important MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT

[Steve 82]

Hi List,

 

Watching this thread daily at the moment, and many thanks to all on keeping us up to speed with developments.:tup::

 

Whilst legislation has not yet been passed, there does seem to be a general acceptance that some form of testing is inevitable for post 1960`s HGV`s. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

One point though, with regards to light vehicles, I am very aware through personal experience that not all MOT testers are conversant with older test requirements and must assume that for HGV`s, it is going to be the same. What will be very useful in time will be a list of those testing facilities accross the country who understand the older requirements, in order that we can avoid unnecessary heartache when striving to satisfy (and probably exceed) the test standards.

 

Cheers

 

Steve 82

Edited April 5, 2010 by Steve 82

[berna2vm]

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.

Land of the free and the home of the brave.....

[Jack]

Just awesome work Mike thank you so much for your continued work on this from all of us at HMVF.

[utt61]

Just awesome work Mike thank you so much for your continued work on this from all of us at HMVF.

 

Hear hear!

[Chrisg]

Just awesome work Mike thank you so much for your continued work on this from all of us at HMVF.

 

Thank you Mike

[FridgeFreezer]

I've just read through this whole thread and have to stick my 2p's worth in.

 

First off, top score to Mike for his sterling effort, remaining focused and level-headed and presenting a good face to the chaps in suits is no easy task.

 

Second, not so many marks out of ten to a lot of people for the blind panic that this thread descended into. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to stir trouble but if this thread had been restricted to posts stating facts and asking relevant questions it would be about 30 pages shorter. I really can't fathom why we had to have 20 different opinions from people on what various bits of legislation do or don't mean, what you can or can't do, etc. etc. when VOSA and the DVLA have telephones and e-mail addresses and are quite happy to answer queries which can be had in writing and effectively carved in stone, as much as anything can be these days.

 

The endless stream of "I drive X but only for Y, it's registered as Z but we only drive it when there's an R in the month...." posts just seems fruitless to me, what would be more productive is if owners of said vehicles were to get in touch with VOSA, present a few different cases (laden, unladen, NFHoR, etc.) and obtain definitive written answers from them that could then be posted on this forum for the benefit of all.

 

I find it even more amazing that no-one has a definitive answer to what constitutes laden or unladen.

 

I am also unsure why people seem so down about the results of this meeting - OK some people may need to test their vehicles if they're using them on the road but that's hardly unreasonable (as has been pointed out, we have it pretty good over here in many ways) and what I would consider the main point of concern has been brushed aside - vehicles will be tested to criteria based on their age, the same as it is for cars. That means no modifications to comply with new legislation, and ultimately a pretty lenient MOT for most.

 

I realise there may be hassle involved in testing some vehicles but perhaps people need to be a bit more assertive about this whole thing - it's clear that this was never intended to target HMV's, in fact it's clear the bods in suits never even considered HMV's, so if the bods in suits say you have to put an MOT on your tank, drive the thing to the VOSA station and park it there until they write you a certificate! (and take them to court if they don't)

You can bet it won't take many people doing that before word is passed up the chain that something needs clarifying or changing.

 

As I said, I'm not stirring here, I'm trying to encourage people to think about productive ways to approach this sort of problem such that everyone on the forum can have an easier life.

[N.O.S.]

I've just read through this whole thread and have to stick my 2p's worth in.

 

First off, top score to Mike for his sterling effort, remaining focused and level-headed and presenting a good face to the chaps in suits is no easy task.

 

Second, not so many marks out of ten to a lot of people for the blind panic that this thread descended into. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to stir trouble but if this thread had been restricted to posts stating facts and asking relevant questions it would be about 30 pages shorter. I really can't fathom why we had to have 20 different opinions from people on what various bits of legislation do or don't mean, what you can or can't do, etc. etc. when VOSA and the DVLA have telephones and e-mail addresses and are quite happy to answer queries which can be had in writing and effectively carved in stone, as much as anything can be these days.........

 

FridgeFreezer - I've had a very brief look through the thread again and as one of those who spent a lot of valuable spare time carefully wording posts to try and smooth the way of this discussion and get it back on track by offering opinions and asking the right questions, I feel compelled to take issue with your comments to some extent.

 

The thread seemed to develop quite rationally with concerns being aired and some very valid points and suggestions made. Yes there were some 'doom and gloom' comments, but these also served a purpose by affirming the seriousness of the topic under discussion.

 

If you look carefully for the source of the 'blind panic' you may well find yourself at posts 75, 89, and 91. Note that this panic also spread to the sister MOT thread. You may arrive at the conclusion that the panic was not in fact caused by 'a lot of people', in which case you may wish to reconsider your allocation of marks and top prize :-D

 

If we are not to discuss / argue over issues and try to help each other, but instead only seek counsel from and bow to the opinion of an appointed 'expert' - this will soon become a pretty useless place to be.

