important MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT

[Mk3iain]

Phew!!!!..:yay::yay:

[Marmite!!]

Lee can you ask him to contact the DVLA and confirm what this wording means please? I think we all need to be very clear on this because as it's in black and white it's hard to dispute!

I can ask but you could alway make a phone call to the DVLA in the meantime & see what answer they come up with, think lines are open until 8pm, as he said it MUST go before Parliament first before anything can go through, this is correct for all legislation & can't be by-passed.

[LoggyDriver]

I have just spoken to the DVLA and the lady I have spoken too is going to contact the DVLA Policy branch tomorrow and get back to me. We will see what they have to say!:sweat:

[Sean N]

LoggyDriver,

 

If this is an MK / MJ, which I assume it is being a 5.4 (330) engined Bedford, why is it exempt anyway and why is it a hardship to test?

 

I thought I'd remembered seeing similar wording on truck licence renewals before, unless I'm having brain fade...

[LoggyDriver]

LoggyDriver,

 

If this is an MK / MJ, which I assume it is being a 5.4 (330) engined Bedford, why is it exempt anyway and why is it a hardship to test?

 

I thought I'd remembered seeing similar wording on truck licence renewals before, unless I'm having brain fade...

 

 

 

 

There is no hardship. But less than two months notice if it is true is not enough considering you have to give no less than a months notice to VOSA for a test appointment.

[Sean N]

... less than two months notice if it is true is not enough considering you have to give no less than a months notice to VOSA for a test appointment.

 

Yes, that's true enough, particulaly thinking of the times I've tried to get MoTs over two months in advance and still found the test station fully booked...

[Marmite!!]

if it is true

They can't just change legislation on a whim, it must go through Parliament first..

[cosrec]

Just a thought was it first registered on this date three years ago my car renwal has just arrived and it has the same thing wrote on it but obviously it was new on registration and will be requiring MOT at three years old

[LoggyDriver]

Just a thought was it first registered on this date three years ago my car renwal has just arrived and it has the same thing wrote on it but obviously it was new on registration and will be requiring MOT at three years old

 

 

 

 

Cosrec,

 

You know you might just have something there!!! I registered the truck on the 13th of July 2009, so would they round this off to the 01st of August? That seems a very plausable argument, I think you have just hit it on the head. That would make sense of the date on the form.

 

Panic over (by the looks of it):sweat:

[Marmite!!]

At least it's bumped the thread to the top :-D

[Mk3iain]

More Glenmorangie required!.....

[andyroo]

Yes, that's true enough, particulaly thinking of the times I've tried to get MoTs over two months in advance and still found the test station fully booked...

 

Why use a VOSA test center? There are others that MOT heavy vhiecals. I take my Ferret to Derby Trent bus servicing center, have spoken to them regarding MOT on the Saracen and Saladin IF the need arrises. They are aware that it will create some problems for them. It dose help though that the chap that MOTs the Ferret has an interest in historic cars of all types.

[griff66]

andyroo why do you mot your ferret?

[marmon]

Just my personal experiance of this no MOT lark and I don't wish to offend anyone that has the knowledge to make sure their vehicle is in a good and roadworthy state and there are many of you on this site that know far more than the inspectors! I am an ex inspector myself from the early 80's so I do have some clue, well on a good day...

 

I recently purchased a SUMB diesel "The best maintained in the UK" I bought this sight unseen and this is not a bitch letter as I'm very happy with the vehicle, but safe you must be joking! First problem noted when I picked the vehicle up from a storage facility in Swindon was the air brake valve, lets just say it needed a rebuild and farm animals would scatter but at least the warning light would stay out and it stopped ok, then it started to rain, well no wiper linkage oh and no washer jet just a hole in the bonnet... so fixed the wiper pin tightened up the arms and away, wipers rubbers were painted in NATO green so couldn't see a thing, stopped after a very slow and cautious head out the window 100 miles to look at the excessive play in the steering box and hoping to adjust at least 3/4 a turn of the wheel play out as it was difficult keeping in my lane even at 35... Noted, to my amazement the drop arm ball joint nut was hanging on by 1/4 of it's thread the taper popped and no split pin in sight!

 

Trully frightening, things were going through my head like what would I have done faced with a totally free steering wheel? Jump? lock all four wheels with a massive stamp on the brakes and hope momentum keeps you on the right side of the road? Really doesnt bear thinking about. Anyway, my maybe, probably, a bit long winded point is, not everyone that can afford and own these MOT exempt vehicles has a clue about repairing them, altough they probably try their best, it is just a hobby and they are probably brilliant in another field.

 

As much as I hate government involvement and health and safety, comonsense must prevail and if that means a lot of us are a bit put out with fees and inspections to protect us from monumental implications if one of these beasts goes out of control somewhere that is OK with me. In this day and age of high reflective jackets and hard hats to cut the grass is it too much to expect to test a 50 year old 5 or 20 ton vehicle before the school run?

 

And yes I have just got back from the pub so please excuse me, especially the spelling, where did that spell check go... and I was walking looking over my shoulder for out of control SUMB's :nut::-D:-D

[LoggyDriver]

The most important lesson there should be NEVER buy a vehicle unseen!

[ArtistsRifles]

To give you an idea of the value of an MOT certificate - my "ordinary" car is a 20 year old Bentley which is serviced by a Rolls Royce/Bentley trained fitter. It was tested last week and passed without problem.

This Friday, heading around the M25 anti-clock in the heavy afternoon traffic two warning lights appeared simultaneously on the dash - both Red and both containing the word "Brake" !!! I limped off the Motorway at the Clacketts Lane services and called out the RAC. Whilst making the phone call I saw the puddle in the picture below grow:

 

 

 

That formed in a couple of minutes. Less than 5 days after passing the MOT test with zero defects and above the board brake readings a vehicle maintained to the manufacturers standards went from OK to potentially dangerous in a matter of minutes.

 

It took the RAC fitter and myself nearly an hour to top up the LHM reservoir as the special Castrol bottles, with the long fillers, of LHM are virtually unobtainable here. He held the ball valve open with a long thin screwdriver whilst I trickled the green stuff down the blade. Checking with the local Bentley agent they confirmed it was safe to drive at 40 mph or less on the single system still working OK. The system that had gone was the rear suspension and one of the brake circuits. The two litres we put in got us from Clacketts lane to the Dartford Crossing. From there on it was limp home mode with the warning lights back on..

The vehicle is now in the fitters workshop and he thinks it may be an "O" ring seal blown on one of the spheres.

This, to me at least, just highlights the fact that an MOT pass cert is only valid for the day and time it was issued. This seal could have blown moments after leaving the test station rollers.

Therefore I cannot see that enforcing an MOT test on our currently exempt vehicles is going to make them any safer than the regular one made this car.

[Tony B]

Very true Neil, but not the day, AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION. I've had a van pass with no problem and blow a brake pipe on the way home! All of about two miles.

[paulob1]

Is the new MOT issue about money or safety...40,000 vehicles go untested, so VOSA and the DVLA say, if this is the same 40% of motorbikes that are un taxed then we can maybe take the figure with a pinch of salt.

 

Is there a history of military vehicles having accidents caused by poor maintenance.

 

Is this change driven by Europe, if so why are there still so many awful vehicles on the roads of Europe...perhaps they dont enforce the existing laws like we do in the UK.

 

Are we just being hassled by little hitlers.....who have little or no regard for our freedom.

 

The car and lorry have made the 20th century one of the most exciting centuries ever...H&S is slowly making the 21st century nothing but a boring hell hole...

[Marmite!!]

Is this change driven by Europe, if so why are there still so many awful vehicles on the roads of Europe...perhaps they dont enforce the existing laws like we do in the UK.

 

Yes but lets keep the Politics out of this & work with Mike to resolve this best we can..

[julezee001]

Just my personal experiance of this no MOT lark and I don't wish to offend anyone that has the knowledge to make sure their vehicle is in a good and roadworthy state and there are many of you on this site that know far more than the inspectors! I am an ex inspector myself from the early 80's so I do have some clue, well on a good day...

 

I recently purchased a SUMB diesel "The best maintained in the UK" I bought this sight unseen and this is not a bitch letter as I'm very happy with the vehicle, but safe you must be joking! First problem noted when I picked the vehicle up from a storage facility in Swindon was the air brake valve, lets just say it needed a rebuild and farm animals would scatter but at least the warning light would stay out and it stopped ok, then it started to rain, well no wiper linkage oh and no washer jet just a hole in the bonnet... so fixed the wiper pin tightened up the arms and away, wipers rubbers were painted in NATO green so couldn't see a thing, stopped after a very slow and cautious head out the window 100 miles to look at the excessive play in the steering box and hoping to adjust at least 3/4 a turn of the wheel play out as it was difficult keeping in my lane even at 35... Noted, to my amazement the drop arm ball joint nut was hanging on by 1/4 of it's thread the taper popped and no split pin in sight!

