Jump to content

MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT


Recommended Posts

I think some people on here have the attitude that because their vehicle doesn't come under the proposal, or think it doesn't, that that's alright and they can sit back. Wake up guys. As a hobby we should be looking after everyones interest and sticking together. There is no I in team is there?

 

I've been saying all along, just because you own (for example) a 1959 M35A2 Cargo that you can sit back because your vehicle isn't in the current list. How long do you think it will be (if this proposal comes in) before they get wise and include these? After all what's the difference between a 1959 M62 Wrecker and a 1959 5 ton cargo apart from the crane? They are the same truck and the same age, except one would be subject to an MOT and the other not..............

 

Well I'm working on a letter at the moment. It will relate to post 1960 / pre 1973 vehicles, as they are the only ones currently 'at risk'. When I came into this hobby I had no choice but to accept the already established distinction betwen pre 1960, 1960 to 1973, and post 1973 vehicles and the way they were treated in terms of taxation and testing. It seems clear that the government will not move on these fixed dates (e.g. no rolling 25 yr etc.).

 

Your example of 1959 M series trucks is interesting, in that if you take the present situation with 1962 trucks the position is reversed, i.e. the cargo needs an MOT and the wrecker does not (assuming registration document shows 'Recovery')!

 

I would like to see a more consistent (and thus fairer) approach to MOTs. Neither the 1959 trucks example you describe, nor the 1962 example are fair.

 

But then there does not seem to be any consistency in describing vehicles on log books either. My guess is that Explorer registration documents class them variously as either Locomotive, 3 axle Rigid Body, Recovery Vehicle, Mobile Crane, Agricultural Machine and maybe others too! That is also inconsistent, and could potentially affect the way each vehicle is treated for testing.

 

It strikes me that DVLA are content to accept a description that best describes the use a historic vehicle will be put to, rather than a strict interpretation of the body type, especially if it will not be used for anything but that allowed by Historic taxation.

 

To my mind MVs of a similar age group and used in a similar way (e.g. used unladen for recreation) should all be treated the same way for tax and testing. I'm sure that is the intention of DVLA, and once they are made aware of these inconsistencies they might be persuaded to accomodate changes. The ideal way would be a single class of vehicle - perhaps the formal bodies of the hobby should push hard for this, I hope it is not too much to ask for!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been watching this thread very carefully over the last few days, some may see some of the replies as scare mongering or think that it may not affect you (remember the VCR Act... & "that don't affect me I'm an MV owner"... well it's bloody hard now if you want to hang a replica .30cal on ya Jeep now)... we at HMVF think this could affect a lot more than some may think.

 

We see that HMVF needs to be seen to be taking some sort of action & making some representation regarding this matter, as the HMVF Team are all up to our necks with upcoming shows & other stuff we need an official HMVF Spokesman re the proposed legislation, we have asked a member who is well versed with this sort of legislation & most of the terminology, Antarmike has kindly agreed to take up the challenge to act on behalf of HMVF & the best interest of it's members. I'm sure you will all give him as much support as possible.

 

Regards

 

HMVF Team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have read posts with interest.

Please dont sit back and think you will get exemptions for this reason or that. Make your representations in bulk now as a combined group it may do some good.

Many years ago they brought out propsals to start road taxing recovery vehicles upto that piont we had used them on trade plates. this meant at the time that our own companys road tax bill would have jumped from £150 ish to £18000 overnight, as companys we all wrote to our MPs our assosiations had meetings with people in high places, We didnt stop it but we did get concessions.

Next came the proposal that all load carrying recovery vehicles had to have MOTS. talk at the time said thats finished the recovery industry the countrys roads will become grid locked.

All that happened was a load of death trap vehicles vehicles went to scrap yards.

