important MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT

[john fox]

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

correct - and I have been doing it that way (for those years when i didn't get a test done) since 1998. :-D

Edited February 7, 2010 by john fox

[griff66]

crossed wires here the point i am making is on the revised form issue date 4/09 v112g for a ferret owner post1960 u fill in your reg, tax start date, hightlight BEING and MOTOR TRACTOR sign it , and thats all,:cool2: do not put a number in the box. paul.:cool2: have re read your post and think i now know what u mean

Edited February 5, 2010 by griff66

[antarmike]

crossed wires here the point i am making is on the revised form issue date 4/09 v112g for a ferret owner post1960 u fill in your reg, tax start date, hightlight BEING and MOTOR TRACTOR sign it , and thats all,:cool2: do not put a number in the box. paul.:cool2: have re read your post and think i now know what u mean

 

I have spoken with Robert Newman this afternoon.

 

Point 1 he did not draft the consultation document, A pedecessor was respnsible for this document and he has only come into a project that was ongoing. He cannot therefore say exactly what was in the mind of the person who drafted it, since that person has moved onto pastures new.

 

Point 2 He admits that the proposals were never intended to unfairly affect our hobby. But he admits at present it might do, because there was no thought about privately owned military vehicles when this proposal was drawn up.

 

Point 3 he accepts that our running costs for these vehicles is at present low, and the cost in fuel, time of work, and the test fee will actually be a significant increase in cost to us and that wasn't the intention.

 

Point 4 He accepts that a proposal that saw the number of ex Military vehicles and Historic Commercial vehicles being put of the road because of this would be bad news for the Rallies and Military fairs that contribute to the country's wealth. He accepts if these falter because a significant number of exhibitors decided the new costs did not justify keeping their vehicles on the road.

 

 

Point 5 He said that there was good reason for targeting particular classes now exempt MOT.

For example Exempted vehicles operating out of certain Scottish Islands:-

This is because an increasing number of haulage companies are re-locating to these islands so gain exemption from a test they would need to have as a mainland operator.

 

Or Mobile Cranes:- The proposals are not intended to test all the oddball and specialsed mobile cranes that have been built over the years, or those actually built solely for use as cranes, but rather to target an increasing number of operators who are classing Hydraulic self loading arms as Mobile Cranes, whilst still retaining and using a load bed on the HGV.

 

Often these are very large "Hiab" type cranes with great working height and reach, often these are on LIFT and GO wagons, but essentially they are haulage vehicles with a self loader. You may have seen this type of vehicle building up large fairground rides!

 

Point 6 He accepts that when removing Motor tractor and Locomotive classes from test exemption, it had not been appreciated that many Armoured vehicles, (Ferrets, Fox , Saladin, Sracen), fitted into this category, and he accepts that testing these vehicles might present real problems.

 

Point 7 I asked him how it was intended to seperate truly "Special Types" AILV's from HGV based AILV, he had to admit he did not know, there was a yet no clear idea how that might be achieved. He accepts that for example an Antar or a Rotinoff might not fit within a test station bay, and conciderastionwill have to be given as to whether it is actually practical or possible to test such vehicles.

 

Point 8 I talked about the relevance of the 1973 date and the 1960 date and his response was that the pre 1973 date was purely Vehicle excise and regisration legislation, and is not a significant date in terms of these proposals. AS far as the consultation process is concerned the fact that a vehicle was built between 1960 and 1973, does not mean it will be viewed any differently to a vehicle built post 1973 to date.

 

To clarify in terms of this consultation document there is the case of pre 1960 vehicles and post 1960 vehicles only.

 

The date of pre 1960 is set in stone and is non negotiable. That is already determined by Sched 2 Goods Vehicle (plating and Testing) regulations 1988 and that date WILL NOT BE CHANGING.

 

Point 9 He accepts that ex military vehicles amy do relatively low mileage, he is willing to accept the test could be at less frequent intervals than yearly, (some EU countries test every two years, not yearly).

