important MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT

[LoggyDriver]

Oh dear, again I am clearly not explaining myself properly. If one currently owns a post 1960 vehicle currently M.O.T. exempt, e.g. a Ferret or similar, which clearly is not an H.G.V but has a GVW of more than 3500kg, would people need an HGV licence if it required an HGV test?

 

Jules

 

 

For sake of argument lets stick to HGV for clarity. If you own a 1959 REO then you do not require an HGV class two licence to drive it unladen and you do not require an HGV MOT. If you drive a 1961 REO then you will need an HGV class 2 licence to drive it and you will need an HGV MOT.

[N.O.S.]

So when not looking up at Aircraft, what do you call the driving test for an HGV?

 

Best way to remember it is like this -

 

If a truck passes an HVG test it gets a certificate of roadworthiness, if a person passes an HGV test they get a driving licence - which in a way is another form of 'certificate of roadworthiness'....

[antarmike]

Recieved today

 

"Please be advised that IMPS will now be represented at this meeting, by Rory Mackean.

 

 

 

James Baxter"

[antarmike]

This this morning but Forum was down, so I couldn't post

 

Quote DfT meeting Robert Newman

 

"All

 

 

 

Unfortunately VOSA say that they are unable to attend. They can do a meeting later in the year but not in the next month, which doesn’t combine well with my need to progress issues relating to this consultation. However I have been firing questions at them by email, so should have some answers from them about what VOSA can and can’t do. My colleague David Briggs, who has been here working on roadworthiness policy for over 20 years, and has a good knowledge of vehicles and testing, will be attending the meeting.

 

 

 

We have been considering the responses (more than half from historic vehicle collectors and organisations) and possible ways forward.

 

 

 

If you are planning to bring anyone else to the meeting please can I have the name(s) for reception as soon as possible.

 

 

 

We can still have a meeting with VOSA, either in London or on their home turf in Bristol, perhaps in May. Which would give you an opportunity to present them directly with your testing problems and queries. " Unquote so no Vosa representative at the meeting.

 

Meeting was not really what I expected. I have been up since 4.00 this morning and due to accidents brreakdowns on M1 J15-J17 only just got back. 18.00 hrs.

 

Need time to rcover but I will let you know roughly what was said. Notes were taken by DfT and these will be distributed to those attending in due course.

 

I will post that in it's entirety when it arrives.

 

Latter tonight or more realistically tommorow I will tell you the important things that were discussed. The Conversation drifted off onto buses and Classic cars and it was hard to keep it focused on HGV? Military vehicles but bear with me, let me recover and i'll give you an update.

Mike

[Marmite!!]

Many thanks for your help Mike...

[Mk3iain]

DITO

 

Many thanks!

[antarmike]

A few points in a nutshell.

 

Re trying to gain exemption down the "rarely if ever used on the road" route

 

DfT say anything based on limited milage is unenforceable, will lead to abuse by commercial companies and is not a way they want to move forward.

 

"Rarely used on the road" has no legal definition. They interpret it to mean farmers use of a tractor to move from one field belonging to him to another of his fields,(a few miles per week <6) or a works tractor operating in the road in the immediate vicinity of a particular factory. DfT cannot see that this "form of Words" can relate to Military vehicles going to a show, since the distance would be greater than invisiged in this exemption, and is also un enforcable.

 

Positive news, Confirmation that ferret and other armoured vehicles of this ilk can be seen as tractors and locomotives, and they should be alright, ....Negative news, the head guy from DfT at the meeting David Briggs, did not at first seem to realise that it was propsed that MOT exemptions for tractors and Locomotives were proposed to be withdrawn, until I drew it to his attention, and then he didn't have much to more to say about Ferrets and the like apart from , If they don't look like HGV's then they are not the target group.

 

If was all starting to sound like dangerous dogs act, and what is a pit bull type dog or what is an HGV based vehicle.

