important MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT

[julezee001]

Would it be helpful (in clearing up some of the confusion) if at this stage we could confirm the requiremnts for using historic vehilces / trailers LADEN?

 

I don't mind starting off with what I think the requirements are - so long as any erors are of course pointed out in a polite and constructive way :whistle:

 

A pre-1973 Vehicle over 3.5t can operate LADEN with Historic Tax disc, so long as the load is not being carried for commercial purposes, provided -

 

a) it is tested, or

b) it is of a vehicle type (e.g. locomotive) which currently allows exemption from testing *

 

* If hauled by a test exempt 'locomotive', does the trailer require testing?

 

But are we in a position to define what testing standards are currently imposed on such vehicles? That would help also!

 

 

Good grief, what a thread this is. I have to admit that I've only read the last 4 or so pages, but would like to put my oar in the water.

 

As I understand it, a trailer of anyage with a GVW over 3.5 and used laden, whether for hire and reward, or privately requires testing. Whether this includes large living vans I am unsure, and as far as I know the only reason for an exemption from testing otherwise, is that the trailer is oversize for the testing lane; i.e. it won't fit in the rolling brake tester?

 

The whole idea of removing many of the exemptions seems to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut? If there is a problem with vehicles registered on distant isles, and that rule is being abused, then change that rule? Mobile cranes are also very well defined, more because of their use of red diesel and the court cases fought, than over their M.O.T. exemption! They cannot carry anything other than kit required for their proper use, and I believe they are not allowed to tow. They include concrete pumps, and almost any other vehicle with a jib/crane designed with the purpose of lifting/lowering but with no load bed for transporting a load. Surely this is a question of definition and enforcement of existing regulations.

 

I think that it would be greatly beneficial to provide a defined M.O.T exempt class for armoured vehicles, whether tracked or wheeled as long as they can be used without damaging the roads. As ever the onus would be on the driver to be sure the vehicle is roadworthy as it is for any vehicle whether it is tested or not! Are there any statistic to show that the current poorly defined exemption is causing danger on our roads?

 

It is refreshing to learn that an official involved in the drafting of the legislation has been down to earth enough to join the forum, and reply personally to peoples concerns. I hope that he can persuade others involved, to draft changes, with consideration to the tiny minority in our hobby who might be caught up in more well intentioned, but ill conceived rule changes. I also hope that the club officials who attend the meetings, are as well prepared and knowledgable on the subject as Antarmike, and will represent the few people who will be affected with a well presented argument against changes that will adversely hit them.

 

Jules

[cosrec]

Re post #226 Absolutley spot on you have summed up the whole situation. Let those who have taken on the task of trying to get the best results for the bulk of the forum members EG Antermike have there head.

if the matter gets bogged down in waffle no good at all will come out of it for anyone one. there will be casualties but there are in all battles. There will be more if you dont all work together and try and sort it out as group with out personnal gripes because you have something you cant see a place for under proposed schemes

[Marmite!!]

It is refreshing to learn that an official involved in the drafting of the legislation has been down to earth enough to join the forum, and reply personally to peoples concerns. I hope that he can persuade others involved, to draft changes, with consideration to the tiny minority in our hobby who might be caught up in more well intentioned, but ill conceived rule changes. I also hope that the club officials who attend the meetings, are as well prepared and knowledgable on the subject as Antarmike, and will represent the few people who will be affected with a well presented argument against changes that will adversely hit them.

 

Jules

I think you are underestimating how many may be affected by this...

[julezee001]

Sorry, I don't mean to make it seem a small issue through my describing the numbers involved as "few", or "a tiny minority", but the reality is that that is the case as far as I can see it? Check the listings in the War and Peace show program? How many jeeps, how many Landrovers etc., how many trucks pre-1960, and then how many post 1960 whch are covered by current exemptions? My Mk1 Militant 1964 is one of many that are not covered and already need a test, which I am happy to warn is an annual pain in the @@@@!! The numbers as a share of the total in our hobby are relatively low. However I don't mean to make out that it's a small issue, as it could be the tip of an iceburg of possible rule changes which may affect everyone in our hobby.

 

The sad fact is that a very large number of major decisions are made on our behalf by people who have had no experience of our hobby, and hence have no understanding of the knock on effects; e.g. health and safety, deactivated/replica firearms, export licences, wearing of rank/uniforms, arbitrary (and pointless?)width regulations. They don't all have an effect on me, but I am passionate about defending our rights to enjoy and share the all encompassing hobby we are all involved in.

