95 replies to this topic

[Ethel]

Wider experience and perspective is welcome and more use than the conjecture of us natives.

 

For me the issue with MoT exemption is the presumption that goes with it. If they're assuming your annual mileage doesn't warrant an annual test it's easier to flip the argument and limit your mileage because you don't need an MoT.

 

That and the whiff of old fashioned snobbery in the assumptions they seem to be making about "the sort of people" who own historic cars. If we do get restrictions, over pollution concerns, in where we can drive; don't be surprised if those who can afford brand new and very old cars get a bye, while the great unwashed are banished from the city centres.

[slpj24]

I agree Ethel. The mot exemption, is a clear prerequisite, to get the majority of 'old cars' off the public highways.

 

It's not the 'loss' of an annual mot inspection, that's the issue. Although I see no reason that makes sense, to allow untested motorised vehicles on the road at all.

 

The issues are, all the other stuff being included. Mileage limits, imposing a set of conditions about not being "substantially changed", in order to conform to 'factory specification'. What happens if your car, can't conform?

 

---------------------

 

Publicity. ---- Lack of.

I just did a quick survey of 3 local businesses. -- There are more of course, this was just a quicky because they are very close to me.

 

Anyway, 1 is a classic car bodyshop, 1 is a classic car retailer, and the 3rd is a garage that services/repairs and mots classic cars -- amongst others. NONE of them knew anything about these CURRENT proposals. They all knew that pre-1960 vehicles were mot  exempt. But had no idea about proposals to 40 year old exemptions or mileage limits, or VHI classification certification. They asked me to send them the details, and I will. But it seems to me, that as shown above with Practical Classic mag, the Gov't hasn't done very much at all to inform people about this. Hence, when they get limited responses, they will be able to excuse themselves for bringing in legislation that most people don't want and don't agree with.

 

2nd November 2016. That's the deadline for us who care, to inform as many people as we can.

[slpj24]

I've just telephoned two very well known classic car parts suppliers. NEITHER of them knew ANYTHING about these current proposals, until I just told them. I'm sending the Gov't link to them.

 

I wonder if MOSS or MinSpares know? It seems likely to me, that they don't. And since this could well affect their sales, they should know. Does anyone have a particular contact at either of those suppliers, who they could call, check to see if they are going to respond?

 

FBHVC, just updated their facebook page, and said that they too were informed too late to publicise this properly. They just wrote --

"We were in the same boat. We mailed out our newsletter with no mention of the consultation because we were never told it would be comimg!" https://www.facebook...475760593183484

[Guess-Works.com]

IMO, this is only going to affect those who are taking the piss out of the current Historic status of a vehicle...

 

As has been said above, it's an opt in status, there's nothing stopping you from changing the status of your vehicle back to PLG and paying road tax.

 

What's all the fuss about ?

[Ethel]

I'd make that assumption too. It's just better not to assume, given the ability of legislators to bring about unintended consequences.

[Spider]

I did download and read that Gov Info sheet yesterday. It did actually say, to my surprise, that it will be applied to ALL cars over 30 or 40 years old, (age limit yet to be finally decided upon). There wasn't an 'Opt In or Out' Option that I could see and perhaps that should be one other aspect for YOU GUYS to lobby for.

 

The other thing 'd be lobbying for, as others have raised, is the limited mileage. Either have that increased or suggest a number of days use.

 

Here at least, we do have that Option. My own vehicles are currently on full Rego with no restrictions what so ever, but they also cost be over a Grand in Rego costs per year, vs around $75 per year under the Log Book scheme, that has a 60 day restriction. Once the dust settles on that, that's what I'll like do.

[slpj24]

"it will be applied to ALL cars over 30 or 40 years old, (age limit yet to be finally decided upon)." PRECISELY Moke Spider.

 

And it ALREADY is that way. As soon as your car hits the magic date, it is now automatically classified as VHI. So there IS NO DOUBT, irrespectiv of opinion. It's all VERY clearly printed in the PDF files, if you read them thoroughly all the way through. That in part, "what all the fuss is about". I've laid out most of it in previous posts in this thread. No guess work, just a rational look at the facts.

