important MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT

[Marmite!!]

no signals, i dont think any one has just been sitting around talking about this.:cool2:

That's correct, Mike has been very working hard to gather all the relevant information posted in the "Chat" in these posts so as to put in a response to consultation on behalf of HMVF & it's members.

[paulob1]

I have written my letter of interest and I have had two replies so far. They are listening. Whether they are taking any of use seriously and whther the HMVF has any clout it has to be useful.

 

My personal stance is that it is ludicrous to test our old trucks tanks and vehicles to modern standards when they are 30 40 or more years old.

 

If VOSA could introduce a basic roadworthiness test for all vehicles then we could have all of our vehcicles tested at little cost and without fear of them failing becuase brake two on the left side is 60% of brake two on the left hand side, for a vehicle that is ten tons and does little more than 30 mph does it really matter...if they ar not carrying commercial loads they need at worst a histroic vehicle test, or no test at all.

 

We must I agree however make sure our vehicles are in good condition...even if they are only toys..

 

my machines all do less than 200 miles a year...they are well maintained, eh Barry...and I fix them if they break...what else can you ask for...

[paulob1]

Yes, the examiner remains in the cab during the brake test part of the HGV licence test. They only get out to observe the reverse test.

 

My test examiner took great delight in explaining why he personnally checked if the cab was fastenend in position, he was in a cab when they did the 20mph test (not 30) and it was not and the cab tilted forward with them in it...scary, the driver was in hospital apparently.

[croc]

My personal stance is that it is ludicrous to test our old trucks tanks and vehicles to modern standards when they are 30 40 or more years old.

 

There is no mention, anywhere in the proposal, of testing old vehicles to modern standards.

[No Signals]

no signals, i dont think any one has just been sitting around talking about this.:cool2:

 

I did not say that 'any one has just been sitting round and talking about this'. I made a point that rather than 'sit around' (get involved) in talking(typing) about it I put forward 'a polite and considered response' on behalf of any/all historic vehicles of any origin or description. Rather than get involved in the useful and well focussed discussion in this thread, or indeed in any others. I chose not to involve in the discussion as there are so many better qualified and experienced souls on here who can put the technical facts so much more accurately than myself - and I dont have a HGV anyway, so I'd be talking about something i know very little about. That didn't stop me from putting in a word of support, that I think seems to have brought a positive response of sorts from those conducting the process.

 

Typical of how this site has moved though, that this should be seen by some as reason to twist my words to take a swipe at me because of my effort!

[griff66]

no offense meant or implied.:cool2:

[griff66]

POST 149.:cool2:

[David Ives]

got my reply today

 

Thank you for your response to the HGV MOT testing consultation.

 

As you are probably aware, we’ve had a number of responses from historic vehicle collectors. We will be talking to relevant representatives and experts prior to drafting legislation, to look at options such as you suggest and to ensure that we don’t catch individuals who were not the intended target of these proposals. Which is not to promise that everybody who currently claims to have an exempt historic vehicle will avoid the categories that we are seeking to change.

 

The point you have made about VOSA being able to accommodate unusual vehicles is also one that has to be looked at in detail. We are not going to try to introduce new rules if it is then impossible for VOSA to comply with them.

 

I hope that this goes some way towards reassuring you.

 

 

:cool2:

Edited February 5, 2010 by David Ives

[griff66]

if you look back at post 149 and the reply they gave to my inquiries, i think they are listening and we are not the target group ,and so far the feedback from robert newman etc is very good,this will be a long process .:cool2:

[LoggyDriver]

So did they pass it, refuse to test it or tell him to come back once he had made the vital bits accessible? Common sense dictates that you cannot pass something that you have not inspected.

 

 

 

No they didn't mate. They inspected the bits they could get at and that was it. I know it sounds silly that they didn't check exhaust, steering etc, but as the belly plate was part of the vehicle they only tested what was accessible. My mate is the author of a well known Land Rover Book.

[arm carp]

so where will i stand with my 432?

[Brooky]

I talked to John Attlee tonight, He has had Tapley tests done. He says there is no problem withthem, they work, there appears to be no set speed,(but I beieve a minimum speed of 15 mPH has to be reached) it is a matter of judgement on the part of the tester, knowing the vehicle and the space available to him Hand brake is tested on the artificial hill at all test centres.