 

I stress again that it is really good that someone from outside our hobby, and involved in the decision making process, is actually taking note of our concerns, and I hope that all HMVF members will make an effort and write their own considered representations to the committee on this subject.

 

Jules

[griff66]

jules i think you are totally underestimating the number of people who will be caught up in this , why i dont know.

[ferretfixer]

Sorry, I don't mean to make it seem a small issue through my describing the numbers involved as "few", or "a tiny minority", but the reality is that that is the case as far as I can see it? Check the listings in the War and Peace show program? How many jeeps, how many Landrovers etc., how many trucks pre-1960, and then how many post 1960 whch are covered by current exemptions? My Mk1 Militant 1964 is one of many that are not covered and already need a test, which I am happy to warn is an annual pain in the @@@@!! The numbers as a share of the total in our hobby are relatively low. However I don't mean to make out that it's a small issue, as it could be the tip of an iceburg of possible rule changes which may affect everyone in our hobby.

 

The sad fact is that a very large number of major decisions are made on our behalf by people who have had no experience of our hobby, and hence have no understanding of the knock on effects; e.g. health and safety, deactivated/replica firearms, export licences, wearing of rank/uniforms, arbitrary (and pointless?)width regulations. They don't all have an effect on me, but I am passionate about defending our rights to enjoy and share the all encompassing hobby we are all involved in.

 

I stress again that it is really good that someone from outside our hobby, and involved in the decision making process, is actually taking note of our concerns, and I hope that all HMVF members will make an effort and write their own considered representations to the committee on this subject.

 

Jules

 

The government 'shot themselves in the foot' so to speak after the debacle over 'Commpensation' on the Banning of handguns.

It made absolutely NO difference to Armed Crime whatsoever. (As WAS pointed out by the shooting comunity at the time)

It cost the Tax payer Multi Millions of pounds in Comp.

This time, as we have a more enlightened member of Parliment who actually IS listening to US as enthusiasts & Hobbyists.

This is laudable & should be encouraged. It can be seen that certain members have magnificently stepped forward to assist the Hon Member in his Task of 'getting it right' on this subject.

 

We use the highways a lot less than comercial traffic, we cause less problems than aforesaid traffic & are actualy also custodians of History for this country.

We educate & inform the public with our hobby & facinate others & stimulate them to become owners like ouselves.

This is a living museum which lives & breaths. Convential museums cannot compete with wat we do. People from all over the world attend our larger shows & all shows bring income to this countrys coffers.

Albiet small in context! There very small numbers of accidents at our shows (Mostly NONE at all) But at football matches there can be violence & policing costs involved.

The voice of classic cars, Traction engine owners, Vehicle owners & enthusiasts in general should join together as one voice to be heard. The more the merrier. We need to show the Government that we are indeed A VERY significant amount of people who DO use the highways & NEED to be heard.

The voice of reason & inteligent arguments put forward by Antar Mike & others here is excellent.

We Do NOT need to get heated & angry about this DRAFT consultaion. But we DO need to work with the elected Hon.Member to consult in a CONSTRUCTIVE & reasoned manner to effect a positive outcome for all of us concerned with our chosen Hobby.

Just my two pennies worth, but written from bitter expierience over the 'Consultaion' period with regards to the Firearms Amendment act!

Mike. :undecided:

[Mk3iain]

Mike "ferretfixer"

 

I fully agree, I was also affected by the firearms bill and when this issue was first raised I had that horrible sinking feeling in my gut "here we go again, another hobby gone!".

But things are much calmer now we are getting the full picture and people are listening, and we are not the target!

I have had a reply by letter from my MP Rt Hon Malcom Bruce, he has written to Paul Clark MP to put our case and asks for our concerns to be heard, he also asks why we are not represented in the consultation. If interested I will scan a copy.

Regards

Iain

[Plantters]

Over the last few days I have fired of numerous emails to those involved as well as my local MP and a few other preservationists who are well known within heritage vehicle circles.

 

To date I have had one reply.... Earl Attlee got back to me within 50 mins of me hitting the send button.

 

This is his response.

 

 

 

 

Nigel,

 

I do not know if you are aware but I operate several heavy preserved vehicles so I fully understand your all concerns.

 

There are three issues of immediate and obvious interest:

 

First is the cost of removing the exemptions. Many of us will find it extremely time consuming to test each vehicle of a small fleet such as yours or mine. The obvious solution would be to thin out the collection. However, since many will be doing this at the same time, the market value of a heavy vehicle will go down. It is already much less than the cost of acquisition and restoration. The fall in the overall value of the preserved fleet could be considerable.

