Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.
|
Author |
Message |
Crashbox
Joined: 30 Apr 2021 Posts: 139
|
Posted: Tue May 16, 2023 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ukdave2002
Joined: 23 Nov 2007 Posts: 4105 Location: South Cheshire
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2023 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Crashbox wrote: | 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. | And since the change in law regarding 30 year old vehicles, they will be seeing fewer classic vehicles. Whilst the specific changes by year are well documented in the Testers Manual, I'd imagine most NT's would have to look them up prior to the test, where as a few years ago they would have been more familiar with them. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MikeEdwards
Joined: 25 May 2011 Posts: 2472 Location: South Cheshire
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2023 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
ukdave2002 wrote: | Whilst the specific changes by year are well documented in the Testers Manual, I'd imagine most NT's would have to look them up prior to the test, where as a few years ago they would have been more familiar with them. |
I have had an MOT failure for having no drivers door mirror, and no visible VIN plate (except it has one) from a newly-qualified tester some years ago. I only "got away with it" because he became infuriated at my questions and went to get the manual to show me he was correct. He wasn't, and it was frustrating all round.
I don't miss trying to get it to scrape through the emissions test every year, though. _________________ 1976 Vauxhall HP Firenza, 1976 Vauxhall Sportshatch (x2), 1986 Audi coupe quattro, 2000 Audi TT |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 6319 Location: Derby
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2023 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
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! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
norustplease
Joined: 11 Apr 2011 Posts: 779 Location: Lancashire
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2023 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 6319 Location: Derby
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2023 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1954 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2023 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 6319 Location: Derby
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2023 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alastair, I defer to your deeper understanding of these bureaucratic machinations.
They all look the same to me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1954 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2023 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ray White wrote: | Alastair, I defer to your deeper understanding of these bureaucratic machinations.
They all look the same to me. |
It didn't help when the exemption thing first started, with all the confusion between DVLA & DVSA as to who needed to do what?
Too many old vehicle owners still don't realise that their vehicles are not exempt from VED [tax]....simply because they don't have to pay anything.
They haven't got the heads around the fact that the VED is set at zero....not the other way around.
Hence, by being set at zero, any government can, in the future, alter that, to any amount they want.
If it's the ease with which unscrupulous owners can simply drive their wrecks on the road come the 40 year exemption that worries folk [not as many as those who own vehicles less than 10 years old which are not roadworthy in one way or another?]....then why cannot the PTB insist on having passed a 'final MoT'' before exemption[and historic vehicle status] will be granted?
That way, at least the world-at-large [the worriers?] will know that a 40 year old vehicle starts out as being MoT-worthy?
When I purchoiced my '67 Mustang, I had it MoT'd....
Then the 'exemption' thin rocked up.
I had trouble with the new online Declaration thing, for historic vehicle status [it was already zero VED]...simply because the car had a valid MoT..therefore couldn't have an ''exemption'' at the same time.
At the time a number of complaints were raised about this sort of scenario, because there would be a situation where a vehicle, having passed an MoT which then expired, still couldn't obtain an exemption...IE, make the exemption declaration......until the 'tax' ran out....
Technically, it wouldn't be road legal for the intervening time period....unless a new MoT was sought!!
Which all rather defeated the object of having an exemption...
I recall receiving assurances from the Police that the lack of current valid MoT in the intervening period would not be pursued....simply because the online systems had to 'catch up with themselves'...
Oddly, the online system at the time then refused to allow me to obtain new VED for my Dellow....at the time the old one ran out....Then, when I tried again later, it told me the Dellow was already taxed, and I didn't even make a 'declaration'....
The Mustang didn't get an actual 'declaration' made until the following year....despite my being able to tax it [at zero rate]....as it told me, the thing was exempt from the need for MoT
Then, as I said, a year later, I had to tick the box, making the declaration!
I fully understand how the confusion arises. Even the Agencies themselves get tied up in knots!
Also, for me a reason to not get involved in being 'proper, ' and keeping a low profile and not poking the bear, so to speak. _________________ 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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 6319 Location: Derby
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2023 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Penman
Joined: 23 Nov 2007 Posts: 4759 Location: Swindon, Wilts.
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2023 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
php BB powered © php BB Grp.
|