 

Point 10 He accepts that testing doesn't have to be done by a govermernment agency, but if a workable sheme couldbe prposed wherby an intependant trade body did the testing, the it might be possible for the tester to come to the vehicles, rather than the vehicles going to th tester. This could help owners of a collection, because all the vehicles could be examined in a single visit. Of like minded individuals in a particular locality could arrange to have their vehicles at an arranged location to be examined as a group.

 

Point 11 He accepts that a vehicle has to be tested to the standards it was built to, and it is not the intention that owners of military vehicles should have to modify, for example,braking systems. What has to be determined is that the vehicle is safe, and stops as the builders intended.

 

Point 12 What Robert wants, is what we have started. Namely a list, decription of all the vehicle makes and models that will be difficult to test. He accepts the possiblity if there are a large enough number of cases of difficult vehicles to whole decision to proceed with the proposed changes might ctually be abandoned. However if they go ahed he needs to know how to draft the legislation to include the target vehicles, but exclude the genuinely difficlut vehicles or those who will be finacially penalised for owning what are in effect Hobby vehicles.

 

Point 13 After the discussion period, ie after March 19th, there will be a meeting in London between Robert and MVT and FBVHC. Provisionally he has asked me whether I would like to attend. I plan to attend if at all possible. This is to try to come up with trms and definitions that ensure exemption remain for the correct vehicle types.

 

Point14 I tried to get clarification as to whether a living van was concidered as a laden or unladen trailer, since many pre 1960 vehicle owners currently tow living accomodation to rallies, other areliving under canvas because they do not believe they can tow a living van. I was somewhat surprised but Robert admitted he did not know the position regarding whether a living van was viewed as laden or unladen trailer, but he would look into it.

 

Point 15 Robert admitted that it had not been foreseen that road traffic act applies to rally fields, and that some vehicles attending shows may only travel on the roads on the back of a loader, but might need an MOT as soon as they unload onto a public field. It was not foreseen that a behicle never driven on Tarmac roadsmight need an MOT

because of tthat. He accepts that it is important that owners of pre 1960 vehicles can show their vehicles working, and pulling loads, are carrying out its designed task in a re-enactment.

 

Point 16 Robert accepted that the low insurance premiums we pay as MV owners is a reflection of the number of claims that have been made involving these vehicles, and that indicates we are not a major source of claims, therefore what we presently do is resulting in very low accident rates. He admits there are absolutely no statistics that show we are involved in a statistically significant number of accidents.

 

We left the first informal discussion about there, I was not making notes, but those are the main points I remember. If anything else comes back I will let you know.

 

So what I really nned is as many exaples of the vehicles you run that will be difficult to test, situations of where you live etc, which will necesitate a have long journey using much fue l nd time of work, to get tested.

 

It is important that we clearly highlight what a nightmare for testing these older vehicles is going to be, and the problems the testers will have to find a way round.

 

Incidentally I asked him what he thought about the HMVF Forum posts on this matter, he said he had thought that there was a lot of over-reacting initially, but things had started to settle down into some well reasoned, well thought out arguements.

 

Incidentally he said he noticed a post which maligned him,on the Forum, but guessed that as soon as it was known he had joined up and was monitoring things, that post was removed by the poster.

 

Please can we try and keep this gentleman on side. I found the conversation today to be very helpful, he ackowleged that several valid new points had emerged. I found him helpful, and not out to cripple us.

 

Please, please send any negative feelings and posts to me via PM, and I will try to sort things out. Please can we present a unified front here? And please keep posting the situations and vehicles that will be problems if this does go ahead unchanged.

 

Mike

Edited February 5, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

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

 

Thank you very much for that contribution.

[Mk3iain]

:tup::Well done Mike and thank you.

 

I think I am clear where I stand.

I have a 1984 M1008, no change it needs testing as normal.