 

Secondly, I would like to know how the figure for accidents avoided is determined. Apparently the change would save £6.5 million.

 

Finally, since the Road Traffic Act apply to rally sites this would mean that it would not be possible to move (possibly even display) a testable vehicle on a rally field.

 

How are they going to test the Antar as shown on the attachment????

 

I think that there is plenty for me to do on this one!

 

John

 

 

 

 

[julezee001]

John Atlee is an excellent person to represent our cause, I have met him on several occasions over the years with his Scammell, or the Antar. His advantage is the connections that he has within the system. However, he is but one of over 1000 people involved in the legislative process, and so to rely on him to bring about the required result, I think is wishfull thinking. Hence the importance of anyone connected with the hobby writing to their own MP, and the people involved in the drafting of the legislation, demonstrating the number of people affected, and the strength of feeling.

 

It is very easy to leave this to those who are going to be affected, and the few loud voices, but that often is not good enough? Sadly whilst I'm sure that almost everyone who turns out to say the War and Peace show, if asked, would disagree with the changes, probably less than 1 in 100 would actually do anything about it? I don't mean to annoy people by repeating my argument again, but the numbers possibly affected are small within the MV community, and within the general population are totally insignificant? Which begs the question, why change the rules at all?

 

It is an important issue as I have said in my previous posts, because if the changes are not thought through, and the worst ones not fought, how soon will it be before all exemptions are removed? That would then affect a significant number of enthusiasts, who often like me run larger vehicles on very tight budgets.

 

Jules

[ferretfixer]

Mike "ferretfixer"

 

I fully agree, I was also affected by the firearms bill and when this issue was first raised I had that horrible sinking feeling in my gut "here we go again, another hobby gone!".

But things are much calmer now we are getting the full picture and people are listening, and we are not the target!

I have had a reply by letter from my MP Rt Hon Malcom Bruce, he has written to Paul Clark MP to put our case and asks for our concerns to be heard, he also asks why we are not represented in the consultation. If interested I will scan a copy.

Regards

Iain

 

Hi Iain, Yes, it would be good to see a copy of the letter, IF, you get one back. :undecided:

My Father lost over £35,000 in the 'Compensation' scheme effected over the last Government deabacle over changing rules! (Firearms)

The Government lost a lot of money over compensation over handguns & has stated that 'This must never happen again'.

That is why in the F/Arms amendment act, certain blocks in the legislation have been left blank.

So they can retrospectively Ban anything they want by introducing legislation that they want.

Very sly & devious Me'thinks! You can bet your life that anything affecting us in the future, we will NOT be compensated for! Mike

[antarmike]

The Story so far.

 

The proposal is to remove exemption from certain categories of HGV.

 

A large number of Forum members own one or more pre 1960 vehicle. This proposal will not affect them, if they currently use it unladen, and they do not draw a laden trailer. Still to be confirmed but the balance of probability is that a living van does not count as a laden trailer. But it has to have a permanently mounted bed, sink and cooker.

 

Some members who own mobile cranes of any age will be affected is an much as these will become testable.

 

So far no one has come forward to say they own a recovery vehicle. Recovery vehicles will become testable, but the definition of what is a recovery vehicle excludes most of the vehicles we view as Recovery vehicles. To be a recovery vehicle, it must have a Recovery vehicle Excise disc, and be used solely for recovery purposes. If there is any element of what you know as “Social, Domestic and Pleasure” use then it is not a recovery vehicle. I therefore, unless I hear otherwise cannot see that removing MOT exemption for this class affects us.

 

Vehicles Constructed primarily for …..Education, and Display use....(Special Project Vehicles). As yet no forum member has identified that they own a vehicle in this class. Unless I hear otherwise I am assuming that removal of MOT exemption for this class does not affect any Forum member.

 

No Forum member has come forward indicating that they consider their vehicle to be Engineering Plant. Likewise unless I hear to the contrary I assume no Forum Member is affected by the proposed removal of MOT exemption for this class.

 

Amongst the Forum membership, undoubtedly the group who are most affected are those who own Motor Tractors, Light Locomotives and Heavy Locomotives. The plan is to remove MOT exemption from this class of vehicle.

 

I think it is fair to identify three major types of ex military equipment falling under this banner.

