important MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT

[Mk3iain]

There is concern about using vehicles "laden", untaxed, etc at shows because as the law stands road regulations apply in these areas as they are accessible to the public. You can see the reasoning, safety, insurance etc.

If these were segregated areas, ie all arenas and "pit" areas in effect fenced off, so as not to be accessible to the public, could this be a way around the problem. I know we want the public to be able to see the vehicles up close, this would not effect this if vehicles were in the "pit" and arenas only when neccesary and returned to the public area after their turn. Moving in and out would be the only time of risk but under marshal control this could be done safely, possibly even legaly. The area under temp. marshal control in effect not accessible to the public!

Just a thought.

[antarmike]

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.

 

I have asked Robert Newman "what was meant by a laden Trailer? was a living van containing personal goods, a laden trailer" He said he did not know. I doubt whether he would know whether camping equipment, whatever in the back of a vehicle made it Laden.

Edited February 7, 2010 by antarmike

[N.O.S.]

Would it be helpful (in clearing up some of the confusion) if at this stage we could confirm the requiremnts for using historic vehilces / trailers LADEN?

 

I don't mind starting off with what I think the requirements are - so long as any erors are of course pointed out in a polite and constructive way :whistle:

 

A pre-1973 Vehicle over 3.5t can operate LADEN with Historic Tax disc, so long as the load is not being carried for commercial purposes, provided -

 

a) it is tested, or

b) it is of a vehicle type (e.g. locomotive) which currently allows exemption from testing *

 

* If hauled by a test exempt 'locomotive', does the trailer require testing?

 

But are we in a position to define what testing standards are currently imposed on such vehicles? That would help also!

Edited February 7, 2010 by N.O.S.

[N.O.S.]

There is concern about using vehicles "laden", untaxed, etc at shows because as the law stands road regulations apply in these areas as they are accessible to the public. You can see the reasoning, safety, insurance etc.

If these were segregated areas, ie all arenas and "pit" areas in effect fenced off, so as not to be accessible to the public, could this be a way around the problem. I know we want the public to be able to see the vehicles up close, this would not effect this if vehicles were in the "pit" and arenas only when neccesary and returned to the public area after their turn. Moving in and out would be the only time of risk but under marshal control this could be done safely, possibly even legaly. The area under temp. marshal control in effect not accessible to the public!

Just a thought.

 

Great idea. For example the Heavy Haulage arena at a certain large annual gathering is a most stunning spectacle - but as I stood watching from the side of the incline my thoughts turned to what could happen should a runaway occur. The odd strategically placed tree trunks didn't make me feel much happier.

 

Just a few days work with an excavator and dozer to create a safety ditch (with dug material used to create very shallow viewing bank) all around would create a completely isolated area and remove virtualy all risk to the public, without destroying the wondeful 'close-up' feel.

Edited February 7, 2010 by N.O.S.

[antarmike]

Would it be helpful (in clearing up some of the confusion) if at this stage we could confirm the requiremnts for using historic vehilces / trailers LADEN?

 

I don't mind starting off with what I think the requirements are - so long as any erors are of course pointed out in a polite and constructive way :whistle:

 

A pre-1973 Vehicle over 3.5t can operate LADEN with Historic Tax disc, so long as the load is not being carried for commercial purposes, provided -

 

a) it is tested, or

b) it is of a vehicle type (e.g. locomotive) which currently allows exemption from testing

But are we in a position to define what testing standards are currently imposed on such vehicles? That would help also!

 

Any pre 1973 vehicle also includes pre 1960 Vehicle over 3.5t can also operate LADEN with Historic Tax disc, so long as the load is not being carried for commercial purposes, provided -

 

 

a) it is tested, or

b) it is of a vehicle type (e.g. locomotive) which currently allows exemption from testing

c) the driver holds an approriate driving licence

 

Except a locomotive cannot be used laden. A locomotive is by definition not designed to carry a load. It can Tow a laden Trailer

Edited February 7, 2010 by antarmike

[N.O.S.]

Agreed, but a pre-1960 vehilcle is a pre-1973 vehicle! To isolate this group from my statement I would have had to write 'pre-1973, post-1960'. But that would have been incorrect.......

