MOT Exemption

[fearofweapons]

So....

the SIII 1st registered in 1975 has it's MOT due at the end of the month. 

It is now registered as an historic vehicle.

When we bought it it had a 90 2.5 petrol engine in it - we are told it was originally diesel. We are not sure when the petrol was put in but probably within the last 30 years.

Given that an engine change is listed as a substantive change exempting the vehicle from the MOT exemption BUT such swaps were carried out within the first 10 years of the end of production would the advice of this group be that the vehicle is now exempt from needing an MOT? ( At least I think such swaps were carried out in the 10 years post production stopping of the SIII )

This URL is the official gov link for information if that helps.  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/historic-classic-vehicles-mot-exemption-criteria/historic-classic-vehicles-mot-exemption-criteria#acceptable-changes

regards,

 

Richard

 

[Snagger]

As the 2.25 petrol and diesel were both standard options and the 2.5 is a development of the 2.25 and has the same characteristics and configuration, my understanding is that it is not considered a substantive change.  However, apart from the obvious comment that from a legal perspective, getting an MoT done is the safest bet, it's also true from a practical point of view; how many of these old vehicles are in good enough condition, with inspections and maintenance regular and rigorous enough to justify not having an MoT?  Not many.  I urge you, for others' safety as much as your own, to get it checked every year - this new regulation is ludicrously dangerous, even if used for the concourse restorations it was likely intended for.

[fearofweapons]

I agree and will be submitting it for a pre-MOT anyway. You really can not mess with this sort of thing and better to be safe than not. 

[missingsid]

Wow did not realise the rules had changed so significantly from previous years. Thanks for the link as my vehicle has significant changes but were well documented back in 1980! Plus the recent change I am making is classed as a safety upgrade so all is good.

[Jon White]

“Alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative original equipment engines are not considered to be a substantial change.

If the number of cylinders in an engine is different from the original it’s likely to be, but not necessarily, the case that the current engine is not alternative original equipment.”

The 2.5 is the same basic engine as the 2.25. No issue.

[jason110]

on the issues of MOT exemption, is this automatic or do I need apply on the DVLA website?

had a look on the dot gov website but couldn't see anywhere to apply. I don't want to start of discussion of morality on whether It should checked yearly just don't want to get caught out assuming the MOT exemption is automatic. 

 

thanks in advance 

[simonb]

You don't need to apply, but I would suggest changing your vehicle taxation class to "Historic" if you haven't already. By changing status to Historic, then at least the DVLA computer should know that the vehicle is over 40 years old and could be exempt from requiring a MOT.

It appears not all traffic police are aware of the rules. I was stopped in my tax exempt Series 3 late at night 6 months ago, for having no MOT. I had to explain the rule change to them. After some checking, a cursory glance over my vehicle, and exchange of details, I was allowed to go.

My free tax is due for renewal at the end of the month, hopefully the DVLA computer won't say no....

[jason110]

Thanks Simon for the response. 

it's already registered as a historic vehicle and tax free. 

we found a page on the dot gov website where we can make a declaration for it being not substantially modified and thereby register it as MOT exempt. 

Edited June 11, 2019 by jason110

[simonb]

There is form V112/V112G which is self declaration for exemption, you should only need this if taxing in person at a Post Office. My tax renewal says "This vehicle may need an appropriate test". Last year it said "valid MOT".

[simonb]

Just renewed the historic/free taxation on the series 3. At the point for checking a valid MOT, the website stated words to the effect - this vehicle is over 40 years old and may be exempt from a MOT if not substantially altered in the last 30 years. There was then a self declaration option to accept the statement or decline - if vehicle has been modified for instance.

[Jon W]

Bringing this back up.

I haven't had a problem with MOTing my series however i now find it only really gets used twice a year and so £50 a year for an MOT makes it rather expensive for the few miles it does and i forget when the MOT is due. 

I have a 1960 Series 2 which I believe could be argued that it is MOT exempt. It has a Rover V8 in it which is the only substantial change but has taken place in the last 5 years.

Although this a more cylinders and a higher cubic capacity than standard. I believe the following could be argued:

• "Engine – alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative original equipment engines (if the number of cylinders in an engine is different from the original it is unlikely to be alternative original equipment). "
• "Changes of a type that have been made when the type of vehicle was in production or in general use (within ten years of the end of production)."

Could it be Argued that a Stage 1 had the V8 engine?

Thoughts welcomed 

 

Thanks 

 

Jon 

[Bigj66]

Mine will be a V8 and is tax and MOT exempt but I still get it tested. You might argue that a vehicle that isn’t used much could be higher risk than one that’s used regularly and has all its moving parts free. I’m thinking more of sticking brakes etc and perishable items such as brake lines and hoses.

Just a thought.

[FridgeFreezer]

My V8 Series 3 is MOT exempt, I tried really hard to find any clarification on the guidance (see my thread on it) and came to the conclusion that DVLA/VOSA/DVSA really don't give two hoots about crusty old Land Rovers as long as they're not stolen. Fill in the form, get it registered as historic and enjoy it.

Personally I'd still take it for a checkup once a year with a decent local garage just for peace of mind, depends how much time you spend under it.