Normal wreckers eg lift and tow trucks were not included in the Mot scheme. As we work for two police forces our contract insists that all vehicles have MOT this is not as bad as it seems

the modern heavies are treated as per normal trucks the older one are treat in a different light.

personally i have taken many times Leyland martian and foden gun tractor no problems. Remember they cannot fail on worn components only dangerous eg shackle pins bushes track rod ends etc. Brakes cannot be tested on rollers (when you leave them in all wheel drive) so they resort to a tapley meter with you driving around the yard. this would also be used for over width vehicles Frankly if they dont pull up quick enough in a straight line they should not be driven on the road anyway. All other things are CU regs which you could get fined for anyway if caught eg lights horn etc. air and fluid leaks are frowned upon. At no time were we asked about speed limiters tacos. Matrian did fail first time due to no screen washers dispite beng exempt wipers due to opening wind screen. Personally i see no problems for the bulk of the people and vehicles on this site. This only leaves cost all i can say there is if every body drops out then surely those who stick with it will see price of there vehicles rise????

Finally dont sit back and think well i will be exempt for this reason or that cos if things do go wrong it will cost you a lot more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read this string many times and will confess to being confused at times by the key points and arguments. This is my summary, which I invite to be pulled apart:

 

 

  • There's the 'it's all about raising cash' argument. Frankly, that's tosh. The aims are plain from the introduction to the Consultation Document. This is a well meaning consultation designed to tease out concerns of stakeholders. Unfortunately consideration hasn’t been given to those with preserved vehicles, so officials and ministers need to be persuaded there is a justifiable case to be made to continue providing an exemption.

 

 

 

  • There is the 'no evidence of a lack of safety' argument. That may well be true (I don't know). Certainly if a Member of Parliament could ask a suitably worded (sadly, these things often aren't) "written parliamentary question" the answer would be an interesting contribution to the debate.

 

 

 

  • There's the 'it'll cost me money to adapt/upgrade my vehicle to pass the test' argument. I've not seen any justification for this point of view. As I mentioned before, the Consultation Document doesn't believe there are one off costs for owners. Clearly this needs clarification.

 

 

 

  • There's the 'the test centre can't accommodate my vehicle' argument. I see the Consultation Document intends to keep exemption for genuinely specialised bits of kit. One to watch I guess.

 

 

 

  • There's the 'it'll cost me £££ to get a test each year when I only use my vehicle once in a blue moon' argument and the ‘I don’t mind being tested as long as the test takes into consideration the age of the vehicle’ plea.

 

 

On this last bullet, and to some extent the third, Article 4 of Directive 2009/40/EC makes for interesting reading (here):

 

DIRECTIVE 2009/40/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 May 2009 on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers

 

CHAPTER II

 

EXCEPTIONS

 

Article 4

 

1. Member States shall have the right to exclude from the scope of this Directive vehicles belonging to the armed forces, the forces of law and order and the fire service.

2. Member States may, after consulting the Commission, exclude from the scope of this Directive, or subject to special provisions, certain vehicles operated or used in exceptional conditions and vehicles which are never, or hardly ever, used on public highways, including vehicles of historic interest which were manufactured before 1 January 1960 or which are temporarily withdrawn from circulation.

3. Member States may, after consulting the Commission, set their own testing standards for vehicles considered to be of historic interest.

 

In other words there is the ability to have exceptions for any pre 1960 manufactured vehicle; and any post 1959 vehicle that is used sparingly on the road. Furthermore, appropriate testing standards can be applied to reflect the historic nature of the vehicle (this doesn’t appear to be restricted to pre 1960 vehicles).

My own preference would be for exemption to be on the basis that the vehicle isn’t used for hire or reward, rather than used unladen (it’s never been clear to me what ‘unladen’ means – is it ok to carry some tools and camping gear?).

 

So what happens next? Obviously anyone can make their own representations. I hope that Mike/HMVF work via the FBHVC who have much experience campaigning on behalf of the historic vehicle movement, but clearly they have to make their own decisions. Either way I applaud them for making a stand.

I would then expect officials to consider any reasonable representations before the next step. This is most likely to be the exposure of draft legislation, which is then subject to another round of consultation. This should be accompanied by an explanation of why arguments made to that point have been rejected.

Edited by Runflat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you to everybody who has posted, and especially to those taking 'an organisational role' in responding to this 'threat'!

It has just struck me that there must be Thousands of presently exempted vehicles owned by us who take part in this 'hobby'. The very fact that we have been overlooked when this 'Consultation' started MUST mean that we have not drawn attention to our vehicles by virtue of causing any problems with regard to 'Roadworthiness'. That MUST mean that there is no 'Case to answer' on SAFETY grounds.

