VHI and all that

VHI and all that - some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that led up to the implementation of the latest changes.

September 2015: I've only just become aware of a proposal to extend the current exemption from needed an MOT for cars built before 1960, to cars built 40 or even 30 years ago following an EU rule-change. What is surprising is that the government website for discussion of these proposals closed nearly a year ago. The results of formal consultation are to be published in 'the second half of 2015', to be available for comment (February 2016: No sign of them yet).

Classic Cars For Sale article
FBHVC statement
DFT statement
DFT background statement

Brake pipe corrosion is probably the biggest single risk given that most potentially exempt British classics only have single circuit brakes. I was aware of one of the V8 pipes corroding and had been keeping an eye on it, when I got an advisory. That spurred me into changing it, and while carefully removing it trying to keep the shape as near as possible to use as a former for the replacement, it fractured at the point of corrosion.

It's one thing if we kill ourselves through inadequate maintenance, quite another if we kill a child while emergency braking/steering trying to avoid it. If we aren't prepared to spend Ł35 per year on what is actually a not very stringent safety check we shouldn't have the cars. The statistics may be on our side, but that's no comfort to the family of an innocent victim. Witness calls for airshows to be banned following Shoreham, despite the very stringent checks and controls on aircraft, particularly historic and display aircraft.

The proposals are said to be in part connected with an expected significant revamp of the MOT to cover electronic safety systems in much more detail. But surely the very fact our cars don't have those means that those tests simply wouldn't be applied. And whilst visible corrosion is very rarely seen on cars built in the last 20 years, surely structural corrosion, brake pipe damage, steering and suspension component wear, leaks from brake and fuel systems, seat-belts, wipers, lights, horn and tyres and still going to be checked on modern cars.

October 2017: Outcomes regarding the proposal to extend the MOT exemption for historic vehicles to be the same as for road tax i.e. a rolling 40 years were published in September, to be implemented from 20th May 2018. This is despite a majority of respondents to the Government's survey being against it. Legislation is still being drafted but the consultation process states that 'substantially altered' (their words) vehicles will still need annual testing. Guidance on what constitutes 'substantially altered' is expected in November 2017. The existing guidance document (updated in December, see above) confusingly contains information on "The process for vehicle keepers declaring an old vehicle is exempt from testing.", most of which relates to when a vehicle first becomes exempt from road tax, not where it already is exempt and will now become exempt from testing. However there is a section on online renewal, which only applies to vehicles that are already in the Historic Vehicle tax-free class, as follows:

"Where the vehicle keeper is re-licensing their vehicle on-line it is intended that an additional question be asked whether the vehicle has a current MOT and the vehicle keeper will be required to declare that their vehicle has not been substantially changed since 1988. Appropriate safeguards will be in place that will prevent a vehicle keeper from declaring the vehicle is over 40 years of age and progressing to the next stage of the licensing process before first declaring or not as to whether their vehicle has been substantially changed." I can see the point about making a declaration that the vehicle has been substantially altered, as then it will ensure that an MOT is already in place before renewing the road tax. But I can't see the point in asking if the vehicle has a current MOT. It doesn't currently, it simply checks its own database before it will proceed. If you declare it HASN'T been substantially altered, then all it needs to do is NOT check to see if there is an MOT in place.

The Government Response to the consultation Para 13 Page 8 states:

The option for owners to submit their vehicles to a voluntary MOT test will remain and they will still, like all vehicle owners, need to ensure that they meet the legal requirement of keeping their vehicle in a roadworthy condition at all time (sic). Currently around 6% of the owners of pre-1960 vehicles submit their vehicles to voluntary testing and we would anticipate that many vehicle owners will service their vehicles regularly. For the sake of around Ł40 per year most of us would have to be mad not to continue with voluntary testing, for peace of mind as well as in the event of any 'discussions' with Police or Insurance company. It's a Ł2500 fine and 3 penalty points for using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. It's true that an MOT only shows that the vehicle met the requirements at the time of the test, i.e. not one day let alone 11 months later, but it is still better to be able to show one has made the effort to seek qualified opinion.

December 2017: The document on Vehicles of Historical Interest (VHI): Substantial Change Guidance has been amended, but surprisingly it contains no date or issue information. The second half of page 1 is headed The criteria for substantial change and contains the following:

A vehicle will be considered substantially changed if the technical characteristics of the main components have changed in the previous 30 years, unless the changes fall into specific categories. These main components for vehicles, other than motorcycles2, are:

Chassis (replacements of the same pattern as the original are not considered a substantial change) or Monocoque bodyshell including any sub-frames (replacements of the same pattern as the original are not considered a substantial change);
Axles and running gear - alteration of the type and or method of suspension or steering constitutes a substantial change;
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.

Bodies look to be OK, as even changes from GT to roadster (and reverse?) will still be using the originally available types.

For axles and running gear the document goes on to say "in respect of axles and running gear changes made to improve efficiency, safety or environmental performance" are considered acceptable.

As V8 versions of the MGB were available from the factory these conversions are probably OK, unless perhaps the original manufacturer is completely different. But then you can probably argue 'environmental' benefits for any modern low-emissions engine.

If you are in any doubt then the simple answer is NOT to attempt to register it as a VHI, and continue to have the compulsory annual MOT as before.

January 2018: This months Enjoying MG contains a copy of a letter from the Department of Transport to the Beach Buggy Club who were querying historic status as applied to their heavily modified cars. The reply includes: "I should say that we are no longer proposing to use the DVLA's 8 point rule for determining whether a vehicle should be designated as 'substantially changed'. We are working on an alternative version in discussion with the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs and other stakeholders. We hope to issue final guidance soon. Any VHI (vehicle of historic interest) that is substantially changed will merely be required to have an MOT test". So on the face of it vehicles 40 or more years old will not require re-registration or Q-plates no matter how extensively modified. Also further indication that VHIs are not automatically MOT-exempt as some have said.

Also after consultation about delaying the first test to four years, it will remain at three. But given that 15% fail and most of those do so on tyres, lights and brakes maybe it should be brought forward!

May 2018: Having said all that, come the day and the upshot seems to be that only the most outrageous modifications involving structural bodywork are likely to be considered a substantial change, as the 'upgrades' typically talked about can probably all come under "changes made to improve efficiency, safety or environmental performance are considered acceptable", including more powerful engines when the emissions are lower. And even then if you don't attempt to declare it VHI and MOT-free then no one will know about it anyway ... except, one presumes, your insurance company for road-going cars.