Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[Crashbox]

Something to bear in mind is that older MOT testers are bowing out all the time. The vast majority of testers today are under 40 and 99% of cars they see are most likely no older than 15-years-old. When someone with a vintage car, for example, turns up to get an MOT on their 90-year-old car it's going to be subjected to a test that's designed for a 3-year-old car because that's what the 30-year-old tester is doing every day of his life. I know of a number of 2CV'ers who have had a fail on their car because the handbrake showed zero effort. Turned out the tester was testing the brakes on the rear of the car and the handbrake works on the front brakes. Another erroneous and all too frequent failure is too much movement in the 2CV's suspension system!! How many old cars have failed an MOT simply because the MOT tester was subjecting it to a test it would never be able to pass even if it had just rolled off the production line. Saying that, I'll be presenting my 1932 Morris for an MOT imminently... though the MOT station I'll be using is well experienced with testing ancient machines and testing them accordingly.
_________________
1989 2CV

1932 Morris Minor S.V. Two-Seater

[ukdave2002]

[MikeEdwards]

[Ray White]

MY M.O.T. tester is well over 70 and owns the garage. He not only understands older cars but actually enjoys seeing them. We all get nostalgic sometimes. He used to admire my GT6 which I kept in very good condition but even he wasn't happy with Trundles because , being an Austin Seven, it was too narrow to go on his ramp. He asked me to drive across the forecourt and apply the brakes because he didn't want to use the Tapley meter.

I did my best and managed to lock the wheels.

He was amazed!

[norustplease]

Just to put a spanner in the works, I am a member of another forum related to Farina Oxfords and Cambridges, etc. One member wrote to the DfT to ask for clarification of the recently publicised item on bodywork repairs being unnaceptable in Historic Vehicle terms, and received the following:

"While the DVLA takes into consideration repair work to a chassis or monocoque bodyshell to maintain safety and prolong its life, a modification such as drilling, cutting or welding undertaken as part of a restoration, is not considered to be a repair."

This clearly has ambiguities. Does this refer to modifications or are like for like repairs also included. Is an accident repair also considered a restoration? What do they consider to be a repair and not a modification? This is potentially very serious and We need to bombard our MP's with objections to this.

My personal view is that this is a hint that we are getting to the end of the road, and that elements of the nanny state want us off the road and on the scrapheap. One extra drilled hole took a mini out, what about the rest of the movement with replaced cills, boot floors, etc. I wrote to one of the weekly classic car magazines and received a very dismissive reply from its editor. Well, if this is not repealed by FBHVC, then he and a couple of million other people are going to be without a job very shortly!!
_________________
1953 Citroen Traction
1964 Volvo PV544
1957 Austin A55 Mk 1
Boring Tucson SUV

[Ray White]

What concerns me is the obvious lack of expertise at the DVLA. There are it seems people in positions of power who obviously don't know what they are talking about.

What can be done about it?

I simply don't know.

[alastairq]

Well, for starters, it won't be the DVLA that we look to for MoT information..it will be the DVSA!
{VOSA as it once was, until amalgamated with the DSA]

The DVLA deal with driver & vehicle licensing.

They have taken on board the responsibility of accepting the Registered Keeper's declaration regarding Historic Vehicle status . That is all.

It is the DVSA who have issued the regulations and definitions regarding historic vehicle status.

So we need to start querying the right government agency, for starters.

Technically [as I have been warned] if we take our 40-plus Y O vehicles for a voluntary MoT, having already declared them to comply to get Historic Vehicle Status [for VED purposes]....then there may be issues when the new MoT runs out.

Technically, the exemption for MoT testing isn't automatic.
It has to be ''applied for''.

Each time a new MoT is required [because the existing one has expired].

However, once the declaration has been made, and exemption granted, there it remains.

So, actually acquiring a new MoT to satisfy one's needs [whether valid or reasonable, I'll not argue here]....places the vehicle technically back where it started when first seeking MoT exemption.

Hence why my favourite MoT testing spot encouraged me to not actually submit my bangers for MoT, but rather, if I so wished, submit for a 'check-over'.... All very confusing....

But first, we need to get our own heads around which Government agency does what!
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.

[Ray White]

Alastair, I defer to your deeper understanding of these bureaucratic machinations.

They all look the same to me.

[alastairq]

[Ray White]

I had an extended telephone conversation with a man at the car tax office about this zero tax issue with my Swallow. He said the Swallow was "zero rated" ... but would still be "taxed".

I asserted that if no money changes hands then the car cannot be "taxed" because by any definition tax involves paying money.

We just went round and round in circles.

[Penman]

I think the reason fdor a zero rate of Tax is so that it only needs a regulation change and not a new Act in order to go back to a monetary value tax.
I believe the same applies to Zero rated VAT items.

So from a civil service point of view you car is taxed.
_________________
Bristols should always come in pairs.

Any 2 from:-
Straight 6
V8 V10