40 Year tax/ MOT advice

Its more the tax thing for me really.I would still get it checked by someone much better qualified than me. I am just trying to understand the regs and know what I am buying into. What I am really after is a V8 on a galvanised chassis which is close to being tax exempt. Probably titled this thread wrongly.

I think a lot of people are fed up with the mot because of the many advisories they keep comming up with. I had no problem with safety critical stuff but I get fed up with things like faded number plates when you would need to be blind if you couldnt make them out

Col

If the mods on the chassis were done more than 30 years ago then you may get away with the engine change as only one point but if not then the reg can't be retained, and therefore it isn't tax exempt.
I can't see how you can put a non standard chassis with modified suspension, plus a different engine, plus probably axles and transmission on a 2A and hope to legally keep the reg number and exemption.
However you would need to consult a marque expert with the full details of changes and dates and get a view, or not tell anyone and take a chance if you get caught

Having completed an application to change to historic vehicle tax status I would agree with the points made in this thread.

The tax exemption is based entirely on age, that is of manufacture rather than registration. Those usually match but not always. If a 2A has a Defender chassis then it would be classed as a Defender but if it has retained it's original registration I would say i) good on you and ii) unfortunately it might be viewed as dubious if checked for any reason.

MOT exemption is a little more complicated because it is again based on age but also only where no substantial modifications have been made in the last 30 years. What constitutes substantial is detailed on the gov website and as Bruce points out it is like a points system - have too many and it will not be exempt from MOT. As an example it says that if you change the engine for one which is not the same as originally fitted that might be viewed as OK if the original spec is no longer available, or might be OK if you are improving the economy or emissions over the original. Otherwise it would count against when it comes to points scored.

Likewise with suspension parts if you are improving safety etc it might be viewed favourably but if almost everything on the vehicle except the body and reg. no. have been changed then it would add up to being viewed as substantially modified.

As you say you intend to continue getting it MOTd anyway so that shouldn't be an issue but one of the reasons for bringing in the MOT exemption is the difficulty in getting old vehicles tested, with many 'mechanics' (for that read fitters these days) not able to test properly or deal with issues which affect old vehicles. Therefore it makes sense to use a garage which specialises in LRs or even just older/classic vehicles in principle to carry out the testing and there will be less likelihood of a fail or a whole list of advisories because they don't know what they're doing or can't be bothered to deal with something complicated.

Thank you for all your replies. My search continues with caution..........

V8 Money pit said:

I am guessing this has been done to death on here, but here goes. Would a 1966 series 2A on a defender chassis be mot exempt, or would it be considered modified?
Many thanks in advance...........

Click to expand...

If it is on a Defender chassis it isn't a ****ing Series 2 is it.....

Henry_b said:

Never ceases to amaze me how many "MOT EXEMPT" cars I had in the shop that were deathtraps.

Stupid exemption if you ask me.

Click to expand...

It's not stupid, it is pure numbers.

The total number of exempt vehicles on the roads is tiny. And most spend very short periods of times on the roads and even less at peak times. Therefore the risk of such a vehicle being in an accident is almost too small to compute....

Not too mention that being exempt from the MoT does not mean exempt from being road legal and safe to use. They still have to adhere to the same standards as they have always done. They just aren't forced to be tested to see if they meet the standards.s

Lastly, a large part of the MoT is not testable on many historic vehicles, so the test is almost null and void anyway and unlikely to show up the problems in the first place. As the vehicles won't be tested for them. Which just makes it a waste of everyones time.

V8 Money pit said:

I believe so

Click to expand...

no

Nodge68 said:

I am restoring a 72 classic family runaround, which will be MOT exempt as well as RFL exempt. I'm still going to get her MOTd, simply because that way I have a piece of paper showing me that at the time of the MOT, it was safe, particularly where things like brake efficiency and balance are concerned.
I can't see why people are so keen to avoid the MOT, as it's a safety critical part of motoring IMO.

Click to expand...

That is truly missing the point and failing to understand what has been implemented.

Also let us not forget there are many other vehicle types in the UK that also do not require an MoT to drive on the roads.

And more importantly, let us also not ignore that there are other countries which have no concept of an MoT at all, yet their road safety record is at least as good as ours if not better.

300bhp/ton said:

It's not stupid, it is pure numbers.

The total number of exempt vehicles on the roads is tiny. And most spend very short periods of times on the roads and even less at peak times. Therefore the risk of such a vehicle being in an accident is almost too small to compute....

Not too mention that being exempt from the MoT does not mean exempt from being road legal and safe to use. They still have to adhere to the same standards as they have always done. They just aren't forced to be tested to see if they meet the standards.s

Lastly, a large part of the MoT is not testable on many historic vehicles, so the test is almost null and void anyway and unlikely to show up the problems in the first place. As the vehicles won't be tested for them. Which just makes it a waste of everyones time.

Click to expand...

I don't agree.
No matter the age of the vehicle the main safety points will be checked, Brakes, steering components and chassis/body corrosion plus tyres etc etc
A good MOT tester won't just dismiss a car because it is "too old" I've MOT'd an Austin 7......