 

The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs(FBHVC) isn't lying, wrong, or exagerating either, when they state that they are opposed to this stuff.

 

As they say in their latest update, on their main website. ----

http://fbhvc.co.uk/a...ness-directive/

 

 " The Federation offers its apologies to members who on receiving their latest FBHVC Newsletter discovered no mention of the recent DfT consultations on aspects of UK implementation of the EU Roadworthiness Directive.

Having advised us at meetings at the DfT that we would be further consulted prior to any publication, the DfT went ahead and published without even giving us prior warning of the date let alone carrying out the promise of further consultations with us.

The timing of the release was particularly unfortunate as it came after the new Newsletter had already gone to press.

Those members who follow us on social media will know that we immediately urged members to give us their views on the consultation and many of you have been doing just that on Facebook.These views are being taken into consideration as we draft our detailed response to the DfT consultation.

Be assured that our legislation team is  preparing a response but you will understand that it is at an early stage and would be inappropriate to go into more detail.

Once our response has been drafted and approved by the Board of FBHVC and indeed submitted to Government, we will publish it in full on all our media channels.

 

Why would they be bothered to do that, if they thought all this was nothing to worry about? It costs money to pay lawyers and attend meetings with the Dft.

 

This is real, and is something that WILL affect ALL so called classic cars, as they are FORCED into being VHIs, and potentially removed from the roads because they have been "substantially altered". And that's on top of those who's cars are still factory spec, but could be told to drive less than 1000 miles a year.

   

 

"This consultation closes at

2 November 2016 11:45pm"

.  

"  --- and associated changes." Aka, mileage restrictions and new inspections to ensure your car meets new definition of VHI, and action taken against those that don't.

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/g...storic-interest

 

There won't be any point complaining if this happens because not enough people believed it, and took it seriously enough to respond to the consultations.

 

PS. I'm posting this here, because there are a lot of Mini owners, and your voices could well influence the outcome.

 

It has to be realised, that this is about CHANGING the existing rules, and what's gone before regarding mots, road tax, and altered vehicles, will no longer apply in the same way.

Attached Files

•  deadline 2nd november 2016.jpg   15.56K   4 downloads

Edited by slpj24, 07 October 2016 - 01:34 PM.

[Guess-Works.com]

"it will be applied to ALL cars over 30 or 40 years old, (age limit yet to be finally decided upon)." PRECISELY Moke Spider.

 

And it ALREADY is that way. As soon as your car hits the magic date, it is now automatically classified as VHI. So there IS NO DOUBT, irrespectiv of opinion.

 

No, a change in vehicle taxation class still has to be initiated by the registered keeper, it is not done automatically.

[Ethel]

That's what I thought.

 

Information from the .gov sites is a bit vague, but I didn't think you could get exemption if the vehicle is used for commercial purposes? That alone would require an application to get you to declare it's for private use only.

 

Though there is mention of whether MoT exemption should include those vehicles in the consultation document.

 

Has there been some confusion by the proposals applying to all vehicles over 30 or 40?

 

Applying isn't the same as being compulsory: the procedure for obtaining driving licence applies to everyone over 17...

[slpj24]

Well I don't know about commercials, but I know quite a few people with pre- 1973 cars, including me, who went to tax the car and were told no money required, and had the class changed to historic automatically.

 

But that's not the point. As I keep pointing out, they are changing the rules. What happens now and in the past is irrelevant. Under the new rules, the propoasl is, ALL 40 and older cars are going to be mot and ved exempt, and if they meet the as yet to be defined criteria, will become vhi, and limited in mileage. You won't be given a choice. They don't outlaw drink driving and then tell people they can choose to drink anyway. Nor do they allow people a choice anymore about seat belts. The rules change and you are expected to comply with them, You can ignore them if you like, and then suffer the penalty.

