important MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT

[griff66]

loggy driver yes i was surprised that mvt etc new nothing about this till the 29 of jan when i posted the thread and link although clive elliot contacted preston? some days ago ,was that friday the 29 jan.?

Edited February 1, 2010 by griff66

[john fox]

Can we have some input from some other owners of post 1960 / pre 1973 mvs as to how this proposal might affect them?

 

in addition to antarmikes clarification regarding definitions of vehicle classes, I would like to add that anyone owning wheeled armour >3,500kg weight will be afffected by this, as the correct classificiation of such vehciles is as motor tractor, light or heavy locomotive.

 

As has already been stated the document as it stands does not acknowledge the existence of such vehicles and so does not categorically address them. Yes, the document refers to HGV based motor tractors etc, so you could argue that, as these military AFVs are not HGV based, then they continue to be an MOT exemption, as the document alludes to the fact that the removal of exemption for those 3 classes will apply only to HGV based vehicles.

 

However, would it not be much better to have this out once and for all, and to get an unambiguous statement included in the definition which accepts the existence of AFVs in private hands and defines whether they are, or are not, MOT exempt without reference to age. For example, there have been several posts on here regarding whether a 1965 Ferret is exempt. I, along with other owners, have an email from VOSA saying they regard "these" vehicles as Motor Tractors and therefore the exemption is in that class, but I would much rather that a definitive statement is made

Edited February 7, 2010 by john fox

[Mk3iain]

loggy driver yes i was surprised that mvt etc new nothing about this till the 29 of jan when i posted the thread and link although clive elliot contacted preston? some days ago ,was that friday the 29 jan.?

 

Looking on the FBHVC website, they knew of this on 10 Dec. 2009, they initially informed the Historic Commercial Vehicle Society and the National Traction Engine Club. They make a point that it will not effect pre 1960 vehicles !!

Hmm

[LoggyDriver]

loggy driver yes i was surprised that mvt etc new nothing about this till the 29 of jan when i posted the thread and link although clive elliot contacted preston? some days ago ,was that friday the 29 jan.?

 

 

 

 

 

The 29th was Friday mate. As soon as I saw your link I started firing off emails. I also sent one to Preston but as yet, no reply. The only reply I've had so far is from my local MP (within 15 minutes too!! Thanks Mr Vaisey).

 

 

What have the people you have spoken to said about the matter?

[LoggyDriver]

Looking on the FBHVC website, they knew of this on 10 Dec. 2009, they initially informed the Historic Commercial Vehicle Society and the National Traction Engine Club. They make a point that it will not effect pre 1960 vehicles !!

Hmm

 

 

 

 

 

If that's the case they must have forgotten all the other vehicles, whether pre or post 1960 that will aslo be subject to this legislation. Don't forget that once the landslide starts, no one know's where it will stop. Anyone could be burried alive!!!

[griff66]

they also make the point that they hav,nt approached any one formally yet ,elsewhere on there website they mention historic vehicle definition is 30yrs or older .

[Eastblock]

I won't object to vehicle testing as long as it is done based on a standard that is appropriate for the age of the vehicle. And of course the test centres need to be plentiful so you don't have to wait a long time for an appointment and have to drive long distance for the test. However I am not sure what the test aims to achieve. It only proves that the vehicle is "safe" at the time of being tested. It could develop a serious fault on the way home from the testing station. If safety is a concern, scrap the test and all the bureaucracy and cost that comes with it. Spend the money on more spot checks and apply appropriate fines if vehicles don't meet the required standards.

[griff66]

this aint about safety ,its so we the uk, comply with eu law and the gov dvla vosa etc cant be deemed in non compliance with eu law.

[croc]

A lot of people own quite modern trucks (myself included) which are not classified as "Historic" due to being under 25 years of age. I would need to wait until 2011 to clasify mine as "Historic".

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but the rolling "25 year exempt" taxation class was killed off by Mr Brown in 1998 and replaced with the current "Historic" taxation class for vehicles buiilt before 01/01/1973.