[Marmite!!]

If we are not to discuss / argue over issues and try to help each other, but instead only seek counsel from and bow to the opinion of an appointed 'expert' - this will soon become a pretty useless place to be.

 

 

Well said...

 

Forum:

A public meeting place for open discussion.

A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

 

 

& don't forget the man from the DfT joined the forum & communicated with Mike so he was aware of some of the problems we may face in the future.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Marmite!!

[N.O.S.]

FridgeFreezer, the last part of my last paragraph was a bit unfair - you didn't mention any 'expert' - please put that comment down to my own frustration :cool2:

 

Your suggestion to seek advice from VOSA, FridgeFreezer, is a very valid one - but such written responses can take time to obtain - also members have posted anecdotal evidence in threads that such advice has been found to be not always correct, and can conflict with other parts of legislation.

 

Your comment about defining UNLADEN highlights very nicely how difficult it is for any of us to get to grips with the written form of road vehicle legislation and regulations - I thought I understood what unladen meant at one time, but now I don't!!!

 

We should recognise that NONE of us on here are masters at this subject - some of us have a good working knowledge of those parts of the legislation which affect our own vehicles (I'd say we have a responsibility to know this much), some have a much broader knowledge, some of us think we know more than we do, but none of us know the lot.

 

As an example - I thought I knew enough about Special Types legislation as it affected my work vehicles - thanks to the discussions on this thread I discovered that I had unwittingly not been complying in one respect (now corrected). Better to have learned here than at a roadside check or worse :embarrassed:

 

And yes the whole discussion did become overcomplicated - I reckon any budding large mv owner reading this thread will run a mile and sensibly buy a jeep :-D So if only for their benefit let's take 5 and sum up in simple terms where we are (again...sigh...):

 

1. The MOT rules governing large mvs and the way the vast majority of us use them (i.e. Historic tax, unladen / towing unladen trailer) are well established and quite simple - anything pre 1960 does not require an MOT, anything over 1960

does (except for certain classes of vehicle which are currently exempt from testing).

Problems can sometimes arise with testing (e.g. brakes, standards applied by examiners). Do not panic this group - nothing will change under this proposed MOT review.

 

2. Some of us have post 1960 vehicles which either don't fit easily into any curent vehicle category, or which are physically difficult to get MOTd, call them 'grey area' vehicles - Ferrett, Saracen etc. By registering them as a particular type (e.g. locomotive) we can legitimately operate them without an MOT.

 

3. Some of us choose to operate vehicles laden or towing a laden trailer. In which case we either have to have them tested or where possible take advantage of certain vehicle classes which allow laden use (or post 1960 unladen use) without testing (e.g. locomotive). Some of us get them tested voluntarily.

 

4. If we choose to do more than operate unladen with our vehicles then we need to understand what is required by legislation in terms of taxation and testing, and here too the exact definition of the vehicle (e.g. locomotive or recovery)

can

be important. The big boys with the big toys should be fully aware of what is and is not permitted under the legislation.

 

5. These MOT proposals seek to reduce the number of HGV based exemptions available to commercial operators, and two types of mv will be unintentionally caught up in this - the post 1960

grey area

vehicles (e.g. Saracen) and the vehicles operating LADEN (e.g. Locomotives, WW2 tank transporters).

 

6. The changes affect HVG based vehicles only - any vehicle not able to be tested at a current HGV testing station is likely to continue to retain a test exemption.

 

7. Consultations are taking place with representatives from the preservation movement to see if / how the effect of the proposed legislation on these old vehicles can be minimised. Through this thread HMVF has identified issues of concern affecting mv owners and has a representation at these consultations, and is actively encouraging discussion on ways to achieve this - and hopefully look at how certain vehicles might be accommodated for more convenient testing.

 

In my view HMVF has only managed to achieve this because of everyone who contributed to this thread!

Edited April 12, 2010 by N.O.S.

[N.O.S.]

And it has to be said - how successful it is from here on depends very much on Antarmike and the support / information we give to him!

[antarmike]

And it has to be said - how successful it is from here on depends very much on Antarmike and the support / information we give to him!

 

I am trying to liase with Goeff Fletcher, but as yet we haven't both been in at the same time!

[FridgeFreezer]

NOS, points taken - as I stated I was not intending to offend or incite, and I certainly would not want to discourage discussion & debate.

 

My aim was to make the point that in these matters, there is a definitive source of information (no matter how flaky that source may be) and, as is true of all internet forums, everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it, but presenting it as fact and arguing the toss in a discussion such as this often just clouds the waters and serves to dilute the usefulness of the efforts of those such as AntarMike.

