DVLA policy/guidance on MOT exemption for Modified Vehicles

[Fred Dukes]

There seems to be a firming up on the definition of a modified vehicle qualifying for Tax and MoT exempt(Vehicle of Historic Interest - VHI )
Again, as for the qualification for Tax Exempt, this is applied for by the Owner of the vehicle.
(I did pick up that initial application for Historic reclassification will only be done at the PO in future)

In the majority of cases application for MOT exempt there is a clear process - if your Vehicle is classified as an Historic Vehicle the next tax reminder you get after 20th May 2018 will ask if you want to declare MOT exemption and you confirm that the vehicle has not been substantially modified in the last 30 years ( since 1988 and rolling) and you want it to be reclassified as VHI.
The guidance clearly states:-
that modification done pre 30 years ago will not effect qualification for VHI
• changes that are made to preserve a vehicle, which in all cases must be when original type parts are no longer reasonably available;

• changes of a type, that can be demonstrated to have been made when vehicles of the type were in production or in general use (within ten years of the end of production);

• in respect of axles and running gear changes made to improve efficiency, safety or environmental performance;

• in respect of vehicles that have been commercial vehicles, changes which can be demonstrated were being made when they were used commercially. t

The generalised NO-NOs seem to be:-
A vehicle will be considered substantially changed if the technical characteristics of the main components have changed in the previous 30 years, unless the changes fall into specific categories. These main components for vehicles, other than motorcycles2, are:
Chassis (replacements of the same pattern as the original are not considered a substantial change) or Monocoque bodyshell including any sub-frames (replacements of the same pattern as the original are not considered a substantial change);
Axles and running gear – alteration of the type and or method of suspension or steering constitutes a substantial change;
Engine – alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative original equipment engines are not considered a substantial change. If the number of cylinders in an engine is different from the original, it is likely to be, but not necessarily, the case that the current engine is not alternative original equipment.

All this still begs the questions as laymen are we qualified to decide if we have a legitimate VHI?

If you bought a modified vehicle with no audit trail how do you know when it was done?

The can of worms wont be opened until you have an accident - what will the insurance people make of it.
If it turns out you declared it met the criteria for VHI and after vehicle inspection VHI is invalid - will insurance also become invalid?
Link to DVLA Guidance
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... idance.pdf
Also link to FBHVC News which seems to suggest they may be setting up an advisory body of "experts" to help validate VHI claims
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... idance.pdf

Thats my assessment for what its worth - no doubt there will be lots more to say
Looks like The Red Baron will still need an MOT - I would still have had it tested for safety anyway

[1972nail]

So, a few hypothetical questions about our cars -

Is replacing the springs and shocks on our Vivas with coil overs a substantial change? It is a change in the method of suspension after all. It certainly can't be argued that original type springs and shocks are no longer reasonably available.

Is fitting a Firenza Can Am V8 a substantial change? It was an 'alternative equipment' engine fitted to that bodyshell, albeit in a different country.

What about fitting a direct drive 5 speed box? It can't be shown that it is an 'environmental performance' improvement as the top gear ratio has not changed.

There is no mention of brakes, what about fitting upgraded discs and calipers of a completely different pattern? It could be argued that it was on the grounds of increased safety but are the originals less safe? Who then quantifies and verifies the increased margin of safety if it does exist?

Who knows.......? The clarity isn't there in the guidance because it is not specific to any particular make and model and that's where they will be depending on the FBHVC 'experts'...... Would you want to be an 'expert'? I wouldn't!

[fistfullofV5's]

Hi all,
For what it's worth I'll be putting my cars in for an mot or at the very least a safety check yearly as a matter of course. I couldn't honestly say that I'd never miss a single defect on my vehicles, and if the worst happened I wouldn't want it on my conscience.
Regards, Dave.

[Colin]

Hi all,
For what it's worth I'll be putting my cars in for an mot or at the very least a safety check yearly as a matter of course. I couldn't honestly say that I'd never miss a single defect on my vehicles, and if the worst happened I wouldn't want it on my conscience.
Regards, Dave.

Quite right. It's well worth spending £50 (or less) for a professional brake test, suspension, steering, lights and headlamp alignment check and overall vehicle structure report for peace of mind if nothing else.

