S2C Forum Archives
Main Section => Welcome to our virtual Pub Meeting ... => Topic started by: gilbo on July 18, 2021, 08:22:10 PM
-
Evening all
Can anyone who has declared their Series MoT exempt (or whatever it is called) please tell me what it will/should say on the DVLA MoT check database?
I still continue to MoT mine so I have no idea what I would expect to see.
I don't want to open a big can here re the do's and don'ts - just want to know what i would expcet to see should i do so.
Thanks
-
Here you go...
(http://www.rms1.co.uk/landy/temp/mot.jpg)
-
On another day ... you'll see green :cheers
-
Thanks both.
It was the red one I was referring to (the green one is the Tax check which also just happens to show MoT status). So neither actually say that it has been declared by the owner as 'historic' (Or whatever) and thereby not requiring (in law) a valid MoT test.
So a supplemantary question - how do the insurance companies actually determine a vehicle's true MoT status? The red output says the MoT has expired! - which ordinarily would invalidate your insurance, I beleive? Although it does go on the say the vehicle may be exempt, but there is no obvious marker to say it has been declared as so.
Mmmm...more DVLA nonesense then?
-
The inference is that as it's taxed it must be insured and when it says "No Results Returned" it implies the vehicle is MoT exempt ???
Clear as mud.
-
So a supplemantary question - how do the insurance companies actually determine a vehicle's true MoT status? The red output says the MoT has expired! - which ordinarily would invalidate your insurance, I beleive?
Hi Gilbo,
Provided you have hold a valid driving licence, or,,have held a licence, and are not disqualified, then your insurers will find it very difficult to avoid liability for injury to a third party (which presumably includes mandatory cover for passengers). This is covered in the Road Traffic Acts .... I think Para 143, but don't trust my memory on that.
I suspect that our Glorious Leaders do not want lots of injury claims being refused on technicalities.
I think RTA Para 143 covers insurance. Somewhere it says the insurers MUST pay Third Party claims, but gives them the right to sue their insured, to recover their losses. I have never heard of that happening.
You can also insure yourself by depositing £1,000,000 with the Attorney General. Barbara met this when an articulated pantechican, owned by a large chain of supermarkets, overtook on the inside, then pulled out, writing off her SAAB. The supermarket ignored all correspondence. Luckily, we had paid the extra £10 for Legal Cover. The supermarket settled on the court-house steps, which re-instated Barbara's full-NCD, and gave her a refund of the "First £1,000". That £10 was well spent.
602
I do not know if once holding a provisional licence to ride a motorcycle counts as having held a licence. I once held a full Malaysian bike licence, on the strength of my UK Moped entitlement. I would hate to have to prove to Their Worships that I HAD held a bike licence.
Similarly, I would hate to argue about driving a B+E vehicle, if I only held a B licence. At the very least, I would expect to be "done" for being un-accompanied, and no L-plates, but that might not obviate my insurance.
Barbara passed her driving test, January the First 1971, in South London, driving a bog-standard (but very rusty) Mini, that she drove for the first time the previous day. Her licence then restricted her to driving a MOTOR CAR or a MOTOR TRICYCLE, with NO provisional entitlement, so presumably the examiner didn't want her driving on two wheels. Over the years, her entitlement has increased with renewals, and she now has an unrestricted B+E
licence. She has no plans to ride a two wheeler.
In my day, it was DVLA policy not to penalise the disabled more than absolutely necessary ... there were many bikers with one limb missing.
Back to DVLC's library ... I read an Appeal Court ruling that for insurance purposes, a Medical De-barment, was not a Disqualification. Only a criminal court can disqualify. You can appeal against a medical de-barment, which will probably lead to a special driving test ... I think less stringent than the ordinary test. Prior to the Thalidimide scandal, your disabilities would be spelled out in detail, on your driving licence.
I knew one Thalidimide victim ... she had both hands, but no arms. She usually drove a Mini, but also had a Land Rover to pull her horse-box trailer. She could fit a bridle and saddle to her horse, and mount, without assistance.
I also read that a four-wheeler can be driven on a bike licence, if only three wheels can touch the ground at any one time.
But please do your own research.
I read somewhere, many years ago, can't remember where (maybe DVLA's library in my lunch hour?) that Disqualification means by a CRIMINAL Court, and does not include Medical Debarment. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
602
-
The inference is that as it's taxed it must be insured and when it says "No Results Returned" it implies the vehicle is MoT exempt ???
