Hi
I am a member of the Moke Club and they have sent out 2 documents on MOT exemptions Which I attach. It is interesting the police do not have access to any exemptions and there is a suggestion that you carry a copy of the attached letter and press release. I hope it is useful.

Can someone please explain the last two apparent contradictory paragraphs in the DfT letter?
First the letter says (my highlighting)

There is no requirement, either intended or implied, that at the point a vehicle becomes 40 years old and providing the vehicle has not been substantially changed, for the owner to make a declaration to any statutory body, declaring that the vehicle is a vehicle of historic interest and is therefore no longer required to have a valid MOT certificate.

Then the letter goes on to say (again my highlighting)

The Department and DVLA have set up an administrative process (via DVLA form V112 and the equivalent process on-line) which requires at the time of the annual re-licensing of vehicles a declaration that the vehicle is a vehicle of historic interest – in that it has not been substantial modified.

I don't understand or am I being dumb?

The first is at the date that a vehicle becomes 40 years old and the second is at the time of the annual re-licensing, ie a notification is bound to be required within one year of becoming forty years old.
Different dates.

I don't understand why one wouldn't get an MOT done for a bit more peace of mind. Plus if buying an old car I know I wouldn't buy one without an MOT for the simple reason what is the seller possibly trying to hide. In the light of present classic car prices and the relative cheapness of a test why not.
I hope this is not pinching the thread to much.
Paul

So, by interpretation of what you've said John is that say (for example) we have a car that is 39 years and 10 months old when the tax expires and is renewed. It will require a valid MOT to renew the tax as the car is not yet 40 years old.
Let's then say (again for example) that it does in fact have a current MOT at that time but one that expires in 4 months when the car will be 40 years and 2 months old.
According to what you conclude, when the (then) current MOT expires there will be no requirement for the owner to inform anyone that the car is now 40 years and 2 months old and does not require an MOT and can now be simply driven without one but at the next tax renewal (by which time it will be 8 months since the MOT expired and if the owner chose not to get a new one as it was no longer required) you have to declare it doesn't need one? Do I understand you right?
It's barmy (leaving aside the merits or otherwise of getting one).

Chris_R wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:08 pm So, by interpretation of what you've said John is that say (for example) we have a car that is 39 years and 10 months old when the tax expires and is renewed. It will require a valid MOT to renew the tax as the car is not yet 40 years old.
Let's then say (again for example) that it does in fact have a current MOT at that time but one that expires in 4 months when the car will be 40 years and 2 months old.
According to what you conclude, when the (then) current MOT expires there will be no requirement for the owner to inform anyone that the car is now 40 years and 2 months old and does not require a new MOT but at the next renewal (by which time it will be 8 months since the MOT expired and if the owner chose not to get a new one as it was no longer required) you have to declare it doesn't need one? Do I understand you right?
It's barmy (leaving aside the merits or otherwise of getting one).

Yes, it's confusing. I was just interpreting it the only way I know.

Paulkennedy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:57 pm I don't understand why one wouldn't get an MOT done for a bit more peace of mind. Plus if buying an old car I know I wouldn't buy one without an MOT for the simple reason what is the seller possibly trying to hide. In the light of present classic car prices and the relative cheapness of a test why not.
I hope this is not pinching the thread to much.
Paul

In some (many?) cases MOTs aren't worth the paper they're written on. I'm not saying I would do it but if you sent me the registration and other details of your car I would be able to get it MOT'd. Without your car leaving your garage!
I think we're too hung up on the MOT test. At a time in the late '50s when the country was not so rich and people were still making do with very old, and in some cases still pre-war, cars it was needed but nowadays on classics? I do feel it is outlived its usefulness in most cases.

But when it’s 40 years old you don’t need to relicense it?
Or am I driving around illegally?

You do need to relicense it annually, it's just the cost is zero. And you can only get a 12 months license.

It's reasonably simple, having just done it for one of my cars:

When it gets to 40 years old, it no longer needs an MoT. You don't have to tell anyone.

When it gets to 40 years old, you no longer have to pay tax on it. However, you do have to re-register it as a historic vehicle. This can only be done after 01 April in the subsequent year, so for my 1978 car, which was 40 years old in Aug 2018, I went to the Post Office and re-registered it as Historic on 04 April 2019. It does have to have a current MoT and insurance at that point, and the Post Office chap checked my car online to ensure this was the case. DVLA then send you a new V5 marked 'HISTORIC' and refund any balance of tax due. Thereafter, every year you have to obtain tax for the car, but the 'cost' is zero.

If for some reason you don't re-register as Historic after 40 years, the system continues to regard the car as taxable; you will continue to be charged every year, and will require a valid MoT to get it, even if the car is over 40 years old.

That's how it worked for me at any rate.