No MOT

It seems everything is a little secretive at the moment. I think it will be an Owner decision whether to MOT or not, some suggestions have been mooted that Insurance companies will offer discounts if 40 year plus motorcycles still have a valid MOT.

The question is what happens to the 50,000 A10s, Gold Stars, Bantams, Tiger cubs, C15s in boxes frames and engines not registered on a V5 in Uncle Egbert's type scenario sheds and garages across the country? I know one guy who has 48 garages of stuff and another who has at least a dozen large capacity BSA frames engines and associated bits. We are a Nation of hoarders!

Two things have been discussed in detail, one of which is many younger testers do not understand non- Canbus type plug and play vehicles and generally older stuff gets in the way of "Moteeing! vehicles used on the road everyday of the year. Specialised bulbs fitted in what once where Halogen reflectors will be outlawed to reduce the dazzle menace when travelling at night!

The car forums have much more discussion on this because initially there were as "they" saw it draconian measures being mooted re-modifications and the instigation of product TUV type initiated parts replacement strategies, which would affect many specialist companies and Customised builds.

The upshot of this is that they feared that MOT approval would not be possible and also there was an issue that modified vehicles may lose their historic plates.

Of course if that happens, values fall you are back in a Taxation class and Insurance premiums will rise!

The main moot point on motorcycles will affect modified stuff and specialised builds. Looks like the rivet counter mentally will win out in the long run!

The mooted 15% increase in engine power from spec on any vehicle constituting an infringement of registration data was a tricky one as if Insurers got their way with loaded premiums plus subsequently legally re-registration would be the only option available and again Historic number plates would be recalled to the DVLA

Rumour is the DVLA and whoever else is involved have backtracked, however groups supposed to be looking after our interests have it seems been strangely quiet.

Also a whole Automotive repair and specialised engineering arm industry could /would be threatened, but then I suspect the Powers that be wish all things to be electric, Gary Numan was right.....!

Cheers

John H

Andy,

I assume that if you are currently on a SORN, then after the May deadline you just go online and apply for Tax and it checks your insurance, waives the MOT, and you get the zero cost Historic Tax.

Of course, this assumes that your V5 already shows 'Historic Vehicle'.

Norm

WRT to insurance, I asked Peter James and they seem very relaxed about it. No mention of discount....

one i have the log book states in the tax class section ( not licensed ) .rang them up and they said just simply tax it .it will come back replaced with ( historic class ). wether thats the case ive no idea. its all becoming a bit confusing.

Barry

Previously andy_chetwood wrote:

As from May 40yr old vehicles will not need an MOT (or tax). Last year my (perfectly legal) ES2 ran out of both. I didn't renew because of the above. Does anyone know what happens after May?

Not quite sure what you mean by "ran out of both" as you still need to tax the vehicle even though there is no fee. Other than that it needs to be SORN as far as I understand it.

We will have to wait and see what the requirement will be for 'no MOT' in May, I suspect.

In another thread on this topic (here or AN) somebody raised a point about proving roadworthiness if one is involved in an incident- without an MOT there's not a lot that can be done (yes, I know it's only a measure of the bike at one particular point in time) - perhaps somebody with legal knowledge could comment?

The decision to exempt 'historical' vehicles from city centre congestion charges (a la London) does incentivize me to move to historic classification. I've held back before because, once classified, there's no guarantee that restrictionswon't be added to the class in the future (or am I joining the paranoid bunch!).

Given the increase in insurance charges (9 points in 7 days !) savings inother areas would help!

i am sure someone with a knowledge lump in government will let us know of any changes.

Previously mike_sullivan wrote:

In another thread on this topic (here or AN) somebody raised a point about proving roadworthiness if one is involved in an incident- without an MOT there's not a lot that can be done (yes, I know it's only a measure of the bike at one particular point in time) - perhaps somebody with legal knowledge could comment?

The decision to exempt 'historical' vehicles from city centre congestion charges (a la London) does incentivize me to move to historic classification. I've held back before because, once classified, there's no guarantee that restrictionswon't be added to the class in the future (or am I joining the paranoid bunch!).

Given the increase in insurance charges (9 points in 7 days !) savings inother areas would help!

How has your Insurance changed?

I hear a lot of people talk about insurance companies refusing claims on spurious grounds such as unauthorised mods etc. However, I have yet to see an authenticated case.

It's my view that the insurance company would have to prove in court that any feature of the vehicle - whether modification, inoperative light etc actually contributed materially to the collision. I do understand that police figures show that vehicle defects form a vanishingly small proportion of collision causes, and most of them are tyre related.

I have no great love for the insurance industry but I do feel that sometimes paranoia can take hold.....

Previously ian_soady wrote:

I hear a lot of people talk about insurance companies refusing claims on spurious grounds such as unauthorised mods etc. However, I have yet to see an authenticated case.

It's my view that the insurance company would have to prove in court that any feature of the vehicle - whether modification, inoperative light etc actually contributed materially to the collision. I do understand that police figures show that vehicle defects form a vanishingly small proportion of collision causes, and most of them are tyre related.

I have no great love for the insurance industry but I do feel that sometimes paranoia can take hold.....

On Saturday I was told that Insurance companies may start to insist that tyres on Veteran vintage and Classic vehicles if used fairly regularly must be younger than and replaced every six years, otherwise insurance cover could be deemed invalid!

He has been in the trade a long time and said the tyre manufacturers were to put it in my words "cock a hoop" as business would be enhanced by this ruling/proposed ruling.

Someone he knew had just imported scores/tons of Vintage/ Classic bike tyres into the country and now stands to lose a lot of money if this change goes ahead on his investment, presumably the tyres he bought had been stored properly!