Jump to content

MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT


Recommended Posts

Sorry loggydriver, didn't make myself clear- that post was sort of in reply to my first in this thread saying that it shouldn't be too much of a problem- I then tried to clarify my first post with the one you quoted, saying that I was thinking that a test similar to the current test for an early 70's light commercial was what they had in mind- not sure where I got that idea from. If they are talking about putting them through a modern LGV test with no concessions for age then that's a very different kettle of fish.

 

A 1971 Land Rover has a different MOT criteria to that which a 2006 one would be expected to meet- emissions, brake test etc, I was kind of assuming that they'd do the same thing for 60's/ 70's heavy commercials. If they aren't, well that's a definite reason to kick up a fuss.

 

Sorry for the confusion- I know what I mean, but getting it across is another matter entirely!

Edited by brianthesnail96
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry loggydriver, didn't make myself clear- that post was sort of in reply to my first in this thread saying that it shouldn't be too much of a problem- I then tried to clarify my first post with the one you quoted, saying that I was thinking that a test similar to the current test for an early 70's light commercial was what they had in mind- not sure where I got that idea from. If they are talking about putting them through a modern LGV test with no concessions for age then that's a very different kettle of fish.

 

A 1971 Land Rover has a different MOT criteria to that which a 2006 one would be expected to meet- emissions, brake test etc, I was kind of assuming that they'd do the same thing for 60's/ 70's heavy commercials. If they aren't, well that's a definite reason to kick up a fuss.

 

Sorry for the confusion- I know what I mean, but getting it across is another matter entirely!

 

 

 

 

No worries mate. :-)

 

The problem they are going to have is things like the emissions test. Most of the trucks owned by members probably don't even have any emissions data for them!!!

 

My truck for example, passed a PRE and it's disposal inspection a month later when it was cast in May last year. I have the print outs for the brake test and emissions test as well as the inspection report and it passed with no faults. However take the same truck to VOSA (who are not to keen on seeing old trucks on the road anyway) and it might be a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this is potentially a disaster for the preservation movement. Reading the document I get the impression that it is aimed at pulling in those who use vehicles commercially (and I have no real difficulty with that) but as proposed it will also screw those of use with pricately owned, not-commercially used, post 1960 vehicles.

 

As the owner of a 1961 Iron Fairy crane which is taxed an insured for road use, but has a top speed of 12 mph, it woudl simply not be feasible to drive it to a test centre. It is only road legal to move between sites, but it is a mobile crane and would therefore be included. I have to wonder if it is really feasible for someone such as Ainscough to take a 1200 tonne crane to a test centre? I doubt it.

 

I think the complete lack of perception of the authorities of the existence of private large vehicles is probably reflected in the fact that none of the consulted bodies are connected to preservation. As has been said already, where is the MVT, FHBC, etc?

 

Perhaps an exemption for vehicles in the Historic Vehicle VED class might be an answer.

 

Incidentally, I note in the doc that the EU allows exemptions for vehicles INCLUDING historic vehciles before 1960, which is interesting wording since it does not disallow historic vehicles AFTER 1960.

 

The clouds of doom are gathering. Time to emigrate perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't object to having a vehicle tested but it's going to prove too expensive to bring these vehicles up to standard (side impact bars, rear bumpers etc)...

 

Page 37 of the Consultation Document says there will be no one off costs. Clearly, if different standards will suddenly apply (I don't understand why they should) then this needs to be brought to their attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too thought that the MOT requirements were related to age, certainly when I have had voluntary MOTs done on the Ferret then emissions etc was a visual check only, because that was what was relevant to its age. Or is that only Class 7 rules?

 

I can't comment on LGV but reading the bit that affects me, my take on it seems to be that Ferret , Fox Saladin and the other 6 wheeler post 1960's will fall under the change to the rules regarding Motor Tractor, and Locomotive definitions. In that section it states the changes will apply to HGV derived chassis, so a chink there, as you can hardly describe these vehicles as HGV derived. So I think they need to be made aware of the existence of such vehicles.

 

I will be using that in my response, although I have to say that I have always found it unsatisfactory that the same vehicle can be either a pre 1960 or a Motor Tractor as needs be when it comes to which MOT exemption you claim. Therefore if this consultation leads to VOSA acknowledging the existence of MV and producing a definitive ruling, then that would be good for everyone (as we have discussed on the MOT thread). Even if it does mean you have to pay an MOT - as witnessed in a minority of for sales ads from people who "know" it is exempt but cannot explain why :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reading thru it it seems to be aimed at commercial operators of hgvs, hobbyists do not seem to be thought about at all ,no surprise there ,this is where the clubs etc should be getting the message across about our concerns may be they are, there just not telling us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment this is all speculative, to many ifs, buts and maybes. From my personal standpoint and that of a quite a few others, the effect on post 1960 large vehicles has the potential to be most profound.