 

If they don't meet the criteria, it's very obvious you won't simply be allowed to carry on as before, because the whole point of this excercise is to reduce the numbers of old cars doing unlimited mileages on public roads. And if they can, they will get as many altered cars off the roads as they can.

 

If anybody thinks they are doing this to save classic car owners time and money, they are sadly mistaken. This is about a process. Nobody imagined, 50/60 years ago, that there would still be so many old cars on the roads, and the time has come to get them off. That is the thinking, and it's not, as much as I dislike it, without merit.

 

 

And there is no confusion about 30 or 40 years. The EU proposed 30 years old, as they wish to go faster with this process. But member states have the option to decide this for themselves. So ever so kindly HMG is going to settle on 40 years old -- for now.

 

It's estimated that 645000 vehicles would be exempted at 40 years old and almost a million at 30 years old.

 

Who really believes that HMG is going to permit more than 1/2 a million, or almost a million, untested old vehicles, to have free unlimited use of the public roads, without strings attached?

 

Not going to happen? Unless there is sufficient opposition expressed by individuals and organisations, it WILL happen. As I pointed out a little earlier, even the FBHVC has been taken by surprise by this. They have been consulting on much milder proposals, which would have meant --- " ‘no safe and roadworthy historic vehicle’ is banned from being used as a result --- "

 

But instead the Gov't has gone ahead with DIFFERENT proposals without involving the FBHVC and giving them sufficient time to repsond before putting it out to public consultation.

 

And because most of the classic car owning public are not informed, not well informed, or are incorrectly informed, there is a very good chance that in 3 months time, when the Gov't says they will report on the findings of their consultations, we'll all wake up to find mileage limits and a lot of cars that are no longer allowed on the public roads.

 

Now would our own government impose something that people don't want? Even if a lot of people say they don't want it? Ask the people of Lancashire, where the Council has just had their decsion overturned. Lancs said Frack off, but HMG said Frack on regardless.

 

The DfT say, -----

"Responses to this consultation will help inform our final proposals before
we make changes to domestic legislation."

 

That said, I'm not at all sure, even if everybody responds to this consultation, that it will make any difference. But I'm not going to wish it away and hope for the best. Hence I've completed the HMG response and am trying to raise awareness in as many places as I can.

Edited by slpj24, 08 October 2016 - 12:07 AM.

[Archived2]

I've never had a mini automatically change to historic status? I've always had to apply.

[Guess-Works.com]

I think what has happened as the Post Office counter staff become more savvy to the 40 year rule, that they inform the customer they can have free VED if they change the status of the vehicle from PLG to Historic... They retain the V5c and send it to the DVLA to be changed...  But there's nothing to stop you saying, no, keep it as PLG and I'll pay the VED.

 

I've now read both the documents... nothing is set in stone, the discussion about limited mileage is just that, up for discussion... as for the options, I agree that the desired, and proposed option (3) is probably the most sensible and IMO right.

 

Itis there to preserve the HISTORIC vehicles in their period state, and those which have been substantially modified still require to be MOT'ed annually, as there is no mention of VED in either documentation, then one could assume the rules which apply now will continue.

Edited by Guess-Works.com, 08 October 2016 - 09:04 AM.

[slpj24]

Of course, nothing is set in stone, ----- apparently --- it's a consultation, with a preferred option, option 3 effectively being recomended. Option 1, is the far better choice, test everything and don't restrict usage, or discriminate against altered vehicles.

 

I'll keep repeating it. --- THE PROPOSALS CHANGE THE RULES ---- . What you are able to do/chose now, will not be the same after the new rules come in. I.e,- electing plg vs historic.

 

You can't safely make the assumption that you will be able to carry on as before, because all the supporting documentation going back years, and the FACT that the FBHVC and The All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicles Group  -- http://www.historicvehicles.org.uk/ -- are BOTH opposed to the proposals as they stand.

 

If those two significant groups thought it was all much ado about nothing, why would they be against the proposals, or campaigning against them, or rather peeved that the Gov't has gone ahead without further consultation with them?

 

" Itis there to preserve the HISTORIC vehicles in their period state, and those which have been substantially modified still require to be MOT'ed annually, --- "      Where does it say that then? 

 

What it does say, is that they are looking at options to define "substantially altered". So whilst they will exempt genuine VHIs from mot -- and almost certainly limit mileages on them, they are also going to do something about those that have been 'substantially changed'.

 

As with everything governments do, what is NOT said, is most frequently the catch all that trips you up. Making assumptions based on what is not said, could easily lead to the worst outcomes. Better by far to think of what is not said, and oppose those too in your responses if they are unfavourable.

 

" ----- there is no mention of VED in either documentation, ---- " Yes there is.

"The 40 year old vehicle option is also in line with the current rolling 40 year exemptions from Vehicle Excise Duty so this will ensure greater consistency."

 

Why would they allow a vehicle mot exemption, ved exemption, and say they are going to explore introducing mileage limits --- only to allow people to elect to have an mot, not pay ved any more, and circumvent a mileage limit? They wouldn't.

 

THE purpose of all this, is to reduce the use of older cars on the public roads. It's not to relieve the burdon of testing and ved from poor owners of classic cars, and not to save the gov't money. Though one must suspect in these financially strained times, that it won't cost the govt(tax payer) money either.

 

What is  great about this, is that it has finally got peoples attention, whereas for years, this has been slowly happening with far less awareness and discussion. Classic car interest and values have been growing. As with anything, eventually gov't takes notice, and steps in, and if people aren't aware, gov't spoils the party. They may yet still do that. But because this topic is now being discussed/followed not only here, but on a number of sites, across many marques, there is more chance that the outcomes will be less unpleasant, even if not the status quo.

Edited by slpj24, 08 October 2016 - 10:07 AM.

[b_sdaddy]

I'm in Belgium where classic cars can be put on special numberplates: 'O - plates' : Oldtimers as they're known here.

 

Anyway, limited use exists for these whereby you cannot drive to your place of work or do the school run. There is no limit to mileage, but as most owners have these as hobbies rather than dailys, the limit aspect is irrelevant as owners themselves self-limit.

 

You do get reduced road tax sum and a severely reduced MOT test - eg. no emissions or suspension test!?

 

I have a 1978 Mk4 998 but have decided to keep it on a standard numberplate.

 

I treat the annual MOT test here, as it should be treated - a test to prove the cars' roadworthiness. NOT to try and dodge and beat the MOT tester - it's not a competition.

 

I want them to tell me if anything's wrong or advise me on stuff that I may have missed - again, most classic car owners keep their cars in good shape, it's the reason for owning one.

 

They (the MOT test station) just love it when I turn up - it's a break from the norm. They usually shout to their colleagues and gather round to laugh at the workings of a 50 year old design, but are appreciative of my work to keep it in the condition it is.

 

The small savings in tax don't interest me, as if I was interested in saving so small a sum annually , I'd sell the mini and buy a significantly more efficient car.

[slpj24]

There are many possiblities for how these matters could be dealt with. Belgium and Germany have a system, as does Holland and as do other EU member states.

 

But this is the UK, and these proposals are purely aimed at the UK, and for the UK gov to act on without the EU having a final say. -- Irrespective of us being in or out of the EU.

 

Hence, can I ask how many people in the UK, who own a classic car, perhaps one that is NOT factory standard, a couple of simple questions?

 

Irrespective of you believing that it may happen or not -----

 

1) would you welcome being told you are only allowed to travel 1000 miles or less per year on public roads?

 

2) Would you be upset if as a result of your car not meeting NEW VHI rules, you had to pay FAR more in a special road tax each year, or worse still be banned from the roads completely, unless you restore the car to factory spec?

 

I may be wrong, but from the lack of responses, not particularly here I should add, but elsewhere, it seems to me that most people simply just don't care too much about any of thise either way.  If that is the case, then I suspect that the days of classic cars on UK roads, are severely numbered.