Seth
South East
MorrisOxford TriumphMirald HillmanMinx BorgwardIsabellaCombi
Posts: 15,521
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 18:08:35 GMT
|
If you are currently in the Historic class why would you want to declare it as a VHI? If the only reason is to save the cost of an MOT you are in the wrong hobby. It seems from my reading of the document that you can continue as you were unless you volunteer to declare it as a VHI. My reading is that if your car is over 40 years old then, when it comes to the tax renewal, you will either: a) declare it as a VHI and therefore MOT exempt or b) declare it as Substantially Changed and subject to MOT testing, while still being in the Historic tax class. This assumes it complies with the 8 point DVLA rules - which if it doesn't you ought to have gone down the IVA route and VHI status would be irrelevant. I have two 'a's and one b. I suppose no-one would know (for the time being) if you declared an unmodifed old car as substantially changed and still subject to MOT testing in the same way no-one will know if you declare a substantially changed car as a VHI unless it gets picked up /inspected somehow. But you would be in the wrong in either case because the guidance makes it clear that the onus is on the owner to know or find out if they don't. And we don't yet know how other leglsiation may affect one lot or the other or if it ever will.
|
|
Follow your dreams or you might as well be a vegetable.
|
|
|
craig1010cc
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 2,993
Club RR Member Number: 35
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 19:35:48 GMT
|
Doesn't this
is a kit conversion, where a kit of new parts is added to an existing vehicle, or old parts are added to a kit of a manufactured body, chassis or monocoque bodyshell changing the general appearance of the vehicle; it will be considered to have been substantially changed and will not be exempt from MOT testing.
Mean that a new (old) body onto a chassis means it's classed as substantially modified?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 20:08:19 GMT
|
If you are currently in the Historic class why would you want to declare it as a VHI? If the only reason is to save the cost of an MOT you are in the wrong hobby. It seems from my reading of the document that you can continue as you were unless you volunteer to declare it as a VHI. My reading is that if your car is over 40 years old then, when it comes to the tax renewal, you will either: a) declare it as a VHI and therefore MOT exempt or b) declare it as Substantially Changed and subject to MOT testing, while still being in the Historic tax class. This assumes it complies with the 8 point DVLA rules - which if it doesn't you ought to have gone down the IVA route and VHI status would be irrelevant. I. Or option C..... MOT it not declaring it as VHI, it will still be 'tax' exempt as you've said. if you don't declare VHI and fail to MOT it it will show as a not having a valid MOT which could result in a fine from Mr Plod is my understanding as only VHI declared cars are MOT exempt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 20:22:48 GMT
|
As IF you were to be caught having lied, what would the consequence be? Take it for an MOT or have the car confiscated or something? It all just seems like one of those ideas you put together at the pub with your mates, but don't bother working out the finer details (not that i'm complaining ) From what I can fathom it wouldn't be impounded if you have declared is as VHI and tax exempt as on paper its legal, its a matter for DVSA/ DVLA not the police (as long as your insurance is correct for the car/ you to drive) and then its down to DVSA or DVLA to take action against you. BUT if you have an historic car and haven't declared it MOT exempt then it will (or should) show as not having a valid MOT rather than being exempt which will get you a £100 FPN but not impounded. This is of course on the assumption that the car is safe to use and roadworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 21:50:38 GMT
|
How to declare a vehicle for the 40 year MOT exemption Vehicle keepers are required to ensure that their vehicles are taxed when used on a public road. From 20 May 2018, at the point of taxing a vehicle , the vehicle keeper can declare their vehicle exempt from MOT if it was constructed more than 40 years ago. When declaring an exemption, you will be required to confirm that it has not been substantially changed (as defined in this guidance). This process will be applied to pre-1960 registered vehicles, as well as newer vehicles in the historic vehicle tax class. If the vehicle does not have an MOT and you wish to continue using it on the public roads, you will have either to undergo an MOT or, if you wish exemption from the MOT, to declare that the vehicle is a VHI. If the vehicle has a current MOT certificate but you anticipate that on expiry of that certificate you will wish exemption from future MOTs you will at the time of relicensing be required to declare that the vehicle is a VHI
"The vehicle keeper CAN declare their vehicle exempt from MOT" is the relevant phrase, there is no compunction in this guidance to do so. You can be fully VHI compliant but not declare and keep MOTing.
|
|
|
|
Seth
South East
MorrisOxford TriumphMirald HillmanMinx BorgwardIsabellaCombi
Posts: 15,521
|
|
|
"The vehicle keeper CAN declare their vehicle exempt from MOT" is the relevant phrase, there is no compunction in this guidance to do so. Fair enough. That does seem to imply they'll be a 'neither, thanks' option. I guess we'll see.
|
|
Follow your dreams or you might as well be a vegetable.
|
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2017 22:09:38 GMT
|
"The vehicle keeper CAN declare their vehicle exempt from MOT" is the relevant phrase, there is no compunction in this guidance to do so. Fair enough. That does seem to imply they'll be a 'neither, thanks' option. I guess we'll see. This is how I have read it! And the option I will be going for! And no hardship involved, since I would have kept MOTing the car anyway! Call me paranoid, but the idea of declaring my car "substantially altered" (it IS, but that's not the point) seems to make it, for now at least, not a VHI in the eyes of DVSA for MOT purposes alone. But how long before DVLA decide it is not a VHI for tax purposes as well? I went to a lot of trouble to conform to the 8 point rule and keep my car's identity intact and will be thoroughly p***ed if they move the goalposts on me! But I find it deeply worrying that both authorities have used the SAME term, VHI, with 2 different definitions, one of which my car complies with and the other it doesn't. And I can't help thinking, aided by dark hints in the original proposal, that it's only a matter of time before one definition is standardised and you can bet it will be the one that earns DVLA the most money! By making sure that the car is MOT'd when the tax comes up, you can, hopefully, avoid the leading and self incriminating question being asked at all. Luckily for me, my MOT and (free) Tax are both up in March, before the new rules come into force, so it will be 2019 before I have to worry about it anyway! Steve Oh, and i'm taking issue with the definition of "running gear" that seems to have been adopted by others above as NOT including engines. The proposal says "changes of axles or running gear to improve efficiency, safety, or ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE" To me, environmental performance means only one thing, EMISSIONS! And the only way to improve that is with engine/exhaust mods, you'll never get an improvement by swapping an axle or suspension. So, by definition, "running gear" MUST include the engine!