And a 1970 AEC Mk3 recovery, has been registered as a mobile crane but could just as easily be changed toRecovery Vehicle, I would expect this to need testing. No problem with that as long as, as expected it will be tested with regard to its age and hopefully at a local venue. As I suggested before maybe at an approved garage (as per safety checks on commercial vehicles).

Things are starting to come toghether.

 

Cheers

Iain

 

Robert when are you going green, and getting a sensible vehicle ie Ferret, M35 ..........

Edited February 5, 2010 by Mk3iain

[antarmike]

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"!

 

 

This is a preliminary look at 432. If I have it wrong tell me.

 

Track laying vehicles are exempt MOT at present and the proposal is that they remain exempt.

 

My only doubt is whether a 432 is a "track laying vehicle" as defined in C and U regs.

 

That might sound daft, but follow this through.

 

C & U lay down that :-

 

A locomotive can be up to 2.75m wide,

 

a refrigerated vehicle can be 2.6m wide

 

Any other motor vehicle can be no wider than 2.55 metres.

 

A 432 is any other motor vehicle, (not being a loco or refrigerated)

 

A 432 is 2.819Metres wide. it is therefore not a track laying vehicle, because C & U track layers have a max width of 2.55m, rather it is a" special types" vehicle.

 

Within the provision of (Special types) (general) legislation there is a category for track laying vehicles. Remember they are special types because they do not comply with C and U because of width. I cannot find another Special Types category in which they will fit.

 

Unfortunately there are very severe restrictions on the use of SpecialTypes tracked vehicles. They cannot be used in the way most people use a 432. Quoting from the Special types general orders2003 legislation

 

Quote

"Track-laying vehicles: recognised category

41. - (1) Track-laying motor vehicles or trailers are a recognised category of special vehicles.

 

(2) Paragraph (1) does not include any track-laying vehicle that falls within any other recognised category of special vehicles.

 

Track-laying vehicles: authorisation requirements

42. The authorisation requirements applicable to vehicles falling within the recognised category of special vehicles mentioned in article 41(1) are -

 

 

 

(a) the requirements specified in articles 43 and 44;

 

(b) regulation 100 of the Construction and Use Regulations (maintenance and use so as not to be a danger);

 

© the Authorised Weight Regulations; and

 

(d) the Lighting Regulations.

 

 

Track-laying vehicles: restrictions on use

43. - (1) A vehicle falling within the recognised category of special vehicles mentioned in article 41 (1) may only be used for -

 

 

 

(a) demonstration;

 

(b) proceeding to the nearest suitable railway station for conveyance to a port for shipment; or

 

© where no suitable railway facilities are available, proceeding to a port for shipment.

 

 

(2) The vehicle must not be used for hire or reward.

 

(3) The vehicle must not be used in such a way as to cause a danger of injury to any person by reason of -

 

 

 

(a) the condition of the vehicle, its accessories or equipment;

 

(b) the purpose for which it is used;

 

© the number of passengers carried by it;

 

(d) the manner in which such passengers are carried;

 

(e) the weight, position or distribution of any load carried on the vehicle; or

 

(f) the manner in which any such load is secured.

 

 

Track-laying vehicles: consent of road authorities

44. - (1) Before the start of any journey, the user of a vehicle falling within the recognised category of special vehicles mentioned in article 41(1) must obtain from the road authority for each road on which the vehicle is to be used that authority's written consent to the vehicle being used on roads for which it is responsible.

 

(2) "Road authority", in relation to any road, means the highway authority for that road." Unquote.

 

Your views on this standpoint urgently needed. I view demonstration as meaning demonstration for a customer, eg test drive. As an Arms manufacturer you can demonstrate the "on road" performance of a main battle tank. armoured tracked carrier etc to a representative of a foreign country with a view to making a sale, and having got the sale, you can if you choose use roads as the first part of your supply route.

 

If I am right 432 is MOT exempt by virtue of being a "special Types" track laying vehicle, there are no proposals to introduce testing, but you can't use it! (exempt to demonstrate it, and having got your sale drive it the shortest distence to railway station or Port to export it.)