 

http://www.tttonline.com/product/brake%20gauges%20and%20tools/Tapley.htm

or the modern version thereof

http://www.aideautomotive.com/products/commercial_vehicle/brakecheck.php

 

I think it is a bit like the controlled stop in the HGV test, where you drive and accelerate to 30 mph before reaching the marker then brake in a controlled manner. In the HGV test the examiner is outside the vehicle at the time but he has done that many he instinctively know what 30 MPH looks like!

 

Examiner sits in the vehicle and you need to reach 20mph

[arm carp]

so what kind of test would it have to have?

[Mk3iain]

so where will i stand with my 432?

 

Fv432. Tracked vehicle, still exempt surely?

[arm carp]

i do hope so, it will be a right pain having to take it to work for a test

[paulob1]

how on earth would you test an fv 432 on a rolling road for brake performance, modern standards cannot apply, how would you test a stalwart on a rolling road, ie you cant...some tests are sensible some not...the issue is we need a clear picture on where we stand with them,...what we dont need is VOSA telling us this vehicle needs testing to this standard, ie commercial spec trucks to be road worthy. I have a similar answer from them...i think we all have to just keep making it clear that we as histroic vehicle owneres, ex military do need some consideration, right now we have nothing and have to try and fit in with the modern ruels as is...it isnt easy nor sensible...i hope the team looking at this think so too...

[Mk3iain]

i do hope so, it will be a right pain having to take it to work for a test

 

If you look at annex A of the consultation paper "caterpillar Tracked" vehicles are not earmarked for removal of exemtion, also steam driven vehicles etc. I take this to mean " no change"!

[croc]

if you look back at post 149 and the reply they gave to my inquiries, i think they are listening and we are not the target group ,and so far the feedback from robert newman etc is very good,this will be a long process .:cool2:

 

Robert Newman has been very helpful, he has shown enough interest to become a forum member and read this thread. I hope that, now the initial panic has died down, we can start to discuss the proposal and come up with some sensible contributions for Antarmike to put forward on behalf of HMVF.

[Mk3iain]

It might help if we each print of a copy of the proposal and have a good read and then read it again a couple of days later.

I have read it at least twice completly and I still have to go over bits. But then I am half blind ( an age thing!)

I know, its just me.

 

I am starting to hope/feel that things might not be as bad as we feared.

But then as they say; "Hope for the best but prepare for the worst":nut:

[Adam Elsdon]

Speaking with Croc earlier, thats what we came up with, you really need to look at it a few times to get a handle on it.

And welcome Mr Newman, thanks for taking such an interest in our wildly varying bunch of old vehicles!

[N.O.S.]

I did not say that 'any one has just been sitting round and talking about this'. I made a point that rather than 'sit around' (get involved) in talking(typing) about it I put forward 'a polite and considered response' on behalf of any/all historic vehicles of any origin or description. Rather than get involved in the useful and well focussed discussion in this thread, or indeed in any others. I chose not to involve in the discussion as there are so many better qualified and experienced souls on here who can put the technical facts so much more accurately than myself - and I dont have a HGV anyway, so I'd be talking about something i know very little about. That didn't stop me from putting in a word of support, that I think seems to have brought a positive response of sorts from those conducting the process.

 

Typical of how this site has moved though, that this should be seen by some as reason to twist my words to take a swipe at me because of my effort!

 

Interesting. I too, like OOEC25, backed out if the discssion. Not through being ignored, but having had my post (which was inteneded to help keep us on track) fairly comprehensively ridiculed by HMVF's respected authority on the subject.

 

So nice, though, to discover some time later (thanks Croc – I couldn’t find that bit of legislation wording again) that at least some of it may not be complete cr&p. If nothing else it proves that not one of us on here has all the answers :whistle:

 

But being constructive for a moment, if anyone has an interest in moving closer towards a response on this proposal -

 

It seems to me that before you can create the most effective response to this proposal, you must fully understand (in relation to preserved military vehicles) -

 

1. what the present Regulation framework is,

2. who enjoys the benefits of this framework, and how,

3. what the proposal is, why it is needed, and how will it be applied,

4. who/which vehicles will be affected, and how.