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 20, 2017 22:25:47 GMT by carledo
|
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2017 22:20:02 GMT
|
You don't declare it as "substantially modified", you declare that it conforms to the VHI requirements.
Or more to the point you don't make any declaration but continue to MOT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. That does seem to imply they'll be a 'neither, thanks' option. I guess we'll see. This is how I have read it! And the option I will be going for! And no hardship involved, since I would have kept MOTing the car anyway! Call me paranoid, but the idea of declaring my car "substantially altered" (it IS, but that's not the point) seems to make it, for now at least, not a VHI in the eyes of DVSA for MOT purposes alone. But how long before DVLA decide it is not a VHI for tax purposes as well? I went to a lot of trouble to conform to the 8 point rule and keep my car's identity intact and will be thoroughly p***ed if they move the goalposts on me! But I find it deeply worrying that both authorities have used the SAME term, VHI, with 2 different definitions, one of which my car complies with and the other it doesn't. And I can't help thinking, aided by dark hints in the original proposal, that it's only a matter of time before one definition is standardised and you can bet it will be the one that earns DVLA the most money! By making sure that the car is MOT'd when the tax comes up, you can, hopefully, avoid the leading and self incriminating question being asked at all. Luckily for me, my MOT and (free) Tax are both up in March, before the new rules come into force, so it will be 2019 before I have to worry about it anyway! Steve Oh, and i'm taking issue with the definition of "running gear" that seems to have been adopted by others above as NOT including engines. The proposal says "changes of axles or running gear to improve efficiency, safety, or ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE" To me, environmental performance means only one thing, EMISSIONS! And the only way to improve that is with engine/exhaust mods, you'll never get an improvement by swapping an axle or suspension. So, by definition, "running gear" MUST include the engine! This is basically where I'm at with this The "same basic engine " can be interpreted in various ways
|
|
|
|
tofufi
South West
Posts: 1,457
|
|
|
Fair enough. That does seem to imply they'll be a 'neither, thanks' option. I guess we'll see. Oh, and i'm taking issue with the definition of "running gear" that seems to have been adopted by others above as NOT including engines. The proposal says "changes of axles or running gear to improve efficiency, safety, or ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE" To me, environmental performance means only one thing, EMISSIONS! And the only way to improve that is with engine/exhaust mods, you'll never get an improvement by swapping an axle or suspension. So, by definition, "running gear" MUST include the engine! I don't really agree - I fitted a 5 speed gearbox to my van and got a 10-15% improvement in fuel economy just from dropping the revs at cruising speed. Engine mods isn't the only thing that will have an influence on emissions and fuel economy. When I first read it I did assume running gear included engines - but it's hard to argue a V8 in a Ford Pop (for example) leads to an improvement in emissions. Zetec in a Cortina, maybe This is basically where I'm at with this The "same basic engine " can be interpreted in various ways I'd say that any A series is the same 'basic engine' as any other A series. I'd say it's a stretch to suggest that an A series is the same basic engine as the Detroit series 50. They're both I4s, but have approx 7.5l difference in capacity, as well as a different fuel type etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes but same basic A series is covered in the other part of their description "alternative original equipment"
It's still open to interpretation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes but same basic A series is covered in the other part of their description It's still open to interpretation The mot test is not a problem ,however it's what the chose to do with the information at a later date Like so many that have built their cars to a set of rules only to find the goal posts moved
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2017 11:00:53 GMT
|
So don't make a declaration to avoid an MOT and they will not know about any changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've fitted a 2 litre Vauxhall "Family II" motor in my 73 Triumph Toledo. It produces 135bhp, is ECU controlled and fuel injected. I have also used an Omega 5 speed gearbox and a Dolomite Sprint 3.45 diff in place of the weak and low factory 4.11. The car returns an average 36 mpg driven hard most of the time and the emissions are only a whisker over MOT CAT spec. I COULD have fitted a Dolomite Sprint engine (2.o 16v on carbs) with it's matching overdrive gearbox and the same diff i've used, got 127bhp, an extra gear and by the latest proposal, MOT exemption under the any thing fitted in the day clause. But it would have an average fuel consumption in the low 20s and stratospheric emission levels. So my conversion is better, safer (ive improved the brakes and suspension too) more fuel efficient and more environmentally friendly that the original car or a "period modified" version of the original car. And my reward for this is to be told that my car is no longer a VHI! Besides, I only did it to double the original horsepower, the fuel efficiency and environmental benefits are just a nice bonus! My thought at the moment is that substituting an electrically driven axle for the engine to produce a zero emission classic is what they are on about! Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's an "in range" mod loophole which will let you get away with quite a lot if you pick your car carefully, a Marina, for example could have an A, B or O series engine, any MGB or TR7 could have a V8. The list is endless, even before you touch on Fords. If you want to push the boat out, the "in period" regs will let you run a Fiat twincam powered Moggy Minor! Don't just think about what you CAN'T do, be grateful for the loopholes that will STILL let you do great things with old iron!
Steve
|
|
|
|