 

David says if it looks like an HGV it is our target group. Both The MVT Rep and myself, tried to explore the case of say a Leyland Martian, and again were told if it looks like an HGV then it should be tested. At one point they were even saying that if a wartime Matador, converted to a wrecker, is used very rarely to tow a broken down bus back into a museum, then it should be tested.

 

We tried to explore the 1960 date and were told that as it relates to this proposal, there 1960 date is set in stone.

 

Although they broadly support a rolling date, it cannot happen as part of this discussion, and it will take years to implement. (more detail follows)and there are real risks attached.

 

There is no possibility of creating new categories of exemptions. All that can be done is to try and identify "groups" of vehicles that are such problems to test they should not be tested, or "groups" that can be defined in such a way that they can be written out of testing, because they are not the target HGV based group.

 

There is no intention by DfT's to work with named vehicle makes or models and though it has been done on odd occasions in the past, if is not appropriate to suggest such an idea on this occasion.

 

There is no possibilty of getting a testing schedule for historic vehicles based on a frequency of testing greater than 1 year. The view being that high milage puts on wear, but equally doing very little milage does not guarantee that parts won't corrode or perish,through standing unused. If it happens, it will be yearly testing.

 

DfT in prrinciple accepts that preserved military vehicles have a low accident rate and the premiums charged represent a low risk, but they cannot act on that information until it is verified by the insurance companies themselves, in a written response. David Hurley of FBHVC is going to provide that information to DfT since he has already liased with insurers to get deals for historic vehicles.

 

The question of mobile projects vehicles/ exhibitions vehicles was brought up, and DfT position is that the examples presented to them so far, mobile Radr installations in the back of Bedfords, Displays inside buses etc, do no constitute what was intended, and these self declared exemption are an abuse of the system, and these vehicles should be tested, because radio gear in the back of a Bedford is considered by DfT to be Goods.

 

A lot of discussion was about braking, and unfortunately no-one from Vosa could attend, so we only got second hand feedback from DfT as to what Vosa had said. DfT what quantifiable tests that show brake efficencies for each wheel, as do Vosa, They accept that for peramanent 4x4 or 6x6 or double drive/ no cenre diff back bogies,testing will have to be done with Tapley, but this is not in itself a reason not to test, The results aren't as satisfactory, but any testing is better than no testing.

 

There was a general acceptance that vehicles have to be tested to the standards they were made to , and that there is no intention to force owners to re-engineer their vehicles to modern standards.

 

 

Whilst there was some sympathy towards the extra cost owners faced, DfT say that the intended move for testing to move away from Vosa into the private sector, should see more testing facilities popping up, so owners should expect shorter jouneys to test vehicles, than the present distance to a Vosa station.

 

DfT take the view that the propsed charge to test approved for private companies will be lower thanthe current Vosa test fee, so again we should not be too worried about cost.

 

As I say, the converstaions went this way and that, and I will need the minutes of the meeting to jog my memory about everything discussed, but I am afraid I am not to hopeful we did much good or changed any opinions in DfT. All I can say is everyone at the meeting gave it their all, and to my mind, no real concession on any point was really won.

 

However the discussions go on. In particular I have been asked to liase with IMPS and MVT to try and come up with the "groups" that could be written out of MOT testing.

 

I am pleased too say Both Robert Newman and David Briggs from DfT have been looking regularly at HMVF and both knew HMVF has done on the morning of the meet, because each had tried to look for latest posts.

 

I am alsoCheered that Geoff Fletcher has obviously been reading our Forum, and someoof the points he raised came directly from what you have posted here.

 

I have been asked to ask you out there, as to specifics as to MOT test experiences if you have put vehicles through voluntary MOT tests, what proplems have you had, what did Vosa say to you?etc.

 

I know we have some examles of this in previous posts, but I am asking this agian.

