New mot rule

[69S4]

I've also been wondering what, if anything, I need to do when the 20th rolls round. My S4 is on SORN at the moment mainly because of pre MOT work that needed to be done - all of which, apart from a bit of setup, is now completed. If it no longer needs the inspection can I just zero payment tax it online on the morning of the 20th and hit the road? It says historic vehicle in the V5 at the moment. If the designation is changing does that mean a new V5? It all seems a bit vague - or am I overcomplicating things?

[JimE]

Talk of going to court makes my point about checking with insurer sooner rather than later.

Check with your insurers if it puts your mind at rest. But the point I am making is that they cannot insist on something (MoT in this case) which is no longer applicable.

[MarkDa]

I think you will have to go to the post office to tax it and at that time declare Vehicle of Historic Interest.
When I put my Sprint back on the road I still had PLG on V5 and I had to make the change to historic at P.O..
Until you get the change updated on the DVLA computer it will still want an MoT I suspect.

[englishmaninwales]

From the guide linked in a post above:

?In addition if a vehicle (including a motorcycle):
? has been issued with a registration number with a ?Q? prefix; or
? is a kit car assembled from components from different makes and model of
vehicle; or
? is a reconstructed classic vehicle as defined by DVLA guidance; or
? is a kit conversion, where a kit of new parts is added to an existing vehicle, or
old parts are added to a kit of a manufactured body, chassis or monocoque bodyshell changing the general appearance of the vehicle;
it will be considered to have been substantially changed and will not be exempt from MOT testing.?

If my Elan is a Lotus supplied kit and given that contains SOME major components from other manufacturers, it could be argued that it is not exempted from an MOT test?

Malcolm

[MarkDa]

The key words are 'components from different makes and models'
All the parts were supplied by Lotus with Lotus part numbers.
Some of the parts may have been used on other cars but were more than likely made by a third party think door handles, windscreen, heater matrix etc. But they wouldn't have been 'from other cars or even been supplied by that car manufacturer
All car manufacturers buy stuff in that doesn't mean they are kit cars.
Feel free to carry on being tested, I probably will, but through choice not because I must.
Let's see how many people who declare VHI get chased by DVLA!

[jono]

..the new application form will be published on the DVLA website this Monday.

From what I understand it will be possible to make the declaration on line.

[69S4]

..the new application form will be published on the DVLA website this Monday.

From what I understand it will be possible to make the declaration on line.

That'll be a step forward - if it works. I phoned the DVLA on Tuesday asking what I need to do on the 20th and the person I spoke to had no idea but did say they were getting a briefing about it 'next week'.

[69S4]

From the guide linked in a post above:

?In addition if a vehicle (including a motorcycle):
? has been issued with a registration number with a ?Q? prefix; or
? is a kit car assembled from components from different makes and model of
vehicle; or
? is a reconstructed classic vehicle as defined by DVLA guidance; or
? is a kit conversion, where a kit of new parts is added to an existing vehicle, or
old parts are added to a kit of a manufactured body, chassis or monocoque bodyshell changing the general appearance of the vehicle;
it will be considered to have been substantially changed and will not be exempt from MOT testing.?

If my Elan is a Lotus supplied kit and given that contains SOME major components from other manufacturers, it could be argued that it is not exempted from an MOT test?

Malcolm

Anyone old enough to remember seems to remember Elans as 'kit cars' - 'Didn't you have to make that yourself, Dr Hammerton (?)'. 'Yes but it took me less than a weekend though. We were down the pub in it by Sunday lunchtime'

Are there any records of which Elan's were supplied as a box of bits and which came to the buyer fully constructed. I can't see the DVLA insisting that the good doctor's version is a bitsa that'll need an MOT till eternity yet the next one is exempt from all that as the spanners were wielded by Lotus's version of Red Robbo on the 'production line'.

I sometimes wonder whether mine was put together by Dr Hammerton after he came back from the pub.

[MarkDa]

I've just c**ked up!
Just taxed my car from 1st June so I'll have to have a test as I think you have to declare exemption at time of taxing.
I suppose I can SORN it and then retax after 20th?
I should have waited until the form came out I suppose.