 

Please ask a mod to remove this post if you think it will affect what you do, I am only saying things how I see them, Do you want me to mention the432 or do we all agree to keep our heads down? Or Am I completly off the mark and this post is bullocks?

 

This is incidentally why I personally believe ArtistsRifles cannot get his Russian tracked carrier registered. It is an overwidth tracked vehicle which does not fit any C and U definition, nor any "special Types" definition. DVLA are aware of the width of this vehicle and will not register it/ I believe those Fv432 series vehicles registered to private owners would not have been allowed to be registered if the width of the tracked vehicle had been known to the DVLA staff, and if they correctly applied the rules.

Edited February 5, 2010 by antarmike

[Mk3iain]

Maybe its a chicken and egg situation.

 

The 432 is a roadgoing tracked vehicle, not really what "special types" was meant to cover. If the classification is simply accepted as "tracklaying vehicle" and accepted as such without looking for another catagory for it, all would be well. But we are having to look at detail ,and this is perhaps another grey area to be clarified.

 

Trying to draw up a set of guidelines will be a headache, I am sure there are already some around!

Iain

[antarmike]

Maybe its a chicken and egg situation.

 

The 432 is a roadgoing tracked vehicle, not really what "special types" was meant to cover. If the classification is simply accepted as "tracklaying vehicle" and accepted as such without looking for another catagory for it, all would be well. But we are having to look at detail ,and this is perhaps another grey area to be clarified.

 

Trying to draw up a set of guidelines will be a headache, I am sure there are already some around!

Iain

 

C and U tracklaying vehicles are under 2.55 metres wide, Special types tracklaying vehicles are for all vehicles that do not meet C & U. The 432 series are "Special Types" Track layers. Or so I see it.

 

Reg 8 ( construction and Use) regs 1896, max width of any other vehicle than locomotive, or refrigerated vehicle cannot exceed 2.55 metres If that maximum is exceeded refer to "Special Types"

Edited February 5, 2010 by antarmike

[griff66]

thanks mike for all your hard work so far ,and on the basis of the email i had from robert newman i too think he comes across as listening to our concerns .:cool2:

[antar]

Well I have just sent my e-mail to them...

 

Dear Joanne,

 

 

 

As a private owner of a number of Historic Vehicles one of which is currently exempted from plating and testing under Section 44 of the road traffic act STGO I would like to propose that an exemption is retained for vehicles that will not physically fit through a current VOSA test station.

 

 

 

To put this in simple terms the tractor unit I own is 10' (3.05m) wide and will not fit down the lanes of the test centre. The wheel track is such that the tyres would not fit onto the roller brake tester. The vehicle is in the tax category Private HGV. On the very few occasions the vehicle is moved on the road it is always after a "movement order" has been submitted to the relevant Police authority it will be travelling in or passing through. The vehicle is fully insured for road use.

 

 

 

The vehicle is used at most 10 times in any one year covering a total mileage of no more than 250 miles.

 

 

 

The vehicle is maintained to an extremely high standard far exceeding current requirements for vehicles operated commercially.

 

 

 

Please advise how you would propose to accommodate my requirements under the proposals in the consultation document ?

 

 

 

Best Regards

 

John M Riley

 

I have just had a reply today which I have attached below

 

John

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

We’ve had a number of responses from historic vehicle collectors. This is just a consultation at the moment and more precise proposals will be drawn up based on the responses. However, from what you say I don’t think that we would want to capture the tractor unit that you describe within our new legislation. We will be talking to relevant representatives and experts prior to drafting the legislation, to look at options and to ensure that we don’t catch individuals who were not the intended target of these proposals. Broadly we want to test vehicles that look and act like HGVs but are not currently treated as HGVs. We will also be considering the issue of practicality and VOSA resources as you have proposed. A further consultation will have to take place once legislation has been drafted, before it can be put before parliament, towards the end of this year at the very earliest.