 

I think it fair to say that HMVF is a good tool to use for this because it is faster and quicker than other methods. MVT is obviously largely magazine based, yes it has a website, but ideas can't flash back and forth as they can onthis message board, so get busy.

 

All isn't gloom and doom, but the fight is a long way from being won, but it is also a long way away from being lost too. There are things we can do.

 

To tired to get into discussiont tonight, Maybe tommorrow, but hopefully I'll be back on the case over the long weekend.

 

Mike.

 

Too tired to proof read, so sorry about the spilling and the grummer.

[ArtistsRifles]

Mike/Mods,

 

Just a thought - but would it be an idea to create a new thread solely for the experiences with testing requested by Mike??

[antarmike]

Re 1960 date for Historic vehicles.

 

UK had 1960 date for MOT exemption before Europe got involved.

 

When harmonisation began Germany, France, and I believe Norway wanted a date of arounf 1939/45.

 

UK struggled hard to get support for a 1960 date but eventually Europe agreed.

 

Any attempt to move the date now may not work, because most of Europe considers 1945 as a significant date not 1960.

 

The rationale for this is that thwein Europe destroyed most vehicles, so Europeans see wartime and prewar survivors as something special, and want Historic status for vehicles of this age, but don't see anything remarkable that vehicles from the 50's and 60's have survived.

 

As a totally seperate issue unrlated to the current proposals, DfT are happy to entertain a later date than 1960, and a rolling date at that.

 

However, UK cannot uni-laterally change the 1960 date, because that is fixed in EU and Europe has to comply. So the task DfT has is to persuade the "Qualified Majority Vote" that a date later than 1960 should now be set.

 

There may be the will in Europe for this. There may not, but the problem for DfT and for us is if we pursue a late date, it might re-ignite the old desires in some parts of Europe to actually have an earlier date than 1960 rather than a latter date UK prefers.

 

If the vote went against us and once re-examined a 1945 or worse 1939 date was agreed in Europe, DfT would have to harmonise with that decision, and we would have put a whole swathe of vehicles, previously exempt MOT testing, in the position of needing testing.

 

The advice handed down from DfT to those at the meeting was, "think long and hard before pressing for a change, because the whole thing could backfire, Decide if you would rather continue to accept a fixed date if 1960, which has been agreed, or risk stirring things up in the hope of getting 1970, and a rolling date, and ending up with 1945 or 1939!"

Edited April 1, 2010 by antarmike

[griff66]

my two penneth leave it at 1960 , just not worth the risk of stirring it up and i have no vested interest as ive got a 1964 mv.

[N.O.S.]

Yep, kind of ends the discussion on that one I'd say! Useful comments - at least we understand why it would be so difficult to change the date.

[Eastblock]

As long as the testing is done according to standards at the time of manufacture then I wouldn't really have an issue with taking a vehicles for a test. What still concerns me is the we could be faced with having to comply with certain modern standards. Was the scope of testing discussed at the meeting?

[ArtistsRifles]

Having lived through the "scandals" of classic car testing in the Eighties wherein garages would find any excuse to fail older cars so as to take money off the owners for re-tests, repairs etc. the thing in Mikes info that worries me is the business of the privatisation of testing centres. A state run resting station has no axe to grind whereas privately run ones will have the profit motive as their holy grail.

[Mk3iain]

Having lived through the "scandals" of classic car testing in the Eighties wherein garages would find any excuse to fail older cars so as to take money off the owners for re-tests, repairs etc. the thing in Mikes info that worries me is the business of the privatisation of testing centres. A state run resting station has no axe to grind whereas privately run ones will have the profit motive as their holy grail.

 

What they are on about are the proposed ATFs "AuthorisedTesting Facilities", a three year initiative to bring testing closer to the customer...Quote; ATFs are VOSA authorised sites where statutory heavy vehicle testing can be carried out..by trained VOSA staff.

They are hoping to encourage operators and existing "Designated Premises" to invest in ATF status. There is no guarantee that the operators who take on this role will want to take on third-party work ie us. or what the priceing will be!

