Sorry tax exemption again

[tangocharlie1]

I think your right about the V112 not being recorded anywhere this would explain why the police are still pulling classics for not having a current MOT and the owner then having to tell them it is MOT exempt, i am not sure the authorities are fully aware of this rule yet
When i handed my V112 in at the PO she looked at it strangely then read it out loud, went ok and put it to one side, i am pretty sure it is probably still sat on her desk. Best bet is to get your car MOT'd every year and be thankful you pay no tax.

[PeterB]

I've still got the tax disc holder on windscreen.....I think I have to go to the P.O for something.....supervisor at P.O said I didn't need to show proof of insurance now.

Maybe I can do all this over the website now its classified as Historic status.

This is fun !.

Peter.

[PeterB]

I just checked the DVLA website and it said the dolly was taxed until 01/04/2020.

Thought I might get some sort of window sticker but its all electronic now of course.

Isn't the internet wonderful !.

Peter.

[series111]

Update on tax free went to p o today and it was all very simple and took less than 5 minutes as you all said changed log book to historic and signed, p o send logbook to dvla and hopefully receive new log book in few days and yes I am now tax free.

[RobSun]

Surely better to just get it inspected by a tester unofficially if they will and keep a record of this and also invoices/ proof of any work required being done.

Do you really expect a garage to keep a log of "unofficial" inspections? And what standard are they working to? You can keep the receipt with what it is for, but I doubt the person who did the inspection would want to appear as a defence witness. If you want an MoT test, get it done properly. then it is logged on the DVLA computer with no question of its validity.

I wasn't saying that the garage would keep the record but you would or should. The garage would give you an invoice for a safety check proving you had at least done something to prove roadworthiness should it ever be needed. Many people across the country in car clubs are talking about this and quite a few are saying this is what they want to do.

I did read when this MOT exemption was first introduced that if you continue MOTing the car the current laws regarding MOTs would continue to apply to that vehicle until exemption was applied for. It also said that the date for the MOT exemption would start from first registration and not from build date. There has been several posts on this site saying this, is this now not the case? Not something I need to worry with mine yet as is wasn't made until May 1980, so free tax April 21, and then not registered until late 1982, so because of this I checked on the DVLA site a few months ago and it read that this was the case.

[cliftyhanger]

I do not see the advantage of a pretty baseless "safety check" over an MoT. Unless you want to avoid emission checks (I think everything else is safety related)
The MoT is THE standard that is accepted. I am unsure how these alternative checks can standardised into something meaningful.

[TrustNo1]

Some people seem to be a bit confused about what the V122 is, it is NOT declaring the car is MOT exempt as cars over 40 year old are MOT exempt. The V112 is a declaration that the car hasn't been altered (there is a list online stating the exact requirement).
It is a self declaration only valid at the time of you declaring, The fact that you have proceeded with taxing the car is prove enough that you signed it.

[GTS290N]

Spot on Justin, has everyone who has a comment actually bothered to look at this form?
PLEASE go here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... om-mot.pdf then read the damned thing before commenting. There are LOTS of reasons for declaring to the post office your vehicle is mot exempt, we are specifically talking about category r.

So if your standard vehicle is over 40 years old it is MOT exempt. No signing, no declaration, no proof. End.

Now for the next never ending circle thread.

[Carledo]

My car IS "substantially changed", but my cunning plan is never to have to declare it! By the simple expedient of it having a current MOT when the tax rolls round for renewal!

And I really don't see why people make so much fuss about the MOT itself. On matters like emission tests, the test is administered differently depending on the age of the vehicle. On my particular car, I can CHOOSE to have it tested as a '73 (the age of the car) in which case it is a visual smoke check only, which, lets face it, the car would have to be VERY sick indeed to fail. Or I can CHOOSE to have it tested (emissions only) as an '89 (the age of the engine) in which case it needs to meet a CO figure less than 3.5% and hydrocarbons of less than 1200ppm. Which it does comfortably! In fact it meets the CAT requirement on all but the lambda reading, despite not having a CAT!

On other testing criteria, my car does not have to have hazard warning lights, rear fog lights, rear seatbelts, side indicator repeaters, 2 external mirrors, airbags, ABS, engine management light, etc et boring cetera. AND MY TESTER KNOWS THIS!

It's true that not all testers are familiar or cognisant about classic cars, but is it REALLY that hard to find a classic friendly tester?

And get a recognized test, done to a regulated standard, with a certificate at the end of it! Rather than some airy-fairy check done by whoever happens to be around.

I'm well aware that the MOT is not worth the paper it's printed on once you drive off the testing station forecourt. But it IS an accepted standard. A hypothetical "roadworthiness check" by Fred Bloggs of Bodgit and Scarper Ltd, doesn't even have that much going for it!

Steve

[TrustNo1]

My main concern over those that think it doesn't need an MOT is firstly the brake efficiency, you can to a certain extent check balance by braking hard but the roller test is far more accurate than someone who doesn't want to damage their tyres by braking too hard and the other thing is corrosion, the majority of owners won't climb under the car and check the structural parts and brake pipe and mounting points properly. a tap with your fingers isn't a good testing method.
To find a good tester you need to look a bit harder than your local fast fit centre, an older back street garage will likely know an independent experienced tester.