[woa2]

Just heard on the Radio this morning that the Dept of Transport now produce the application for a Hire Car Driver in Braille!!

[woa2]

this aint about safety ,its so we the uk, comply with eu law and the gov dvla vosa etc cant be deemed in non compliance with eu law.

 

I was speaking to the current owner of an Austin Champ I used to own, who lives in France. He only has to get it MoT'd every 2 years. I wonder when we get to comply with this rule?

[Eastblock]

I was speaking to the current owner of an Austin Champ I used to own, who lives in France. He only has to get it MoT'd every 2 years. I wonder when we get to comply with this rule?

 

Same in Germany and Denmark for non-commercial vehicles. MOT is about money, not safety IMNSHO.

[john fox]

I was speaking to the current owner of an Austin Champ I used to own, who lives in France. He only has to get it MoT'd every 2 years. I wonder when we get to comply with this rule?

 

 

 

Every member state has the right to impose local (country) regulations that are in addition to the (minimum) EC standards - provided that such regulations are not so onerous that they impede with free trade and would prevent a citizen from another member state competing with a UK national in the UK market. Therefore we can have annual testing and France can have biennial testing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incidentally, the whole subject of a move to 2 year testing was the subject of a similar consultation exercise here in the Uk - in reality it was rejected on the grounds it would lead to a massive loss of jobs from all those garages and mechanics dependant on the annual testing market (ie repairing the failures)

 

 

[antarmike]

Clearly affected are Diamond T 980/981. Although pre 1960, there exeption is not based on being a pre 1960 vehicle, used unladen. These are not goods vehicles, they are locomotives, not being designed, themselves, to carry a load. At the moment exempy due to being a Loco. that is prposed to change.

 

Diamond T 969, currently exempt, (recovery vehicle) but due to become mandatory tested.

 

And I just want to say there are some out there who seem a bit complacent, saying it doesn't affect me. No-one knows how their life will pan out and many aspire to own a larger vehicle. This needs fighting, not just because of wehat you own, but also what you might end up owning one day in the future!

Edited February 1, 2010 by antarmike

[N.O.S.]

I am replying to this because I am concerned that some folk might get alarmed unnecessarily unless we should be clearly understand what vehicles might be affected.

 

I believe your comments on recovery trucks for example are quite alarmist - you'll be telling me next that my Chevrolet M6 bomb service truck is a recovery vehicle and therefore will need an MOT because it has a crane! Or should it be a light locomotive, because it pulls trailers? Why can't it just be what it says on the log book - a 2 axle rigid body vehicle taxed as historic? If I put a Number 7 set in the back of my gmc does it magically turn from a 3 axle rigid body into a recovery truck? I dont think so!

 

 

Iam sorry to say that your post is really quite flawed, Which parts? I won't pick up on everything that I believe you have got wrong, I am trying to keep a united front on this one. For everyones' sake I think you should point out where it is incorrect (if I have left something out it might be because I don't know, that does not anything incorrect) - this is important to understand who would be affected by this proposal.

 

Any historic vehicle of any age can carry a load, proovided it isn't in connection with a business. I don't remember saying it couldn't, but that's not to say I agree with you! I thought any vehicle taxed as HISTORIC could not carry/pull a load unless MOT'd

 

You seem to be getting confused with driver licencing rules that say you can drive a pre 1960 vehicle unladed without an HGV licence, I never mentioned licences but this also means that you can drive it laden provided you have the correct HGV licence (and an MOT?). You can also pull a laden trailer with a pre 1960 vehicle providing it is tested (that would be an MOT would it?), if necessary, and the load . again , is not in connection with a business.

 

Motor tractor, Light Locomotive and hevay locomotives are not taxation classes I don't recall saying they were These are vehicle definitions outlined in Construction and use regs. Currently all these classes are MOT exempt. I have not disputed any of these 3 statements

 

In this class are any vehicle that is not designed to carry a load, itself. All manner of ballast tractors post 1960 but pre 1973have been exempt, but will now require testing. Can you indicate if you think you vehicle falls in this category, because it is proposed you need to tbe tested. All Pre 1960 Motor tractors Light and heavy locomotives, have also been exempt but will also need testing.

