the tax. That's the point where you fill in the V112 and (in theory) hand it to the post ofice when they do the tax renewal. My first experience of this was that the post office gave me the V112, I filled in the V112, and then when I tried to hand it back they refused to take it, saying it was nothng to do with them. So after arguing to toss with them about their own form for twenty minutes I wet home and phoned the DVLA who said they'd update it on the system for me instead. Tear two though (a few weeks back) and I renewed my tax, filled out a V112, and the post office took it off me. It's basically MOT exempt anyway. The V112 is a time-sensitive declaration that you have't done anything to it since you last taxed it that would make it a car that needs to be MOTd. Only the third post office I went to understood it, you have to walk in and say "I would like to change my vehicle classification to Historic Vehicle", you give them the V5C and V112 and they update the computer and post the V5C off to DVLA for you, they hand you the V112 back as this is just a form of declaration, once this is done you never do it again because the vehicle will be reclassified on the V5C as historic vehicle. The status of historic vehicle means it is then MOT exempt, so if you get pulled by the police they can check on the system for the vehicle classification. If the V5C does not state "historic vehicle" you are driving without an MOT.
|
|
|
|
Phil H
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,448
Club RR Member Number: 133
|
|
Jul 27, 2019 15:15:30 GMT
|
Nope...
Historic Vehicle is related to EXCISE DUTY (tax) - you’ll see it’s the taxation class.
MoT Exemption is a totally different issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2019 16:16:07 GMT
|
The V5C will be returned with classification of "historic vehicle" within that classification it is MOT exempt. Age does not change the vehicle classification only going to the post office with the correct documentation does this. I disagree, see what Phil H said, he says it in a lot less words than me. The historic tax classification has been around for many years and only for the purpose of VED. The MOT exemption is relatively new, starts from a different date to VED exemption, and you can have one without the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2019 16:23:56 GMT
|
I'll just stick with what the post office said if it's all the same, either way, I'm more than happy mines good to go.
|
|
|
|
Phil H
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,448
Club RR Member Number: 133
|
|
Jul 27, 2019 20:58:40 GMT
|
If your car is old enough to become a Historic Vehicle for taxation purposes, then (as long as it’s pretty much standard according to the rules/guidance) it is highly likely to be eligible for MoT exemption at the same time. Not necessarily true the other way round.
There are discrepancies - MoT exemption is 40 years after date of first registration. Eligibility for Historic Vehicle status starts the April after the rolling cutoff date (40 years - hence confusion) based on - well, it seems to be date of registration unless it’s within the first week of the calendar year unless you can prove the exact date it rolled off a production line going by reports I’ve heard.
If you have a car registered on the 25th January 1979 (and made in the first week of 1979), you could get MoT exemption effective 25th January 2019. Historic Vehicle status won’t be available until April 2020.
|
|
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,678
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
|
Jul 27, 2019 21:36:24 GMT
|
I would have to go back and double check the wording but I have it in my head that
Historic Vehicle - VED on an age basis and no other criteria applies. Vehicle of Historic Interest VHI - MOT exemption applies as long as specific criteria about the car is met. VHI = Generally unmodified and as left the production line.
My Gemini is classified as a Historic Vehicle and therefore zero VED as its date of first registration is 1976 - however as it is no longer an Escort MK2 Ghia but was rebuilt into a Gemini in 2003 it is not a VHI so needs an MOT every year - which I am happy enough about its another excuse to actually get out and use the thing. As I tend to drive my cars a bit having another person give it the once over also gives additional assurance.