[Fred Dukes]

The concern is that if, for instance, your "Historic Vehicle" does not qualify for MOT exempt (VHI) for modification reasons done within the last 30 years (and it may be difficult to find an audit trail to confirm when modifications were done) then you will be tied to the MOT process and procedures which are likely to be changing in the future to be, in parts, inappropriate for Historic vehicles.
As I have said previously I don't believe that it is prudent not to submit a vehicle for an independent safety check - as you say it is easy to miss something when checking your own vehicle plus there is a vast spread of capabilities across vehicle owner.

[Bob perry]

I agree, a safety check/mot with a report is the very least I would like.

Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, should the unthinkable happen and a collision occurs, Insurance Companies may well ask " when was this vehicle last seen and inspected by a professional engineer, AND can you prove it??"

I do my own maintenance and safety checks may not wash!!

The mind boggle at the possible outcome!!

I'm also very concerned that any jack the lad boy racer can just jump in to any old "bleepinn" rot box and drive it around willy-nilly because it is over 40 years old!!

I have a feeling that the Classic on the road is going to be watched over very carefully by the boys in blue, when ever they are around!!

[AccieMad]

I guess, bottom line, is that your car has to be roadworthy.

Having an MoT doesn't guarantee this (some time after) but a yearly check shows proper intent to keep it so should your single circuit brakes fail down a hill and you plough the thing into something you know that you have a well maintained car and it has been 'bad luck'. You would hope a court would also look at this the same. If the car is falling apart you have to expect the book to be thrown at you.

We all know our cars need constant maintenece to keep them going, well mine does anyway.

Happy motoring

[dann01]

The can of worms Fred mentions when you have an accident and your insurance company starts to argue the toss is, and always has been there... It's just very rarely opened.

Say you do have a modified Viva. Say up rated suspension, a five speed box, or perhaps you've upped the engine with some toys, big valve head, some carbs... And then you do have an accident. The insurance co sends their inspection guy to take a look to assess.

Here is the thing. They are gonna look at the car, and frankly and honestly, unless they know classic cars, and a solid back ground of what the Viva was and wasn't fitted with (And lets face it, there were a lot of variants) they are not going to know what the hell is a mod and what isn't. They spend most of their time remaining current on new models and inspecting much much newer metal that our Vivas. (Inspectors used to be older experienced chaps with a fag in their mouths, wearing coveralls and holding a clip board. These days they are suited spotty faced twenty somethings with a tablet. I am sure there are exceptions, but not many anymore.)

The other thing that gripes me is the use of "Approved" repairers... For classics? So where are these Approved repairers gonna get panels from? Even we as owners have a problem finding panels. Suspension parts? Wheels?... Yeah, I wager those approved repairers might struggle. That's another thread.

For my money, regardless of if Darth is modified or otherwise, he will be MOT'd every year none the less.

Dan

[droopsnoot]

On the subject of insurance assessments after a collision, I guess it would depend on the nature and severity of the incident, if the worst happens and there's injury involved, it's not just down to the insurance company to tick a few boxes.

I'm with you on the approved repairers thing. My old classic insurance policy used to include recovery service, and I was relieved that the conditions included that it would only be recovered to a specialist in my vehicle, and only if they were open, i.e. not just left in the yard. If that couldn't be done, they'd bring the car home, which is all I need. And there's a big difference between repairers that the insurance company approve, and those that I would approve. As you said, another thread.

I'm currently undecided between having an MOT with the issues that might go with it (primarily the emissions, that my cars require due to registration date), or asking my MOT station to do an MOT-like test. I can check loads of stuff, see if lights and wipers work, but I can't put it on brake rollers, or view the various safety parts with a fresh eye.

[1972nail]

Mike has a good suggestion. If you can prove that the vehicle is kept in a road worthy condition and inspected on a regular basis surely that is all that will be required in the event of an accident. In reality the MOT is only valid or a true representation of the condition of the car on the day the car was tested, something could happen the minute it leaves the station that makes it un-roadworthy, not very likely, but possible.

A paper trail of a recognised repairer checking over the car and repairs and maintenance carried out on a regular basis ought to be enough, receipts from a local garage should be sufficient. After all, on the UK mainland that's what an MOT is anyway.

Here in N Ireland we are still not completely sure what is happening, the legislation to put the exemption into action has to be signed of by out Local Executive, who are currently not speaking to each other, so we are in limbo. The other thing is that as our MOT system is carried out in a different manner we may not have the opportunity to have an 'MOT style check' carried out without a full MOT at the Government MOT stations. Few local garages have brake rollers, shock testing machines or even computerised headlight alignment tools.