It may work out. Time will tell.

[LoggyDriver]

Sorry, but it seems to me we are all just banging our heads against a brick wall. It has come across (to me anyway) that no matter what the argument is we put forward, they are just going to do whatever they want. They have made up their minds what is going to happen and are just going through the motions to seem democratic. As for VOSA not attending such an important meeting (considering they are the ones who are going to enforce this and carry out testing) well, thats nothing short of a disgrace. This meeting has been planned for ages and not to have the most important agency present, well, incompetence comes to mind. Did they give a reason why a VOSA rep couldn't attend???

 

Why can't they offer two yearly testing? They come up with this argument about things might fall off through lack of use, and yet correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't France have two yearly testing? The only reason they are against that is because they will loose out on all the test fee cash.

 

Was anyone present from the other Political Parties? Considering these guys are more than likely to be out of a job in a few weeks, were the relevent shadow guys there for a heads up to take over the reigns?

[Marmite!!]

Was anyone present from the other Political Parties? Considering these guys are more than likely to be out of a job in a few weeks, were the relevent shadow guys there for a heads up to take over the reigns?

Please don't bring politics into this thread... you know the rules on that one...

[N.O.S.]

Why can't they offer two yearly testing? They come up with this argument about things might fall off through lack of use, and yet correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't France have two yearly testing? The only reason they are against that is because they will loose out on all the test fee cash.

 

 

Careful what you wish for - in France you can never put an old vehiocle back on the road if you do not have the original log book or equivalent - the reason why so many old trucks are scrapped. Had the old Autocar U7144T form Beke had papers it could probably not have been bought and brought to UK for an affordable amount!

 

whilst I agree with you that two year testing could have some potential for very low mileage vehicles I would not waste any time on it - we have a system and we have to do our best within it sadly.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Marmite!!
Quote Tags

[AndyFowler]

I'm am so disillusioned with England !:embarrassed:

[ArtistsRifles]

If memory serves too - an old vehicle that is registered cannot leave the district (are whatever the areas of France are called) that it was registered in... Not so good if, for example, if you were to live outside of Kent and want to go to W&P!! :-( :-(

[LoggyDriver]

I'm am so disillusioned with England !:embarrassed:

 

 

 

Going off topic quickly.

 

I was chatting to an American guy who owns an M109A3 Reo he is converting into a camper. It's a 1972 (I think) truck and cost about $5,000 direct from the US Army, in very good condition. This vehicle gets registered as a "normal" truck (as in those large pick up trucks). As he is not carrying a load in it he doesn't need a CDL (HGV licence) licence - The Tags (registration) will cost him - AND WAIT FOR IT - $12 dollars a YEAR. That's right twelve dollars a year to keep this truck on the road. As far as I'm aware he doesn't need to have it tested either (some States have MOT's and some don't). Oh, and don't forget the $3.30 a GALLON fuel price...

 

He is free to do with it how he likes.

[N.O.S.]

I was chatting to an American guy who owns an M109A3 Reo he is converting into a camper. It's a 1972 (I think) truck and cost about $5,000 direct from the US Army, in very good condition. This vehicle gets registered as a "normal" truck (as in those large pick up trucks). As he is not carrying a load in it he doesn't need a CDL (HGV licence) licence - The Tags (registration) will cost him - AND WAIT FOR IT - $12 dollars a YEAR. That's right twelve dollars a year to keep this truck on the road. As far as I'm aware he doesn't need to have it tested either (some States have MOT's and some don't). Oh, and don't forget the $3.30 a GALLON fuel price...

 

He is free to do with it how he likes.

 

So tempting!!!!!! On the other hand an American friend's sister and husband have been forced to declare bankrupcy twice in the last 20 years in order to pay for life-sustaining medical treatment (which would have been available free to us here). Not so tempting.......