 

Imagine how much fun it is trying to get the wording just right in all this legislation - spare a thought for these poor committee members trying hard to get it right for us :-D

 

My use of the term LADEN with regard to locomotives was intended to imply 'pulling a laden trailer'.

 

I've always taken UNLADEN to mean you can't carry around 6 tonnes of cast iron ballast weights in a vehicle which is supposed to be used UNLADEN, whereas if you are operating LADEN you may well need these weights for safe LADEN operation.

 

On the other hand sometimes a bit of extra weight over the rear end is much better - reducing 'bounce' - but presumably even carrying a part-load for this purpose would not be permitted.

Edited February 7, 2010 by N.O.S.

[antarmike]

Agreed, but a pre-1960 vehilcle is a pre-1973 vehicle! To isolate this group from my statement I would have had to write 'pre-1973, post-1960'. But that would have been incorrect.......

 

Imagine how much fun it is trying to get the wording just right in all this legislation - spare a thought for these poor committee members trying hard to get it right for us :-D

 

My use of the term LADEN with regard to locomotives was intended to imply 'pulling a laden trailer'.

 

I've always taken UNLADEN to mean you can't carry around 6 tonnes of cast iron ballast weights in a vehicle which is supposed to be used UNLADEN, whereas if you are operating LADEN you may well need these weights for safe LADEN operation.

 

On the other hand sometimes a bit of extra weight over the rear end is much better - reducing 'bounce' - but presumably even carrying a part-load for this purpose would not be permitted.

 

Yes totally agree with dates. I came back and re-read it and thought Hey-up, before I got to your post.

Edited February 13, 2010 by antarmike

[Runflat]

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.

 

I totally agree there is uncertainty here - see my post #105.

 

In the absence of a definition of 'unladen' Courts would normally fall back on the ordinary meaning of the word - it simply means not laden. And 'laden' means "heavily loaded" (Oxford English Dictionary). So 'unladen' means "not heavily loaded". On that basis, 'unladen' can include something that is lightly loaded, which means it is ok to carry some tools and a bit of camping gear. But I suspect the legislation is intended to mean 'empty' as in "unladen weight" meaning weight when not loaded with goods.

 

So, there you go. Not at all clear.

 

I don't know whether standard equipment (e.g. tools carried by a wrecker) get included as part of unladen weight or not.

[Marmite!!]

I totally agree there is uncertainty here - see my post #105.

 

In the absence of a definition of 'unladen' Courts would normally fall back on the ordinary meaning of the word - it simply means not laden. And 'laden' means "heavily loaded" (Oxford English Dictionary). So 'unladen' means "not heavily loaded". On that basis, 'unladen' can include something that is lightly loaded, which means it is ok to carry some tools and a bit of camping gear. But I suspect the legislation is intended to mean 'empty' as in "unladen weight" meaning weight when not loaded with goods.

 

So, there you go. Not at all clear.

 

I don't know whether standard equipment (e.g. tools carried by a wrecker) get included as part of unladen weight or not.

 

Surley there's a definition somewhere that they used when writing the original legislation??

[Runflat]

Not that I'm aware of. Just to recap, this of issue for those claiming a test exemption under Class 30 in Schedule 2 to the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/1478), i.e. "Motor vehicles first used before 1st January 1960, used unladen and not drawing a laden trailer, and trailers manufactured before 1st January 1960 and used unladen."

 

Paragraph 3 to the Regs has interpretative provisions, but does not include 'unladen'.

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1988/uksi_19881478_en_1

[antarmike]

antarmike, do you think viscount pretwood will raise our concerns in the lords/

 

Depending on the date of the Election and the result thereof, John Attlee could well be talking to those drafting this legislation as a member of H.M's Government, not her Opposition!

[antarmike]

Living vans are exempted, a living van has to have a bed, sink, and cooker fixed into it, personal kit can be carried as well a a pay load. (historic vehicles tax exempt must not carry a pay load) The payload is what distinguishes it from a caravan.

 

A living van can be self propelled, that is why it has an asterisk in the list of unchanged exemptions

 

 

Where did you source this information?