I understand this is about 'Harmonisation' within Europe, so surely the sensible thing to do is to look at 'Best Practice' with our European partners, consult on that, and bring in fair, workable legislation.

The British Army 'MoT' their vehicles, (359-957 tests?) who better to test ex-millitary vehicles than the people who have been doing just that for years?

Just my thoughts (keeping me awake)

Looking forward to presenting 'our' 439 'Earthmover' (!) to our nearest REME unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm working on a letter at the moment. It will relate to post 1960 / pre 1973 vehicles, as they are the only ones currently 'at risk'. When I came into this hobby I had no choice but to accept the already established distinction betwen pre 1960, 1960 to 1973, and post 1973 vehicles and the way they were treated in terms of taxation and testing. It seems clear that the government will not move on these fixed dates (e.g. no rolling 25 yr etc.).

 

Your example of 1959 M series trucks is interesting, in that if you take the present situation with 1962 trucks the position is reversed, i.e. the cargo needs an MOT and the wrecker does not (assuming registration document shows 'Recovery')!

 

I would like to see a more consistent (and thus fairer) approach to MOTs. Neither the 1959 trucks example you describe, nor the 1962 example are fair.

 

But then there does not seem to be any consistency in describing vehicles on log books either. My guess is that Explorer registration documents class them variously as either Locomotive, 3 axle Rigid Body, Recovery Vehicle, Mobile Crane, Agricultural Machine and maybe others too! That is also inconsistent, and could potentially affect the way each vehicle is treated for testing.

 

It strikes me that DVLA are content to accept a description that best describes the use a historic vehicle will be put to, rather than a strict interpretation of the body type, especially if it will not be used for anything but that allowed by Historic taxation.

 

To my mind MVs of a similar age group and used in a similar way (e.g. used unladen for recreation) should all be treated the same way for tax and testing. I'm sure that is the intention of DVLA, and once they are made aware of these inconsistencies they might be persuaded to accomodate changes. The ideal way would be a single class of vehicle - perhaps the formal bodies of the hobby should push hard for this, I hope it is not too much to ask for!!

 

I would welcome a copy of this letter by PM. I need to pick as many brains as possible. If you have anything in draft form, I would welcome that as soon as it is available. Thanks Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has just struck me that there must be Thousands of presently exempted vehicles owned by us who take part in this 'hobby'.

 

There are. The FBHVC will have global figures of numbers and the details of the contribution the hobby makes to the economy (i.e. what will be foregone should the measure take vehicles off the road). The MVT also holds a (private) listing of member's vehicles. So they should be able to do some sort of analysis of numbers owned by type of vehicle, age and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antarmike - thank you! Your posts have been very informative and I don't think we could hope for a better representative. We should all help as much as we can.

 

Out of interest I have just looked up to see the nearest VOSA Test Centre to the place where I keep and use my 1961 mobile crane. To get there and back would a 70 mile round trip. The crane is essentially a yard crane which is capable of being driven on the road for short movements, eg between adjacent sites, and I need to retain this ability. The round trip would be 70 miles at a maximum of 12mph in a vehicle with no suspension at all, poor rear visbility, and rear wheel steering. On busy roads (and they are) it would be an accident waiting to happen! Take into account the journey and testing time, the distance alone probably means either a low-loader to the test centre, an overnight stay, or (more likely) no test certificate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont know about a civvy owner taking a ex military mv to a operational military unit for testing cant quite see that one working:cool2:

 

You right there Griff! I used to be able to use a Local T.A units pit for work on my private car.

Not so now, 'H&S/ insurance wont cover it Mike, your not serving now Etc!'

So I cant see that one either, or indeed, having the resources to supply qualified inspecting personell. With the Army Soooooo stretched these days!......:cool2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any way that a list/table of vehicle types could be made up here? would be interesting to see just how many vehicles are been affected by the proposals and to make owners aware how it affects them.

 

For example.

Pre 1960 Humber Pig over 3500KG 2 axle rigid body heavy car . No change under proposal.