Clear as mud.
Well, yes I suppose that just about sums it up!
However, I am not sure that when you tax the car the DVLA actually check for valid insurance - it all seems to happen too quick.
OK, final scenario.
What if you have an accident. No third party invovled.
For example you have fully comp insurance, you have declared your Sereis as MoT exempt (and it meets the requirements re modifications etc). You run off the road due to brake failure (as an example), cause considerable damage to your vehicle and make a claim. As the onus is on you to keep your vehicle 'roadworthy' (as indeed you have to even if it is not MoT exempt) I just wonder how the insurance companies are viewing these types of claims (maybe there haven't been any yet??) and what checks and balances they have in place to either agree to pay your claim or reject it?
Do they have the vehicle inspected?
OK, so just because you have a yearly MoT test it doesn't mean to say this failure would not occur but potentially any issues might be picked up on said test - of course it is incumbent upon you to check such things as (in the case of brakes) the fluid levels and if low, investigate the system for a leak, or if the steering doen't seem 'right' to check out why etc.
-
This has been my argument all along with MOT exemption or the lack of any mandatory annual inspection here in the UK. I realise and appreciate that the stats prove that historic vehicles render very low on the accident ratings and this is substantiated by the average mileage of a classic car in the UK being less than 1500 miles per year. Equally an average classis car spend annually of around £4500. This fits well with real occasional use classic cars owned and run by enthusiasts who wish them to maintain them to a very high standard. Statistically, they probably are extremely safe and usable.
We enter into murky waters with elderly LRs in my view though. How many other classic cars are virtually all self built in garages throughout the country? How many other classic cars are used at off road events, green lane runs etc.? Are we potentially skewing the stats?
Its always been my concern with elderly LRs in particular, that many are definitely not as road worthy as they should be. I'd question how many enthusiasts and DIY repairers are adequately qualified to make an accurate judgment as to a vehicle's condition and safety. In my view, I think it should be mandatory for such vehicles to undergo some sort of annual safety inspection as a pre-requisite of gaining classic car insurance. I would not suggest a 21st century MOT as much of the test is irrelevant and in many cases the ignorance of the testers on how to handle and assess classic vehicles is palpable. I would suggest that its something that would be more appropriate to the age of the vehicle - in effect a 1960s / 1970s style MOT but done by a classic car workshop or perhaps a function of a classic car club membership. Its really something that should be a joined up plan with the insurance industry and the classic car club umbrella organisations.
I've recently had to deal with two series vehicles, recently purchased (with a "sales" MOT) that had dangerous brakes, steering issues and in once case, significant structural issues. In my mind, this proves that the current MOT isn't an effective solution for a safety inspection for classic cars. Given that many owners rely on an MOT to satisfy and prove to themselves that their vehicle is safe and roadworthy, this clearly is not the case.
I'm thinking basic safety checks:
Brakes
Steering
Electrics and Lighting
Excess smoke / visible emissions
Structure / corrosion
Suspension
Safety belts
Excess fluid leakage
September 1960 it all started, but perhaps the thinking is right and proper for our vehicles? Nobody wishes to overburden classic car owners with extra cost or legislation, but I think the writing is on the wall for us all if we continue as we are at the moment. It only takes one very serious accident for all sorts of questions to be asked.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/anything-goes/throwback-thursday-beginning-mot-tests-16-september-1960 (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/anything-goes/throwback-thursday-beginning-mot-tests-16-september-1960)
-
I'm thinking basic safety checks:
Brakes
Steering
Electrics and Lighting
Excess smoke / visible emissions
Structure / corrosion
Suspension
Safety belts
Excess fluid leakage
September 1960 it all started, but perhaps the thinking is right and proper for our vehicles? Nobody wishes to overburden classic car owners with extra cost or legislation, but I think the writing is on the wall for us all if we continue as we are at the moment. It only takes one very serious accident for all sorts of questions to be asked.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/anything-goes/throwback-thursday-beginning-mot-tests-16-september-1960 (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/anything-goes/throwback-thursday-beginning-mot-tests-16-september-1960)
Agreed.
