MOTs Government response - MOT, now rolling 40 years.

Post by **MattH** » Wed Sep 20, 17 9:31 am

I spent a LONG time on this subject when the consultation was announced early this year.

I did post quite a long bit on here as well. Some of the questions and suggestions mentioned in this latest thread were already discussed before.

The idea of a less stringent test for older vehicles etc.

The reason this all came about is the EU (!) either have, or are introducing an exemption from roadworthiness testing (MOT) for all vehicles over 30 years old, i.e. pre 1987 (rolling).
One of the options in the consultation was to adopt this, but our lot thought this was not a good idea, hence rolling it back 10 years so that the manky Nissan Bluebirds, Micras and Ford Fiestas from the late 80's that are still run as Â£100 daily drivers won't be included in the exemption.

There was alot of thought and options within the consultation.

I am NOT defending the decision to exempt 40 year old cars, my argument was to scrap the pre 1960 exemption and MOT everything, even on a bi-annual basis with a simpler check for older vehicles, but this has not been taken up. The reason cited is the administration for having 2 different types of test for pre and post 40 year old cars compared to the relatively small numbers of vehicles involved.
The argument regarding old vehicles being dangerous was also considered, and like it or not the stats bear out that vehicles over 40 years old are involved in very few injury or fatal collisions, and if they are, it is VERY rare for a vehicle defect to be contributory.

I can vouch for this, that very few collisions these days are due to mechanical failure.

Vehicles 30 - 40 years old had the same accident rate as all newer vehicles.

Although its a bit of a read, the full consulation document is worth going through, as it does provide a reasoned argument for what is coming. I sent responses to the consultation, and some of my responses have been published in the latest announcement. (I know because I kept my submission and checked my answers against some of the published comments - it is nice to know my answers were read!)

BTW this isn't "leaked" it was published by the Govt on 14th september, as a result of consultation, and the draft legislation was going to parliament this week for approval to become active from 20th May 2018.
I get the updates from DVLA via work on e-mail.

So in summary, I think it's bad that MOT is going, but it will make the use of our vehicles easier, no last minute rush to get it tested before a show etc. It is also better than they took the 40 rather than 30 year old option, so the daily driver s**t boxes will still need MOT.

It will mean buyers will need to be aware, especially of shiny imports from abroad that are noshed up barn finds, but that will be good for the club, as there will be a need for proper advice and help for prospective owners, which we can provide as a community, or the smaller businesses doing inspection and repair.

The electric vehicle argument is a different matter and I'll start a new thread on that.

The modified vehiclke argument is one that I think people are getting too hung up on. If it's modified lots then just carry on as before, but as long as you are already registered and have a V5 i cannot see many situations where the modifications will come to light, as there will not be an inspection process in place (MOT test).
Most police won't know what is or isnt modified and won't have the time to deal with modified older vehicles just being driven around, when their priority is the uninsured and stolen vehicles being used for crime.
The modified aspect has worried a few hot rodders I know but I don't see the reason for panic. At most they just carry on getting MOT'd, but if registered pre 78 it will be their choice. I cannot see any way that there will start to be a wholesale inspection of vehicles to see what mods are done and when they were done, this will only happen at registration time, for imports or new builds.
The modified aspect generally is aimed at Kit cars, where what looks like a Cobra is still registered as a Jaguar XJ6. Thats's where it may need to keep being MOT'd.
Adrian's example of his Charger, I would not expect that to fall foul of being excessively modified.

Blue · Post by **Blue** » Wed Sep 20, 17 10:15 am

Thanks for taking the time to write that Matt, very helpful. I realise virtually every government department is understaffed these days so they do not have the capability (or the desire I would imagine) to indevidually inspect every car that's not bone stock. If there's to be an online box to tick saying your car is modified or not that's what you need to be aware of the consequences of. I need to read up on this further but in short, if my car is modified but within the 8 point BIVA classification, does that mean in this new MOT rules that it's considered the same as an unmodified car?

Post by **MattH** » Wed Sep 20, 17 10:30 am

In simple terms I would say so. One part of the report even said the modified term was not clearly defined, so I think that if you are already registered then it won't be an issue.
I'm guessing that the modified before date, is set so that anyone modifying something now will flag up on an MOT when a tester sees it, (e.g a rear wheel drive Skyline engined Micra) and it will require to be listed as modified. I am not very familiar with BIVA so need to do more reading.

The modified bit also probably is there to try and prevent new Land Rovers and the like being registered as pre 78 by swapping VIN's.

Its no different to when tax exemption came in and pre 70 cars (or their identities ) were used on much newer cars, which were an alleged reshell or similar.
Trigger's broom, 2 new heads and three new handles but still the same broom.

Its a wait and see but don't panic, the authorities have too few staff or knowledge to administer modified inspections.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Wed Sep 20, 17 10:38 am

Some very well reasoned responses here. Thanks especially to Matt and Stuart for their perspective.