Pre 1960 Daimler Ferret over 3500kg 2 axle rigid body motor tractor. No change under proposal

Post 1959 Bedford MJ 2 Axle rigid body 4x4 truck. Requires testing under new proposal.

Post 1959 Daimler Ferret over 3500kg 2 axle rigid body motor tractor Requires testing under new proposal.

 

Im not suggesting that the info here is even vaguely correct, it is for illustrative purposes, but you get the idea, like the price guide in Classic Military Vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sticking my oar in again anything with 1600 x20 off road tyres will not grip on rollers at a least two local test stations i know of so tapley meters. all it must do is reach required percentage. ( you know you have passed when it falls over)easy and pull up straight. hand brake is tested by pulling up ramp at test station and it must hold vehicle still you are are allowed to put foot on brake while applying hand brake. Honestly after you have done it you will agree if it cant comply the vehicle shouldnt be driven on the road

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: "Who else has a vehicle that will not test on Brake test rollers, either because it in permanent all wheel drive, or has a double drive bogey, and no centre diff. I am already aware that Scammell Pioneer/ Explorer, Martian have walking beams with geared wheels on a single axle and these can't be tested, but as I see it these are pre 1960 vehicles, which if used unladen, not towing a laden trailer are exempt."

 

Mike, this is not a criticism, your work on this is much appreciated.

 

I'm a bit confused as to whether a Scammell Explorer is affected by these proposed changes.

 

At present exempt testing by virtue of being a recovery vehicle/heavy locomotive.

 

Not exempt under pre 1960 HGV as it isn't one, it is not constructed to carry goods, nor is it allowed to under this class of vehicle.

 

The exemption for recovery vehicles is to be removed, so I can't see how one can remain exempted under these proposals.

 

If they do have to be tested, surely a Tapley meter and hill hold brake test will be used.

Edited by gritineye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: "Who else has a vehicle that will not test on Brake test rollers, either because it in permanent all wheel drive, or has a double drive bogey, and no centre diff. I am already aware that Scammell Pioneer/ Explorer, Martian have walking beams with geared wheels on a single axle and these can't be tested, but as I see it these are pre 1960 vehicles, which if used unladen, not towing a laden trailer are exempt."

 

Mike, this is not a criticism, your work on this is much appreciated.

 

I'm a bit confused as to whether a Scammell Explorer is affected by these proposed changes.

 

At present exempt testing by virtue of being a recovery vehicle/heavy locomotive.

 

Not exempt under pre 1960 HGV as it isn't one, it is not constructed to carry goods, nor is it allowed to under this class of vehicle.

 

The exemption for recovery vehicles is to be removed, so I can't see how one can remain exempted under these proposals.

 

If they do have to be tested, surely a Tapley meter and hill hold brake test will be used.

 

An Explorer will remain exempted as pre 1960.

"motor vehicles first used before 1.1.60 and trailers manufactured before 1.1.60" is a category of vehicle exempted from the "sched 2 goods vehicles (plating and testing) regulations 1988"

note that "breakdown vehicles" "cranes (mobile)" and "track-laying vehicles" are, currently, in the same list of exempted vehicles. The idea that the pre 1960 exemption does not apply to vehicles that are not goods vehicles is wrong, otherwise brakedowns, cranes, tracked etc would also not qualify for exemption, as they are not goods vehicles.

A vehicle does not have to be a goods vehicle to be exempt from the regulations, it has to be in one of the exempted categorys.

It is a selection of these categorys that are being reviewed by this consultation, the pre '60 category is not being reviewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: "Who else has a vehicle that will not test on Brake test rollers, either because it in permanent all wheel drive, or has a double drive bogey, and no centre diff. I am already aware that Scammell Pioneer/ Explorer, Martian have walking beams with geared wheels on a single axle and these can't be tested, but as I see it these are pre 1960 vehicles, which if used unladen, not towing a laden trailer are exempt."

 

Mike, this is not a criticism, your work on this is much appreciated.

 

I'm a bit confused as to whether a Scammell Explorer is affected by these proposed changes.

 

At present exempt testing by virtue of being a recovery vehicle/heavy locomotive.

 

Not exempt under pre 1960 HGV as it isn't one, it is not constructed to carry goods, nor is it allowed to under this class of vehicle.