 

Some of the posts on here have been very useful in this respect by highlighting people’s concerns and experiences. It shows that sometimes taxation / testing regulations are not always clear, nor is the advice sometimes given, and they are open to variations in interpretation. Not surprising then that it can be difficult to work out what sections of legislation apply to both our vehicle and its intended use.

 

But as vehicle operators it is our responsibility to do just that. I have found VOSA / DVLA to be pretty helpful in this respect, and I like to think I understood carefully what I could do with each of my vehicles. The one exeption being my only dabble to date with post 1960 large MVs was a 'special types' vehicle used both commercially and privately, so I was able to survive for long enough in that "grey" area - without needing to resolve out how to tax, test, or claim exemption for an overwidth vehicle. So I do appreciate how difficult it can be to resolve this whole 1960 - 1973 thing :cry:

 

There's another point - it would be very useful if people could post references to parts of the legislation which they believe apply - the wording in Croc's post is the key to understanding pre-1960 stuff. I had researched that when I got started but just could not find it again recently. Nor can I find the various bits relating to operating old vehicles LADEN, which I had only partly researched before deciding I didn't need to go down that route.

 

And there does seem to be a bit of confusion still (at least I know I’m still confused). For example, Stormin - unless you specify how you will use your WLF (unladen or laden) I doubt Mike will be able to give you an accurate answer. You've also raised the question of what parts of the C&U Regs apply in terms of overhanging boom etc. I was under the impression that they didn't apply to an unladen historic pre-1960 mv if it is 'as built' but I'm confused now as well :cheesy:

 

So - with the sole aim of trying to help Mike pull this together and make some progress on a response, here’s my take on it all:

 

Please note all references to ‘vehicle’ below means ‘large motor vehicle’ (i.e. >3.5t) Please also feel at liberty to point out any errors I may have made or question my reasoning, as the aim is to get the basic facts right so Mike can move on to the most difficult stage of his task – the case for keeping exemptions.

 

1) Present Regulation Framework

 

· any vehicle pre-1973 can enjoy the benefit of Historic (nil) tax (except buses and goods vehicles used commercially), subject to being used unladen

 

· any large vehicle (i.e. >3.5t) pre-1960 and used unladen does not require annual testing (MOT). All vehicles post 1960 require MOT with certain exeptions (see below)

 

· Some vehicles are eligible to be classed in a category which allows them to be exempt from testing regardless of age (e.g. tracklaying), and which in some cases also permits them (e.g. locomotive) to be used laden.

 

· I understand that pre-1973 and pre-1960 vehicles can be used to carry loads either commercially or privately, but I don’t know the specific taxation / testing regulations applying in these cases so will leave that for others to advise.

 

· I’m of the view that it is not necessary to define a pre-1973 / historic taxed vehicle by its type, or body type (e.g. 3 axle rigid, or recovery) on the vehicle registration document (unless it will be used for a purpose allowable under that category i.e. other than Historic unladen use?) So even if your Explorer vrd says ‘Breakdown’ it will still be regarded as a Historic heavy motor vehicle by the authorities if taxed as Historic and used unladen (clarification of this would be very helpful)

 

· (trivia question – why was 1960 chosen as the cut-off for exemption?)

 

 

2) Who are ‘we’, and how is this framework enjoyed by us?

 

· ‘We’ are owners / operators of MVs who drive them unladen on the highway, and maybe attend public shows, for our own enjoyment and the enjoyment of others

 

· ‘We’ are like them above, but we are a bit (well actually a lot!) more adventurous and work our MVs hard by carrying loads, even to the extent of fully freighting a Diamond T and Rogers trailer with a Sherman tank to entertain the public

 

· ‘We’ are also the public who enjoy the spectacle of seeing these old vehicles (and their loads) travelling around the roads and working at rallies. Since we will be affected too, we don’t have to own a vehicle to be able to present our own valid case for consideration.

 

 

3) What is the proposal all about, and why?

 

· Aims to reduce the number of un-tested HGV-based vehicles, and some other groups, using the roads for commercial purposes by imposing further restrictions on test exemptions currently permitted

 

We do need to acknowledge that documented safety inspections - typically every 6 to 8 weeks -and annual 'Ministry' MOTs are deemed the only practical way to ensure the safe commercial operation of HGVs, and that DVLA have good justification for making these proposals.

 

 

4) Who / what MVs will be affected?

