For UK owners Proposed Changes to exemption of vehicles from MOT

[stevie_a]

For UK owners,

I have a Classic and the Z3, the time will come that the Z3 will be affected please sign.


what do you think ???
Proposed Changes to exemption of vehicles from MOT
Email By Stuart Graham
Proposed Changes to the exemption of vehicles from MOT and the impact on vehicles having been modified
Good afternoon, You may or may not be aware, but the government are proposing that the age for which vehicles of historic interest become exempt from MOT will now be pre 1978 (40 years old) from the 20th May 2018. This proposal is not the whole story however. Vehicles pre 1978 which have been ‘modified’ may now no longer be MOT exempt and may actually require to be inspected to a much higher level as would a new car and lose their period registration number, being allocated a ‘Q’ plate.
I have been dealing with this on behalf of our club, contacting various organisations within government and interested bodies as this has a potentially devastating impact on the classic car environment, with the potential to turn many classics into valueless commodities or be left to rot in garages as it will cost too much to bring these vehicles into line with the new regulations. Basically, having spent many hours reading all the links below, I have put forward an argument that the governments proposed legislation for ‘modified classics’ is not fit for purpose. As a starting point there is an on line petition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/201721 which is to try and stop the historic registration numbers being removed.
Here are links to the proposals and the new legislation which I have based my arguments on.
http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/…/news/_ar…/122/statement-from-fbhvc/
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-regis…/radically-altered-vehicles
https://www.gov.uk/…/vehicles-of-historical-interest-substa…
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986 ... tents/made
https://www.gov.uk/…/pub…/built-up-vehicle-inspection-report
I have sent my letter to the following in an attempt to get this ludicrous proposal changed. (not the 40 year MOT exemption, no issue with that)
Chris Grayling MP, Secretary for State for Transport chris.grayling.mp@parliament.uk
John Hayes MP, Minister for State (Transport). hayesj@parliament.uk
Humza Yousaf MSP Minister for Transport & the Islands Humza.Yousaf.msp@parliament.scot
Rt Hon Lord Steel, Classic Car enthusiast steeld@parliament.uk
Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs (FBHVC). secretary@fbhvc.co.uk
Scottish Vintage Vehicle Federation (SVVF) secretary@svvf.org.uk (John Hyman)
Practical Classics Danny.Hopkins@bauermedia.co.uk
Classic Cars magazines. classic.cars@bauermedia.co.uk
Also enquiries@dvsa.gov.uk & roadworthinesstesting@dft.gsi.gov.uk
I had also contacted the SVVF whom I feel, as the member body for Scotland should be doing this, found out that a) they hadn’t done anything up to last weekend, at least not contacting member clubs about it and b) Following me raising issue, they raised it as an agenda item for last Sunday’s meeting. I currently await their reply.
I am starting to contact classic car clubs across Scotland to petition all of the above before it’s too late. I urge you to, if you haven’t already, to inform your members of this as it may have an impact on their vehicle, either it’s roadworthiness and or its value. If we could also pass this information onto as many classic car owners as possible, it would be appreciated

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A ... y1eIo2UPDs

 

[Ianmc]

My cars will always have an annual MOT, despite changing legislation. For an annual safety check, £50 ish is cheap and a no brainer.

If others have an alternative method of ensuring their car is safe and fit for the road, good on them. The worry is that some will take a risk and cause problems for themselves and maybe others. Personal responsibility is a good thing. I hope the penalties for failure to maintain a roadworthy vehicle are severe. I would retain an annual check for all vehicles, including (and especially) modified ones.

Regret don't have the time to read all the links above, but can't support your argument in principle. Other may of course hold a different view that might help you with this.

 

[t-tony]

I don't agree with vehicles "escaping" the annual test purely because of its age. Although I do agree that on the whole enthusiasts maintain their vehicles much better than Joe Public who generally just use the annual inspection as the only one it gets regardless.

Tony.

 

[andyglym]

I don't agree with vehicles "escaping" the annual test purely because of its age. Although I do agree that on the whole enthusiasts maintain their vehicles much better than Joe Public who generally just use the annual inspection as the only one it gets regardless.

Tony.

That's a fact mate. The body shop guys that are doing my car all commented that she's in better Nik than most cars half her age. Most breakdowns are silly little things that should be picked up by basic owner checks.

 

[stevie_a]

I am not really bothered about not getting Free M.O.T.

The important part of this document is that if you put anything different other than stock parts you car will get a Q plate
At your expense, a dot mot.
1. Most older cars are modified in some way
2. All aftermarket parts suppliers will all go because you will not be able to use them.

The list goes on

The free m.o.t is just the tip of the iceberg

ALSO this is rolling so it will affect the Z3 and Z4

 

[t-tony]

I can't see that all happening mate. Every car that comes into a place like where I work would be classed as modified every time they come in?
I reckon someone has got hold of the wrong end of the stick and spreading duff info Stevie. It maybe sounds bad but it can't be that bad.

Tony.

 

[Tfp]

Put them on a Q plate?

Am I the only one thinking the government would do this so they can sell the old numbers?

 

[gookah]

another proposal from the government like raising the motorway speed limits to 80mph..?
let me know when it happens,
I wait with baited breath....not

 

[Stevo7682]

I know someone who's car already falls under the current legislation and does not have to have an mot .
Problem he came up against is even though the car does not require an mot most of the insurance companies will not give cover unless its been tested.

 

[andyglym]

I know someone who's car already falls under the current legislation and does not have to have an mot .
Problem he came up against is even though the car does not require an mot most of the insurance companies will not give cover unless its been tested.

