The goverment no M.O.T.

[thicket]

Whilst talking to a mate the other day he mentioned his barber has a old british bike and he told him that under this new rule about not needing a M.O.T. on a historic bike that the machine has to be original or your bike loses its historic status and it will require both m.o.t. and tax. Is this true, does anyone know or where to find out?

[Rex]

Thankfully it's a load of cobblers. What's "original" and who would be knowlegable enough to define it for several million old vehicles, some over a hundred years old?

[Goldy]

The tax and MOT exemptions are only based on dates and nothing more. If a vehicle was first registered before 1 Jan 1973 it can be an historic vehicle and tax exempt and before 1 Jan 1960 can become MOT exempt.

[wetdog]

 "If a vehicle was first registered before"............ i think its manufactured . a birth certificate from one of the mark clubs can help here 

[Goldy]

The DVLA actually go by the date of first registration stated on the V5 log book.

[Revband]

Hi Guys

I restored and registered a 1946 BSA B32 completed in 2010, the V5 states "first registered 4th June 2010", on the front bottom of the V5 it says "declared manufactured in 1946". this bike qualifies as Historic for road tax and MOT purposes.

I trust this clears up any confusion.

This is the said bike.

[Rex]

....And very nice it is too.

[RichP]

There is a new European directive in the offing which defines a historic vehicle as basically having no modifications to manufacturer's spec in appearance or major components but organisations all over Europe are pointing out to them how bonkers and unenforceable it is.

This has nothing to do with the new MOT exemptions but a version of it could mean that something like a VW-engined trike needs an MOT (which it probably couldn't pass) but an unmodified example wouldn't.

Quite how this would apply to something like a motorcycle registered as a Triton is beyond me. They'd probably like to ban 'em despite them being more sociologically significant than some obscure 2-stroke that only sold five examples.

Unfortunately, the only voice that Europe listened to initially was the type of person worried by rebodied saloon cars lowering the value of their ex-Le Mans winners.

[bikerbob]

The other thing to remember is that it is voluntary you can still get an M.O.T. the Federation of British Vehicle Clubs did hold a ballot on this issue and I voted to retain the M.O.T. as I think it is good practice to have someone independent to check over vehicles once a year. Also it will be interesting to see how the insurance companies respond to this, when asked some time ago the response was no descision had as yet been taken. At the moment if you do not have a M.O.T. and you have an accident your insurance is invalidated so in the future how do you prove in the event of a claim that your vehicle is roadworthy at least once a year.

[Rex]

There's a few anomalies in that post Bikerbob.
1) an unroadworthy vehicle doesn't necessarily invalidate your insurance, it knocks it down to Third party Only.
 2) having an MoT (either now of after Nov 18th) doesn't prove any roadworthyness at any time.
3)  If you have a "classic" you most likely service it too, and if you do that with any degree of success then you really don't need to pay someone else to give it a once-over.

[bikerbob]

I take your point about insurance but it would still not surprise me if in the future insurance companies insisted that vehicles prior to 1960 had to have an independant check to prove that they are roadworthy before they will insure them particularly if they have been off the road for some time or have just been restored. I can still remember when you did not need an M.O.T. and when they were first introduced they were for vehicles over 10 years  then they came down to 3 years and then since everything was computerised they now issue advisories all very good things. I am speaking as a person who has a good knowledge of motorcycles having restored a few over the years doing everything myself except regrinds and rebores and touch wood I have never had a bike fail an M.O.T. but am still firmly in favour of keeping them, it is good to have an independant  check once a year we can all make mistakes.

[Goldy]

If an MOT is no longer required by law, then the Insurance Companies will have to except that, they cannot go making their own law.

[wetdog]

if you can prove the machine was manufactured pre 73 you will get historic , and free tax , eg your car bike may carry a reg in the year 73 and still be historic , there are plenty of people who have used this  , the year of registation is not the final word

heres the wording for the tax and mot exemptions

How we identify a vehicle as ‘historic’
You may be able to tax your vehicle in the ‘historic vehicle’ tax class if it was built before 1 January 1973 and is one of the qualifying vehicles listed below.
As part of the Reducing Regulation agenda and the desire to remove unnecessary burdens on society, the Government is proposing to exempt pre-1960 manufactured vehicles from statutory MOT test, as allowed under Article 4(2) of EU Directive 2009/40/EC, and bring the age of vehicles requiring the statutory MOT test in line with The Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988.

hope that helps

[bikerbob]

I did not say that insurance companies would ask for a M.O.T. for vehicles prior to 1960 because that is not a legal requirement but there is nothing stopping an insurance company asking you to prove that your vehicle is roadworthy before they will insure it, in much the same way as they do agreed valuations. My insurance company Peter James will give you an agreed valuation up to £5000  based on the photographs and documentation but if it is over £5000 you have to get an independant valuation before they will agree value. It will be interesting to see how all this pans out in the future.

[Tun up]

Goldy is spot on. That is exactly what a Carol Nash team leader; on instructions from his line manager told me over the phone
Yes the conversation was recorded.