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Newman

 

Policy Advisor

 

Vehicle Roadworthiness and Enforcement

 

Zone 2/09

 

Great Minster House

 

76 Marsham Street

 

London

 

SW1P 4DR

 

Tel: 020 7944 6575

[griff66]

ANTARMIKE,your post 178 item 6 you talk about ferrets , fox, saladin,etc will be affected by motor tractor exemption being removed, well as discussed in my post 124 they should not be affected as they are not hgv based in any shape or form.. but they would have to find another non test category, as its not there intension to change the status of a ferret for example.

[antarmike]

ANTARMIKE,your post 178 item 6 you talk about ferrets , fox, saladin,etc will be affected by motor tractor exemption being removed, well as discussed in my post 124 they should not be affected as they are not hgv based in any shape or form.. but they would have to find another non test category, as its not there intension to change the status of a ferret for example.

 

Providing the bill is drafted correctly they will remain exempt. Our job is to try and ensure it does get drafted correctly.

Edited February 13, 2010 by antarmike

[Marmite!!]

ANTARMIKE,your post 178 item 6 you talk about ferrets , fox, saladin,etc will be affected by motor tractor exemption being removed, well as discussed in my post 124 they should not be affected as they are not hgv based in any shape or form.. but they would have to find another non test category, as its not there intension to change the status of a ferret for example.

 

My Fox is just a big Ferret & it's tax class is PHGV ??

 

I think any change in the MOT regulations should result in a change to the V5 to accurately describe what type of vehicle it is & not leave it open to interpretation

Edited February 5, 2010 by Marmite!!

[Mk3iain]

C and U tracklaying vehicles are under 2.55 metres wide, Special types tracklaying vehicles are for all vehicles that do not meet C & U. The 432 series are "specialTypes" Track layers. Or so I see it.

 

Reg 8 ( construction and Use) regs 1896, max width of any other vehicle than locomotive, or refrigerated vehicle cannot exceed 2.55 metres If that maximum is exceeded refer to "Special Types"

 

I appreciate that the regulation as written would class the 432 as "special type". But it seems that there have been times when vehicles have been classed under a more expedient heading by the authority to more fully reflect its use, as the system has not been able to cater for all the variations. In effect sometimes jugment calls have been made to class vehicles that are maybe unusual.

That is maybe one of the biggest problems now, to have classifications that cover all vehicle types. There may have to be some (or an) additional catagories for "constructed for military use, roadgoing" vehicles.

More cups of tea required!!!

[griff66]

i agree. safariswing

[antarmike]

My Fox is just a big Ferret & it's tax class is PHGV ??

 

I think any change in the MOT regulations should result in a change to the V5 to accurately describe what type of vehicle it is & not leave it open to interpretation

 

The tax disc shows its position according to Vehicle excise and registration legislation, No vehicle shows its C and U definition on the registration document V5.

 

Its C and U definition depends on the physical description of the vehicle, Excise regs descibe how it is used,

 

Two identical vehicles can be used in two different ways so fall into two different taxation classes, but they share a common C and U definition.

 

For example a 1970 commercial vehicle, stilll operated by a business for the carraige of goods has one Excise disc (goods vehicle), whilst its sister of the production line can be preserved and Taxed "Historic vehicle".

 

Yet the C and U description of each is " Heavy Motor car"

 

Can I repeat, the Vehicle excise duty class of the vehicle does not determine the MOT exemption position of vehicles over 3.5 Tonnes. Unless specifically exempted, All vehicles need testing if over 3.5 Tonnes irrespective of what tax disc it has, and what the logbook asys about the vehicle type. The type description on the V5 IS NOT THE SAME AS THE C&U / SPECIAL TYPES VEHICLE CATEGORIES and is frankly irrelevant.