MilesnMiles · Post by **MilesnMiles** » Wed Sep 20, 17 12:38 pm

On a lighter note I remember when the 125cc limit for motorbikes (without full bike licence) came in back in the 80s. We all drove around on 200cc Lambrettas and Vespas and just rebadged/re-registered as 125.
There were fears then that the cops would be checking and removing barrels and measuring pistons etc to identify true cc.
Never happened

and I got a ful bike licence anyway.

Thanks for your input , Matt

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Wed Sep 20, 17 1:13 pm

Brilliant post, MattH!!

Very measured and very well put

Dave81 · Post by **Dave81** » Wed Sep 20, 17 1:57 pm

Great Post Matt.....So in essence you believe if it still looks like it left the factory then it shouldnt be an issue.

Which makes the bolt on mods still viable, which is what most end up doing.

Tubbing the car and adding rollcages etc would be obvious to anyone that its not stock.

Not to concerned about it, but as im into the car for the long haul. It would be nice to not worry about everything i buy/add, being an issue or potential court case.

cadboy · Post by **cadboy** » Thu Sep 21, 17 7:22 am

Very well explained Matt thank you

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Thu Sep 21, 17 10:49 am

Dave81 wrote: Tubbing the car and adding rollcages etc would be obvious to anyone that its not stock.

Actually a Roll cage in my opinion is not a significant issue.

With BIVA, the trick is NOT to cut up the Monocoque - this is where you lose the most points. Adding stuff (providing you go about it the right way) is not such an issue.

LONGSHOT · Post by **LONGSHOT** » Thu Sep 21, 17 11:09 am

great thread this -lots of panicking on other forums and fartbook.
Pete has just said about roll cages which has crossed my mind as about to get mine done by mr robinson -should I carry on regardless ?
apart from fact I am mini-tubbed and inboard springs...

ps -very good post Matt.

Blue · Post by **Blue** » Thu Sep 21, 17 12:40 pm

Need to check the BIVA regs Dave, your tubs and inboard springs will cost you 2 points each, and I think chassis ties if you have them would be another 2. Not sure if a roll cage is considered to be a modification of the monocoque or not. With the workmanship as nice as it is on yours Dave I very much doubt anyone would know it had been messed with so I would carry on regardless...

Dave81 · Post by **Dave81** » Thu Sep 21, 17 1:14 pm

Still find it quite interesting that you could actually improve the car with modern parts making it safer for all involved (Brake and suspension upgrades over 60s design to make it handle and stop better), and then get penalised for it.

Pete,

Subtle mods then i can see no issue, but a proper roll cage (if i were a DVLA rep), would make me delve a little deeper into the car, and why it had been done.

Time will tell, but id go with making sure that the outlandish major mods are kept to a minimum why this is all sorted.
Or accept that if it comes to it you'll need to tax and MOT the car just like the average daily.

Fun times ahead, as its not going to stop me getting the car to where i want it to be......

LONGSHOT · Post by **LONGSHOT** » Thu Sep 21, 17 1:27 pm

Blue wrote:Need to check the BIVA regs Dave, your tubs and inboard springs will cost you 2 points each, and I think chassis ties if you have them would be another 2. Not sure if a roll cage is considered to be a modification of the monocoque or not. With the workmanship as nice as it is on yours Dave I very much doubt anyone would know it had been messed with so I would carry on regardless...

crikey- no wonder people are panicking and talking about 30 grand garden ornaments , I will be carrying on regardless-bloody pen pushers justifying their wages and spoiling every ones fun.
As always a few rogues will spoil it for the rest.
I have seen 3 year old cars less roadworthy than my dart-
makes me mad.
rant over.
thanks for the reply and compliments Blue.

Post by **MattH** » Fri Sep 22, 17 8:50 am

This is the email I got, with the link to the documents

Dear consultee

Thank you for replying to last yearâ€™s consultation on proposals to exempt Vehicles of Historical Interest from annual roadworthiness testing.

We have today announced the Governmentâ€™s response to the consultation. This has been published on our website, together with a summary of the submissions we received from the public and a draft guidance note explaining how we propose to define â€˜substantially changedâ€™ vehicles. The Department plans to finalise the guidance during November. This link will take you to the page where these documents may be read: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... c-interest

If you have any questions or feedback about it please contact roadworthinesstesting@dft.gsi.gov.uk).
We are introducing legislation in Parliament today to bring the proposed changes into effect.

The specific link to the modified vehicle is here
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... idance.pdf

But I do think it is only going to be able to account for getting vehicles registered. If they are already modified I can't see how it will be checked. That's just my take on it.

Blue · Post by **Blue** » Fri Sep 22, 17 9:23 am

Thanks Matt!
So then, if your vehicle is 40 years old you don't need an MOT unless you tell the DVLA it is a modifield vehicle in which case you still need an MOT.

Reading the criterior for modified vehicles, you would assume "our" cars would not fall into that category unless they were full chassis cars, it is aimed at kit cars, hot rod style vehicles & new builds which are built from the components of several different vehicles. It is open to interpretation of course but that seems to be the gist of it. Having read that I am reasonably confident my vehicles do not fall into thier catagorisation of a modified vehicle, apart from the 15% power increase bit, ahem...