mk1-forum.net

A friendly international forum for people interested in the tuning & modification of classic BMC vehicles
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:42 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:14 pm
Posts: 1372
The garage pre pays the DVSA for the MOT 'slot', the rest of the fee (what ever the garage charges up to the maximum amount) goes to the garage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:13 pm
Posts: 3106
Location: North East
GraemeC wrote:
What happens if someone wants to remove a registration (not that I'm condoning such a thing).
Currently to do so the 'donor' car needs an MoT - will this still be the case I wonder, or would people be able to plate rape any vehicle over 40 yrs old without issue?


At present if you want to take a plate off of a pre 1960 vehicle it needs to pass an MoT before the plate can be transferred.

Here's a letter from the DVLA issued to car clubs when the Pre 1960 rule came in, which I guess will be how the rules will apply to the 40 year rolling legislation.


Attachment:
Letter to Federation and other specialist clubs on Pre 1960-Final[1].pdf


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:30 pm
Posts: 84
Thanks for the copy of the letter from DVLA. I will print and keep it.

Had the detail been known when it was written it would have avoided much confusion and wrong conclusions being drawn by the classic car fraternity. Why cannot these letters be on general release so anyone interested can them?

Alternatively, could mk1 forum (or FBHVC) have them online, and others of similar interest? It would certainly de-mystify information which is neither confidential or controversial.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:44 am
Posts: 461
"Passed a voluntary MOT..." that's a pretty silly rule....

Why should you only be able to transfer registration from a fully roadworthy vehicle ?? A vehicle can still be "in existence" without being safe to drive.

Presumably once the plate is removed the vehicle can't be driven until a new plate is issued ...which would require that the vehicle be examined and found to be roadworthy???

I have several examples down the bottom of the back paddock that certainly exist ...but even more certainly are not roadworthy. They are without rego numbers I might say as we have to surrender the plates 6 months after the registration expires.

Cheers, Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:13 pm
Posts: 3106
Location: North East
davidscothorn wrote:
Alternatively, could mk1 forum (or FBHVC) have them online, and others of similar interest? .


I found it on a Land Rover forum after searching pre 1960 MoT.

_________________
.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:14 pm
Posts: 1372
Response from the FBHVC below, I would suggest even if you intend to keep MOTing your car that if you object to the 15% power to weight criteria that will make it compulsory to have an MOT if it was done post 1988) you email

roadworthinesstesting@dft.gsi.gov.uk

To express your concerns as this part is not set in stone....yet, a mild cam and increase to the next bore size could put you over this limit (just walking in the door at Southam will put you over :lol: ) it was never mentioned in the consultation document (yes I did bother to reply) and personally I don't think a Mini with period modifications to the engine is less interesting (not a 'Vehicle of Historic Interest) than a factory standard car.


http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/about-us/news/_a ... rom-fbhvc/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 6:10 am
Posts: 2404
Location: Big Red, Australia
I've been sorta following this topic on and off for about 18 months, as well as having read through this thread.

I think everyone who posted in it so far is against this idea. Fair enough.

But, can I just ask you guys to just hear this out and think about it all from a different perspective?

I could well be off the mark here and I accept that too.

As Sturatp mentioned a couple of pages back, here in Australia, we have (I think) 2 sates that carry out mandatory Registration Inspection of all vehicles annually, very much like your MOT, however, all other states have no such inspections at all, yet there are very very very few accidents that occur due to mechanical failure, 99%+ are attributed to one or both Steering Nut(s). In these states, the cars are bought new, number plates are screwed on and off you go - that's it (apart from yearly registration fees).

I live in a state where inspections are carried out and I recall when I first learnt of the system in SA where there are no inspections, however, the cars there are just as well maintained and as roadworthy as ours. Same in all states. So without an annual inspection, how are the cars so 'good'? Well, the owners do actually take care and have regard for the condition of them. I also note that in other states, the Police are quick to issue vehicle defect notices to those that catch their attention.

This isn't Classic or special cars, this is the situation with all cars. Trucks however are another matter, but I'm not getting in to that here.

In more recent years, across Aust, the various states have also introduced a Classic Car Rego Scheme, which all seem to be more or less similar. Annual Inspections will still apply in the states who do insist on this, however, the annual rego costs will drop (in my case as an example) from about $1200.00 per car to $75.00 per car.

Here, there has been an acknowledgement of the Classic and Historic Car scene and that i) they generally do low annual mileage, though there is no cap, and ii) being cars of high value, they are well looked after by their owners (the owner's 'baby' or '2nd wife').

I actually suspect in the UK there is a similar general acknowledgement by your Government of this. Your classic car scene is WAY bigger than ours, it generates a lot of money for your economy, it is a big employer and there's a respectable export income from it.

I really just simply cannot see your Gov. wanting to shut this down. If they did, they would simply do so and it would be a much easier process to go through and do that introduce these schemes that they have. In fact, the way I read it, they are trying to go the other way. If as so many have posted here suspect, it's the 'thin end of the wedge' (and I accept it maybe) to get classic cars off the road, they'd simply say cars over 40 years old, not only have to carry on with MOT, but will have their rego fees doubled every year on going and I'm sure they could call on the Green vote to easily get that over the line.

I'll just add that most typical Classic Car Owners in general (not just Mini owners) do spend time and money keeping their cars in good condition.

I think it very fair to say that the pages of this forum and many other classic car forums are a testimate to that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:30 pm
Posts: 84
I have a 850 Mini, reshelled with a 1275 engine and 'first registered' after 1988.
DVLA have this on record already. If I were to fall foul of the criteria, how can I prove this was done before 1988?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:30 pm
Posts: 84
Does this mean that a 40 year old car in any condition with a current V5, and deteriorating in a barn for years, can now re-appear on the road without an MOT? Or be sold on Ebay as 'roadworthy'?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:35 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Abingdon Oxfordshire
David, I think that you're making problems/scenarios that really don't exist in real time if I might be so bold as to suggest so. If you sell - or deceive to sell - an unroadworthy vehicle, then you are liable. It's really as simple as that. As for the other hypothesis, if such a case of what would be best described at worst as 'naughtiness' came to light by the DVLA. They'd issue an enforcement notice in the first instance and take you to court. How do you prove this that and the other '88 thing........? It's called democratic law. YOU don't have to prove ANYTHING. THEY have to prove EVERYTHING.

Sometimes it's a case of '.....let sleeping dogs lie' I say!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr