MOT Exemption omnishambles

[FridgeFreezer]

As the 109 is now 40 years old it's technically MOT and tax exempt... except that the guidance, such as it is, says:

Quote

You do not need to get an MOT if the vehicle was first registered more than 40 years ago and no ‘substantial changes’ have been made to the vehicle in the last 30 years.

So, looking at the 109 most reasonable people would say it's been very substantially changed, but reading on...

Quote

Chassis

Chassis replacements of the same pattern as the original are not considered to be a substantial change

OK, so the replacement chassis is no problem.

Quote

Axles and running gear

Alteration of the type or method of:

• suspension
• steering

is a ‘substantial change’.

Well the suspension is of the same type/method and uses original spring mounts, so I guess suspension is OK?

No mention of axles at all so I guess I'm free on that one... I could bolt LR axles back on with no changes.

Steering is PAS, quite different than Series - that's a change then! Or is it...

Quote

Acceptable changes

It does not count as a ‘substantial change’ if:

• changes are made to preserve a vehicle because the original type parts are no longer reasonably available
• they are changes of a type which can be demonstrated to have been made when vehicles of the type were in production or within 10 years of the end of production
• axles and running gear have been changed to improve efficiency, safety or environmental performance

So, axles & running gear (which includes steering under their criteria) are OK as long as you're improving efficiency, safety, or green-ness... and the PAS definitely improves safety so I guess that passes.

Quote

Engine

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.

Soooo... going from 2.6 litre straight 6 to 4.6 litre V8 feels substantial, but back to the acceptable changes list...

1. Original type parts are no longer available - well you try finding a good straight six reasonably available
2. changes of a type which can be demonstrated to have been made when vehicles of the type were in production or within 10 years of the end of production - LR put the Rover V8 into leaf-sprung 109's (Stage 1 V8) and the 110 (which LR now count everything from 1948 onwards as a "Defender"), and alternative cubic capacities are acceptable, so I guess we can say we're good on that one, officer!
3. Improve efficiency, safety, environmental performance - the 4.6 is more efficient and greener than the old six by a long shot so big win there, just me & Greta Thunberg fighting that good fight

The detailed guidance PDF you can download is basically a copy-paste of their highly informative web page, and if you're got questions you end up down the rabbit hole at https://www.fbhvc.co.uk/mot-exemption-information which gives you a list of clubs to contact - ending with nothing newer than the Series 2 club

So, as I'm currently self-quarantined with Basingstoke Coronavirus I thought I'd make a nuisance of myself and give the DVLA a call...

DVLA said "We don't know, we only do car tax, call the DVSA"

OK, I called the DVSA, where a very bored lady read their website out loud to me mispronouncing monocoque spectacularly every time it came up ... when she'd finished, I asked if anyone could provide any guidance at all on substantial changes - she said "no, read the website"...

So I asked if anyone there knew who enforced these things or adjudicated on the interpretations, she said "maybe try the DVLA"  when I told her they're not interested she said "maybe VOSA?" (VOSA were replaced by the DVSA in 2014 )

So not really sure what to make of all this - I asked the nice lady what happens if I decide my vehicle isn't substantially altered and the police stop me and decide that it is, and I found out it's actually possible to shrug down a telephone

Anyone had any luck in any of this - wondering if the local traffic plod or DfT might know or if I should take this as a sign that the authorities really don't care and can't be bothered and I should just declare the 109 to be historic and stop bothering them?

[David Sparkes]

26 minutes ago, FridgeFreezer said:

As the 109 is now 40 years old it's technically MOT and tax exempt...  should take this as a sign that the authorities really don't care and can't be bothered and I should just declare the 109 to be historic and stop bothering them?

Yes, don't look a gift horse in the mouth, it might bite.

I don't think you are the cautious type, but as you have gone to the trouble of composing your argument, print it out, laminate it, file it in the car.
If you do upset a police officer and questions are asked, just produce your pre-prepared statement. They are only human and are highly likely to look for easier targets. They might preserve face by issuing a stern 'don't let me see you again', at which point you play the game, keep the smirk from your face, and drive off quietly into the sunset.

Regards.

[FridgeFreezer]

Believe it or not I am quite cautious - although my general approach to the DVLA/DVSA is to be very careful about how you phrase things in case the person on the phone drops you in it - TBH given the level of technical knowledge they don't have, it would be entirely possible for one of their call-centre people to get the wrong end of the stick and utterly ruin your life with the click of a mouse because they don't know what a monaquackley chassis is

1st rule is never tell them your reg number!