 

Anyone with a recovery vehicle of whatever age will be required to MOT it, be it Wartime Mack, Ward LeFrance, Pioneer, or post war Explorer, militant, Foden Eka Scammell, Martian. That is quite a lot of vehicles requiring testing amongst the members of this forum! Only if they want to use them as a recovery truck. I will leave my WLF as a 3 axle rigid body and not use it for recovery.

 

Taxation class is not the same as vehicle definition. All Motor tractors, light locomaotives, and heavy loco's built before 1973 will require testing even if they are taxed Historic.

 

Oh I'm so gullible - it was just another wind-up, wasn't it? :yawn:

Edited February 3, 2010 by N.O.S.

[antarmike]

I am replying to this because I am concerned that some folk might get alarmed unnecessarily unless we should be clearly understand what vehicles might be affected.

 

I believe your comments on recovery trucks for example are quite alarmist - you'll be telling me next that my Chevrolet M6 bomb service truck is a recovery vehicle and therefore will need an MOT because it has a crane! Or should it be a light locomotive, because it pulls trailers? Why can't it just be what it says on the log book - a 2 axle rigid body vehicle taxed as historic? If I put a Number 7 set in the back of my gmc does it magically turn from a 3 axle rigid body into a recovery truck? I dont think so!

 

 

 

 

Oh I'm so gullible - it was just another wind-up, wasn't it? :yawn:

 

 

Most definitely not a wind up. Don't yawn, I think you need to be fully awake.

" axle rigid body, three axle rigid body are not vehicle definitions according to C and U regs. These terms are completely irrelevant to the matter in hand. This draft proposal relates to different classes of vehicles, identifying them by their Construction and Use definition.

 

If you Bomb service truck was designed to carry a load, on public roads, ie it has a load area on which goods are placed for carraige, then it is a goods vehicle. If it carries bombs from the bomb dump to Aircraft, within the perimeter of an airfield, then I doubt it is a goods vehicle, a goods vehicle being designed for "on road" use .

 

You may currently have exemption from testing due to it being pre 1960motor vehicle used unladen. but if you ever decided to carry a bomb, you would loose this exemption.

 

I expect the most fitting definition WILL PROVE TO BE either be motor tractor, or light locomotive.

 

To fall into these categories it does not have to pull a trailer.

 

The definition for motor tractor, Light Locomotive and heavy locomotive are basically the same, namely

"A mechanically proplelled vehicle not itself constructed to carry a load other than equipment for propulsion, loose tools and loose equipment.

 

If the unladen weight is less than 7,370 Kgs it is a motor tractor. If its unladed weight is between 7,320 Kgs but less than 11,690 Kds it is a light Locomotive, if its unladen weight exceeds 11,690 Kgs it is a heavy locomotive.

 

If your bomb service truck is a motor tractor or a locomotive, then your current exemption from MOT testing comes because at present Motor tractors and Loco's are exempt testing. The proposal is that they will become mandatory tested vehicles.

 

Curently, if you are a Motor tractor, or locomotive you are MOT exempt, but can tow a trailer loaded with bombs, if you want to.

 

After the proposed changes come into force you will not be able to do this. You will loose a priveledge you currently enjoy. It might not be very significant to you but you position with the bomb service truck will change if this legislationgoes through

 

I will post shortly all the definitions of the other vehicle definitions from Construction and use regs. I will let you decide where your truck fits best. I intend to draw up a list of the more common vehicles, what class of vehicle (according to C and U regs), I believe they fall into.

 

Remember everybody this proposed legislation makes no mention of what tax disc you have in the window. This is not about Excise duty and whether your vehicle is historic or not. Ie how it is registered. Historic Vehicle is another term that is totally irrelevant to the matter in hand. It is not a vehicle definition according to Construction and use regs.

 

This is to do with how D of T views your vehicle according to the classes defined in construction and use regs.

