Thoughts on VHI MOT exemption

cobraboy

Well-Known Member
It is time to tax my car. I have always kept all my classics tested and not gone for MOT exemption, and do not declare them to be VHI.

It appears that you cannot claim MOT exemption if you have a current MOT in force at the time your tax is due. My tax runs out on Jan 31st, but my MOT expires in March.

Now we are in lockdown, and the weather is pants it is the perfect opportunity to SORN the car until the end of March and then tax it from April 1st as a VHI without an MOT. All good so far.
Now the question. What are peoples thoughts on the best way forward in view of whether to go for VHI classification / MOT exemption or not.
I have wondered if in the relentless push for electric and emissions reduction the VHI vehicles might be hit with restricted use, ie weekends only or mileage limits. Or if I stay with an MOT it would perhaps be less restricted ?
Mind you I think the tax class stays the same - Historic, so perhaps it has no bearing on whether a vehicle has an MOT or not.
It's an idle musing of mine, what do you all think ? Who has ditched the test, who hasn't and for what reasons ?
 
I’ve been thinking more about this lately, and I’m now leaning toward not testing if you are a competent mechanic and maintain and check structural integrity and components regularly.
Obviously I’m still against poorly repaired/maintained vehicles being on the road in general and nefarious dealers/traders/sellers exploiting the MoT exemption in any way.
 
It's not compulsory to not have an MOT just because you are taxed in the Historic Vehicle tax class. If you want to have an MOT then you are at liberty to do so.

There are cases where you are required to have an MOT, even though you are taxed Historic, but not the other way around.
 
I wasn't really coming at it from a maintenance point of view, although that is a primary concern for many, and also from the point of view that it will only take a few accidents involving un road worthy classic cars to put a severe crimp on the hobby.
I was thinking (perhaps over thinking) it from a legislative point of view.
If we all go VHI will it make it easier for the suits to get us off the road ? or as I mentioned above, they are all historic anyway, VHI or not.
 
It's not compulsory to not have an MOT just because you are taxed in the Historic Vehicle tax class. If you want to have an MOT then you are at liberty to do so.

There are cases where you are required to have an MOT, even though you are taxed Historic, but not the other way around.
Oh yes, I can still book an MOT, I do not know if the system will actually produce a document though if you are going VHI, do you ?

Also I think that the tax class is Historic, VHI or not.
 
All the above is the differences between Historic tax class and VHI, they aren't exactly the same. My MOT tester doesn't see any problems with testing a car that could be exempt.
 
My local garage does a 'classic car' MOT. Basically they do an MOT, do all the same checks and give you a report saying if it would pass or not, with any advisories or reasons why it might fail. The one thing they don't do is put it on the system. So you still maintain your MOT exempt status but have a good safety check done at the same time. The MOT is a very cheap safety check in reality. I like this because if there is anything that needs attention, I don't have to sort it in 14 days. Obviously if there is something serious then it needs fixing, but failing on things like damaged wiper blades or a whole list of items we all know not really to be safety issues (Rust 12" from a seatbelt mount is a classic when it is only light surface rust or in a non structural location) can be avoided. I am not supporting driving non roadworthy or dangerous vehicles of course! I like to keep the orange sidelights on the front and red indicator lenses on the rear of my NADA. It isn't strictly legal and I have never been pulled over for it but changing all the lenses to UK spec every MOT time was a real pain!!
 
My local garage does the same and Sparky had one advisory last year, a drip of oil on the power steering pump/hose union.
 
Aye but what about the aspect of putting your car in a separate group from everything else ?
Will that group be seen as easy pickings for restrictive legislation in the future ?
I don't know if is possible to move back into the MOT required group again voluntarily, I assume that if you do anything to your car that falls foul of the exempt criteria then you will move away from the exempt category if you declare changes.
 
As a tester it's amazing the condition of some of the cars out there !
I know classics can be a different matter, on the advisory issue a car can pass it's test which is as most people know is a minimum safety requirement, but almost nobody ever gets the advisorys repaired for the following test, as long as it's past they don't care.
 
