80 replies to this topic

[mk1coopers]

1988 was when the '8 point' registration rules were applied, it's my understanding that these laws will still be in place with the same consequences if you have modified the car beyond this criteria) however they are not going to be applied to decide what is or isn't a VHI, the letter above was the first draft proposal, this is what being discussed at the moment (it was originally going to be confirmed in November) so we will have to see what happens with the 15% criteria, personally I think this will either be changed or dropped in favour of allowing power units of the original type (regardless of power) to be VHI but not allowing cars with different engines (Honda / Vauxhall / bike) to obtain the exemption. As to the 'tick box' to declare the vehicle is VHI it will be interesting to see if this appears on the online system if your car is still MOT'd when you need to tax it next year (as many will be) will insurance companies start to offer discounts for owners who choose to continue to MOT their cars ?

[Ethel]

I thought that, but found '98 quoted online. That does sound late though.

 

Still wouldn't make much sense as you could easily keep your points and make the power to weight increase. I can't help thinking there's somebody with a very specific agenda behind the 15%.

 

If they're attempting to argue from a safety point of view it's bad physics. If you lost the weight you wouldn't go any faster, but would improve your stopping ability, road holding and handling- all other things being equal. Then, if you increased the power and weight proportionally, keeping to the rules, you'd have a car that could go faster but was harder to stop and control.

[paulrockliffe]

 

At least that cover off my concerns around my Minus that is correctly registered, but was allowed to retain it's '69 registration.

Will still need an mot but can keep your plate is that correct ? if so I am in the same boat

 

Yes. 

 

My concern was that by being properly registered my car isn't a Mini, it's something else.  That something else has a '69 plate, so is it a VHI as that something else?  And if I ask that question, is the answer going to come back as "IVA and prove when the work was done?"

 

The article answers those concerns in the detail about kit cars, it's not a VHI so it needs an MOT, but they're not going to start asking questions about cars that retained their registrations and forcing you to prove things as a result of this rule change.

 

Anyone know if the DVLA would have an accessible record of when the V5 was updated? 

[Ethel]

It sounds like kit cars are excluded. I guess the likes of Le Mans Mini Marcos aren't of historic interest 

[mab01uk]

UK government releases historic MoT rules – and it's good news!

The long-awaited UK MoT exemption rules have been released, and owners of historic cars, especially specials and modified classics, can breathe a sigh of relief.

 

The UK's Department for Transport has released the long-awaited definition of a Vehicle of Historic Interest (VHI), which will define the classics that will be exempt for taking an MOT test.

Crucially, it also defines how modified classic vehicles should be dealt with.

The basic outcome is that most vehicles manufactured or first registered over 40 years ago will (from 20 May 2018) be exempt from needing an MOT – but owners will still be able to have their vehicles MOT'd if they wish to, and they won't be forced to register their vehicles as a VHI (Vehicle of Historic Interest).

Vehicles that were modified in period – including specials – will be allowed to be registered as VHIs, and will therefore be exempt from the need for an MoT as well.

Vehicles that have been modified in the last 30 years will not be eligible to be registered as a VHI, but will simply need to be MOT'd each year, as they are currently. This is a rolling 30-year date, to protect classics that are currently being modified, or that may be modified in the future.

However, modifications that improve 'the efficiency, safety, preservation or environmental performance' of a vehicle, such as uprated brakes or electronic ignition, will not prevent the vehicle from being granted VHI status.

There were widespread fears that modified vehicles in particular were to be legislated off the road, but this has not been the case.

This is largely thanks to the work done by the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs with the Department for Transport – a statement from the Federation says that, 'The FBHVC wishes to express its appreciation of the open and collaborative manner in which the DfT approached these discussions.'

https://www.autoclas...t-s-good-news-1

Edited by mab01uk, 18 December 2017 - 08:14 PM.

[cal844]

What about a 998 clubman estate auto which now has a 1275 manual, will I need an mot?

[imack]

What about a 998 clubman estate auto which now has a 1275 manual, will I need an mot?

Having had a quick read through the criteria I would think you won't need an mot if the vehicle is over 40 years old.

[Homersimpson]

What about a 998 clubman estate auto which now has a 1275 manual, will I need an mot?