 

Firstly wheeled Armour, AFV,s Scout Cars, Wheeled reconnaissance vehicles,( Fox, Ferret, Saladin, Saracen) APC's (although whether they fall under PSV legislation and are currently requiring testing, I am not totally sure)

 

Gun tractors, vehicles used by the Armed forces for recovery, but not fitting the definition of recovery vehicle mentioned in the proposal, and Ballast tractors, tank transporters (e.g. Diamond T 980/981) and the like, where these vehicles comply with construction and use regulations in terms of width etc.

 

Ballast tractors which fall outside Construction and Use Regulations because of width etc. (Antar, Rotinoff etc.) AILV's and the like. Vehicles that already carry an STGO Chassis plate.

 

I shall be stressing the distance vehicles will have to travel to be tested, the increase in costs for the owners, that will in percentage costs be far higher to private owners, than the figures stated for fleet operators. The slow speed and poor economy of these vehicles.

 

I shall be stressing the importance of testing vehicles, keeping in mind the original standards to which they were made, and the importance, on historically important vehicles of not having to modify them, to comply with standards and requirements that have been introduced after the vehicles were built.

 

I shall be stressing the peculiarities of odd-ball designs, and practices which were once commonplace but may well be beyond the experience or knowledge of this generations testers.

 

I shall be highlighting those vehicles were rolling road testing of brakes is impossible, those too wide to fit through the lanes at an HGV test centre, poor access into armoured cars, the limited usefulness of testing Armour, where much of what a tester may want to see is behind bolt on armour or floor plates.

 

I shall be emphasising our desire to see, if vehicles do have to be tested, that testers come to the vehicles, not Vice versa, particularly where an owner has a collection of vehicles, or owners in a locality can organise to get several vehicles to a site at the same time.

 

I will be suggesting, that in much the same way as Steam engine boiler inspectors are independent agents, that limited safety testing of ex military vehicles could be the responsibility of trade organisation or a network of suitably qualified individuals.

 

I will also be suggesting that, since annual mileage is low, wear and tear cannot be viewed as occurring at the same rate as Commercially operated vehicles, therefore testing could be extended to Bi-annual testing or longer.

 

I will be highlighting that they have produced no evidence that Ex Military vehicles are in a dis-proportionate amount of accidents, but rather, the best evidence of accident rate comes from insurance data, and the very low rates we are charged shows we are one of the safest groups on the road under present rules.

 

I have to be seen to support road safety improvements, and I cannot argue that vehicles that it is easy to test should not be tested. I can argue that as a whole, testers are unfamiliar with the technology of our vehicles, and will have problems testing a large number of them.

 

I will point out that the reason these exemption where granted in the first place was due to the limited amount of use on the roads there was by these classes, and that holds good for Military vehicles only attending a few shows per year.

 

I will also be stressing the loss in value to the owner, if a vehicle becomes mandatory MOT victim.

 

If they choose to pull out of the hobby because they cannot bear the extra cost these proposals will put on them, Then there vehicles will also have become less appealing to others, and will fetch a much lower price.

 

 

I welcome helpful comment, but please if you wish to pull this apart or challenge the basic way I am trying to deal with this please can you tell me your views vis PM's

 

Thanks Mike

Edited February 12, 2010 by antarmike

[Markheliops]

Top banana Mike -

 

Many thanks for your continued efforts.

 

Although I guess I am one of the lucky ones - I fully understand the position in relation to other types of vehicles.

 

I hope things work out.

 

Must say Mike - without your efforts it would have been messy for all of us.

 

I hope other owners get the result they are hoping for.

 

Interesting in relation to the good old recovery truck. I think I'm right in stating a recovery vehicle taxed as a historic vehicle will be unable to tow / recover another vehicle whilst displaying a historic tax disc or is it ?

 

Markheliops

[antarmike]

Top banana Mike -

 

Many thanks for your continued efforts.

 

Although I guess I am one of the lucky ones - I fully understand the position in relation to other types of vehicles.

 

I hope things work out.

 

Must say Mike - without your efforts it would have been messy for all of us.

 

I hope other owners get the result they are hoping for.

 

Interesting in relation to the good old recovery truck. I think I'm right in stating a recovery vehicle taxed as a historic vehicle will be unable to tow / recover another vehicle whilst displaying a historic tax disc or is it ?

 

Markheliops

 

I believe if no money changed hands, nor goods, favours etc, then yes I believe that a Recovery vehicle taxed Historic could do that, provided the driver has correct licence.

[Markheliops]

I see what you are saying Mike but I would have thought a loaded recovery vehicle is counted as being laden and would then lose it's historic tax class unless the vehicle you happen to be recovering is your own vehicle.