My tester gives me verbal advisories, and if I don't heed them then come the next test he always remembers and isn't very happy if I haven't attended to them, which tbh I always do, because I've known and used him for over 35 years and he's always been very fair. If something comes up that I've missed, which is rare, then I'm always happy for him to find it. I mostly do a select few moderns now which I have no interest in repairing if they fail, and most of the time he gets one of his blokes to do the repairs while I wait and then he writes out the ticket.
 
Unfortunately I can't give verbal advisories as 99% of customers I don't know
Also you never know when the ministry may bring in a car with faults which they can do now, or wait outside until you have finished a car then come in and say they want to inspect it !
 
Or phone up and ask the tester why he did something that he shouldn't have, because the man from the ministry is sat outside with a laptop....

AFAIK all newly approved testing stations have to have video covering the test in real time as part of the test equipment package.
 
Unfortunately I can't give verbal advisories as 99% of customers I don't know

I can understand that.

Also you never know when the ministry may bring in a car with faults which they can do now, or wait outside until you have finished a car then come in and say they want to inspect it !

What would happen if the owner of the car said that they hadn't got the time to wait for another test and refused?
 
Nothing he could do I would suppose .
At the moment we are not doing while you wait tests, in order of when customer drops off .
 
I am not a fan of MOT exemption. Although currently I have 2 cars which I are taxed using it. They are currently off the road, one is roadworthy, I have just been putting off doing some jobs to it and ther projects are taking my time up.

The other is an import which has been off the road 25+ years but when the DVLA registered it they taxed it, the vehicle had to be insured to register it. Starts and runs but I wouldn't drive it the length of the street .

The MOT tester inspects and tests a car against a set standard that legally recognises your car is roadworth, at least at the point of testing. If the unfortunate happened and there was an accident you have the MOT as a reference point, without it you are going to have to prove you maintain your car to a roadworth condition. My view is that a government test at £50 is going to be a lot less hassle than personal records where you have to prove your own competence or a garage inspection which would state that the vehicle has been tested and inspected to a standard.

I do about 8 to 10 MOTs a year on my own cars so would save a few bob by using the exemptions. I have seen a lot of nice classics where the owners argue with testers for failures, one that sticks in my mind was less than 2mm of a brake pad. Why would you even argue and why would you think than a wafer thin pad is safe? Not everyone maintains their classic to a high standard and as Clive said many don't attend to advisories.

MOT exemption does worry me and I think it could be a step towards restricted use, if people are going to local shows and doing little mileage it probably isnt a big deal. But cars like the P6 that can go a good speed on the motorway should still have to pass an MOT in my opinion.

This is happened to me on a P6 which had an MOT, i was pulling away from traffic lights but had been doing 70mph on the motorway 10minutes before.
522820083f0e1919f15c251969a709e7d5af095ddd627242669b8aba.jpg


82164602b589985c9c409f3c6be62a1aa6b74e69cc8936ef25248182.jpg
 
I prefer to put my 3500S into a 'rover specialist' ( I use Duncan Gill,) for annual service and inspection once a year. I have more fait in him spotting something wrong with my car that a standard MOT garage.
Example; for 2 or 3 years MOT included an advisory for steering idler box wear. Then last MOT did not advise on this, so I thought " good nothing wrong"
When Duncan saw my car he described steering idler wear as "one of the worst he had seen,"
So now I am not bothering with MOT. Let an expert check your car.
 
always have my classic rover MOT'd .2 reasons .first even with my engineering background its easy to inadvertently miss something . example I had an advisory for a very small Hoel in floor at front nearside ( arrgghh) easily welded and repainted but I missed it! ( probably as having to crawl on floor to check rather than raise on a proper car lift for examination) .2. aware that in any serious accident an insurance company will ALWAYS seek to minimise payouts or not pay out at all. ( have a friend used to work for one) with an annual properly conducted test and records we have a good argument for saying vehicle is kept in roadworthy condition to best of our knowledge. If we rely on own 'expertise' an insurance company can easily push for a court decision if we dispute and possibly with the liability for enormous costs for you. With a certified MOT test and advisories being corrected ( I always do them) we have far better claim position as a 'man in street' using trained certified personnel to check our vehicles each year. With often very low usage and mileages its far harder for insurance company to avoid reimbursement in event of claims. (hopefully never)
 
I'd rather have an expert who knows classic cars check mine over, than some generic MoT tester who is just going through the motions.

It's just hard to find one these days..
 
Back
Top