Reading the article linked above it states:

 

Engine – alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative
original equipment engines are not considered a substantial change. If the number
of cylinders in an engine is different from the original, it is likely to be, but not
necessarily, the case that the current engine is not alternative original equipment.

 

Sounds like with minis, as long as its still A-Series its all good.

[cal844]

What about a 998 clubman estate auto which now has a 1275 manual, will I need an mot?

Reading the article linked above it states:
 
Engine alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative
original equipment engines are not considered a substantial change. If the number
of cylinders in an engine is different from the original, it is likely to be, but not
necessarily, the case that the current engine is not alternative original equipment.
 
Sounds like with minis, as long as its still A-Series its all good.

Perfect folks thanks!

[paulrockliffe]

That's a little confusing, is a new fibreglass shell that improves safety, efficiency, preservation and environmental performance by virtue of not rusting or having seams OK?

 

I guess having the change on the V5 will trump anything else, but a kit car that looks like the base car could be a bit of a grey area now.

[Homersimpson]

That's a little confusing, is a new fibreglass shell that improves safety, efficiency, preservation and environmental performance by virtue of not rusting or having seams OK?

 

I guess having the change on the V5 will trump anything else, but a kit car that looks like the base car could be a bit of a grey area now.

I assume its still the same as the 8 point rule for retaining a vehicle identity, the bodyshell has to be same type as the original (i.e. steel), new, and made by the original manufacturer or their successor.

 

I'm afraid no matter which way you look at it a fibreglass shell is a kitcar in the eyes of the regulations and needs an IVA and then presumably an MOT until its been in existence in its modified form for 40 years.

[paulrockliffe]

 

That's a little confusing, is a new fibreglass shell that improves safety, efficiency, preservation and environmental performance by virtue of not rusting or having seams OK?

 

I guess having the change on the V5 will trump anything else, but a kit car that looks like the base car could be a bit of a grey area now.

I assume its still the same as the 8 point rule for retaining a vehicle identity, the bodyshell has to be same type as the original (i.e. steel), new, and made by the original manufacturer or their successor.

 

I'm afraid no matter which way you look at it a fibreglass shell is a kitcar in the eyes of the regulations and needs an IVA and then presumably an MOT until its been in existence in its modified form for 40 years.

 

I'm not bothered about the MOT one way or the other, my concern is/was only that the rules aren't applied in a way that forces me to prove when the modifications were done as although my car is legal I would find it difficult to prove to the standard that I've seen applied in other cases.

 

My car passed the 8 point rule when it was registered and retained it's 1969 identity.  I think you may be confusing that rule with the newer rules around radically altered vehicles, which would catch a new Minus conversion, but was obviously not applied retrospectively.  

 

This was in the statement on Page 4 of the thread; "We are aware that many people have been confused by the potential use of existing DVLA rules, which is not now going to happen, into thinking this change relates to registration."  The 8 point rule is about registration rather than VHI.  

 

That statement was fairly clear, in so far as it could be, that I'd need an MOT because it was a kit car, but the latest statement suggests you could have made modifications in certain areas to improve the car and retained VHI status.  It's not clear that that excludes improvements to the body where the overall form is largely unaltered.  It's very unusual for a kit-car to retain the original shape or form as normally kits were used to build something different. 

 

I suspect on balance the deciding factor would be that if it was re-registered then it must have been a kit car, so it's not a Mini anymore, so it needs an MOT.  But I'm certainly a lot less clear about that now.

[mm man]

That's a little confusing, is a new fibreglass shell that improves safety, efficiency, preservation and environmental performance by virtue of not rusting or having seams OK?
 
I guess having the change on the V5 will trump anything else, but a kit car that looks like the base car could be a bit of a grey area now.

I assume its still the same as the 8 point rule for retaining a vehicle identity, the bodyshell has to be same type as the original (i.e. steel), new, and made by the original manufacturer or their successor.
 
I'm afraid no matter which way you look at it a fibreglass shell is a kitcar in the eyes of the regulations and needs an IVA and then presumably an MOT until its been in existence in its modified form for 40 years.

I'm not bothered about the MOT one way or the other, my concern is/was only that the rules aren't applied in a way that forces me to prove when the modifications were done as although my car is legal I would find it difficult to prove to the standard that I've seen applied in other cases.
 
