So, It would appear that the 'rolling MOT exemption' comes on line this spring meaning that cars over 40 years old will not need an MOT or road tax. My Locost has an age related plate (1980) and its first registration stated as that, even though it carries my own VIN number and 'make'. Never could get my head around that!

Anyway my question is: since it is an age related reg. does anyone know if that means it will qualify for historic vehicle status from 2020? i.e. no more tax or MOTs required? Or will different rules apply to SVA approved cars? Mine was SVA not IVA.

Thanks for any advice. Oh and Happy New Year!

Mike

there is a note that 'substantually modified' cars will not be included, however the term has not yet been publicly defined.
I suspect those that kept the original reg will get it, and age related not

see also
http://www.classicandsportscar.com/news/classic-cars-over-40-years-old-gain-mot-exemption-2018

edit: and
http://www.classicandsportscar.com/news/government-clarifies-position-mot-exemption-modified-classics
edit 2
age ralated: I think you would still get the tax at zero rate, but not the mot exemption

and, yes Happy New Year to all!

[Edited on 2/1/18 by gremlin1234]

That would by my understanding, not tax but need an mot under substantially modified. I read that anything over 10% extra horse power over standard will be classed as modified and that is without brakes, suspension etc.

Seems a sensible half way house.

Hmmmm, Really confusing!

I have the original 1980 reg and it states on the V5 date of registration as 1980. By looking at the V5 you would see just that . A car with my VIN and make/model registered then. This was the outcome of my SVA and DVLA registration. No mention of radically modified etc.

I suppose my question would be: how would anyone know that this car wasn't built in 1980? under its current make and model?

Do we imagine that when the new rules come into play and we go to look at the 'status' of the vehicle on line, if it meets the criteria for historic vehicle the MOT requirement won't come up.

I have a 1970 Bedford CF which is tax exempt. It will be interesting to see if, since this is classed as an historic vehicle, the statement 'this vehicle requires an MOT, might change automatically. If that's the case and an application for the Locost (as historic) is successful in a couple of years or so maybe the same will happen.

Maybe this is an anomaly. The car was SVAd as a new build not a car being altered. Yet by providing evidence of enough bits coming from the original escort I got to keep the original reg. Obviously this was to avoid a Q plate.

Ah just noted that it says under section 3:

Kit Built/Converted - Assembled from parts all of which may not be new, and states the date of the SVA.

Doesn't say when it was built or converted though

Be interesting to see how the computer processes this.

I believe your car may become MoT exempt 40 years after it was built (or SVA'd) as it is obviously not a 1980 escort. It may never be eligible, but clarification is needed
And remember the (current) historic tax class is not an exemption, but the rate of tax is zero. It still has to be taxed. A small, but legally significant difference.

The other thing to remember is this. Do you really want to drive a vehicle with no MoT? say a serious accident happens. And there is a fault. With an MoT you have some protection, and you can prove the vehicle has had a safety check within the last 12 months. Which is deemed to be reasonable at present. If no MoT, you may have to prove somehow you had checked the car was roadworthy and correctly maintained. Which is tricky at best.
I will be having my cars MoT'd (my Spitfire with ST170 won't be a VHI under the proposals anyway)

And finally, the whole idea of MoT exemption seems ill conceived. It benefits nobody in the long term, but may be a backdoor way of restricting the use of old vehicles in the future. It has happened elsewhere in the world (USA I think, possibly Holland?) where VHI can only be used fir certain events or days. Not what many drivers want at all.

EDIT. To get the MoT exemption the owner will need to apply for VHI status, which means you are signing that the car meets the requirements. So if you sign and the car doesn't meet the requirements, I reckon there could be some real issues if/when it comes to light. Ignorance is not an excuse, there is a section where it states that if you are unsure, you should get an expert to check the vehicle. A bit vague, but clearly putting the responsibility on the owner. A bit like car insurance. You could probably get insured as a 60 year old office worker on a 1.1 escort, when in fact you are an 18 year old oik and the escort has a 2litre pinto with a turbo. All fine until poo hits fan....

[Edited on 3/1/18 by cliftyhanger]

I see the OP question in the same light as I see many of my own queries and concerns.
Yes, I have a historic LR (a genuine one). I've had it for a few decades, it's more recent MoT history is all there on the DVLA.

