important MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT

[John Comber]

Just seen this on another forum , might help...

[gritineye]

.

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by gritineye

[hummermark]

6 hours ago, John Comber said:

Just seen this on another forum , might help...

Hi it looks like there is a bit missing when it goes in to engine?

[gritineye]

Click on it to expand it Mark.

[hummermark]

Thanks all good now 👍

[TooTallMike]

Well that outcome was announced in a fanfare of silence then!

I think a lot of people will self-declare their vehicles as being un-modified even when they are.

On the bright side a tested vehicle can legally carry a load and tow a laden trailer. Might need to be taxed as PHGV though?

 - MG

 

[TooTallMike]

Quote: "The following are considered acceptable (not substantial) changes if they fall into these specific categories:

 changes that are made to preserve a vehicle, which in all cases must be when original type parts are no longer reasonably available;"

 - this clause needs to be clarified but may result in some older trucks with modern engines remaining exempt from testing if the engines are no longer available. I wonder if this ought to be registered with DVSA in some way so they have it on record?

 - MG

Edited December 20, 2017 by TooTallMike
re-phrasing

[N.O.S.]

2 hours ago, TooTallMike said:

Quote: "The following are considered acceptable (not substantial) changes if they fall into these specific categories:

 changes that are made to preserve a vehicle, which in all cases must be when original type parts are no longer reasonably available;"

 - this clause needs to be clarified but may result in some older trucks with modern engines remaining exempt from testing if the engines are no longer available. I wonder if this ought to be registered with DVSA in some way so they have it on record?

 - MG

Your optimism knows no bounds, and has also become highly infectious, Mike!

Unlike you, I had not appreciated the significance of the wording upon going through the statement, but reading your post above I do believe the point you raise  is valid - without availability of a useable original spec engine (or something equally old and compatible) there is no alternative but to replace with a more modern power plant in order to preserve the vehicle in running condition.

I assume the phrase "these specific categories" refers to the preceding definitions of substantial changes to main components.

[gritineye]

Don't miss this bit either folks.

" in respect of vehicles that have been commercial vehicles, changes which can be demonstrated were being made when they were used commercially."

 These two point should be ample grounds for them accepting any diesel conversion, especially a Cummins that fits the space without any other alterations, and preserves the look, shouldn't they?

Don't overthink this, they have given modified car owners  plenty of wriggle room with this new definition,  because the 15% part was a bit silly, and a lot get there cars tested anyway, but a test for Scammells and the like is a bit more problematic than for a car.

If you declare a modification you will have to get a test, but don't phone them and ask, as I see it if you think you're within the rules just don't declare and carry on as usual.

PS. the main reason for all this may be just a way of getting wildly modified vehicles to be seen by testers, who will have to tick a box on their screen to stay the vehicle matches the details in the V5c, if not then the vehicle will warrant further inspection by VOSA.

Edited December 20, 2017 by gritineye

[TooTallMike]

9 hours ago, gritineye said:

... but a test for Scammells and the like is a bit more problematic than for a car.

This is the point I tried get across in my reply to the consultation. It is easy for any car to go to any MoT station. Some places will be more 'sympathetic' than others but it should be possible to find one reasonably locally that will accommodate even the most unusual hotrod etc. However commercial testing stations are almost exclusively set up for commercial operators of standard vehicles. They don't even like things like horse boxes because they get in the way of the more routine work. I used my WLF to take a trailer for test about 8 years ago and casually asked what it would take the get the truck tested. They said 'not a chance'. The other problem may be in convincing them that we want full plating and testing and not just a voluntary test. I have no particular objection to testing my trucks, and it may even have some advantages such as being able to run laden, but I am concerned about the feasibility.

9 hours ago, gritineye said:

If you declare a modification you will have to get a test, but don't phone them and ask, as I see it if you think you're within the rules just don't declare and carry on as usual.

The big concern about incorrectly self-declaring, whether intentionally or otherwise is what happens when you find yourself up in court and have to defend the self-declaration. If the court decides a vehicle should have been tested when it wasn't it is likely your insurance will be invalid with all the misery that could entail. I hate the fact that it always returns to that worst-case scenario but...

 - MG

 

 

[TooTallMike]

10 hours ago, N.O.S. said:

Your optimism knows no bounds, and has also become highly infectious, Mike!

Unlike you, I had not appreciated the significance of the wording upon going through the statement, but reading your post above I do believe the point you raise  is valid - without availability of a useable original spec engine (or something equally old and compatible) there is no alternative but to replace with a more modern power plant in order to preserve the vehicle in running condition.

I assume the phrase "these specific categories" refers to the preceding definitions of substantial changes to main components.

It is not clear what any of it refers to. The whole thing is badly written, deliberately vague and contradictory. And of course the first part of the document is only 'guidance', while the second half is 'draft advice (not part of the draft guidance)' whatever those may mean in legal speak? I expect it means the authors accept no responsibility for any decisions taken based on the contents of the document.

Note that the document has no title page, no proper heading, no date, no indication of its authorship or origin, etc etc. Hardly what we should expect from an official document.

 - MG

[Tony B]

Guidance: In legal paralence =We are making up as we go along.  Having had a run in with 'Guidance' over de acs a couple of years ago as you all know. Be wery wery wary

[TooTallMike]

13 hours ago, Tony B said:

Guidance: In legal paralence =We are making up as we go along.  Having had a run in with 'Guidance' over de acs a couple of years ago as you all know. Be wery wery wary

Indeed. In ticking the box we will be making a legally binding statutory declaration. Therefore the guidance as to whether it is correct to tick the box or otherwise should be watertight.

 - MG

[diggerdog36]

On 20/12/2017 at 6:14 AM, TooTallMike said:

On the bright side a tested vehicle can legally carry a load and tow a laden trailer. Might need to be taxed as PHGV though?

 - MG

 

Where does it state an MOT exempt vehicle can't carry a load or tow a laden trailer Mike?

That's news to me!

 

 

[Degsy]

It has always been the case that a Historic MV can't carry a load or tow a loaded trailer, having said that I can't remember anybody being prosecuted for the offence but of course I stand to be corrected. I think committing this offence would also invalidate insurance.

[Jessie The Jeep]

and the definition/difference between load and personal belongings is.......? 

[Degsy]

57 minutes ago, Jessie The Jeep said:

and the definition/difference between load and personal belongings is.......? 

Another grey area until it is tested in a court of law.

[joetow]

will this apply to rb44s aswell or special purpose built vehicles moreso ?

[andym]

3 hours ago, joetow said:

will this apply to rb44s aswell or special purpose built vehicles moreso ?

Not unless your RB44 is a lot older than mine!  :-)

Andy

[ruxy]

I would suggest - not to get entrenched with any views about this document, a follow up to a earlier gov. quango document fiasco.

I am seriously considering scribing my comments to :-

the  "Plain English Campaign"..

 

 

[TooTallMike]

On 24/12/2017 at 3:23 PM, diggerdog36 said:

Where does it state an MOT exempt vehicle can't carry a load or tow a laden trailer Mike?

That's news to me!

 

Hi,

For vehicles over 3500kg it is on the back of the V112G form. This is the form used to self-declare exemption from plating and testing.

"33. Motor vehicles first used before 1 January 1960, used unladen and not drawing a laden trailer, and trailers manufactured before 1 January 1960 and used unladen."

Search the forum as there has been lots of discussion on this subject over the years including a lot of speculation as to how far one could stretch an interpretation of the term 'laden'.

The rules are intended to prevent test-exempt vehicles being used for commercial purposes so a certain amount of common sense can be applied.

The consensus has generally been that 'on-vehicle materiel' such as tools, recovery equipment, permanently fitted equipment etc. are ok, as is personal kit such as camping gear, clothing, food etc.

As Degsy says, this has not to anyone's knowledge ever been tested in court.

 - MG

Edited December 26, 2017 by TooTallMike

[GTB MAN]

When. We registered the GTB BOMB TRUCK & trailer the man came from the DLVA .To make shure it was all correct.the truck was ok .But the trailer had two 1000lbs bombs on it made of wood strapped on it . It is legal to use like that .The only way is to fix them by bolt to become part of the trailer. All so a bit of talking about the electric breaks on the trailer He registered it.On it’s first trip out to Beltering we came across a problem on the QE2 bridge After lots of flashing red lights we where stoped Ona slip road at the end of the bridge.  A lot of people looking  .Then. a man do you have a de avaction paper work . [ No their made of wood ]. You have a loaded trailer.  [No  the bombs are fixed to the traler & part of the display] Can you cover the bombs up when used on the road.  No had any more problems T CORBIN

[diggerdog36]

8 hours ago, TooTallMike said:

Hi,

For vehicles over 3500kg it is on the back of the V112G form. This is the form used to self-declare exemption from plating and testing.

"33. Motor vehicles first used before 1 January 1960, used unladen and not drawing a laden trailer, and trailers manufactured before 1 January 1960 and used unladen."

Search the forum as there has been lots of discussion on this subject over the years including a lot of speculation as to how far one could stretch an interpretation of the term 'laden'.

The rules are intended to prevent test-exempt vehicles being used for commercial purposes so a certain amount of common sense can be applied.

The consensus has generally been that 'on-vehicle materiel' such as tools, recovery equipment, permanently fitted equipment etc. are ok, as is personal kit such as camping gear, clothing, food etc.

As Degsy says, this has not to anyone's knowledge ever been tested in court.

 - MG

Thanks mate, I just reread my post and it read like I was being arsey. Just never heard it before.

 

Thanks very much

[TooTallMike]

On 26/12/2017 at 6:11 PM, diggerdog36 said:

Thanks mate, I just reread my post and it read like I was being arsey. Just never heard it before.

 

Thanks very much

I hadn't read it that way so no problem :-)

 - MG

[paulbrook]

I am going to play devil's advocate here and suggest that little has really changed in terms of LGV classes of vehicles except that certain types of truck based types are now coming into the same scope for testing as the very trucks they are based on. I see no issue whatsoever with that, especially as there are an alarming number of beavertail and hiab trucks around running without test, and having seen a few (and bought a couple which I then tested) they leave a lot to be desired in terms of roadworthiness.

Of course one issue might be that there are many who would have liked to see a rolling 40 exemption replace the pre-1960 date (like cars and so on) but that change has not come about and again, I can see good reason for that. In truck design and performance there was a step change post 1960 in performance, prior to 1962 the speed limit for trucks was 30mph and only 20 mph if towing a trailer.

There are few post 1960s LGVs (or LGV based other types) that would struggle to be accommodated in current MOT test facilities and whilst the cost and time is a factor it is not insurmountable, especially when compared to the cost of ownership and time absorbed by the hobby anyway.

To those who cry "but my vehicle is superbly maintained and lovingly looked after" I would say great - it will not have an issue passing an MOT then will it?