|
|
Last Edit: Jul 27, 2019 21:39:23 GMT by Darkspeed
|
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2019 22:14:00 GMT
|
Generally unmodified (you can drive a bus through it)-
• Chassis or monocoque bodyshell (including any subframes) – replacements of the same pattern as the original. • Engine – alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative original equipment engines (if the number of cylinders in an engine is different from the original it is unlikely to be alternative original equipment). • Axles and running gear – changes made to improve efficiency, safety or environmental performance. • Changes that are made to preserve a vehicle (must be when original type parts are no longer available). • Changes of a type that have been made when the type of vehicle was in production or in general use (within ten years of the end of production). • For vehicles that have been used as commercial vehicles, changes which were being made when they were used commercially
|
|
|
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,678
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
|
Jul 27, 2019 22:48:01 GMT
|
Generally unmodified (you can drive a bus through it)- • Chassis or monocoque bodyshell (including any subframes) – replacements of the same pattern as the original. • Engine – alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative original equipment engines (if the number of cylinders in an engine is different from the original it is unlikely to be alternative original equipment). • Axles and running gear – changes made to improve efficiency, safety or environmental performance. • Changes that are made to preserve a vehicle (must be when original type parts are no longer available). • Changes of a type that have been made when the type of vehicle was in production or in general use (within ten years of the end of production). • For vehicles that have been used as commercial vehicles, changes which were being made when they were used commercially Of course you can if you choose to - I just think it would be daft to do so in order to save a few quid as who are you actually getting one over on? I think I know my way around a car pretty well, but even I am not so arrogant to think that there is no possible way I would ever miss anything. Should anything untoward happen and a component failure ended in an accident I would rather have the peace of mind that my car was checked the same as most every other car and if it was something I missed it was also something someone else didn't see either. But that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2019 10:19:53 GMT
|
Generally unmodified (you can drive a bus through it)- • Chassis or monocoque bodyshell (including any subframes) – replacements of the same pattern as the original. • Engine – alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative original equipment engines (if the number of cylinders in an engine is different from the original it is unlikely to be alternative original equipment). • Axles and running gear – changes made to improve efficiency, safety or environmental performance. • Changes that are made to preserve a vehicle (must be when original type parts are no longer available). • Changes of a type that have been made when the type of vehicle was in production or in general use (within ten years of the end of production). • For vehicles that have been used as commercial vehicles, changes which were being made when they were used commercially Of course you can if you choose to - I just think it would be daft to do so in order to save a few quid as who are you actually getting one over on? I think I know my way around a car pretty well, but even I am not so arrogant to think that there is no possible way I would ever miss anything. Should anything untoward happen and a component failure ended in an accident I would rather have the peace of mind that my car was checked the same as most every other car and if it was something I missed it was also something someone else didn't see either. But that's just me. I didn't mean to drive unsafe, what I mean is it gives scope for modification still, MX5 running gear could be "alternative" for the MGB - same cubic capacity and "improve efficiency, safety or environmental"
|
|
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,678
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
|
Jul 28, 2019 11:44:58 GMT
|
I didn't mean to drive unsafe, what I mean is it gives scope for modification still, MX5 running gear could be "alternative" for the MGB - same cubic capacity and "improve efficiency, safety or environmental" If that's how you wish to interpret those rules that is up to you. But an MGB with MX% running gear is about as far removed from a VHI as you can get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2019 17:33:08 GMT
|
'Cough' MGB LE50 It was OK back in 2012, I'm not so sure nowadays.
|
|
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,678
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
|
Jul 28, 2019 17:56:19 GMT
|
'Cough' MGB LE50 It was OK back in 2012, I'm not so sure nowadays. *Sigh* not a VHI - then again if you have spent £50K on an MGB a couple of years ago you can afford an MOT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2019 12:01:37 GMT
|
What's everybody's thoughts on a TR7V8?
The factory made and homologated vehicles with the V8, initially as TR7V8's in motorsport them marketed as TR8's in the U.S. bodyshell is the same(even same part number) as is gearbox, axle, steering and suspension (minor tuning changes only) engine mounts on additional brackets welded to the front subframe.
It seems this would be MOT exempt as a original factory option?
I'd probably still get it done but given it does less than 1000 miles per year on sunny days probably every 2nd year.
|
|
|
|
Phil H
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,448
Club RR Member Number: 133
|
|
Jul 29, 2019 13:03:41 GMT
|
I think the wording is woolly to allow things like MGB V8 conversions, TR8’s and the plethora of Mk1 and Mk2 Escort “RS2000 replicas”.
The “environmental or safety” wording only seems to apply to ruining gear now, not engines so fitting an Omega 3.0 V6 engine where a 3.0 Essex lived may or may not be OK depending on how you (or they) read it - likewise to a 1.8 MX-5 engine in an MGB?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2019 21:37:07 GMT
|
And this is Retro Rides with every thread being an engine swap, crack on is what I say, don't skimp on safety but the rules are thin and so variable let's enjoy the flexibility it offers for potential modifications... FFS this is not Practical Classics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remain unconvinced that MOT exemption is ever going to be a good idea. I would have thought that older cars should probably be safety checked more often than new ones rather than never.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I'd really like it if MOT inspectors were offering a kind of 'consultation' health check for MOT exempt cars. I'd like to MOT my car for example but it hasn't got one yet because I'm on my second failed Servo and the brakes are absolutely fine with the servo disconnected, so until I get around to deciding to fit another servo (which I have, waiting to go on eventually) I know my car will not pass an MOT because a servo is present but not connected to the manifold.
It would be really reassuring to know what else might need attention aside from going through the rigmarole of fitting another servo that will inevitably fail after a year or so.
|
|
|
|
|