Edited February 7, 2010 by antarmike

[gritineye]

Mike I researched this myself 14 years ago when I first got My Explorer, I have been trying in vain to find the source since I posted that reply.

 

However I had printed off some of it and have just found this in the Scammell:

Good vehicles (plating and testing) (amendment) (no 1) Regulations 1991

 

Amendments to Schedule 2 (classes of vehicle to which the regulations do not apply) 8. in schedule 2

 

(a) for paragraph 13 there shall be substituted "13. Living vans the gross weight of which does not exceed 3500 kg."

 

this is the class of vehicle I was intending to build and did so because of this ruling, it goes on to say:

"Living van" means a vehicle whether mechanically propelled or not which is used for living accommodation for one or more persons, and which is also used for the carriage of goods or burden which are not needed by such one or more persons for the purpose of their residence in the vehicle."

When I rang Swansea regarding driving this combination on a the car licence I had at the time (my Explorer was taxed PLG before Historic class was invented) they had to ring me back after consulting and said as long as the sink, bed etc were fixed and no other load except personal effects where carried it would be OK. The living van was then considered to be an unladen trailer.

 

Yes I do know, never rely on the spoken advice Swansea!

 

I once converted a Commer walkthrough van to live in (1970) and one of the requirements needed to get the logbook changed was that it had to have bed, sink and cooker permanently fixed, details are a bit hazy but a man did come and inspect it.

 

As an aside, a mate had a dropside Thames 4D registered as a living van and running on red around the same time, never worked out how he did that!

 

PS. the more I think about the phone call to Swansea, the more indistinct my recollection of it becomes, as I was also asking about driving it with it's snow plough attached. It was along time ago, that's my excuse.

Edited February 7, 2010 by gritineye
PS added

[Runflat]

Just for clarity, the definition of 'living van' is at paragraph 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988. The 1991 Regs amend Schedule 2 of the 1988 Regs as described above, but not the definition of 'living van'.

 

The Regulations can be found here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/stat.htm

 

The 1988 and subsequent amending Regs (that I'm aware of) are as follows:

 

1988/1478

1989/320 & 1693

1990/448

1991/252 & 454

1992/564 & 2447

1993/2048 & 3013

1994/328

1995/1456

1997/82 & 263

1998/1671 & 3113

2000/1433

2001/307 & 1650

2002/487

2003/1816

2004/1873

2005/2343

2007/503

2008/1460

2009/799

 

Most deal with changes in fees, rather than anything of substance for this string. But some do!

 

I can't help but feel there should be some for 1996, 1999 & 2006!

[LarryH57]

Antarmike, I'm greatful for the clarification.

 

I see that the MVT and FBHVC has now been invited for talks but are they now officially on the list for consultation?

 

BTW - although I'm not affected, I'd still like to campaign on behalf of others who are. So what is the best way of doing this? Is there a standard response we could copy off HMVF and send in to VOSA - or should we write to our MP's? We need your help to help you and we only have ONE MONTH to get mobilised!

[cosrec]

As i have stated before on this forum the biggest problem is peoples fear of the unknown. If you are presenting a vehicle for test all you have to do is make sure it is roadworth. How this or that is tested is the examiners problem not yours. EG (not a good example i know) if abs is fitted it must work . If not forget about it. If present safty belts must be in good condition etc. Sombody quoted i had to remove a fan to get a clear field of vision. I dont know the exact wording but it goes something like "there must be a clear field of vision through the swept portion of the screen" Eg nothing between you and that swept portion. Your own private car will fail if you have a sat nav stuck to it. after the screen you can have a completly obscured vision eg duck boards they cannot fail it for that. Also if you have lift up screen all the above goes out of the window so to speak. You still have to have washers by the way. All military vechicles when going in to service will have been street legal and i iam led to belive this is the standard to which they are tested in the present day. If they have scince being updated by fitment of things eg 4ways these must work. I think every body should be presenting ideas on how to ease the passage of the whole group through these talks not fogging it with individual concerns and worries many of which have no foundation

[gritineye]

Where did you source this information?

 

I haven't remembered where I got that from but I have just found virtually identical info quoted here,

 

http://www.ukmotorhomes.net/motorhome-mot.shtml

 

Further down the page it seems large motor homes are possibly being seen as living vans if they carry bikes etc. as they are seen as "goods or burden", this may be very relevant for many members if not to this particular thread/discussion .