That list was, what I recall from my mis-spent youth in the trade, the MoT test back then!! (Except for seat belts as lots of cars didn't have them back then!) and would seem to me to me the minimum to be applied to any vehicle that is going to use the Queen's highways.
-
I have just recently taken my dismantled 1964 S11a off SORN and taxed it. I had been told that if the vehicle had been sorned (is that a word?) for over 20 yrs I could lose my reg number. This, I have since found out is total XXX but as it didn't cost me anything I did it anyway.
My vehicle is not insured, it is in pieces in numerous places and as far as I can see there is no legal requirement for me to insure it UNLESS it is used (or on) the public highway. Of course the risk of theft and 3rd party injury is entirely mine, but I am happy with that. From this experience I have found that taxing a vehicle does not mean that it is insured.
I have already arranged for my local garage to collect my vehicle on a transporter when I am happy that it is road worthy and they will carry out a full (age related) MOT/safety check. It may cost a bit, but I would rather be safe than sorry.
I cannot believe that I can rebuild a 50+ yr old vehicle and put it back on the road without even a basic safety check, but it seems that I can. I understand that in France there is some sort of check carried out every 5 years (is this true?) perhaps this will be the way we will end up going.
Stay safe
BW
-
My vehicle is not insured, it is in pieces in numerous places and as far as I can see there is no legal requirement for me to insure it UNLESS it is used (or on) the public highway. Of course the risk of theft and 3rd party injury is entirely mine, but I am happy with that. From this experience I have found that taxing a vehicle does not mean that it is insured.
I thought the law had changed a few years ago, and now says your vehicle must be insured unless it has been declared SORN, even if it is kept off the public highway.
I think the only exception is if it has not been on the road since 1998.
I could be wrong, but worth checking out :tiphat
Robin
-
Both of my Land Rovers show the green box on the DVLA vehicle check site.
I was pulling lumps of rusty chassis out the series one a few days ago.....
Craig.
-
I thought the law had changed a few years ago, and now says your vehicle must be insured unless it has been declared SORN, even if it is kept off the public highway.
I think the only exception is if it has not been on the road since 1998.
I could be wrong, but worth checking out :tiphat
Robin
When I bought my series one I changed the tax class at the post office from PLG to historic. While there, the nice lady said, as it is MOT exempt would you like 12 months road tax on it too. I said yes please....
Few months later I get a letter saying you have a taxed vehicle that isn't insured and you need to insure it now, declare it SORN or risk losing the vehicle. Obviously I did the SORN thing as the vehicle is going nowhere until it has a major rebuild but did remind me that there is someone out there checking these things...
Craig.
-
I would imagine that if you are making a claim on your policy your insurers will want to inspect the vehicle/wreckage ???
And inspector/engineer will know what to be looking for.
Overall, if the vehicle appears to have been well maintained hard(er) to wriggle out of not paying.
Some vehicles you see are poorly maintained - wrecks before the accident.
With insurance it comes down to statistics, down to numbers and the facts are at the moment that historic vehicles are a low risk.
They generally do low miles and are well looked after by (most) of their owners.
There would have to be a spate of well publicised accidents causing death and mayhem before the situation changes.
Anyone remember the spate of minibus accidents some years back ???
The result of that was restrictions on who could drive minibuses - driving tests and restrictions in passenger numbers.
And so it will be for classic cars.
Given the way things are going - restrictions on fuel, ever rising costs, banned from city/town centres the attraction of an every-day driver will disappear and our hobby will become parked up a side road.
The risk(s) will be lower.
:RHD
-
I thought the law had changed a few years ago, and now says your vehicle must be insured unless it has been declared SORN, even if it is kept off the public highway.
I think the only exception is if it has not been on the road since 1998.
I could be wrong, but worth checking out :tiphat
Robin
Correct, if its taxed it must be insured. I changed my Rover car from PLG class to Historic which automatically taxed it, so promptly put on SORN as I had no Road Traffic acts insurance . Possible £100 fine if not done so https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles
-
I concur with the safety concerns and no MOT requirement. You only have to read some of the comments on here and on our Facebook page to realise that classic vehicle ownership and mechanical ability do not always run together. At the back of the shed I have a 1967 S2A 88in, Its a wreck, been off the road since July 2001. Legally I can cobble it together, pour some fuel into it, attach a battery, decide its roadworthy and set off down the M9. Unless Plod spots the trail of rust and excess components littering the centre lane and decides to pull me over the first indication that my judgement in these matters is not too hot will be when the inevitable happens... The MOT may only be a once a year check, I've had a brake-light fail ( on the Merc) as it bumped back down off the ramp.... but its better than nothing. There should certainly be a requirement to have any vehicle that has been long-term SORN checked professionally before its allowed out to play...