 

What determines if you are currently MOT exempt, and whether you will loose this right under proposed changes is WHICH C and U definition you fit into, and if you don't fit into one and are therefore "Special types" which "Special Types" category you fit into. lets not get bogged down in vehicle excise and registration details (V5) that is irrelevant to your MOT position and future changes to MOT exemption.

Edited February 6, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

Another point that came up in my phone conversation with Robert Newman is that he expects to be flooded by a large number of resonses on the last day of the consultation period. He says if this happens, he will not be able to get into discussion with those people, because , although he can take onboard what they say, the consultation period will be over.

 

Therefore if you are going to write regarding these proposals, and you want a reply, so that you can get feedback how your points have been recieved, and then make further points of clarification., the responbes have to be recieved well before the closing date ofthe consultation period.

 

Please get writing.

[N.O.S.]

The tax disc shows its position according to Vehicle excise and registration legislation, No vehicle shows its C and U definition on the registration document V5.

 

Its C and U definition depends on the physical description of the vehicle, Excise regs descibe how it is used,

 

Two identical vehicles can be used in two different ways so fall into two different taxation classes, but they share a common C and U definition.

 

For example a 1970 commercial vehicle, stilll operated by a business for the carraige of goods has one Excise disc (goods vehicle), whilst its sister of the production line can be preserved and Taxed "Historic vehicle".

 

Yet the C and U description of each is " Heavy Motor car"

 

Can I repeat, the Vehicle excise duty class of the vehicle does not determine the MOT exemption position of vehicles over 3.5 Tonnes. Unless specifically exempted, All vehicles need testing if over 3.5 Tonnes irrespective of what tax disc it has, and what the logbook asys about the vehicle type. The type description on the V5 IS NOT THE SAME AS THE C&U / SPECIAL TYPES VEHICLE CATEGORIES and is frankly irrelevant.

 

What determines if you are currently MOT exempt, and whether you will loose this right under proposed changes is WHICH C and U definition you fit into, and if you don't fit into one and are therefore "Special types" which "Special Types" category you fit into. lets not get bogged down in vehicle excise and registration details (V5) that is irrelevant to your MOT position and future changes to MOT exemption.

 

Have you received official confirmation that the V5 description is not important? This has been my view for some time (we had an exchange on here about it a year or so back), but I would be happier to see an official response.

 

But Lee's suggestion could save a lot of hassle should you be required to prove the status of the vehicle.

 

I would go one stage further (as I did back then) and state that it is the Vehicle Excise Duty disc in the window that determines what you can do with the vehicle, and thus what testing requirements, if any, apply. Would you agree with this statement?

 

If you think about it, on the road the first thing an official will look at is the tax disc. It is presumed that you could only obtain the requisite tax disc by demonstrating (or making a legal declaration) that the vehicle C&U or exemption status qualifies it for that tax disc.

Edited February 6, 2010 by N.O.S.

[antarmike]

Have you received official confirmation that the V5 description is not important? This has been my view for some time (we had an exchange on here about it a year or so back), but I would be happier to see an official response.

 

I would go one stage further (as I did back then) and state that it is the Vehicle Excise Duty disc in the window that determines what you can do with the vehicle, and thus what testing requirements, if any, apply. Would you agree with this statement?

 

Example of V5 entries

Make AEC Matador

Body type Agric Machine

taxation class Mobile Crane.

 

Make Royal Ordnance

Body type Lift Truck

Taxatrion class Historic Vehicle

 

Make Douglas

Body type Special purpose

Taxation class Historic Vehicle

 

Make Thornycroft

Body type Tractor

Taxation Class historic Vehicle

 

Make AEC Matador

Body Type Agric machine

Taxation class Historic vehicle

 

From the V5's I hold two examples show body type as Agric machine , but one is taxed Mobile Crane, the Other is Historic.

 

Clearly there is no tie up between body type and taxation class.

 

 

Four of these documents share the same taxation class, but each has a different body type description

 

Non of the body type descriptions match any C&U or "special types" definition. so no I haven't had it in writing, but examination of 5 V5's shows no correlation whatsover.