[Petesrover]

I used to run an old MOT exempt series 2 only had to pay insurance didn't use it much, parked it up for a couple of years, whent to use it & brake pipe ends rusted through, copper pipes but will have to renew all the brake pipes, no wheel cylinders siezed so of road awaiting new set of brake flexible hoses from Paddocks, I think not having to MOT old vehicals is great, saves money, time taking to MOT station & the hastle of finding a sensible MOT tester as it is all down to the testers opinion, there are many vehicals on the road with curent MOT's that are not safe, I used to be an MOT tester & I was very concerned with the steering, then brakes as I thought these very important, with the rest of the test of minor importance, it is good that any one can still have there car MOT'd if it makes them feel safer, but please remember whether your car has a curent MOT or not, IT HAS TO BE IN A ROADWORTHY CONDITION BEFORE BEING DRIVEN ON THE ROAD, & the MOT certificate only covers roadworthyness on the day it was issued & if involved in a bad accident & the car is inspected & found to be unsafe, some insurers may invalidate the insurance, I always give my old L rover a quick check if it has been off the road for a few months & I am sure others on here do aswell not only for safety but also I think if any of us are stopped by Vossa for a roadside check ( & I think this is unlikely unless they set up shop up the road from a vintage car rallie) & we are driving a MOT excemp L rover they are going to look far more closely at it than a modern car with a newish MOT or MOT excempt with a MOT so can understand why many of you prefer to MOT your old L Rovers & many like myself choose not too, either way, isnt it great not having to pay road tax & super cheep insurance, safe driving everyone.

[Snagger]

The trouble is that you take the time to check and know what to look at, but the average driver doesn’t.  The MoT isn’t a guarantee, but it does catch a lot of bad vehicles which will now go undetected and worsen exponentially.

[mad_pete]

I’ve had mine spend basically the whole year in the garage and fail the mot. Even standing still time still takes a toll.  I’m sure some of the cars that are mot exempt will be throughly checked but I can’t see them all being done. There is a reason mot testers are trained, certified and have nice big ramps.

[FridgeFreezer]

Funnily enough I had the opposite experience to mad_pete, our ambulance has spent the best part of a year parked in an open barn and not only started 1st time but then went straight through the MOT although it's noticeable how long-term storage does cause certain bits to deteriorate faster than when it's being used.

I still think there should really be a minimal "classic" MOT that covers everything older than a certain date - even if it's only a quick visual check and a whiz round the block to check the thing stops and steers and doesn't catch fire, even the most fastidious classic owner can miss things that a 2nd pair of eyes can catch.

[jeremy996]

Many, many years ago I was a MOT tester and some of the shonky offerings would make you cry. Back then, in the early '80s, some newish cars failed their first MOTs quite badly. Most people see a car as white goods and have no interest past does it go or not, so no servicing and total neglect is not uncommon.

The rules have pushed the onus on being roadworthy onto the owner/operator, who may not have the first clue about mechanics. I have met too many owners of classic Ferraris, Mercs and Jaguars who buy older cars as an asset, ('better than leaving the money in the bank, what?....."), and will drive it until it won't start. Sooner or later, Colonel or Mrs Blimp will demolish a bus queue as their "pride and joy" will turn out to have no brakes and limited steering after a number of years of creative neglect.

I really want the car behind or driving towards me to have been checked at least once a year by someone who is responsible to someone other than the owner, to a slightly better standard than "it looks OK". I know the government have calculated that the risks are "minuscule", but then so was Covid-19, until it wasn't.

Edited September 26, 2020 by jeremy996
tidy up language

[FridgeFreezer]

12 hours ago, jeremy996 said:

Many, many years ago I was a MOT tester and some of the shonky offerings would make you cry. Back then, in the early '80s, some newish cars failed their first MOTs quite badly.

And people like to say modern cars are rubbish... how quickly we forget what it was like in the good old days.

[Snagger]

2 hours ago, FridgeFreezer said:

And people like to say modern cars are rubbish... how quickly we forget what it was like in the good old days.

It’s a bit of a mix - new cars take a lot less routine maintenance (like tuning carbs, messing about with distributors and adjusting brakes) and don’t rust anywhere near as quickly, but they’re also less easily reparable.

[jeremy996]

My tame MOT tester, (hardly; his job is to tell me where I have missed something vital and he enjoys that bit immensely), says he hasn't had a vehicle fail its first MOT for anything other than blown bulbs or out of balance brakes for some time. He has condemned quite a number of 10-20+year old vehicles for structural rust, but they tend to be the cars with a rusty reputation like the early Ford Ka, Focus, NB MX5, Suzuki SJ410 etc. Emission issues are becoming more prevalent and the cost of repairs can send cars to an early scrap heap; 3 Series BMWs seem to feature on the early deaths for emission failures.

Edited September 27, 2020 by jeremy996
grammer!

[FridgeFreezer]

I can certainly see modern emissions, especially diesels, being a source of problems - you can't pass an MOT without them and they are somewhat complicated and finicky, stuff like EGR is just destined to clog up over the years. Wonder how modern petrol vehicles fare as they mostly only need a working cat as far as I'm aware.

[Petesrover]

How young you all are, many many years before my time so I have been told, cars did not rust as bad as they do now, many cars of the 20's, 30's & 40's were parked up just for being out of fashion, cars of the 50's did not normaly show much rust untill the 80's thats 30 years & some early land rover chasis pre 70's were very solid many years after, I won't mention landrover chasis of the 70's, but to be fair many cars of the 70's were rust buckets, maybe the newer cars are solid again, I wouldnt know as I can't afford one & wouldn't know how to repair it if it went wrong, I did have a 2002 landrover discovery with a rotten chasis, rotten boddy & a naff ecu or what ever you call those things that make modern cars unreliable.

[Gazzar]

Interesting, that coincides with the time of the switch to negative earth.

[Retroanaconda]

When did we start salting roads? That’s the biggest factor in vehicle corrosion in my experience, especially in the northern half of the country.