 

All we know is there is no propsal to remove the exemtion on MOT testing for Pre 1960 motor vehicles used unladen and not drawing a laden traier.

 

 

If the vehicle is a loco, light or heavy, a motor tractor, a recovery vehicle, (amongst others) it will loose its exemption from MOT testing, no matter what taxation class it is, if it was built after 1960.

 

If your vehicle is a motor tractor or a loco 9pre or post 1960) you can currently tow a loaded trailer, without testing. You will loose this right.

 

This has implications for anyone towing a Rogers trailer and Sherman behind a Diamond T!

Edited February 1, 2010 by antarmike

[LoggyDriver]

Sorry to disappoint you, but the rolling "25 year exempt" taxation class was killed off by Mr Brown in 1998 and replaced with the current "Historic" taxation class for vehicles buiilt before 01/01/1973.

 

 

 

 

Oh, how did that slip out...:wow:

 

What I meant to say was that a vehicle, as it gets older, should be classed as "Historic" but it's not. So mine being 25 years old in 2011 should be classed as Historic, but it never will be. :red:

[croc]

I have read through the document a couple if times now and also spoken to the person responsible for running the consultation. To be honest it seems quite reasonable to question these categorys, aimed at people abusing the system to save operating costs. (Just like the "Fire Engine" category being restricted when the limousine companies started abusing that one.)

In principal it is saying that vehicles that can be tested, should be tested. I can't see a problem with that.

 

It does seem that preserved vehicles have not, so far, been considered, because it is aimed at stopping modern stuff using old loopholes.

 

The change seems to be in the plating and testing regulations rather than the construction and use regulations so there is no proposal to test a 1960s vehicle to modern standards. For example, fitting of rear and side guards are not required for vehicles made before 1.1.84 so a 1967 Bedfoerd RL can't fail a test for not having them fitted.

 

I have sent the person responsible for this consultation (Robert Newman, vehicleroadworthiness@dft.gsi.gov.uk, 0207 9446575) the link to this thread, he would welcome any sensible contributions to the consultation process. Remember it is still an active consultation, the best thing to do is present constructive responses.

[antarmike]

I am replying to this because I am concerned that some folk might get alarmed unnecessarily unless we should be clearly understand what vehicles might be affected.

 

I believe your comments on recovery trucks for example are quite alarmist :yawn:

 

 

 

Please explain.

 

The proposal is that recovery vehicles will loose their current MOT exemtion and require testing.

 

 

A road recovery vehicleis a vehicle that is a locomotive ; an N3 motor vehicle, or a combination of an N3 motor vehicle and an O4 trailer: which is:-

(a) Specially designed and constructed for the recovery of disabled road vehicles, or which is permantly adapted for this purpose:

(b) fitted with a crane, winch, or other lifting system specially designed for recovering another vehicle and;

© and meets the requirements for registration under the vehicle excise and registration act 1994.

 

So yes maybe I am being a bit alarmist because the vehicle actually has to be registered as a recovery vehicle, before it is concidered to be one, but this must affect some Foden, Eka, Militant owners, because I am sure some of these are registered as recovery vehicles. If they are registered as such, curreently they do not need testing, but in the future they will.

Edited February 1, 2010 by antarmike

[croc]

If it is not a goods vehicle as defined in construction and use regs, then you have no exemtion from testing due to it being pre 1960 used unladen.

 

The exemption is for "GOODS VEHICLES" first used before 1960 and used unladen.

 

 

Mike, my interpretation of this is that the pre '60 exemption "motor vehicals first used before 1.1.1960 and trailers manufactured before 1.1.1960 used unladen." is one of several exemptions from the sched 2 goods vehicles (plating and testing)regulations 1988. Others in the exempt list include funeral vehicles, lifeboat vehicles and playbuses, none of these could be described as "good vehicles"

Edited February 1, 2010 by croc

[antarmike]

Mike, my interpretation of this is that the pre '60 exemption "motor vehicals first used before 1.1.1960 and trailers manufactured before 1.1.1960 used unladen." is one of several exemptions from the sched 2 goods vehicles (plating and testing)regulations 1988. Others in the exempt list include funeral vehicles, lifeboat vehicles and playbuses, none of these could be described as "good vehicles"

 

Okay, but theyse examples all carry goods or burden of any description

Funeral vehicle, Coffin and body. You cease to be a passenger when you die and become burden.