 

When I say what the V5 says is of no importance I mean that only in the context of deciding which C and U definition or Special types definition your vehicle fits into.

Edited February 6, 2010 by antarmike

[Adam Elsdon]

Example of V5 entries

 

Clearly there is no tie up between body type and taxation class.

 

 

.

 

Mike i believe this is a massive point that really complicates what we can and cant do and could very easily catch out an owner who thought they were operating their MV within the law.

 

For example a 1953 Humber Pig "Special Purpose" 2 axler rigid bodied vehicle MOT exempt under its age and weight, but i believe if its not MOT'd and because of its taxation class then i cant have any load in it, which is a pain if its for a show, and if i pull a trailer, that may be construed as the same empty or loaded, which again is handy for tents etc.

 

I believe the only way around this is to MOT it, within the current historic taxation class and all the other issues with other "newer" MV's, just you are now catching everything built before 1960 as well, its more of a "what you can use it for" problem than MOT/TAX problem.

 

It would be far easier and less administration complication and cost to Government if the Historic Vehicle owners had a clearer plain speak system for testing/exemption and taxation, than the present system forced to work with taxation changes.

 

I realise that this isnt the purpose of the consultation, but i think the whole thing top to bottom could be audited and made more efficient for purpose.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Adam Elsdon
clarity

[LarryH57]

Sorry if this sounds dumb - but having read the first PDF document I see that on Page 16 there is a list of the current exemptions with ticks next to the ten that the VOSA propose to remove - and pre 1960 vehicles is not one of them.

[griff66]

correct

[antarmike]

Sorry if this sounds dumb - but having read the first PDF document I see that on Page 16 there is a list of the current exemptions with ticks next to the ten that the VOSA propose to remove - and pre 1960 vehicles is not one of them.

 

Sorry "HG" I don't know who your quote is aimed at, or which post it is in response to. Neither do I understand why you think anyone is saying pre 1960 vehicles used unladen, and not towing a laden trailer, will loose their freedom from MOT requirements. I myself have never said that.

 

A pre 1960 vehicle used unladen and not drawing a laden trailer is MOT exempt.

 

If you want to put a load on a pre 1960 vehicle or tow a loaded trailer, you can do this if the vehicle is MOT'd. If you don't have an MOT you cannot put a load on it, nor can you pull a laden trailer. The load must not be carried in connection with any business, ie not for hire or reward. The pre 1960 vehicle can still be taxed Historic Vehicle.

 

However if the vehicle is a pre 1960 Motor tractor/ light or heavy locomotive at present you can tow a laden trailer without an MOT, because your exemption from MOT testing comes because presently all Motor tractors, light and Heavy tractors (regardless of age) are MOT exempt. You can do this and keep the vehicle taxed Historic,

 

The proposal is to remove the MOT exemption from all Motor tractors and all Locomotives. In future there will no freedom for a pre 1960 Motor tractor, light or heavy Loco to pull a laden trailer without MOT testing.

 

That is the practical effect of the proposed legislation on pre 1960 vehicles.

 

Any pre 1960 vehicle that is not a motor tractor, a light or a heavy locomotive, will be un affected by these changes.

 

Owners of Locomotives and motor tractors will have lost the right to pull laden trailers.

 

This means that at present the owner of a wartime Diamond T 980/981 can at present pull a Sherman tank on a Rogers trailer, on historic Vehicle taxation, without an MOT. If the proposals go ahead, an MOT will be needed.

 

Does this clear up the propsed changes for pre 1960 vehicles?

Edited February 7, 2010 by antarmike

[cosrec]

Any talks have to be clear concise and terse and if anything clear up rather than complicate the issue

 

Famous qoute Chuurchill "If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law."

[Eastblock]

What exactly defines "laden". Some say it is OK for me to carry some personal belongings in my pre-1960 truck, others say I cannot carry anything in the back of it. If the latter is true then my plans to go camping with it are scubbered.