Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[lowdrag]

"its 30 years in Europe but the uk went with 40 years old, that's a different proposal that comes into force in May. I understand there will be a box to tick confirming the car is not modified. If it is it will have yo be mot'ed. Until may we won't know whether the mot testers will be asked to confirm if a car has been modified. One of our testers said there was something in the latest updates about vhi's, I haven't had time to look at it yet. I wouldn't recommend sending v5's in for changes as you may open a can of worms."

I'm sorry to appear thick but the statement on the Federation site makes it perfectly clear (to me) that the car will be considered a VHI if the changes were done over 30 years ago. So the donor car is over forty years old and the conversion was done thirty years ago.That brings it into line with many other countries, although some still require an MOT every five years for example. The Federation statement is:-

7. A vehicle may generally be a VHI if the changes were undertaken more than 30 years previously.

8. Owners will only need to declare their vehicle a VHI if they wish to be exempted from an MOT test.

That seems to read that any modified car that was converted more than 30 years ago can therefore be MOT exempt.

[Ray White]

That is how I read it. I should imagine the" historic" hot rod fraternity will be relieved!

[Paul fairall]

[Paul fairall]

As an example, there are rebodied cars ( hot rods ) built on a reliant scimitar chassis still registered as a scimitar but with a 32 ford body. These cars have not been declared modified and if built after the date in 1988 could face an inspection and biva. It's on the owner to prove it was modified before the date.
_________________
1957 ford popular

[Ray White]

If the DVLA will no longer accept old M.O.T.s as evidence for number plate retrieval will they also refuse to accept them as evidence for the date of substantial modification?

[lowdrag]

I have been corresponding with the FHBVC for some time on this subject. Their site can be found here:-

http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/

To be more specific, you can read their newsletter here:-

http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/about-us/news/_article/125/government-publishes-definition-of-vehicle-of-historic-interest/

It is there you will find points 7 and 8 to which I have referred. It seems pretty clear to me, and the Federation, that any modified classic where the work was carried out over 30 years ago will be MOT exempt. If not, then all Austin 7 hill climb specials, all Bentleys that became Le Mans replicas, even all original Rolls Royce cars (they were sold as chassis only, and the car sent to Hoopers or whoever for a body to be built) will be caught in that net, a net from which they were previously exempt. As everyone here knows, my world is Jaguar, and C, D and XKSS replicas have been around for many a year. Lynx built their first replica in 1975, as did Wingfield. It now seems that they too can qualify as MOT exempt.

But as I have been saying from the start, this is a thorny and difficult subject. If you can demonstrate the fallacy of my argument then please do so. We are all babes to the slaughter here. Oh, and by the way, the EU countries have not exempted cars over thirty years from an MOT. In France it is an MOT every five years now, and the 30-year rule is based on a UNESCO ruling that the minimum age for collectability is thirty years. What the 30-yr rule has done is to make it easier, not harder, for replicas to be registered in countries that before completely rejected them out of hand. Again, France is a perfect example.

Finally, there is now no longer a requirement to prove the work was carried out over thirty years ago. It is made perfectly clear that the process is one of self-declaration. Yes, this leaves the barn door well and truly wide open, but what else can one do? Luckily I have the complete history of my car including the build records, details of every owner, etc. etc. Not many people have all that thirty years down the line. The self declaration is the only way the baby will not be thrown out with the bath water but does seem to give a nod and a wink to virtually every modified car owner who is less than scrupulous. Lynx were visited by the DVLA in 1978 and were given a clean bill of health, and indicated that there was no need to have the vehicle type changed on the V5. My car, for example, is still shown as a 1967 2+2 E-type. I shall, when the dust settled, get that rectified as one person I know has already done. His car is now a Lynx D-type on the V5.

As regards an MOT, you seem to have put the cart before the horse. Taking the example of a car currently SORNed, if you declare the car to be a VHI the fact that one has made that declaration then exempts the car from all future need for an MOT, so once done one can tax the car. So BIVA does not even enter into the equation, since BIVA only applies to new builds anyway. However, the latest consultation document (a separate issue this and not to be confused with the matter in hand) will mean that the building of any true replica from October onward will more or less come to an end. Here, of course, I refer to the need for the new car to comply with current emissions requirements, not the requirements based on the age of the engine. I don't think that the old XK engine could qualify even with carefully mapped fuel injection and catalyst, and certainly any car with carburettors would fail.

[alastairq]

[Ray White]

My goodness, the pen pushers at the DfT have been busy!

4. 11

Before all the kit car builders start jumping out of upstairs windows, let us remember that this is, like others before it, just a proposal - and not a very well thought out one at that.