That's got to be a good thing though mate? Granted most are owned by enthusiasts but an annual independent roadworthyness check has to be a good thing.

 

[Stevo7682]

That's got to be a good thing though mate? Granted most are owned by enthusiasts but an annual independent roadworthyness check has to be a good thing.

I would agree with yourself and Tony on that one Andy.
I personally think all vehicles should have an annual inspection regardless of the age .
I know there is an argument that these older cars are well maintained well if thats the case an mot test ( which is a basic road safety check ) should pose no threat to these vehicles

 

[Retrospective Soothsayer]

How will the MOT tester know the car has been modified thus gets a Q plate ? Apologies if that is a daft question BTW

 

[Althulas]

A bit off topic but over here on the Isle of Man there’s a very strict government test and no yearly MOT’s after that but if your pulled over the police have any right to order your vehicle for a retest or even take it off the road with effect, which amusingly has happened to few Barry boys with silly pipes on for a small cars etc.

If your in an accident and your vehicle is defective you will have the book thrown at you and made an example of which I think is fair enough.

 

[t-tony]

Not too sure what happens in all the US states regarding road worthyness. @FRANKIE

Tony.

 

[hard top]

Not too sure what happens in all the US states regarding road worthyness.

Not to much if they can drive Hot Rods around.
A mate of mine imports Harley Davidson's, the amount of kit he has to remove before they are road legal over here.....

 

[Pingu]

Is it such a bad thing that cars that have been modified by amateurs are inspected by professionals?

I don't think an after-market oil filter will require a Q-plate, but an after-market exhaust might (if it is decided that it changes the appearance or performance of the car).

So many questions - like what happens if it is given a Q-plate and then you put it back to standard?

No signature from me, as I don't disagree with the idea. That doesn't mean that I agree, it just means that I don't really care what the number plate is. It will mean that modifications will have to be declared if you have a Q-plater. I can see that upsetting a few.

 

[stevie_a]

My other car is a 1980 Triumph TR7 dhc

if this goes ahead it is sure to get a Q plate, the hardest thing to swallow is all the upgrades are safety ones or for the better for the car compared to standard.

I.E :

Brakes totally replaced, fitted larger front discs and calipers from a ford Capri 2.8i with breaded hoses drilled and vented discs
Gaz shocks with 500bl springs
stainless exhaust
alloy wheels with good modern tyres
and a lot more but this would be enough to get a Q plate

MADNESS

 

[Bumpa]

The daftest part of this daft proposal is that modified cars would include any where the power to weight ratio has been increased by more than 15%, but only if the changes were done before 1988. Just how do they think that is going to be assessed? I used to be an MG Midget fan (still am really, but don't tell anyone) and there are very few Midgets out there that haven't had some sort of tweak over the years, be it a better exhaust manifold or cylinder head porting, etc.

So how are they going to measure the power to weight ratio of an individual car and to what will they compare it? There aren't enough dynomometers around and in any case each dyno reads differently from the next one. Then what are they going to do with the owner who can't supply paperwork proving when the mods were made?

My 1969 MGB GT would be in big trouble. Starting from a wrecked stock 1800cc car in 2003, it now has a 3.9 litre fuel injected V8, 5-speed gearbox, independent rear suspension using Ford Sierra parts, 4-wheel disc brakes, power steering - you get the idea. The insurers know all this and are quite happy, as were the DVLA when I put it back on the road in 2009. Fortunately we have the Federation of Historic British Vehicle Clubs to fight our corner. They have dissuaded the government in the past from taking up daft proposals and hopefully they can do the same again.

 

[Althulas]

That’s some nice mods @Bumpa do you have pics of your build must be an interesting drive with the extra power I would like to see that.

 

[Bumpa]

Here you are - some photos. I bought the MGB for £250 and it was wrecked with rust. Never having done anything like this before, I rebuilt the car over the next six years, building in the conversion along the way. The engine is from a 1991 Range Rover, the gearbox is Rover too, and the diff is from a top model Ford Sierra. The suspension all round is from Hoyle Engineering (http://www.hoyle-suspension.co.uk/) and uses coil-over-shocks all round, with a fully independent rear end using double wishbones and shortened Sierra drive shafts. The front ventilated discs are from a large Peugeot with 4-pot calipers and the rears are Sierra again.

What's the car like to drive? Well, it's a pussycat. It is dead easy to drive round town because of the huge amounts of torque. The car was on a dyno a couple of years ago and made just shy of 200 bhp, but with around 200 lb.ft torque, and at low revs too. So I almost never use first gear. Its completely unnecessary unless you are either crawling at walking speed or starting on a steep gradient. With a 3.14 : 1 diff ratio it is theoretically good for at least 130 mph, but you would need to be brave to do it, even if the law allowed it. Above 80 - 90 mph it is very noisy (mostly wind noise) and gets light at the front. The body was designed for appearance not aerodynamically. I have driven over 30,000 miles in the car since the rebuild, including a trip to southern France, and will probably only sell it when I'm too doddery to drive.

How does it compare with my 2.2 Z3? Chalk and cheese. I guess they have similar performance in terms of 0-60 time and top speed, but the MGB almost never goes above 4500 rpm and pulls like a traction engine from 800 rpm. The BMW must be revved to get it to perform. The Z3 is much quieter and has air-con etc, but the ride comfort is no better then the MGB, both suffering from a harsh reaction to bumps and pot holes. In many ways I prefer the V8 MGB, being simple to maintain with a light airy cabin and good luggage space. Both cars do similar mpg at around the mid to high twenties. When in southern France the lack of air-con in the MGB GT was a serious downside as Catherine and I were cooked inside the car, although the engine didn't overheat despite 36 Celcius temperatures.