 

As you yourself said - a new comer reading this thread could not be blamed for giving up hope at about page 20 and buying a Jeep instead, which would be a great shame. Your "summing up" is exactly the sort of thing that's needed when a picture emerges, preferably cut-and-pasted into a sticky so that people seeking an answer can find it and benefit from it without having to read about how it was reached or what people think of it.

 

I have spent a fair bit of my life on matters of communication of information, specifically on websites, and therefore it is something of a bugbear of mine when valuable information is effectively buried. Not only is it a loss to the community, but it is doing a disservice to those who put so much effort into finding the answer in the first place.

[N.O.S.]

Thanks for the response, probably just me over-reacting - well who wouldn't, after reading through that lot again! :nut::banghead::banana:

[Jack]

Thanks for the response, probably just me over-reacting - well who wouldn't, after reading through that lot again! :nut::banghead::banana:

 

I think you should read it again N.O.S. TWICE!!!

[LoggyDriver]

The date of introduction of the MOT for previously exempt vehicles is 01st August 2010.

 

This has been confirmed on my V11 Tax Renewal form.:banghead:

[Rover8FFR]

How will they test the brakes on a 6 wheel drive vehicle and all that good stuff. I guess a HGV testing station is the answer, or is it! :nut::nut::nut::nut::confused:

[Mk3iain]

WOW!!!!

What happened to the consultation process? I thought it was not going to be actioned untill next year after "due process".

We have had no feedback on the outcome of the consultations!:shocked:

[Marmite!!]

The date of introduction of the MOT for previously exempt vehicles is 01st August 2010.

 

This has been confirmed on my V11 Tax Renewal form.:banghead:

 

What does it say on your V11, was there a leaflet about this enclosed??

[griff66]

just spoken to richard underwood at vosa he says testing for things like ferrets which are classed as a motor tractors will start 1 jan 2012 all very confusing !!

[Marmite!!]

just spoken to richard underwood at vosa he says testing for things like ferrets which are classed as a motor tractors will start 1 jan 2012 all very confusing !!

I've searched the Internet & can not find a single mention of this, maybe I'm not looking hard enough... anyone else come up with anything??

[LoggyDriver]

There was no leaflet explaining, just a small note on the V11. Click on the picture a few times to enlarge it if you think your eyes are tricking you, like I did!!! But there it is in black and white.

 

Mk3iain, This is the UK mate. They don't listen to us the people.

 

The only reason they had this consultation in my mind was to go through the motions to satisfy the legalities. They have introduced it and not bothered with the follow up consultation.

 

Regarding the law coming in next year, well it may well do for others, but it's in black and white on my V11, so as of August 01st that's it for me. No more shows. I need to think about my options.

Edited June 14, 2010 by LoggyDriver

[Degsy]

I thought August 2010 was the date they originally said testing was to start but when challenged over the legality they admitted their error and postponed the date for consultation etc.

[Marmite!!]

I contacted Robert Newman from the DfT & he has had a look at the latest posts, here is his reply which has kindly agreed to be posted on the forum...

 

Lee

 

The V11 form is a DVLA tax disc renewal form and has nothing directly to do with annual roadworthiness testing. It is not the method we would use to announce new legislation! I don’t think that the wording is new, I assume it is just a standard reference to the need for an MOT in order to get your vehicle tax disc, unless you are exempt.

 

I’ve written a summary of responses to the consultation document that has not yet been signing off by the new Minister, Mike Penning MP. It will be published on the DfT website if/when it has Ministerial approval. I haven’t even started to write the legislation yet, which has to go through Parliament (without a debate) giving you another chance to write to your MPs, etc. There is no way the implementation of the exemptions could be carried out before the end of this year. The reference to VOSA saying “2012” is interesting. VOSA will not make the decision, nor will I, it will be a Minister, but 2012 is a better guess than August 2010.

 

I hope that this will reassure your members. Happy to discuss further.

 

Robert Newman

Policy Advisor

Vehicle Roadworthiness and Enforcement

Zone 2/09

Great Minster House

76 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DR

 

[griff66]

that does tie in with my conversation a bit more

[LoggyDriver]

So if it is standard wording, why has there been a date of August 01st 2010 put onto the V11?

 

Usually the wording is; "A current MOT Certificate" or words to that effect. Has anyone got an old V11 they can have a look at to see what the wording says? I would have thought it would have said something like "this vehicle requires a Goods Vehicle Test Certificate" then if the vehicle is exempt you go through the usual V112 and tick in the box route.

 

What concerns me is why has a date of 01st August 2010 been put on? I would have thought "This vehicle requires a Goods Vehicle Test certificate from 01st August 2010" means exactly that. So either the DVLA are jumping the gun and have got their facts wrong, or it has been brought in.

 

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