 

· Pre-1960 vehicles used unladen: large motor vehicles (>3.5t) operating unladen under Historic tax will not be affected (see * below)

· Pre-1960 vehicles used laden: any vehicle operating under one of those classes currently permitting MOT exemption but under threat of withdrawal

 

· 1960 – 1973 vehicles used unladen: Any vehicles which currently are able to claim exemption from MOT by their class category, should that exemption category be removed (e.g. recovery, locomotive). All other vehicles in this age range continue without change to be subject to MOT. Vehicles might legitimately be put in one of these exempt categories because either -

 

a. it is not possible /practical to get them tested (e.g. over width, permanent 4x4, etc)

b. The owner wants to use them for carrying loads without the requirement for testing

c. The owner is taking advantage of the exemption solely to avoid testing requirement

 

· 1960 – 1973 vehicles used laden: Vehicles currently tested will not be affected. Vehicles currently not tested by virtue of their class exemption will be liable for testing

 

* IMPORTANT! There may be exceptions to this, or at least variations in interpretations by authorities – for example see post 77 by OEC25, Ferrets - clarification required!

 

 

5) How to present the case for MV owners/operators

 

I wonder it might make good sense to distinguish between two specific groups of MV likely to be affected –

 

· 1960-1973 Vehicles used UNLADEN (majority of vehicles)

· All pre-1973 Vehicles used LADEN (minority of vehicles)

 

Because you may need to put the case for each type in a different way.

 

It would also be a good idea to imagine yourself sitting on the panel deciding this proposal.

 

· Given the changes are intended to only target commercial operstors of HGV-based vehicles, and given the encouraging responses so far to people’s letters, you will hopefully be sympathetic to opportunities to minimise detrimental effects on other vehicle users (like us)

 

· Under what circumstances/conditions would it be reasonable to permit continued exemption for those vehicles currently operating unladen?

 

· Under what circumstances/conditions would it be reasonable to continue to permit fully laden vehicles to operate without formal safety inspections / MOT?

 

To make a case for allowing fully-loaded vehicles to operate without formal safety checks, given the safety implications should anything ‘not go to plan’, is much more difficult than the unladen case, and requires knowledge of such operations. This is where you should be able to come up with some suitable proposals which might be favourably received Mike, as it is your speciality?

 

I'm not sure the panic has died down quite yet, but we must be 1/2 way there :-D

Edited February 5, 2010 by N.O.S.

[AndyFowler]

Thanks for that message Tony :-D! It has cleared a lot up for my own circumstances ! Good luck Mike with your representations !

[Adrian Barrell]

Tony,

 

re the trivia question, it used to be 1.1.1940 and was changed to 1.1.1960 in the 1980's. A 20 year update seemed fair though I suspect another similar update is unlikely! Why 1940 previously? Who knows, though I do remember lots of 1939 GMC CCKW's in the early 1980's..... A little bit of knowledge regarding GM's designation system would uncover the nonsense there!

[john fox]

Thank you NOS. My comments below apply only to wheeled armoured (>3.5t) vehicles. My posting in #77 was based on my own interpretation of the current rules, I am expecting to be corrected.

As we have previously discussed on the MOT thread itself, VOSA have never committed themselves in writing to a consistent definitive position. I asked them years ago about MOT exemption specifically in the context of my Mk1/2 Ferret, given it is of 1965 manufacture, and could not therefore claim the pre 60 age related exemption, but was, in every respect, identical to a pre 60 model. Would they advise on whether I must MOT it because I fell foul of an arbitrary 1960 cut off date or was there recognition that the same model of vehicle, of identical construction to a pre 60 one, was also exempt?

Before Mr R Underwoord responded, I was asked to provide vehicle data and a photo and to confirm what it was – he asked if it was a Saladin or a Saracen! I confirmed it was a Ferret. The answer he gave has influenced me ever since: “we class ALL (my emphasis) such vehicles as your Ferret as Motor Tractors”.