Lifeboat is the goods or burden. If you carry a boat or a yacht it is goods or burden, a lifeboat is simply a type of boat.

Playbus contains toys, loose seating, tables, educational material. All of which if being taken to a shop for sale bu a carrier would be goods or burden.

Edited February 1, 2010 by antarmike

[croc]

They all carry goods or burden of any description

Funeral vehicle, Coffin and body. You cease to be a passenger when you die and become burden.

Lifeboat is the goods or burden. If you carry a boat or a yacht it is goods or burden, a lifeboat is simply a type of boat.

Playbus contains toys, loose seating, tables, educational material. All of which if being taken to a shop for sale bu a carrier would be goods or burden.

 

Also in the list are "vehicles going to a port for export" and "police vehicles"

 

Are the police a burden? :cool2:

[LoggyDriver]

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.

 

Some of you have said you have no objection to testing. Well that's fine, if the testing is going to be proportionate to the vehicle and it's age. I'm pretty certain the DoT are thinking about nice modern cranes and engineering trucks that they want to bring into line with other HGV's and all that lovely test fee money coming in, not to mention more employment of MOT inspectors to make their record look better is a factor too, but they haven't given any thought to the thousands of vehicles that are 20, 30, 40, 50 years old. If this current proposal gets in then that will be the end of private historic vehicle ownership and the hobby as we know it. It might not happen now, next year or even five or ten years, but there will come a time when more and more regulations will be added to the test requirments for these vehicles that will make it impossible to get them through. Call it alarmist if you like, I don't think it is. Once this sort of thing starts there is no stopping it. Just look at the EU!!

 

So lets start seeing a united front and fight this the best we can TOGETHER.

[griff66]

it might also be helpful to to non mv enthusiasts reading this to give a few stats of vehicles, someone i spoke to today had no idea a daimler ferret was approx the same footprint as a mk1 fiesta and probably weighed about one and a half range rovers, and most definitely not sitting on a hgv based chassis!

[antarmike]

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.

 

Some of you have said you have no objection to testing. Well that's fine, if the testing is going to be proportionate to the vehicle and it's age. I'm pretty certain the DoT are thinking about nice modern cranes and engineering trucks that they want to bring into line with other HGV's and all that lovely test fee money coming in, not to mention more employment of MOT inspectors to make their record look better is a factor too, but they haven't given any thought to the thousands of vehicles that are 20, 30, 40, 50 years old. If this current proposal gets in then that will be the end of private historic vehicle ownership and the hobby as we know it. It might not happen now, next year or even five or ten years, but there will come a time when more and more regulations will be added to the test requirments for these vehicles that will make it impossible to get them through. Call it alarmist if you like, I don't think it is. Once this sort of thing starts there is no stopping it. Just look at the EU!!

 

So lets start seeing a united front and fight this the best we can TOGETHER.

 

Thanks for your common sense. It also has to do with protecting everyone in the preservation movement. These changes will affect many people who own civilian recovery trucks, Heavy haulage vehicles and the like.

 

YOu like to see five Genuine Pickford's trucks pulling a 200 Ton trailer through Watford Gap at GDSF. IT is quite likely that all these trucks, being Tractors and locomotives will be off the road next year, because their owners cannot justify the expense of testing for a weeks use of the vehicle.

 

As I said, even vehicles never used on the public highway will need testing if they are to be shown at a Steam Rally.

 

It might be a private field, having come on the back of a low loader, and will return the same way, but Road Traffic act Applies to green field to which the public have access, this means if they need an MOT they have to have it.

 

People who keep a vehicle, just to low load it to the odd show, for a run around on grass are also going to need to get their vehicle MOT tested even for this limited use.

 

Please can we keep one thread on the forum serious.

Edited February 1, 2010 by antarmike