 

It may be fatal to wait and find out what it will mean to us. If our concerns are not voiced we may find we are treated the same as commercial operators, and even if tests are age related they will still be stringant compaired to a private vehicle! (If we are catagorised the same as commercial!... the main concern for me)

I hope this is a storm in a teacup and the authorities are aware and sympathetic to our situation, but we cannot take that for granted. If they dont know of our existance they wont be able to cater for us.

Time to contact whomever you can and put our case, politely of course.

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

right the mp who signed this off is paul clarke,david briggs is consultation accountable person 0207 944 6575 ,and rest assured this whole mot review has been assessed for race equality impact!

Paul Clark is the Labour MP for Gillingham and Rainham. If you want to contact him the details are on his website http://www.labourisworking.com/?page_id=452

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reading thru it it seems to be aimed at commercial operators of hgvs......

 

Agreed. The document suggests this proposal has come about primarily due to the large increase in HGV-based vehicles which are currently able to avoid normal HGV test procedures. If they are HGV - based they can be dealt with easily under current test procedures and in some ways the idea is very sensible.

 

However it is proposed that those vehicles which fall outside Construction & Use Regs (for example by virtue of their width - like a heavy haulage tractor maybe), or come under the category of Engineering Plant (like a 15 tonne artic wheeled loader) are also to be subject to testing. Quite how this would be achieved in practise is not yet clear.

 

In terms of how it might will :-( affect our hobby -

 

I'm not sure how post 1960 historic vehicles are going to be able to escape this latest round-up :-( Some form of exemption would be ideal but it will need some 'recognised body' to make a stand on this. I can't see individual representations being taken too seriously unless they are legion in number, but that must not stop us writing/emailing etc.

 

The fact that the Government has the ability under E.C. legislation to issue various exemptions does not make me feel any happier - their view is that this proposal primarily affects commercial operators who can simply recoup any additional cost burden by increasing the cost of the service they provide.

 

Sadly I can recall several 'restored' mvs which really should not have been on the road. 'Our' old vehicles may be unroadworthy due to faults which 'we' have obviously ignored, or due to un some unseen but potentially dangerous fault despite reasonable diligence in 'our' inspections. If 'we' cannot police 'ourselves', I guess someone will inevitably do it for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 37 of the Consultation Document says there will be no one off costs. Clearly, if different standards will suddenly apply (I don't understand why they should) then this needs to be brought to their attention.

 

 

 

 

 

This document also produces no evidence about the risk to public safety regarding vehicles that are test exempt. The whole wording of the consultation is based on GUESS WORK. They claim that 10% of commercial vehicles are ones that are test exempt. This is utter rubbish. Looking at two types of vehicle as an example.

 

Mobile Cranes: These vehicles are going to come under the scope of testing under the new rules. How the hell (as mentioned) are you going to test a 1000 ton mobile crane? VOSA will have to spend millions converting their test centres as most you wouldn't even get a crane that size through the gates. It would have to be done outside with the testers lying underneath the crane.

 

Recovery Vehicles: These are also exempt MOT testing for suspended tow capable wreckers. These could be tested without too much trouble.

 

However look at both of these vehicles. Both will be owned by commercial operators that would have the proper garage facilities and mechanics to maintain them. So the governments argument about "road safety" just doesn't wash as both these types will be maintained to the strictest standards. All this has come about because the government is bankrupt and is looking at getting as much money as it can out of joe public. They have identified an area where people are not paying £100 a time to get their vehicles inspected and thought this is one way of making the claimed £9 odd million a year. Take a 1000 ton crane to VOSA and they will take your money and give you a test certificate without even looking at it properly as they just haven't got the facilities.

 

As far as one off costs are concerned. Well for the fabrication and fitment of side impact bars, rear bumper and the fitment and callibration of a tachograph (even though once fitted I will not be required to use it), a day off work to take it to VOSA and the test fee I'm going to be looking at a bill of at least £1,500 to £2,000. This for a vehicle that is going to be used 8 or 10 times maximum a year!! It just wont be worth the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This document also produces no evidence about the risk to public safety regarding vehicles that are test exempt. The whole wording of the consultation is based on GUESS WORK. They claim that 10% of commercial vehicles are ones that are test exempt. This is utter rubbish. .............