As I said the garage I worked for specialized in classic cars and the majority were pre 1977 and MOT/Tax exempt, the number of cars with dry rotted tyres rotten brake lines porous fuel tanks rotten chassis or floor panels and massive oil/coolant leaks were too common to be just be here and there.

Rubber brake hoses cracked and some leaking, brake/headlights that didn't work.. etc

As for the number of historic cars on the road, that doesn't really matter if there is a serious mechanical/structural fault on any Classic and it causes an accident either to the driver or to pedestrian / other driver, its down to negligence IMO.


I'll say it again..

Stupid exemption IMO...

Henry_b said:

I don't agree.
No matter the age of the vehicle the main safety points will be checked, Brakes, steering components and chassis/body corrosion plus tyres etc etc

Click to expand...

Checked how? To your own opinion or to a universal standard?

Basically giving you a hint, it would need to be checked in a way that can be documented and replicated. So that by and large it isn't based on an opinion of the tester. This is where it is very difficult, because many historic cars simply do not meet anything that would acceptable in terms of documenting it. You would then need loads of different grades to rate a vehicle on based on age and construction type.

This was largely the issue....
You cannot realistically test brakes like this to the same standards as modern ABS discs...

Henry_b said:

A good MOT tester won't just dismiss a car because it is "too old" I've MOT'd an Austin 7......

Click to expand...

Dismiss no, but most of your crib sheet will say either n/a or exempt.

Henry_b said:

As I said the garage I worked for specialized in classic cars and the majority were pre 1977 and MOT/Tax exempt, the number of cars with dry rotted tyres rotten brake lines porous fuel tanks rotten chassis or floor panels and massive oil/coolant leaks were too common to be just be here and there.

Click to expand...

I think the clue is in the 'garage I worked for specialized in classic cars', people hardly are likely to take perfectly working cars into a garage are they. It's a bit like saying you only ever see sick people in hospitals!

Henry_b said:

Rubber brake hoses cracked and some leaking brake/headlights that didn't work.. etc

Click to expand...

The legal requirement for the car being road worthy has not changed. And nothing prevents any owner having their car inspected.

Henry_b said:

As for the number of historic cars on the road, that doesn't really matter if there is a serious mechanical/structural fault on any Classic and it causes an accident either to the driver or to pedestrian / other driver, its down to negligence IMO.

Click to expand...

It does matter completely. All things in life are risk based. Driving any car or walking down the street carries risk. But it is generally low enough that most people will do it. Extreme sports carry much more risk, which stops some people wanting to partake, while others will refuse to do anything so risky.

By the numbers the chances of a historic car being involved in a serious RTI are so low that most people would likely deem it not a risk at all.

BTW - tractors don't need an MoT, either new or historic. Apart from you place or work, you and most people are likely to see more tractors on the roads more often than historic cars.

Henry_b said:

I'll say it again..

Stupid exemption IMO...

Click to expand...

Clearly you aren't grasping the above point then. Which really makes the only thing look a little stupid is.... . y.....

300bhp/ton said:

Checked how? To your own opinion or to a universal standard?

Basically giving you a hint, it would need to be checked in a way that can be documented and replicated. So that by and large it isn't based on an opinion of the tester. This is where it is very difficult, because many historic cars simply do not meet anything that would acceptable in terms of documenting it. You would then need loads of different grades to rate a vehicle on based on age and construction type.

This was largely the issue....
You cannot realistically test brakes like this to the same standards as modern ABS discs...

Dismiss no, but most of your crib sheet will say either n/a or exempt.


I think the clue is in the 'garage I worked for specialized in classic cars', people hardly are likely to take perfectly working cars into a garage are they. It's a bit like saying you only ever see sick people in hospitals!


The legal requirement for the car being road worthy has not changed. And nothing prevents any owner having their car inspected.


It does matter completely. All things in life are risk based. Driving any car or walking down the street carries risk. But it is generally low enough that most people will do it. Extreme sports carry much more risk, which stops some people wanting to partake, while others will refuse to do anything so risky.

By the numbers the chances of a historic car being involved in a serious RTI are so low that most people would likely deem it not a risk at all.

BTW - tractors don't need an MoT, either new or historic. Apart from you place or work, you and most people are likely to see more tractors on the roads more often than historic cars.


Clearly you aren't grasping the above point then. Which really makes the only thing look a little stupid is.... . y.....

Click to expand...

The points you make regarding the mechanics is null you clearly aren't a mechanic, so please stop spouting bull it doesn't help matters.

Any braking system is checked regarding the ability for it to stop the vehicle , if there is a serious imbalance or no effort exerted then you fail the car or note it on the receipt if it is a service or repair. it doesn't matter whether it is drum brakes, disc brakes, , service brakes etc etc if I found a serious braking fault then the car will stay in the garage until fixed, never had an issue with a customer with such a policy..

As for you Hospital/sick people thing, they were bought in for servicing or replacement of parts obviously, during such an escapade a mechanic can spot issues if he knows what he is doing.

For the risk basis, I agree life is full of risks but If I can reduce any obvious risks on a vehicle before it leaves my garage then I can relax..

And lastly..

Your point is null so I won't grasp it..