I am very conscious of the potential consequences of any modification and try to make sure any mod is absolutely as safe as it can be and that I'd be happy standing up in court defending it, which is a lot more than can be said for a lot of regular trucks tooling around held together with Britpart and sticky tape

 

[Daan]

Just MOT it. If it is good it will pass, if it's not, well at least you know. This removes all arguments.

[FridgeFreezer]

Just now, Daan said:

Just MOT it. If it is good it will pass, if it's not, well at least you know. This removes all arguments.

TBH I would MOT it anyway, but right now the tyres are square and the only cure for that is to drive it about a bit... so I figured I could exemptly-TAX and MOT it and at least be completely legit while I did a few laps of the ring road before dropping into the MOT station.

I think MOT exemption is ridiculous, but I'm not going to grumble if it means I can legally do a decent test-drive before the MOT.

[Stellaghost]

I had some recent talks with the DVLA regarding my lightweight and tax exemption They also wanted a age related number plate which I said I didn't want I decided to wait until it is 40 years old by the reg document and try again a friend of a friend  just got his left hand drive lightweight tax exempt via the post office and it hasn't seen tarmac for 30 yrs I  supplied the heritage certificate which now has to have an accompanying letter from a landrover owners club but they also required photos ( see picture ) you will have no issues just doing it at the post office the only problem being if the DVLA pick up on the engine and decide they want photos regards Stephen 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Stellaghost
Addition

[Eightpot]

Yes, authorities don't care/can't be bothered.  The police have certainly moved away from having any interest in the minutiae of construction and use as they are no longer the authority responsible for reporting and prosecution - it's all moved to centralised automated control by dvla etc.  The only people ever likely to probe in any depth about paperwork or construction is your insurers if you make a claim.

It is the MoT inspectors job to pass/fail the car and they can't realistically be aware of every factory option, modification or equipment type on every car over 40 years old. That's where the gap in the system is but statistically government has decided it doesn't matter enough to invest an extra layer of control in, and they're about right - an extra couple of mods on your classic car are unlikely to create any kind of problem the government have the slightest concern over. 

That's why its very easy to unscrew the number plates and chassis plate off a 1965 series 2, screw them on a Defender and carry on as normal with no comeback - nobody's looking. 

[bishbosh]

37 minutes ago, FridgeFreezer said:

TBH I would MOT it anyway, but right now the tyres are square and the only cure for that is to drive it about a bit... so I figured I could exemptly-TAX and MOT it and at least be completely legit while I did a few laps of the ring road before dropping into the MOT station.

I think MOT exemption is ridiculous, but I'm not going to grumble if it means I can legally do a decent test-drive before the MOT.

A few laps of the ring road is surely your most expeditious route to the MOT test station from your house so book it in.  

[Blanco]

2 hours ago, FridgeFreezer said:

As the 109 is now 40 years old it's technically MOT and tax exempt... except that the guidance, such as it is, says:

Think, with the money saved there the Lidl plasma cutter could be back on!

But seriously I think you can demonstrate  reasonable compliance, you have a record of contacting the DVSA (here if nowhere else, if my freeholder can send official notification via email, then I am sure this counts) . I seem to think the tax class is the key bit of the puzzle from plod's point of view, if the registration shows as tax exempt on the system then they will be happy. It is necessary (or used to be) to apply to DVLA to actually change the tax class

[geoffbeaumont]

1 hour ago, Eightpot said:

Yes, authorities don't care/can't be bothered.  The police have certainly moved away from having any interest in the minutiae of construction and use as they are no longer the authority responsible for reporting and prosecution - it's all moved to centralised automated control by dvla etc.  The only people ever likely to probe in any depth about paperwork or construction is your insurers if you make a claim.

Not entirely - I was at Leyland police station recently with the scouts. They told us about roadside checks they'd been running, mainly targetting modified cruisers. They were checking tyres (and the state of the drivers, in some cases...), but also whether mods were legal, particularly privacy film on the windows. They made at least one driver strip off his expensive, recently installed, film at the side of the road. Whether they'd take any interest in less easily measured mods I don't know. Probably also depends how much of nuisance you and your mates have been making of yourself lately, too!

[Snagger]

I read it the same way as you, John.  My 109 should easily qualify - new chassis of 109 1-ton spec is an original spec, parabolics don’t change the suspension system, PAS on the same safety justification as you stated, early Discovery front axle and early 110 rear axle both within 10 years of the end of SIII production but improve safety (brakes) and the Discovery 200Tdi is within 10 years, has the same engine configuration and is an obvious economy and safety improvement.  

Obviously, it still needs to be demonstrably roadworthy, so an annual check over by an MoT inspector is still worthwhile, but should be cheaper and be less of a worry.  I wonder if insurers may still demand a valid MoT, though.