 

I think you'll find that any hgv used primarily for engineering purposes and not carrying a commercial load (for example all those Highways vehicles used on barrier repair work?, and maybe even cone-laying vehicles?) are also exempt. Just look at all the special purpose trucks around now and you can then see how the numbers start to add up! White line marker trucks, road sweepers, bridge inspection units - again all pure HGV chassis, the list is endless. But I too am surprised it's as much as 10%.

 

If you build an overwidth body on an hgv chassis to carry a specific load (and that load only) I think it falls outside C&U Regs and is therefore test exempt?

Edited by N.O.S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that any hgv used primarily for engineering purposes and not carrying a commercial load (for example all those Highways vehicles used on barrier repair work?, and maybe even cone-laying vehicles?) are also exempt. Just look at all the special purpose trucks around now and you can then see how the numbers start to add up! White line marker trucks, road sweepers, bridge inspection units - again all pure HGV chassis, the list is endless. But I too am surprised it's as much as 10%.

 

If you build an overwidth body on an hgv chassis to carry a specific load (and that load only) I think it falls outside C&U Regs and is therefore test exempt?

 

 

 

 

 

There may seem to be a lot of vehicles test exempt, but honestly there isn't the amount that is claimed. All the vehicles you have mentioned are local authority vehicles that are maintained to high standards whether they require an MOT or not, so the argument about road safety is a false one really. Most of the people that are going to come under this are the local authority, crane operators and wrecker companies. All the other categories are so small the numbers are hardly worth looking at. BUT, by their very nature of specialism, this will bring most of us under their shadow.

 

I've written to my local MP and have also fired off a letter to the woman at DforT, MVT and the FBHV. I've nearly done all I can at the moment, lets hope others are doing the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just received a reply from Ed Vaizey MP, my local MP on this matter. This was his response.

 

 

Many thanks Andrew, I will write to Paul Clark next week to ensure that he is aware of the concerns of the owners of historic military vehilcles. You put your case very well, and I am sure the Govt should listen./ Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read the details, but one point which could have a huge impact, do they stipulate "built after 1960" or "first registered since 1960", if its the latter then a lot more vehicles could get tangled up. My Matador wasnt released and registered until 1971 so it could fall foul (registered as mobile crane being a timber tractor).

We put trucks through MOT, oldest being 1968 Leyland 16tonner, it has to meet emissions tests, endure the paint chipping hammer all over etc etc. Then you need to hope you get a tester who knows what is and isnt required on a vintage private use vehicle, questions like where is your tacho calibration, seat belts, ABS warning lights, certain rear view mirrors and so on.

Booking an MOT is not just ring up and turn up the next day either, needs to be booked well in advance. If it fails you could get a restricted movement order (or similar terminology) meaning you cant drive it home and I dont suppose your AA membership will cover taking big bits of kit back home after a fail.

I dont suppose it will stop the determined from being an MV owner but I guess it could put a lot of people off and will probably have a detrimental affect on vehicle prices too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't our vehicles fall under the "16. Limited use vehicles" in annex A and therefore be exempt?

 

One argument that could (should?) be brought up is the financial impact to the economy if testing was imposed on collectors vehicles. It would kill a big part of the hobby which would have a devastating effect on the hundreds of shows held around the country each year - shows that bring in paying public to see the vehicles and thereby helps line the VAT and TAX mans coffers.

 

PS: Lets not leave the EU as I would probably get kicked out of the country then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't our vehicles fall under the "16. Limited use vehicles" in annex A and therefore be exempt?

 

One argument that could (should?) be brought up is the financial impact to the economy if testing was imposed on collectors vehicles. It would kill a big part of the hobby which would have a devastating effect on the hundreds of shows held around the country each year - shows that bring in paying public to see the vehicles and thereby helps line the VAT and TAX mans coffers.

 

PS: Lets not leave the EU as I would probably get kicked out of the country then!

Sorry!!!:embarrassed:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading it again, the intention is to pull in HGV-based vehicles. Any specials which wouldn't easily be accomodated in HGV test stations and roller brake test units look to be dealt with by either exemption or some form of 'condition test' whatever that may be.

 

I have not been able to find an explanation of 'limited use' exemption - the definition of which might be crucial for post-1960 mvs :sweat:Anyone?

Edited by N.O.S.
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - so who is going to pick up the challenge and rally on HMVF's behalf???

 

 

 

 

Haven't we got a Lawyer on the membership that could be our point man? Either that or someone who is able to hold a conversation with "the powers that be", someone respectable and in a position of authority, a Doctor, Lawyer, Government Civil Servant etc?

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...