MOT Exemption from today

[wintermod65]

i dont think some of them know , theres an article on the "footman james" blog site whatever it is that made the same omission as in classic scooterist and didnt include the other than motorcycles bit either

nobody seems to know that if your 40 yr old vehicle cant be classified as a vehicle of historic interest ,what is it then do you keep date related plate but just pay tax an for mot or do you loose it and it becomes a Q plate ?

as said above appears DVLA dont know so who does ???

[a.j]

Engine – alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative
original equipment engines are not considered a substantial change.

I was going to add to that, 'cc' has never been part of checks for an MOT.

[Gage]

Apologies if I have put this in the wrong place, all a bit modern for me really. I am better with a spanner than a keyboard - I promise !

[GTFOMWSC]

Of course somebody could ask the insurance companies.

Interesting you should say that,our local MOT guy had a customer come in and ask him to give his james motorcycle a check over for road worthyness,(i saw the bike there it was beautifully restored so was better than when it was originally produced)this was requested by his insurance company.They weren't asking for an MOT just proof of roadworthyness and this was before the change in law.For him to have this done it cost the same as an MOT cert as it was charged at an hourly rate.Now if the insurers ask for this from now on before they'll insurer you where is the gain in not having an MOT? you might as well still get it mot'd and when will you find out? only when you go to renew your insurance.

[Doom Patrol]

Of course somebody could ask the insurance companies.

Interesting you should say that,our local MOT guy had a customer come in and ask him to give his james motorcycle a check over for road worthyness,(i saw the bike there it was beautifully restored so was better than when it was originally produced)this was requested by his insurance company.They weren't asking for an MOT just proof of roadworthyness and this was before the change in law.For him to have this done it cost the same as an MOT cert as it was charged at an hourly rate.Now if the insurers ask for this from now on before they'll insurer you where is the gain in not having an MOT? you might as well still get it mot'd and when will you find out? only when you go to renew your insurance.

And you can see their point. No insurance company wants to insure a vehicle with bits dropping off it. So, they will have to respond in some way and make it clear exactly what they need. I've e.mailed my own company and it'll be interesting to see what they say. Particularly as I just taxed one of my scooters under the new rules.

[GTFOMWSC]

Of course somebody could ask the insurance companies.

Interesting you should say that,our local MOT guy had a customer come in and ask him to give his james motorcycle a check over for road worthyness,(i saw the bike there it was beautifully restored so was better than when it was originally produced)this was requested by his insurance company.They weren't asking for an MOT just proof of roadworthyness and this was before the change in law.For him to have this done it cost the same as an MOT cert as it was charged at an hourly rate.Now if the insurers ask for this from now on before they'll insurer you where is the gain in not having an MOT? you might as well still get it mot'd and when will you find out? only when you go to renew your insurance.

And you can see their point. No insurance company wants to insure a vehicle with bits dropping off it. So, they will have to respond in some way and make it clear exactly what they need. I've e.mailed my own company and it'll be interesting to see what they say. Particularly as I just taxed one of my scooters under the new rules.

Not sure but in the small print on your documents doesn't it say something about roadworthyness of some sort and that the MOT cert was accepted as being acceptable proof for roadworthyness?.If that is taken away or you decide that as it's no longer needed what would you give to your insurer to prove roadworthyness now?.I'm checking with my insurers also to see if that is the case but as from a legal stand point you can ride them now without tax and MOT

[Doom Patrol]

Exactly right. And possibly without valid insurance until this is cleared up. Whenever they make these changes the one hand never seems to know what the other is doing.

[Doom Patrol]

This is the reply I received from my insurer...

Thank you for your email.

We are aware that the change to the MOT requirement is giving some concern to Classic Car owners
with pre 1978 vehicles.

The statement below was the response from one of our lead underwriters as regards the change.

Yes we have had a number of enquiries regarding this issue and our response is the same as when MOTs were first dropped for classic vehicle (pre 1960). Our basic stance is that we will not be making any fundamental changes to our policy cover and if an MOT in not required we are not insisting on any further safety inspection etc. However it is ultimately still the insureds responsibility to make sure their vehicle is in a roadworthy condition and safe to drive. If not and it is clear that any fault/defect was the cause or a contributory factor to a claim then this could result in any payment being reduced or the claim being rejected altogether. This in itself is no different from the stance applied to vehicles that still require an MOT.

Hope it helps to clear things up a bit.

[GTFOMWSC]

This is the reply I received from my insurer...

Thank you for your email.

We are aware that the change to the MOT requirement is giving some concern to Classic Car owners
with pre 1978 vehicles.

The statement below was the response from one of our lead underwriters as regards the change.

Yes we have had a number of enquiries regarding this issue and our response is the same as when MOTs were first dropped for classic vehicle (pre 1960). Our basic stance is that we will not be making any fundamental changes to our policy cover and if an MOT in not required we are not insisting on any further safety inspection etc. However it is ultimately still the insureds responsibility to make sure their vehicle is in a roadworthy condition and safe to drive. If not and it is clear that any fault/defect was the cause or a contributory factor to a claim then this could result in any payment being reduced or the claim being rejected altogether. This in itself is no different from the stance applied to vehicles that still require an MOT.

Hope it helps to clear things up a bit.

Gut feeling is each insurance company may have a different stance on it still waiting on mine to get back to me on it.I'll see if they are different or not should be across the board though all companys should be the same tbh.

[GTFOMWSC]

This is the reply I received from my insurer...

Thank you for your email.

We are aware that the change to the MOT requirement is giving some concern to Classic Car owners
with pre 1978 vehicles.

The statement below was the response from one of our lead underwriters as regards the change.

Yes we have had a number of enquiries regarding this issue and our response is the same as when MOTs were first dropped for classic vehicle (pre 1960). Our basic stance is that we will not be making any fundamental changes to our policy cover and if an MOT in not required we are not insisting on any further safety inspection etc. However it is ultimately still the insureds responsibility to make sure their vehicle is in a roadworthy condition and safe to drive. If not and it is clear that any fault/defect was the cause or a contributory factor to a claim then this could result in any payment being reduced or the claim being rejected altogether. This in itself is no different from the stance applied to vehicles that still require an MOT.

Hope it helps to clear things up a bit.

Gut feeling is each insurance company may have a different stance on it still waiting on mine to get back to me on it.I'll see if they are different or not should be across the board though all companys should be the same tbh.

mine have come back to and said as long as it's road legal then they are happy,so there we go