My car passed the 8 point rule when it was registered and retained it's 1969 identity.  I think you may be confusing that rule with the newer rules around radically altered vehicles, which would catch a new Minus conversion, but was obviously not applied retrospectively.  
 
This was in the statement on Page 4 of the thread; "We are aware that many people have been confused by the potential use of existing DVLA rules, which is not now going to happen, into thinking this change relates to registration."  The 8 point rule is about registration rather than VHI.  
 
That statement was fairly clear, in so far as it could be, that I'd need an MOT because it was a kit car, but the latest statement suggests you could have made modifications in certain areas to improve the car and retained VHI status.  It's not clear that that excludes improvements to the body where the overall form is largely unaltered.  It's very unusual for a kit-car to retain the original shape or form as normally kits were used to build something different. 
 
I suspect on balance the deciding factor would be that if it was re-registered then it must have been a kit car, so it's not a Mini anymore, so it needs an MOT.  But I'm certainly a lot less clear about that now.

Taken from the Dvla statement
Those vehicles registered on a Q plate, as kits or built up classics are not entitled to be declared as VHIs until 40 years after they were registered.

Looks like you can declare it as vhi after 40 years even as a kit !

https://www.autoclas...t-s-good-news-1

Edited by mm man, 19 December 2017 - 09:32 PM.

[ckneller321]

 

 

That's a little confusing, is a new fibreglass shell that improves safety, efficiency, preservation and environmental performance by virtue of not rusting or having seams OK?

 

I guess having the change on the V5 will trump anything else, but a kit car that looks like the base car could be a bit of a grey area now.

I assume its still the same as the 8 point rule for retaining a vehicle identity, the bodyshell has to be same type as the original (i.e. steel), new, and made by the original manufacturer or their successor.

 

I'm afraid no matter which way you look at it a fibreglass shell is a kitcar in the eyes of the regulations and needs an IVA and then presumably an MOT until its been in existence in its modified form for 40 years.

 

I'm not bothered about the MOT one way or the other, my concern is/was only that the rules aren't applied in a way that forces me to prove when the modifications were done as although my car is legal I would find it difficult to prove to the standard that I've seen applied in other cases.

 

My car passed the 8 point rule when it was registered and retained it's 1969 identity.  I think you may be confusing that rule with the newer rules around radically altered vehicles, which would catch a new Minus conversion, but was obviously not applied retrospectively.  

 

This was in the statement on Page 4 of the thread; "We are aware that many people have been confused by the potential use of existing DVLA rules, which is not now going to happen, into thinking this change relates to registration."  The 8 point rule is about registration rather than VHI.  

 

That statement was fairly clear, in so far as it could be, that I'd need an MOT because it was a kit car, but the latest statement suggests you could have made modifications in certain areas to improve the car and retained VHI status.  It's not clear that that excludes improvements to the body where the overall form is largely unaltered.  It's very unusual for a kit-car to retain the original shape or form as normally kits were used to build something different. 

 

I suspect on balance the deciding factor would be that if it was re-registered then it must have been a kit car, so it's not a Mini anymore, so it needs an MOT.  But I'm certainly a lot less clear about that now.

 

 

Would you be intending on getting it MOT'd annually anyway? If yes, then carry on as you are and don't apply for the VHI status. Problem solved!

 

With something like a minus I'd be inclined to say don't rock the boat and carry on as you are. You never know what can of worms you might open if you invite someone to make an assessment / decision on it.

[panky]

I was a little confused as to whether a vehicle was still eligible for free road tax if it didn't meet the criteria for VHI. So I did a little digging and found this on the FBHVC site.  

 

 

It has become apparent from the extensive feedback we have been receiving following the publication of the DfT consultation results that there is some confusion regarding the taxation status of historic vehicles which do not pass the criteria to be considered Vehicles of Historic Interest (VHI). To be absolutely clear vehicles which attain the age of 40 years all fall within the Historic taxation class and pay no road fund licence fee. The VHI classification is only used as a test for roadworthiness testing exemption

 

http://fbhvc.co.uk/a...t-vhi-criteria/

 

 

Happy again.