 

Trully frightening, things were going through my head like what would I have done faced with a totally free steering wheel? Jump? lock all four wheels with a massive stamp on the brakes and hope momentum keeps you on the right side of the road? Really doesnt bear thinking about. Anyway, my maybe, probably, a bit long winded point is, not everyone that can afford and own these MOT exempt vehicles has a clue about repairing them, altough they probably try their best, it is just a hobby and they are probably brilliant in another field.

 

As much as I hate government involvement and health and safety, comonsense must prevail and if that means a lot of us are a bit put out with fees and inspections to protect us from monumental implications if one of these beasts goes out of control somewhere that is OK with me. In this day and age of high reflective jackets and hard hats to cut the grass is it too much to expect to test a 50 year old 5 or 20 ton vehicle before the school run?

 

And yes I have just got back from the pub so please excuse me, especially the spelling, where did that spell check go... and I was walking looking over my shoulder for out of control SUMB's :nut::-D:-D

 

For someone who was an inspector in the past, I'm amazed that you drove the vehicle on the road without giving it a good once over yourself first, whatever was put in the advert. Obviously as the driver you were responsible for the vehicles condition, in the same way that anyone driving any vehicle on the road, whether it has an M.O.T test certificate or not, and whether it needs one or not.

 

A vehicle might have a valid test certificate but that doesn't mean that it is roadworthy for the whole year, only at the time of the test, and essentially in the opinion of the particular tester, and the variation between testers can be amazing.

 

I think most people who own classic military vehicles have good knowledge of their vehicles, and are able to keep their vehicle roadworthy, certainly with pre 1960 vehicles which are relatively simple. I hope most also check over the basics on their vehicles before any journey on the roads, or even running around a showground, i.e. tyres, lights, steering, leaks, brakes etc. The forces carry out a first parade, which is the drivers chance to check that the basics of the vehicle are sound, and to acknowledge that they are responsible for the vehicles condition.

 

Jules

[marmon]

There is no denying you can pass an MOT and drive out with something unsafe, although the risk is significantly reduced, it's easy to say why didn't you check the vehicle over before you drove it well I did, but being on my own at the time it wasn't that easy to wiggle the wheel and look underneath at the same time, later the same day at the tyre fitters I gave it a good going over, hindsight is always 20/20.

 

As for the chap with the Bentley it is an impossible situation, two brake pumps, two separate accumulators, two separate reservoirs, two pairs of separate calipers on the front wheels two on the rear and just in case you loose the engine down a big hill and press the brake 15 or more times you still have a conventional master cylinder tucked away and then there is also the handbrake! Rolls -Citreon designed a good system probably because so many clouds lost their brakes... but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Unless of course someone cut three of your brake hoses and knew just which three...

[marmon]

My apologies to Neil, my mistake entirely the two lights threw me, I was thinking pressure, one would have been level. Bottom line I suspect you've been driving with a stuffed rear suspension accumulator or two, very rigid rear suspension? normal result after a while is the seal blows, or the ram something has to... This would probably never show up on an MOT, they check the shocks by bouncing on the rear and it would be all but solid. Pass...

 

Kind of a specialist vehicle though, just a tad complicated compared to most, Just wait till the climate control goes wrong...

 

All joking apart I am very sorry, I promise I will read the whole thing carefully next time before I comment!

[ArtistsRifles]

My apologies to Neil, my mistake entirely the two lights threw me, I was thinking pressure, one would have been level. Bottom line I suspect you've been driving with a stuffed rear suspension accumulator or two, very rigid rear suspension? normal result after a while is the seal blows, or the ram something has to... This would probably never show up on an MOT, they check the shocks by bouncing on the rear and it would be all but solid. Pass...

 

Kind of a specialist vehicle though, just a tad complicated compared to most, Just wait till the climate control goes wrong...

 

All joking apart I am very sorry, I promise I will read the whole thing carefully next time before I comment!

 

Not a problem Actual failure was a valve body going porous. The RR/Bentley trained fitter who services the old girl for me says it's the first he has ever seen do that!!

 

Oh well - guess some had to be first - just wish it wasn't me!!

[Iain Crosbie]

I have just spent around 2 hours reading this thread, but am still rather confused as to the situation regarding my own vehicle, Militant Mk 3 Recovery. I suspect (hope!) I will not be the only confused person.

This vehicle is described as a mobile crane (rather than as a recovery vehicle) on the V5C. I know not why, but suspect the red diesel in the tank may have something to do with it!