 

Crikey - it's all very confusing.

[antarmike]

I see what you are saying Mike but I would have thought a loaded recovery vehicle is counted as being laden and would then lose it's historic tax class unless the vehicle you happen to be recovering is your own vehicle.

 

Crikey - it's all very confusing.

 

Historic vehicles can be used laden, if they are pre 1960, and not a tractor or locomtotive, they need MOT testing to be used laden. IF they are pre or post 1960 and a Tractor or a Locomotive they are MOT exempt, laden or unladen.

 

Vehicles taxed historic can carry a load provided it is not in connection with a business, (hire or reward)

 

You will need the correct HGV Licence.

[griff66]

all looks great antarmike, can you once again empathize the point that target vehicles are hgv based ,fox ferret etc , aint !!.

[antarmike]

all looks great antarmike, can you once again empathize the point that target vehicles are hgv based ,fox ferret etc , aint !!.

 

yes certainly will, this is just bare bones to keep everyone updated.

[N.O.S.]

.....Amongst the Forum membership, undoubtedly the group who are most affected are those who own Motor Tractors, Light Locomotives and Heavy Locomotives. The plan is to remove MOT exemption from this class of vehicle.

 

I think it is fair to identify three major types of ex military equipment falling under this banner.

 

Firstly wheeled Armour, AFV,s Scout Cars, Wheeled reconnaissance vehicles,( Fox, Ferret, Saladin, Saracen) APC's (although whether they fall under PSV legislation and are currently requiring testing, I am not totally sure)

 

Gun tractors, vehicles used by the Armed forces for recovery, but not fitting the definition of recovery vehicle mentioned in the proposal, and Ballast tractors, tank transporters (e.g. Diamond T 980/981) and the like, where these vehicles comply with construction and use regulations in terms of width etc.

 

Ballast tractors which fall outside Construction and Use Regulations because of width etc. (Antar, Rotinoff etc.) AILV's and the like. Vehicles that already carry an STGO Chassis plate.

 

.........

 

Yes, it's looking very good.

 

Just one suggestion - this based on the implication from your wording above that all pre-1960 vehicles which fit the classification of Locomotive (e.g. Diamond T, Matador gun tractor) will also be affected -

 

If you subdivide the 'Locomotive' members into those who use them laden and those who only use them unladen, then - given their emphasis on not wishing to affect pre-1960 historic vehicles - you should have a very good case for requesting an exemption from testing for those vehicles pre-1960 and used unladen.

 

I'm still not sure why such vehicles if used unladen have to be defined as locomotives, and why they cannnot be more simply defined as > 3.5t large vehicles. I'm sure they have no intention of pulling in any pre-1960 large vehicles used unladen under Historic, so you may also stand a very good chance of securing some wording in the Regulations which makes this exemption explicit.

 

Do you see any mileage in trying for an exemption for 1960 - 1973 'special types' used unladen and taxed Historic (e.g. AEC Coles crane, Antar)? This could be beneficial to a larger number of restored civilian vehicles too.

 

I also note in the AILV legislation that some types of AILV are restricted to movements solely in connection with movement of oversized indivisible loads, i.e. not social domestic and pleasure. Does this restriction apply to any other categories of vehicle?

[antarmike]

Yes, it's looking very good.

 

Just one suggestion - this based on the implication from your wording above that all pre-1960 vehicles which fit the classification of Locomotive (e.g. Diamond T, Matador gun tractor) will also be affected -

.........

Do you see any mileage in trying for an exemption for 1960 - 1973 'special types' used unladen and taxed Historic (e.g. AEC Coles crane, Antar)? This could be beneficial to a larger number of restored civilian vehicles too.

 

I also note in the AILV legislation that some types of AILV are restricted to movements solely in connection with movement of oversized indivisible loads, i.e. not social domestic and pleasure. Does this restriction apply to any other categories of vehicle?

 

 

The 1973 date has no significance whatsoever, and I cannot introduce it into the debate. (harmonisation with EU law which onlt regonises 1960)

I have spoken with Robert Newman this afternoon.

 

 

 

Point 8 I talked about the relevance of the 1973 date and the 1960 date and his response was that the pre 1973 date was purely Vehicle excise and regisration legislation, and is not a significant date in terms of these proposals. AS far as the consultation process is concerned the fact that a vehicle was built between 1960 and 1973, does not mean it will be viewed any differently to a vehicle built post 1973 to date.