 

The exemption for recovery vehicles is to be removed, so I can't see how one can remain exempted under these proposals.

 

If they do have to be tested, surely a Tapley meter and hill hold brake test will be used.

 

I have been re-reading the rules and talking to people including Steve (croc) and I have revised my position. The Pre 1960 exemption is for ANY motor vehicle used unladen.

 

Although built as a recovery, an explorer is only classed as one in C and U terms if it complies with the Vehicle Excise regs in all respects regarding recovery vehicles. A recovery vehicle is only a recovery vehicle, if it is taxed as one.

 

To be taxed as recovery these conditions outlined in the 1994 Vehicle Excise and Registration act must all apply:-

Part V

 

Recovery vehicles

 

5 (1) The annual rate of vehicle excise duty applicable to a recovery vehicle is £85.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)“recovery vehicle” means a vehicle which is constructed or permanently adapted primarily for any one or more of the purposes of lifting, towing and transporting a disabled vehicle.

(3) A vehicle is not a recovery vehicle if at any time it is used for a purpose other than—

(a) the recovery of a disabled vehicle,

(b) the removal of a disabled vehicle from the place where it became disabled to premises at which it is to be repaired or scrapped,

© the removal of a disabled vehicle from premises to which it was taken for repair to other premises at which it is to be repaired or scrapped,

(d) carrying fuel and other liquids required for its propulsion and tools and other articles required for the operation of, or in connection with, apparatus designed to lift, tow or transport a disabled vehicle, and

(e) any purpose prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) At any time when a vehicle is being used for either of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (3), use for—

(a) the carriage of a person who, immediately before the vehicle became disabled, was the driver of or a passenger in the vehicle,

(b) the carriage of any goods which, immediately before the vehicle became disabled, were being carried in the vehicle, or

© any purpose prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State,

shall be disregarded in determining whether the vehicle is a recovery vehicle.

(5) A vehicle is not a recovery vehicle if at any time the number of vehicles which it is used to recover exceeds a number specified for the purposes of this sub-paragraph by an order made by the Secretary of State.

 

Most Scammell explorers are therefore Not recovery vehicles according to C and U definitions, Neither are Martians, Militant Mk3, Ward laFrance M1A1, Diamond T 969 etc.

 

At present you only have exemption for this type of vehicle via the Recovery Vehicle route if the tax disc in the window says recovery, and it is actually only ever used for recovery. AT present these vehicles have exemption by being locomotives.

Edited by antarmike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

heres another possible anomaly in the consultation document chap 4 subsection 4.3 (the proposals) it talks about modifying rta 1988 so that motor tractors ,and heavy and light locos are no longer exempt from annual roadworhiness testing IN ANY CASE WHERE A VEHICLE IS BASED ON A HGV STYLE CHASSIS AND WOULD THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS A GOODS VEHICLE.so post 1960 ferret for example would be still exempt cause not hgv based ,not a goods vehicle. etc? thoughts?:cool2:

Edited by griff66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gents, I really feel for the hurt you are enduring and the grief it is causing.

 

Everything in Ontario Canada that we drive on the road in the collection is road registered as a matter of SOPs.

 

That turns up some gremlins as the Construction and Use part of the act here is different that what the mechanic, yes a licenced mechanic not some paper pusher, has to sign off on.

 

The Mk2A Supacat needed a windscreen and wiper fitted for the test, which I made, and once passed then removed.

 

We have to have anything over 4,600 kgs annually tested for safety.

 

Because of the "fitted at time of manufacture" clause we can get away from having to put reversing lights on a LR 90 for instance and seat belts in a Ferret.

 

The diesel heavies such as Bedfords and M35 have to have an annual emmisions test based on year of manufacture thankfully but it is in for the life of the vehicle unlike the 2.5na diesel LR 90 and the 6 cyl diesel Hagglunds BV206 which have escaped because of their weight being under 4,600 kg they are only emmisions tested out to 20 years old. Both were a visual test which is open to interpretation and abuse.

 

Legislation is such a jungle to get through, and as someone who has represented two owners groups to the Provincial body reponsible just because they say yes at the table doesnt mean that is what comes out in law later. Very frustrating

 

Robin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...