[Carledo]

My main concern over those that think it doesn't need an MOT is firstly the brake efficiency, you can to a certain extent check balance by braking hard but the roller test is far more accurate than someone who doesn't want to damage their tyres by braking too hard and the other thing is corrosion, the majority of owners won't climb under the car and check the structural parts and brake pipe and mounting points properly. a tap with your fingers isn't a good testing method.
To find a good tester you need to look a bit harder than your local fast fit centre, an older back street garage will likely know an independent experienced tester.

You must be psychic Justin!

To my eternal shame, I took the Carledo for MOT this morning and came home with a FAIL! The first in 9 years, but it just goes to show! If I can miss something as basic as a seized wheel cylinder, anyone can! There were NO symptoms apart from slightly excessive handbrake travel, which i'd put down to the self adjusters needing a tweak, No brake pull or tendency to spin out, no loss of fluid, nothing! So I had no reason to suspect anything was amiss. Last weekend I had it on the ramp to replace the intermediate and lower column coupling (partially seized UJ and knackered bushes respectively) I've used a U/Jd lower coupling this time, the one I took off was NOT a cheap modern copy but the 1973 original. fair enough wear for that length of time. But available replacements are so naff, I went for the UJ! Had I not had quite so big a fight getting the column off, I might have had time to go into the rear drums to adjust and found it........Or not!

Dammit! Scanned the fail to post but can't find it through postimage though it's there on the desktop!

What it said is:-

Service brake has no recorded effort at a wheel, Offside Rear (this under dangerous)

Parking brake efficiency below requirement
Brake imbalance across an axle, Rear
Parking brake inoperative on one side, Offside (these 3 as major, fix asap)

Needless to say, I DID drive it home and I will look into it tomorrow, I have shoes and cylinders in stock.

I'll probably also take this opportunity to do my rear pipe upgrade.

But this is a perfect example of just WHY all cars need to be MOT'd and being old and not used much is NOT a good reason to stop doing it!

Steve

[TrustNo1]

My main concern over those that think it doesn't need an MOT is firstly the brake efficiency, you can to a certain extent check balance by braking hard but the roller test is far more accurate than someone who doesn't want to damage their tyres by braking too hard and the other thing is corrosion, the majority of owners won't climb under the car and check the structural parts and brake pipe and mounting points properly. a tap with your fingers isn't a good testing method.
To find a good tester you need to look a bit harder than your local fast fit centre, an older back street garage will likely know an independent experienced tester.

You must be psychic Justin!

To my eternal shame, I took the Carledo for MOT this morning and came home with a FAIL! The first in 9 years, but it just goes to show! If I can miss something as basic as a seized wheel cylinder, anyone can! There were NO symptoms apart from slightly excessive handbrake travel, which i'd put down to the self adjusters needing a tweak, No brake pull or tendency to spin out, no loss of fluid, nothing! So I had no reason to suspect anything was amiss. Last weekend I had it on the ramp to replace the intermediate and lower column coupling (partially seized UJ and knackered bushes respectively) I've used a U/Jd lower coupling this time, the one I took off was NOT a cheap modern copy but the 1973 original. fair enough wear for that length of time. But available replacements are so naff, I went for the UJ! Had I not had quite so big a fight getting the column off, I might have had time to go into the rear drums to adjust and found it........Or not!

Dammit! Scanned the fail to post but can't find it through postimage though it's there on the desktop!

What it said is:-

Service brake has no recorded effort at a wheel, Offside Rear (this under dangerous)

Parking brake efficiency below requirement
Brake imbalance across an axle, Rear
Parking brake inoperative on one side, Offside (these 3 as major, fix asap)

Needless to say, I DID drive it home and I will look into it tomorrow, I have shoes and cylinders in stock.

I'll probably also take this opportunity to do my rear pipe upgrade.

But this is a perfect example of just WHY all cars need to be MOT'd and being old and not used much is NOT a good reason to stop doing it!

Steve

glad you didn't have to find out doing an emergency stop

[Carledo]

glad you didn't have to find out doing an emergency stop

Thats the funny thing, it stopped square! On the way home I deliberately tested it on a suitably empty piece of road, gave it a good hard stomp and it STILL pulled up straight. Maybe because of the TJs in conjunction with the rear pressure limiter I used in lieu of the Sprint LSV and couldn't be bothered to remove when I fitted the TJs!

It's also possible that little widget is responsible for a cylinder seizing up in service on a daily driver!

In any case, it now has 2 spandy new wheel cylinders, ( the N/S was not seized but a bit sticky returning) i've also done my equal length pipe mod on the rear brakes and it now has a full test. Normality is resumed!

Steve

[TrustNo1]

As you've said it just goes to show that the home mechanic can not check the brake balance or efficiency.

[Carledo]

It occurred to me today, that the wheel cylinders I replaced this week were actually around 9 years old having been bought and fitted around 2010 when I was building the car. I HAD been a little miffed that their life had been a bit short as, in my mind, they were still "new"! Doesn't time fly when you're having fun?

Steve