-
I am listening to the discussion about accident/ insurance/ roadworthyness. The MOT proving roadworthyness is a load of twaddle, it is only valid for the day of the test. Suppose you have a eurobox and it is your daily driver and you cover 20000 miles per year, after 6 months you have an accident, the MOt doesnt prove that it is roadworthy, just that it might have been 6 months and 10000 miles earlier. I say might because on modern cars lots of parts like brake pipes cant be inspected because they are covered with various shield (MOT testers often write that they cant check things). Who knows what condition they are in.
Statistics are on ourside, historic vehicles arenot involved in as many reported acidents.
Peter
-
So to get back to my original question(s).
How does an insurance company determine, based on the assumption that they only have access to the same two lookups I do, if the owner has declared the vehicle MoT exempt? Otherwise it just appears as if they have not bothered to MoT it (perhaps assuming wrongly I believe, that the system will automatically do that for them if it is over a certain age).
I had always understood that no current MoT meant the insurance would be invalid too in terms of their liability?
-
... and the police don't seem to have access to any more information either.
I got stopped in Jan 2020 for a sidelight out.
The policeman then went "And your MOT has expired!" before I put him right on that one.
Andrew
-
Historic Vehicle status and MoT exemptions been around for a few years now.
The police at the road-side have access to the DVLA driver & vehicle databases and therefore any policeman should know the age of the vehicle he's looking at and be well aware of the tax, MoT and insurance reps that apply to the vehicle' driver in question - or should be.
If not - why not - they should be properly trained and briefed by now about historic vehicles.
As has been posted (and repeated many times) the MoT pass means nothing - diddly squat.
It's a question of "roadworthiness" tyres, lights, weight, brakes, steering, suspension etc.
The people stopping you have access to inspectors and if your vehicle is not in complacence with the regs - you will be done, regardless of whether you have an MoT cert.
Mind how you go ....
:plod
-
As far as I'm concerned an annual check by a competent person is worth the money. Yes, its only valid for the day its done but it will show on the vehicles record and from that there is the implication that you are looking after the vehicle. I'm lucky in that my garage knows old cars quite well and tests accordingly, but they will fail one if its bad.
-
The police at the road-side have access to the DVLA driver & vehicle databases and therefore any policeman should know the age of the vehicle he's looking at and be well aware of the tax, MoT and insurance reps that apply to the vehicle' driver in question - or should be.
And there is the crux of it.
If the police are using the same database info as we have access to (as per Andrew's stop - about not having a current MoT) then it would appear there is no definitive statement about the owner declaring it as exempt and the Police cannot just assume that based on its age that it has so been declared whether they understand the legislation or not.
Poor state of affairs - I mean it can only be a few lines of code to indicate that the owner understands and has conformed to the rules regarding exemption.
I suspect the only reason Andrew got pulled was more to do with not having an MoT (=money!) than the fact his sidelight was out? Cynical .... me?
Anyhow, a moot point for me as I will to continue to have mine MoT'ed and I only raised the question out of inquisitiveness and to see if anyone had any real world experience of how their insurance company see things.
Maybe following LRTR's recent accident thread we will find out?
-
The Police reference for Insurance is not to DVLA, its to the MID...
"The Motor Insurance Database (MID) records all insured vehicles in the UK. It's used by the Police and the DVLA to help make sure all vehicles are insured, and by drivers and insurers to find insurance details of vehicles involved in an accident. The MID is managed by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB), which works to reduce uninsured driving in the UK and compensates victims of uninsured and untraced drivers."
https://www.mib.org.uk/managing-insurance-data/the-motor-insurance-database-mid/
-
I suspect the only reason Andrew got pulled was more to do with not having an MoT (=money!) than the fact his sidelight was out? Cynical .... me?
It was deffo the sidelight - he didn't know about the MoT until we'd been standing there 10 minutes or so.
He had a trainee / new PC with him, and was getting her to run through all the paperwork checks etc.