[prezoom]

I know when I purchased my S7 in 1964 as a DYI kit, Elans were also available in kit form. What amazed me about the S7 kit was the number of options available. Engines for the 7 from a 100E to 116E Cosworth and everything between.

[Spyder fan]

I just MOT?d my +2 this afternoon, I know it?s modified and as such not strictly eligible for MOT exemption/ opt out, but the peace of mind that it gives me year on year to know that a knowledgeable tester has poked and prodded at all the safety items and given the all clear far outweighs the hassle of arranging and attending the test and the cost of ?52.50.

I use a local garage to me called Hankham Motor works near Pevensey Bay, very knowledgeable and classic friendly.

[JonB]

Alan, you have a point in the case of an owner who is not maintaining the car properly, or in the case of using a garage that understands classics.

On the other hand, look at this track rod end, which was on my car that had passed its MOT 3 months before I took the photo: http://images.lotuselan.net/lel/52217/0/img_4306.jpg

At the time of the MOT it belonged to the PO.

In the light of this (and other MOT experiences) my view is that MOTs don't confer peace of mind and that the true value of an MOT is realised when the car is for sale. Having said that, it's at the discretion of the owner to decide to MOT it or not and I think that is the best thing about the new regime.

[billwill]

The key words are 'components from different makes and models'
All the parts were supplied by Lotus with Lotus part numbers.
Some of the parts may have been used on other cars but were more than likely made by a third party think door handles, windscreen, heater matrix etc. But they wouldn't have been 'from other cars or even been supplied by that car manufacturer
All car manufacturers buy stuff in that doesn't mean they are kit cars.
Feel free to carry on being tested, I probably will, but through choice not because I must.
Let's see how many people who declare VHI get chased by DVLA!

That's an interesting point, because as far as I know the rules back then for avoiding purchase tax were that it had to be a kit car with parts supplied by different firms, so actually when you bought an Elan kit you bought the body & suspension etc from Lotus but technically you bought the engine from a different firm (I think maybe it was called Racing Engines Ltd).

The bits all arrived on the same delivery lorry though

[Spyder fan]

Jon,
Nothing wrong with that track end ball joint that a replacement wouldn?t cure It doesn?t look good but not likely to fail until you hammered it off.

An MOT tester can?t dismantle components to check them. As there was no grease in the joint it was probably nice and stiff, easily passing the wiggle test. The MOT test isn?t perfect, it covers the obvious things. Lights all working, brakes all working, tyres in good condition all round ( how often do you check the inner walls?) If you check the MOT history of my +2 you will see that it failed a few years back due to the anti roll bar disconnecting from the bottom of the shock absorber, apart from the odd clunk on the way to be tested ( a gentle drive) I didn?t have a clue that the pothole I had fallen into a week before had snapped off the bottom of the damper. https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/?_ ... 1450200788 Enter SKK992G

[JonB]

Alan, that's true. Tester might have noticed all the perished rubber though, and certainly should've spotted the nearside rear outer wheel bearing (I didn't when I checked it at purchase, but then I didn't have the car on ramps / a jack). There was a great deal of play in the steering, too.

Still, its water under the bridge now, and properly repaired. I'd like to think that if my anti-roll bar came adrift I'd spot it, but then I am under the car quite a bit. I don't know how much maintenance you do yourself but you have a Zetec engined Spyder conversion, right? So I'd imagine you wouldn't need to be spending as much time as I do with spanners in hand, in which case a regular MOT is a very good idea.

That MOT query link is useful. Four years ago my car failed on a stack of things:

Nearside Headlamp not working on dipped beam (1.7.5a)
Parking brake lever has no reserve travel (3.1.6b)
Brake performance not tested (3.7.A.1)
Indicator switch faulty (1.4.A.1)
Nearside Registration plate lamp not working (1.1.C.1d)
Offside Registration plate lamp not working (1.1.C.1d)
Nearside Stop lamp not working (1.2.1b)
Offside Stop lamp not working (1.2.1b)
Nearside Front Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.1.E.1)
Nearside Rear Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.1.E.1)
Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.C.1b) Dangerous

Offside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
Offside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
Nearside Rear Road wheel with a slightly distorted bead rim (4.2.A.1a)

..shocking!