I took this to mean that a Ferret (of any age) is classed as a Motor Tractor and that “such vehicles” included (albeit under the loco class) Saladin, Saracen and so by implication, my Fox. So I conclude that VOSA, having no category for ex military AFV, has applied the nearest suitable one, referred to in the consultation document para 2.2 as vehicles which “are essentially heavy goods vehicles – but which have either no or very limited capacity to carry demountable goods”- ie Section 185 vehicles)

I would now like to point to the (revised) V112G exemption form we all sign. Whilst not a legal expert, I think the wording of the claim form supports my interpretation. The V112g form allows a post 60 Ferret owner to claim option 4, but most pre 60 wheeled AFV, to my knowledge, claim option 3, citing para 30 on the schedule 2 list (“age exempt”). I think the latter is wrong because all wheeled AFV fall outside the scope of Schedule 2 (subject to correct registration so a revenue weight shown on the V5):

is exempt from the provision of Section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 under the Goods Vehicle (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988. The vehicle falls into one of the following four categories:-

• it is exempt under Regulation 44(1)(e) of the 1988 Regs because it is used on the public road by an Order made under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 *

• it is used on certain off-shore islands or other specified areas which are exempted by Regulation 44(2)* of the 1988 Regs

• it is a vehicle of a class listed in Schedule 2 (see over the page) which exempts it from the testing requirement, please state the number of the exemption claimed here.

• it is outside the scope of Schedule 2, i.e. being a heavy/light locomotive or motor tractor within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but has an allocated revenue weight.

 

Now the point I am making is that whilst VOSA may have given me an expedient answer in the manner I wanted at the time (ie yes here are grounds for you being exempt – you are a motor tractor) their letter effectively implied to me that all (wheeled) AFV are section 185 vehicles irrespective of age. Therefore, under the consultation process Annex D applies to any wheeled AFV as VOSA have (for lack of an alternative) categorised wheeled AFV as goods vehicles carrying fixed equipment and this is not a category recognised by the EC, hence the current problem. However, Annex D does itself recognise that there is ambiguity in that some Section 185 vehicles are included under the Schedule 2 exemption list, eg: it appears to use that argument to remove the display vehicle exemption whilst (I assume) leaving age exempt alone because the EC directive specifically allows for the existence of historic vehicles using the 1960 cutoff date - but we keep returning to the fact VOSA has never consistently confirmed classification of wheeled AFV.

 

My thought may be wrong, but I think needs definitive confirmation – thus I would support the case for a specific category – also note that NOS’ contribution has not recognised that the historic definition has nothing to do with pre or post 73. The rules are the MOT rules re pre or post 60, not the taxation class rules relating to 73. So Fox is a 1970s vehicle yet, quoting consultation document para 4.2 bullet point 2, in no way can you describe a Fox, Ferret, Saladin, Saracen etc as “a (section 185) vehicle based on an HGV-style chassis and would therefore be regarded as a goods vehicle” so is there a case for (heavy) wheeled AFVs being exempt (see next point) and at the very least classified as a consistent specific category (ie. Section 185 vehicle irrespective of age).

 

You won’t like this but I have to say that, in principle, I agree with the fundamental conclusions of bullet points 3 & 4 of para 4.7, that overall road safety is improved if all vehicles have to be tested (hence I have voluntarily had mine MOT’ed in the past and will do so again). Therefore, and also recognising the fact that all (post war?) British AFV were built in accordance with the basic C&U regulations applicable at the time of manufacture, is there a case for also saying that a wheeled AFV category of vehicles should be subject to a simplified road safety test which specifically acknowledges realistic emissions and brake performance expectations as if you failed on the rest of the MOT regs it would be an unconscionable position.

 

In setting up an appropriate test regime it would recognise that a wheeled AFV is not part of the, as quoted in last para of Annex D, “vast majority of vehicles classified as locomotives which are in fact just ordinary goods vehicles”. I agree with the consultation document’s argument regarding the consequences of a crash involving a (normal) untested HGV – so perish the thought of an untested AFV crash - irrespective of how well you say you maintain yours, since I have met Ferret owners who show very little knowledge of their own vehicle mechanics, so how can they are safe?

[griff66]

just one quick point john form v112g as a 64 ferret owner you dont actually right down a exemption number all you do is highlight the last para starting <<it is outside the scope of schedule 2 , words that you high light are BEING and MOTOR TRACTOR sign it and thats all,my basis for this is when i contacted vosa they sent me a letter stating ferret = motor tractor in there eyes and they sent me form v112g with BEING and MOTOR TRACTOR already highlighted .ok you have to put reg and tax start date as well.:cool2:

Edited February 5, 2010 by griff66