I see from one of Mike's excellent previous postings that the vehicle would be exempt from an MOT requirement if used either as a recovery vehicle or as a mobile crane, however it could only be called a recovery vehicle if it was being used for that purpose. It seems to me that the same thing applies to a mobile crane classification, i.e. it would only qualify as a crane if it was being used as such and could only be driven on the road if it was on its way to a site where it was to be used as a crane. That leads me to believe that while I may be able to tax it without an MOT, I would not be able to drive it without having one. Can anyone confirm whether I am right or not? I should add that it will be some time before it sees the road and that the red diesel will be removed long before then!

I would also like to join in the list of people thanking Mike for his time and sterling efforts on our behalf over this saga- let's hope it will not be in vain, although it does seem that at his last meeting there was no real willingness on the part of the DfT to accept anything other than their original proposals.

Finally, and at the risk of introducing politics to this serious thread, which I have no wish to do, I can only observe that this whole situation reminds me of a parallel situation in the marine field, where HM Coastguard are trying to lobby for legislation that would cover being drunk in charge of a pleasure craft, needless to say on safety grounds. It transpires that more people are killed in the UK each year through testing 9 volt batteries on their tongues than through boating accidents where alcohol is a factor- but try arguing against it!

Let's hope the new government meant what they said about trying to reduce the amount of red tape we all face, and stop trying to legislate to fix problems that aren't there; in the meantime keep up the good work Mike, and thanks again for all you have done so far.

[antarmike]

I have just spent around 2 hours reading this thread, but am still rather confused as to the situation regarding my own vehicle, Militant Mk 3 Recovery. I suspect (hope!) I will not be the only confused person.

This vehicle is described as a mobile crane (rather than as a recovery vehicle) on the V5C. I know not why, but suspect the red diesel in the tank may have something to do with it!

I see from one of Mike's excellent previous postings that the vehicle would be exempt from an MOT requirement if used either as a recovery vehicle or as a mobile crane, however it could only be called a recovery vehicle if it was being used for that purpose. It seems to me that the same thing applies to a mobile crane classification, i.e. it would only qualify as a crane if it was being used as such and could only be driven on the road if it was on its way to a site where it was to be used as a crane. That leads me to believe that while I may be able to tax it without an MOT, I would not be able to drive it without having one. Can anyone confirm whether I am right or not? I should add that it will be some time before it sees the road and that the red diesel will be removed long before then!

I would also like to join in the list of people thanking Mike for his time and sterling efforts on our behalf over this saga- let's hope it will not be in vain, although it does seem that at his last meeting there was no real willingness on the part of the DfT to accept anything other than their original proposals.

Finally, and at the risk of introducing politics to this serious thread, which I have no wish to do, I can only observe that this whole situation reminds me of a parallel situation in the marine field, where HM Coastguard are trying to lobby for legislation that would cover being drunk in charge of a pleasure craft, needless to say on safety grounds. It transpires that more people are killed in the UK each year through testing 9 volt batteries on their tongues than through boating accidents where alcohol is a factor- but try arguing against it!

Let's hope the new government meant what they said about trying to reduce the amount of red tape we all face, and stop trying to legislate to fix problems that aren't there; in the meantime keep up the good work Mike, and thanks again for all you have done so far.

 

To be a Recovery vehicle, it would have to be used ONLY for recovery purposes, and have Recovery VED, ie taxed as recovery. If it were it would currently be exempt MOT testing, but if these proposals go ahead it would need testing.

 

To be a Mobile crane likewise its use must be as a mobile crane and it cannot tow anything except a trailer with only its own lifting gear on it, and have the appropriate VED. Currently no MOT required but this would change if the legislation were to go through.

 

To clarify I am not currently involved in any discussions or communication with DfT.

 

Your interests are not represented by me at this time. Following the meeting I attended in London, and bad press and misrepresentation of events by another representative body present at the same meeting, including non factual write up of meeting in subsequent club publications, and the totally negative attitude of DfT I have decided it just isn't worth the hassle of being involved in this. DfT are determined this will happen in much the way they always intended, and further representations to them by me will change absolutely nothing.

 

I have personally decided to sell certain problem vehicles, that could possibly be affected by these changes and have settled on a smaller fleet of vehicles of a type and age that should not be affected were these changes to happen.

 

Time will tell but the proposed changes to Driver licensing laws are the next big worry, for by 2013 present exemptions such as driving Pre 1960 hgv's , unladen on a car licence will have to end.

 

N.B. for all practical purposes lawful road use of red diesel has already been removed, and has been for some time.

Edited September 30, 2010 by antarmike