 

To clarify in terms of this consultation document there is the case of pre 1960 vehicles and post 1960 vehicles only.

 

The date of pre 1960 is set in stone and is non negotiable. That is already determined by Sched 2 Goods Vehicle (plating and Testing) regulations 1988 and that date WILL NOT BE CHANGING.

 

.....

 

Mike

Edited March 7, 2010 by antarmike

[rbrtcrowther]

Er hello.

Little confused reading all this and i know my scammell is 1950. As it is currently un registered what should i register it as for a easy tax and mot exempt life. I don't plan to do any towing just local shows and i'll take my tent. Although it might be handy to be able to tow my mate home in his buss if he has a problem but this is not of great importance.

[antarmike]

Er hello.

Little confused reading all this and i know my scammell is 1950. As it is currently un registered what should i register it as for a easy tax and mot exempt life. I don't plan to do any towing just local shows and i'll take my tent. Although it might be handy to be able to tow my mate home in his buss if he has a problem but this is not of great importance.

 

Your correct taxation class would be "Historic vehicle" It is both a Locomotive, and a pre 1960 vehicle. You have two reasons to be exempt testing at present. If the proposal is enacted, you only have one exemption route.

 

If you loose Locomotive exemtion, you can't tow a laden trailer, just an unladen trailer. I am not qualified to give a definite answer as to towing a bus.

[AndyFowler]

Hi Rob , My 1955 Explorer is registered as a BREAKDOWN TRUCK since 1988 and has taxation type HISTORIC and a wheel plan of THREE AXLE RIGID ! I'll be using the pre 1960 route for MOT exemption when I eventually finish restoring her providing the petrol don't run out !:-D

[antarmike]

Yes, it's looking very good.

 

Just one suggestion - this based on the implication from your wording above that all pre-1960 vehicles which fit the classification of Locomotive (e.g. Diamond T, Matador gun tractor) will also be affected -

 

I'm still not sure why such vehicles if used unladen have to be defined as locomotives, and why they cannnot be more simply defined as > 3.5t large vehicles. I'm sure they have no intention of pulling in any pre-1960 large vehicles used unladen under Historic, so you may also stand a very good chance of securing some wording in the Regulations which makes this exemption explicit.

 

 

 

It is not a question of chosing to be a locomotive or not. It is not a decision the owner makes. The physical construction of a vehicle such as a Diamond T980 makes it a locomotive.

 

A matador is not a locomotive or Motor tractor when in gun tractor guise, because it is designed to carry a load, namely ammunition for the gun.

 

A matador is only a Motor tractor, or Locomotive, when converted for example into a Harbey Frost recovery, or a timber tractor, or as mine is as a winch vehicle with no load area, just a small platform incabable of carrying anything else other than loose tools and equipment.

 

If the vehicle is designed not to itself carry a load, then it is a locomotive or a tractor. Someone from Vosa will look at it. If it is a ballast tractor, or timber crane or whatever, without a load deck it is automatically viewed as a locomotive/tractor.

[N.O.S.]

The 1973 date has no significance whatsoever, and I cannot introduce it into the debate.

 

Although if they could link the use of the vehicle to use of Historic tax, that would automatically resrict those vehicles affected by the wording to pre 1973.

 

Of course it is easy to suggest these things - I understand that they may be tightly restricted in what they can alter without making the consultation process far more complicated.

[antarmike]

Although if they could link the use of the vehicle to use of Historic tax, that would automatically resrict those vehicles affected by the wording to pre 1973.

 

Of course it is easy to suggest these things - I understand that they may be tightly restricted in what they can alter without making the consultation process far more complicated.

 

As I understand it this is about harmonisation with Europe. EU only sees historically important as being pre 1960. Since the name of the game is harmonisation, the date is 1960 and no other date will do.

 

Equally this consultation is related to removal of MOT exemption from several classes of HGV. Those classes are defined by C and U regs/ Special types General order.

 

Any comments about the consultation have to be based on these categories. The taxation class of the vehicle is immaterial to the discussion.

 

It is all about what the vehicle is because of its design and physical description. That decision is made VOSA/DfT by matching up what they see when they look at the vehicle, and comparing it against the descriptions.

 

Your vehicle is either exempt or not exempt according to which defintion/ definitions it fits within C and U / SpecialTypes.

 

What you think your vehicle is is also of no importance. Whatever you like to think it will either end up tested or not tested according to how it fits against the categories mentioned.

 

That is where the resoponse has to be focussed. Taxation class, description in a log book/ V5 are of no importance in this poecess.