 

It is interesting to note that the DfT picked up on a slight error in the VOSA reply, just shows how complicated it all is.

[Markheliops]

Hi all.

 

Believe it or not - I have only just joined this thread - my apologies but I have been very busy attending to domestic issues and work related matters.

 

Firstly, a massive thanks to the forum members who have taken the lead on this issue (Antarmike and others).

 

I have tried to read all the posts but i think the number of pages has reached 40 odd so haven't read everything. Will get around to it over the next few night duties.

 

I, like evryone else on here do understand the proposals are the beginning of a slippery slope for the MV hobby.I don't for one minute think we military vehicle owners were meant to be caught up in this but for obvious reasons we have been.

 

I'm not going to suggest anything as I think everything is being done to ensure we MV owners are considered in the forth-coming discussions on this matter.

 

I am quite willing to send letters etc and there was a request for a standard letter to be drafted so we owners could make some representation to official bodies, etc. Is there a copy of the said letter so we can do this.

 

From what I have read my vehicles stand at:

 

Ward La France M1A1 - no change as pre-1960.

Brockhouse living trailer - not really sure on this as there seems to be some different views in relation to living vans.

 

Anyway - just wanted to express my thanks to the chaps heavily involved in the issue - I am in agreement in that if you have a vehicle not effected by the proposed changes - don't think you can sit back and relax because this may well be the first of many issues to effect our hobby.

 

Just thinking out loud - if it came to it maybe an MV procession through Central London would a highlight our cause - (Maybe for a later date if things seem to be moving in the wrong direction).

 

Markheliops

[Marmite!!]

Just thinking out loud - if it came to it maybe an MV procession through Central London would a highlight our cause - (Maybe for a later date if things seem to be moving in the wrong direction).

 

That has been suggested before for other legislation, the outcome of that was that HMVF would not get involved in public rallies, especially through central London as that just seems to get everyone's back up with the congestion it causes & may give the hobby the wrong image. I don't suppose that if all our (Mike's) hard work in getting us recognised in the legislation that parading through London will do any favors at all. Bringing it to the publics attention may work against us in that there are those out there just waiting for an opportunity..

 

As for a standard letter, HMVF will be putting in an official response via Mike, it may be better for members to send in individual letters than all send the same one with just a signiture, that way you would be able to point out details specific to your vehicles.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Marmite!!

[fv1609]

A number of people have suggested the formulation of a "standard letter" which on the face of it seems perfectly reasonable, but may be of minimal value. In the last couple of years there have been representations & protests made to a government sponsored authority near here. During this campaign there were large numbers of letters of protest many of which used a "standard letter". I am given to understand that no matter how many hundreds or even thousands of "standard letters" received they were only counted as ONE letter!

[Marmite!!]

Clive, I think that is the point I was trying to get across.. cheers

[Markheliops]

Point well presented and taken Lee.

 

Any other ideas as to widen media coverage that will be considered pro-movement?

[Marmite!!]

Point well presented and taken Lee.

 

Any other ideas as to widen media coverage that will be considered pro-movement?

I don't think any media coverage (other than MV/club mags) will be any use to us... Joe public won't give a toss... Mike is in direct contact with the man from the DfT & think we are going in the right direction.

[fv1609]

Clive, I think that is the point I was trying to get across.. cheers

 

Although the difference here is that there seems a willingness to listen & accomodate, this wasn't the case so much with the other organisation.

[Markheliops]

I don't think any media coverage (other than MV/club mags) will be any use to us... Joe public won't give a toss... Mike is in direct contact with the man from the DfT & think we are going in the right direction.

 

Agreed Lee - the right approach and direction is being taken on this matter.

 

My concern is that the MV scene and private collectors were not even thought about when this document was drawn up so this would indicate to me our hobby is not particulary high profile in relation to the chaps who come up with this stuff.

 

It's great not to attract unwanted attention but I can't help but think we should have been thought of before this document was put to paper -

 

I suppose a plus side of all this is that in future our hobby may be included in future proposals!!!