I see many questionable 'Historic' vehicles out there in the Kit and LR world. Worrying collections of scrap that (presumably) will be able to utilise the road network should the driver/owner be of that mind-set. That's one of the issues I see, the other is the whole 'Historic' thing applied to (in the LR world) modern vehicles. Plenty of examples (just look on Ebay) of coil sprung Series LR's with modern engines and transmissions - simply affixing a Series chassis number to a Defender chassis.

These vehicles have an MoT history, usually with questionable (and obviously untrue) ID's. Same with some kit cars, we've all seen the questionable 'items' out there.

So........... where's the 'enforcement'? I've always felt the MoT man should have a 'questionable' box on his forms that ring an alarm with VOSA that they may wish to call the car in and have a look. Leaving everything to the insurance folk that will simply look at the car after a crash and avoid all liability due to it's questionable registration/condition isn't the way.

I guess we'll see how all this pans out, rather like Brexit....

The tax would be nice,as we get ass raped enough in this country on other taxes!

MOT though I would rather have it tested yearly tbh.

On the point of possibly being a backdoor means of restricting use of historic vehicles (as Cliftyhanger comments above), I guess that would apply to the zero tax class vehicles irrespective of the MOT exemption. It looks like the two are connected so I guess if you want the zero tax then that's a risk you may take. I have to say that would severely p**s me off as my Bedford CF1 is zero tax (1970) and obviously I want to use it, when I want to use it!

I was just going to add I would prefer it MOT'd too regardless, especially the older it gets.

Well, personally since I built the car from scratch and it passed its SVA first time, I think I would feel capable of checking it over before each 'season'.

4 years to go with my landy...can't wait

A genuine series 3...not a defender tax dodge

As for the MOT exemption it is a bit worrying as before I restored it there was nothing safe about it at all. I personally know of several people who bought basket case old landys who knew zero about them and had no skills to work on them either. Simple cars but 1000's of things to go wrong (and usually do).

I can MOT check mine myself perfectly safely but just like anyone I do tend to put off expensive things till the last possible moment which would usually be for the MOT (it's human nature) with no MOT to force me...I could live with bad brakes or dodgy steering for years. Saying that's it's just passed the MOT last week with not even an advisory...







[Edited on 3/1/18 by Mr Whippy]

MOT exempt seems like a step backwards

Yes it will save me money and effort, a bike and car that qualify .... But.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Doc
Well, personally since I built the car from scratch and it passed its SVA first time, I think I would feel capable of checking it over before each 'season'.

---

As above, I,ll be taking the E Type for an anual MOT, just to have another pair of eyes cast over it, and a proper brake test...

quote:

---

Originally posted by r1_pete
and a proper brake test...

---

I don't think it would ever hurt to have another experienced pair of eyes checking over any classic car every year to be honest (brake balance etc)

I can understand the thinking behind the exemption, but don't think it'll hurt to get it checked yearly

What happens if somebody is mid-way through a restoration and the budget starts to run out ?
They might be tempted to just put it back together and get it back on the road

It'll be fine until there's a big accident and then there might just be a re-think..

The insurance companies might be taking closer looks with no MOT required?

Hopefully that'll never happen though

I have heard that some insurers of the pre 1960 vehicles that have been MoT exempt for a few years, offer discounts if you have an MoT. Makes sense as the vehicles have had a check, as opposed to trusting people to maintain them "unsupervised"

tbh I do agree with the above. I'm not trained motor mechanic and certainly not a MOT inspector and have nowhere close to the same amount of equipment as a normal testing station. Some setting up is much harder for me to do and I can only road test the brakes and steering to see if they are pulling or behaving as expected.

The legal aspect of not having that MOT certificate in a crash is a very good point, you might have to defend yourself in a court with no comeback to the MOT or proof something wasn't a recent sudden unexpected failure and not just down to poor maintenance.

I heard the argument that old cars are becoming harder for testing stations to test but think that total nonsense as the tests and standards for older cars are much simpler and any competent tester would be able to deal with any car presented regardless of age. I suspect in reality there are politicians who were lobbying for this who also owned a lot of classic cars...

All interesting and valid points. Definitely makes me reflect. Thanks everyone for the input

Mike