 

Back on topic - should we kick the idea of 'travel-to-the-vehicle" testing idea into touch now? I honestly can't see VOSA picking up the tab for the significant extra cost of doing this - even if you could get over all the H&S stuff about working off site (yes I know steam boiler examiners work in this way, but generally they are independently employed) - but it is just possible someone might be able to set up as an independent tester at some time in the future.....?

 

Given VOSA's absence, did this come up in talks Mike?

[LoggyDriver]

So tempting!!!!!! On the other hand an American friend's sister and husband have been forced to declare bankrupcy twice in the last 20 years in order to pay for life-sustaining medical treatment (which would have been available free to us here). Not so tempting.......

 

Back on topic - should we kick the idea of 'travel-to-the-vehicle" testing idea into touch now? I honestly can't see VOSA picking up the tab for the significant extra cost of doing this - even if you could get over all the H&S stuff about working off site (yes I know steam boiler examiners work in this way, but generally they are independently employed) - but it is just possible someone might be able to set up as an independent tester at some time in the future.....?

 

Given VOSA's absence, did this come up in talks Mike?

 

 

I don't think VOSA will come to you - as in your home address.

 

I was chatting to a VOSA vehicle tester when I had to take my work truck in for an MOT about three weeks ago. He told me VOSA are doing out based testing, but its going to be in large company fleet garages, like M&S where I used to work. As these companies have so many vehicles and trailers they spread out the MOT's throughout the year. So a brand new vehicle might have it's 1st MOT only a month after being registered so that they don't have 50 odd new trucks all needing MOT's at the same time. The VOSA guy will be based at these garages full time, so in effect its his place of work, but he is employed by VOSA.

 

They wont be coming out to an individuals place.

[antarmike]

Why can't they offer two yearly testing? They come up with this argument about things might fall off through lack of use, and yet correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't France have two yearly testing? The only reason they are against that is because they will loose out on all the test fee cash.

 

Was anyone present from the other Political Parties? Considering these guys are more than likely to be out of a job in a few weeks, were the relevent shadow guys there for a heads up to take over the reigns?

 

 

The reason they don't want two year tesing is low annual mileage id un verifiable, and commercial operators could operate older vehicles, claim low milage, but in reality be doing quite high mileage.

 

The conversation about limited use, low mileage etc always came back to the DfT view that this was inworkable, because it was un-verifyable.

 

Reference to the election was made, DfT's point being that whatever the outcome, there would be a change of Minister, but these changes where going to come, it was just a question of time scale, new minister might give greater priority to third runway at Heathrow, and HS2, but the delay in this becoming law would only be months, and it was likely to be law by the end of the summer, early autumn.

 

Neither party can ignore this, it is going to happen. And the proposals are being drawn up by the Dept, independantly of Ministerial "advice"

[griff66]

that has changed then mike because when i was chatting to vosa they said early 2011 at soonest.

[julezee001]

10/10 for your efforts Mike, sorry to hear that VOSA did not attend.

 

Somewhat predictable in our "democracy" these days. Faceless bureaucrats making decisions on our behalf, with key ones failing to meet representatives of the main people that they will affect, namely a tiny minority of the motoring community? Maybe something more important came up, such as making a computerised M.O.T sytem that uses and wastes tons more paper than the paper system it's replaced, removing the dual purpose vehicle class 4 test and change it to class 7, or other equally pointless or wasteful schemes? The DfT turn up and ignore (?) representations in this "consultation" process, hiding behind EU harmonisation, and with threats to anyone who might rock the boat over a rolling year of exemption! Great....

 

 

Just wait a couple more years and there might be a fatal accident involving a classic (pre 1960) truck, or an HMV, then we'll all need M.O.T. tests, or maybe we'll just be banned from the road entirely as un-necessary polluters? I hope the scrap price is up when it happens.

 

I guess the only thing to say, is enjoy your hobby/vehicle while you can.

 

Jules