[Eightpot]

Yeah but that's a specific operation targeting anti-social behaviour using construction & use legislation to be able to stop/search vehicles and dissuade them from cruising, racing or whatever else they're involved in in that particular area.    

Other than that, the whole purpose of computerising the MoT system, road tax, and integration with the insurance database, speed cameras, Dart charge, congestion charge, LEZ was to remove that whole layer from police and magistrates courts, have automated payment and issue fines via an automated system.  Police will have no interest in stopping an old land rover and sleuthing through something like this as no offence has been committed if the car has an MoT.

[FridgeFreezer]

As @Eightpot says the police take a laser-sharp interest in the rules & regs if you're driving like an ar5e or you & your mates are doing burnouts in McDonalds car-park at 2am... every time I've been stopped by police here & abroad in the 109 or other weird cars it's usually been because they want to take a shufty at the vehicle and if you're friendly and polite to them they do their bit and send you on your way.

The German plod tailed us for miles in an unmarked car before pulling us purely because they'd never seen an Ibex or a Tomcat and were frankly amazed people are allowed to assemble a car in a shed and then drive it on the road but a quick chat and a few photos and they were happy as anything

[muddy]

Id say go for it, you have tried your best and you are going to MOT it anyway, they have made the rules not you/us.

[smallfry]

I don't think you will have any problems. I also think MOT exemption is absolutely ridiculous. I know some testers can be somewhat over zealous, but I would want to know if my vehicle was needing attention that I had missed.

Seems that they make all these rules, and then contradict themselves. I think its more about ar5es being covered and responsibility should anything happen.

I had a conversation over the counter at my local VOSA/DVSA depot about tyres, their age, and changing them at six years. They checked all the available information and came to the conclusion that provided that they had enough tread, they had no view ! Not even about perishing. Seems that the "recommendations" were from those with a vested interest in selling new ones.

[Snagger]

11 hours ago, smallfry said:

I don't think you will have any problems. I also think MOT exemption is absolutely ridiculous. I know some testers can be somewhat over zealous, but I would want to know if my vehicle was needing attention that I had missed.

Seems that they make all these rules, and then contradict themselves. I think its more about ar5es being covered and responsibility should anything happen.

I had a conversation over the counter at my local VOSA/DVSA depot about tyres, their age, and changing them at six years. They checked all the available information and came to the conclusion that provided that they had enough tread, they had no view ! Not even about perishing. Seems that the "recommendations" were from those with a vested interest in selling new ones.

I agree that self certification is lunacy.  The idea that forty year old vehicles must be cherished classics so will be meticulously maintained and will only cover short distances in fair weather is ridiculously wide of the mark - we all see how many bodged up wrecks of Land Rovers there are about, and I have no doubt other marques are similarly riddled. 
 

The rules regarding tyres in the UAE are that they must be under four years old from date of manufacture, regardless of condition.  Of course, there is an enormous industry of tyre shops here.  Sure, the heat and sunlight here ages tyres far faster than Europe, especially the north, but there is also a lot of financial incentive in the policy.  It’s damned expensive for the driver.  Meanwhile, heavy truck operators swap wheels on with new tyres for the inspection, then refit the old wheels and tyres until they literally disintegrate.  The policy doesn’t really help safety at all.

[Eightpot]

There are a couple of Government consultation documents available that pass a cold wet lunchtimes reading on the subject if you search the web - I thought it was actually a fairly sensible move.  They realised that the amount of 40+ year old vehicles on the road is small, in the hands of enthusiasts and less likely to be involved in an accident involving mechanical deficiency than say a ten year old taxi with 300k on the clock.  The actual number of 40+ year old vehicles actually involved in accidents caused by defect being so small as to make it uneconomical or impractical to keep any focus on (accurate national records are kept of all accidents that are serious or involve injury).   The exemption is optional not mandatory, and the driver still has the responibility to ensure there are no faults as there's no exemption from prosecution or fixed penalty.  

I guess if you've got an E type under a cloth that comes out twice a year it's probably usefull,  for a daily driver there's nothing much saved in the exemption.

[Snagger]

8 minutes ago, Eightpot said:

There are a couple of Government consultation documents available that pass a cold wet lunchtimes reading on the subject if you search the web - I thought it was actually a fairly sensible move.  They realised that the amount of 40+ year old vehicles on the road is small, in the hands of enthusiasts and less likely to be involved in an accident involving mechanical deficiency than say a ten year old taxi with 300k on the clock.  The actual number of 40+ year old vehicles actually involved in accidents caused by defect being so small as to make it uneconomical or impractical to keep any focus on (accurate national records are kept of all accidents that are serious or involve injury).   The exemption is optional not mandatory, and the driver still has the responibility to ensure there are no faults as there's no exemption from prosecution or fixed penalty.  