The numbers of vehicles involved are small so the impact on the environment would not even be measurable. This, however, is also part of the problem. I doubt the FHBVC would consider kit converted vehicles (like the Suffolk SS100) to be within their remit; in which case there is no strong voice to represent them.

I may be wrong; as now the law will recognise anything over 30 years old as a vehicle of historic interest. On the one hand we have a law which gives M.O.T. exemption to such vehicles because they are considered as "historic" yet on the other hand we have a Government department proposal which would make it impossible for such vehicles to pass the test. Catch 22.

[alastairq]

The proposal isn't retrospective. Vehicles already registered won't be affected.

The proposal is aimed at future kit builds...where the evidence suggests people like to go for modern engines anyway...so teh emissions kit is already available.

VHI is but a label.
Application for VHI is optional...[and doesn't affect VED status].

[Ray White]

[lowdrag]

We were only yesterday having a serious discussion on the number of replicas built per annum nowadays, and we didn't come up with many. In the Jaguar world we have Realm and we have Suffolk in the main with smattering of others building upmarket FIA papered replicas. In fact, I've just put the phone down from talking to someone about a "real" C-type he has , and an XK 120 buff log book. All he has to do is change the chassis plate, tick the VHI box, no MOT is then needed, and the car can be taxed. Simple peeps. Or, he can put the car through the IVA, get an age related plate, and have an annual MOT. One is illegal but there will be no check on the car it seems to me. And we are talking of about the best copy C-type ever made and in the £500,000 price bracket. All the V5 for the old car will show is Jaguar and 2 seater. Well, both a C-type and an XK120 are certainly that. No trickery there. From person experience I know it works because that is how I registered my Kettle C-type ten years ago. Not that it matters - the car lives in Germany now.

Anyway, we reckon that there are at the most around 40 Jaguar-based replicas built each year covering all manufacturers. You can argue that that will hardly contribute to global warming but then you could equally argue that the number is so insignificant that they will just have to like it and lump it and put a modern engine in the car.

No criticism please; I am only postulating here. It seems to me that if one has an old identity that the coach and horses mentioned earlier could well be a four in hand and not a doctor's buggy, but that is not our problem since our cars already exist. And if your car is 28 years old then in two years you qualify for no MOt or you can be "a little economical with the truth".

[Ray White]

Getting an M.O.T has never been an issue with me because sensible rules were applied and no legislation has been retrospective. It is all about logic and common sense. The problem, it seems to me, is if they start bringing in rules that are difficult or even impossible for the main in the street to comply with.

It would be ironic if on leaving the E.U. we were clobbered with even more heavy handed legislation.

The DVLA, of course, recognise a difference between "kit built vehicles" and "kit converted vehicles". The problem I am still having is establishing whether or not the likes of Suffolk which are "kit converted vehicles" (if you choose to go down the D.I.Y. route) will fall foul of the proposed DfT changes?

[lowdrag]

We must be conscious to the fact that this is a consultative document and not a firm proposal. The fact that it will affect maybe 50 people a year and maybe 15,000 miles in total leads to the thought "why bother". It is insignificant and somewhat malicious. I mean, it isn't as if it will save the planet. But politically it is a way of saying "look, we are doing our best" while, as so often in civil service matters, actually doing nothing. It is a red herring. On the cheerful side look where the first consultative document on MOT status etc. led us to; a totally watered down act that actually makes life easier for the classic car world. Kit cars like mine are no longer lepers but welcomed into the community. No MOT, and no payable road tax. Maybe, when the dust settles, it will go away, but then again it might not. But the thought of an M5 engine in a Suffolk SS100 is an interesting thought

[lowdrag]

[Ray White]

Thank you Lowdrag. I would have no problem with putting a replica SS100 through the M.O.T. so long as it continued to have the same test exemptions appropriate to the age of the engine and running gear which come from the donor car. Looking at the points system it might need to have an age related plate OR could keep it's original number depending how you interperet the wording! It would have a new chassis with Suffolk as the manufacturer, not Jaguar. My point is that before embarking on a hugely expensive build I want to be absolutely certain that the proposals from the DFT to change the M.O.T. to remove the emissions test exemption will not apply to the finished car. I suspect the only way to side step (legally) the emission test would be to have the car running on LPG. This would be O.K. with me as I already run my Range Rover on it without any problems. I need to know the facts before getting involved.

I may have my faults but I regard honesty as the best policy so there is no way I would ever make a false declaration in order to hoodwink the authorities into thinking I had not made substantial changes to the original XJ6 donor car.

Perhaps I may have to accept that this is not the project for me.?