I suspect that if he'd not had the trainee he wouldn't have stopped me - good learning opportunity he thought.
He was less impressed that we changed the bulb faster than he could complete the paperwork :tool-box
-
Going OT but a group of us "green-laning" near the Hogsback in Surrey arrived at the end of the track to find a Policeman waiting for us, the Police had been rung by an irate local to complain about people "driving on a footpath". There followed a lengthy discussion about what the various legal rights of way entailed, reference to the OS map we had, neatly marked up and what the various symbols meant. He was clueless on the subject.....and then threatened to "do us" if we drove across the footpath to get onto the tarmac. At that point some-one laughed. Not helpful.
He took names, noted registrations.....and had the grace to write confirming we were in the right. That must have been in the mid 80s.... I bet that route is long since shut !
-
Correct, if its taxed it must be insured. I changed my Rover car from PLG class to Historic which automatically taxed it, so promptly put on SORN as I had no Road Traffic acts insurance . Possible £100 fine if not done so https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles
Was it definitely taxed??
I recently sent off for a new log book for my S3 which had been off the road since before SORN was started.
The log book was duly returned with the PLG removed and Historic added. As it was not quite ready for use I filed the log book away.
About 3 weeks later I got a letter reminding me that the vehicle must now be either insured or SORNED and it showed the link to the website which explains the rule. Out of curiousity I then checked the 'get vehicle information' page on the DVLA website. This still showed " no details found" [it had not been on the road since 1989 -- way before all this online stuff]
As it was only a week or so away from completion and the tax is £0 I went ahead and insured it then taxed it and declared MOT exemption online. Within only about 24 hrs. the website had changed to show the green page in Wittsend reply.
A friend had a vehicle which aged out to 40 years old where the tax was due about 6 months away from the MOT. He duly got his new £0 tax but as there was a current MOT the website would not accept a declaration of MOT exemption. When the MOT was due 6 months later he went online and tried unsuccessfully to declare it exempt. For the final 6 months of the first Historic year the website showed the red page showing correctly that the MOT had expired
-
Just trawling though the discussion.
Not sure if I missed it but £54 for a vehicle health check is ok as a tight Cornishman.
It gives a degree of reassurance and I am wondering, if your tax exempt landy failed a mot, which you techincally don’t need to take, where would you be?
-
The MOT proving roadworthyness is a load of twaddle, it is only valid for the day of the test.
It's valid for the next 12 months. The point is that being valid does not prove the vehicle is roadworthy.
Similarly possession of a driving licence does not prove you are a competent driver, simply that you passed a driving test . People and vehicles can decline in roadworthiness.
-
Witrh reference to G6anz and the regular checks. My nephew and I are both competent mechanics (nephew is an engineer too) and we drive and look over each others vehicles regularly and a fresh pair of eyes and a fresh driver find faults very quickly and this happens much more often than once per year.
Peter
-
The police at the road-side have access to the DVLA driver & vehicle databases and therefore any policeman should know the age of the vehicle he's looking at and be well aware of the tax, MoT and insurance reps that apply to the vehicle' driver in question - or should be.
If not - why not - they should be properly trained and briefed by now about historic vehicles.
:plod
I got pulled over a couple of years ago by a young copper and his older colleague. His excuse was that my vehicle was showing as uninsured. My vehicle certainly was insured, and always has been, and he accepted my assurance without asking for any proof.
It turned out to be an amicable stop. He spent about 5 minutes chatting with SWMBO and me about classic vehicles, speed of modern traffic, and another 5 minutes chatting about my S2 and wandering around it.
Sent us on our way with a cheery grin and a safe journey wish.
I suspect the 2 officers were a bit bored on a nice sunny, quiet day.......
-
Hi,
I have twice heard, different decades, about one biker, and one driver, who were pulled over for trivial reasons, and given the option of "being chased" for a few miles.
An offer to good to be refused.
One mid-night, Barbara driving HER Reliant Sabre 6GT, was pulled by Plod. He walked round to my side of the car .. "Is this your car, Sir?"
"No!" I replied. "It's hers!"
Barbara refused to speak to him until he walked to her side of the car.
Married for 56 years ... and I still wake up screaming.
602
PS, If you don't know what a Reliant Sabre 6GT is, Google Reliant Sabre 361WYD images.