I guess if you've got an E type under a cloth that comes out twice a year it's probably usefull,  for a daily driver there's nothing much saved in the exemption.

But those who can afford the rarely used classic toy can generally afford an MoT test without batting an eyelid and their vehicles ARE maintained meticulously.  All the sheds out there used frequently are doing significant miles, and a lot are badly neglected, so their testing should be mandatory.  The rule change is absurd.

[Eightpot]

Yeah, I think maybe 40 years is a bit too recent to be fair,  at that age cars are fairly modern.  But I can see why they wouldn't want to have to develop test procedures or do training for testers on leaf spring friction dampers, floor mounted dip switches,  gas headlamps, wooden wheels, ignition and mixture controls on the steering wheel, screen washers you pump up etc - I took a '64 mini for test last year and the guy didn't know where to start. 

[FridgeFreezer]

1 hour ago, Eightpot said:

I can see why they wouldn't want to have to develop test procedures or do training for testers on leaf spring friction dampers, floor mounted dip switches...

I agree THAT is a waste of everyone's time, but they could easily have a basic universal safety check that just says the vehicle starts, stops, steers and isn't likely to kill anyone and just say "after X years old you just do the basic check".

Also I totally understand that the statistics suggest it's not worth their bothering with the very small numbers of old vehicles which make up a vanishingly small part of the motoring done each year as a nation... but where there's an incentive like this, there's people who will take the tiddle - look at the number of tax-free ringers of Land Rovers out there purely to save £180/year (as it was) people will happily take the risk of being pulled over and prosecuted if the plod look too closely at your motor - the chance of avoiding the MOT feels like it's an invitation for trouble.

[FridgeFreezer]

Well I gave in and visited the post office, so the 109 is now officially an historic vehicle

[Cynic-al]

They don't care and won't take responsibility. They can only cope if the computer had a box your question fits in. You could try the iva route but I don't think it would fit in and you might be really unlucky and they make you scrap it as it doesn't fit their box either.

I think the axles are pushing your luck but otherwise your ok.

I think your only real problems are if it's not roadworthy and you get pulled or you have an accident. If you have a bad accident they will pull it and you to pieces regardless of what paperwork you have as something you have done was clearly wrong for the accident to happen. 

I remind you of this story, this car had an MOT https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/08/gresham-land-rover-river

That said if it were mine I would consider having either an MOT or an unofficial inspection done for my own piece of mind, and a piece of paper to back it up never hurts as it shows you've taken steps to ensure it is fit for use. 

[Nonimouse]

From experience, I would have a chat with your local DVSA station - and by chat, I mean go in. Take the details with you. These are the guys on the cutting edge 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192721/VOSA_SVA_Test_Stations.pdf

The Five0 are only interested in easy to prove stuff - like those issues highlighted by the ANPR camera or other such easy to use devices. They are too busy for messing about and simply not trained in the stuff the DVSA inspectors are paid to do

 

 

 

[lo-fi]

Congrats getting it out and about again!!  

Pop it down to Richard at RT Gaigers in Daneshill if you want someone who understands to give it a once-over. He's a top bloke, into old motors (VW) himself. Used him for my MOT's for years. 

As a general point of order: I think as Land Rover owners we miss the point with the exemption, despite technically qualifying. Genuine historics (I don't class a land rover as one myself) are often so far removed from what the modern MOT man is used to looking at as to make it useless. It adds nothing.

Old Crossley with a wooden chassis? How exactly do you inspect that for corrosion? Trafficators? What are they? Friction dampers? What?? Cases like this I absolutely agree with the exemption.

Fusty old tight-arses driving round half knackered landys pleased as punch they've saved £45 a year on an MOT, fist sized hole in the chassis, brakes that barely work(...) and with nobody checking up on it, I'm not so thrilled about. No reflection on Fridge - we all know the type! 

[FridgeFreezer]

54 minutes ago, Cynic-al said:

I think the axles are pushing your luck

You'd think so but the exemption stuff makes zero mention of axles - and as mine include 350mm vented discs and 4-pot callipers I'm classing them as a safety improvement over Series axles with drums all round

Also they're made by Dana/Spicer same as LR axles and they are bolt-on (by design) - I could un-bolt them and drop Series axles back in in an afternoon with zero mods, and then it'd be 100% genuine Land Rover parts flying in formation.

@Cynic-al you don't need to remind me, I'm well aware of the consequences of half-assed mods / repairs - and a truck like my 109 doesn't fly under the radar like a standard-looking truck does, if I pass a police car I know I'm liable to be pulled over every time.

@lo-fi indeed we do all know the type