Mike Wood
|
| posted on 11/3/26 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
Removal of MoT exemption for historic Q plate cars
Hi
Looks like on 10th March 2026 the MoT exemption for Q plate cars in the UK that are 40 years old and 40 plus years old that have historic road tax
status was removed:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/historic-classic-vehicles-mot-exemption-criteria/historic-classic-vehicles-mot-exemption-criteria--2?fbclid
=IwY2xjawQepHRleHRuA2FlbQIxMABzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeDTPWHD26Nd4gRIZX96LIX_7P8uFc9ASWfUV8GaIl-c6PPmwrr4qtyWKk6Zk_aem_Q8_uyO9muAJXqPc
at6sr_A
Guess this will impact some Midas cars, GTMs, early Westfield, Duttons etc which are 40 plus years old, registered as historic and Q plate
registered.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
swanny
|
| posted on 12/3/26 at 08:06 AM |
|
|
if you have to declare MOT exemption status will this then affect the tax free status of older cars do you think?
|
|
|
cliftyhanger
|
| posted on 12/3/26 at 09:37 AM |
|
|
No, 2 vert sererate things.
My Spitfire is 55 years old, so Historic (free) tax, However, as it is modified with a st170 engine, it requires an MoT.
Besides, what idiots do not MoT their car? (OK the ones who think they are good enough to do a full inspection and not miss anytjhing, or are too
tight to pay the £45. Thing is, not many of those people have a set of brake rollers, or a lift to do a proper inspection. In fact, 99% don't
inspect their cars at all)
|
|
|
swanny
|
| posted on 16/3/26 at 10:00 AM |
|
|
I've got a tax free kit car but it always gets MOT'd. I suspect the insurance would want to wriggle out of any claim if I couldn't wave
a bit of paper that says "it was safe to drive" glad I spotted the post on here though as mine was currently without an MOT as I didnt
bother to get it done over winter as it was getting a few upgrades.
|
|
|
cliftyhanger
|
| posted on 18/3/26 at 08:15 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by swanny
I've got a tax free kit car but it always gets MOT'd. I suspect the insurance would want to wriggle out of any claim if I couldn't wave
a bit of paper that says "it was safe to drive" glad I spotted the post on here though as mine was currently without an MOT as I didnt
bother to get it done over winter as it was getting a few upgrades.
Despite thousands of classic cars not having an MoT I have not yet heard of an insurance claim being denied.
However, you are correct. Despite some people moaning that MoT are only "valid" on the day they are issued, anybody with half a brain
understands that the certificate is the accepted way to show a car is roadworthy. (of course there are obvious stuff that can go wrong, but the MoT is
way better than saying "it looked ok to me" when the sh!t hits the fan)
|
|
|
Sanzomat
|
| posted on 18/3/26 at 09:11 AM |
|
|
Like others have said the wording is very ambiguous but it appears to suggest that not just Q plates but most kit cars, even if historic VED, will no
longer be MOT exempt.
Your vehicle must have an MOT if it:
has been substantially changed
is a type or model of vehicle still in production
is a large vehicle being used commercially
has a registration number with a ‘Q’ prefix
is a kit car constructed from components from different makes or models
is a reconstructed classic vehicle (as defined by DVLA)
is a kit conversion where a kit body, chassis or monocoque is added to an existing vehicle, or vice versa
So based on that, even if I wait another 18 years for my GTM to become VED exempt it'll never become MOT exempt. It states on the V5 notes
"Kit built/converted with parts all of which may not be new" but has an age related 1994 M plate (although currently wears an "H"
personal plate)
Oddly my Locost might though as the V5 simply gives a first registered date of 1988 (even though it was built/SVA'd 2004) and states in the notes
"declared new at first registration" I suspect there was an error when it was registered (not by me, I bought it in 2020!). The Sierra donor
V5 in the folder of bits was a 1988 F and the locost carries an age related F plate but it is not registered as a Sierra but as make: "Racing
Design Works" which I guess was made up by the builder. Will be interesting to see what happens in a couple of years although I keep it SORN and
only use it on track.
|
|
|
swanny
|
| posted on 18/3/26 at 11:15 AM |
|
|
my kit is the same. Someone at registration took the year of manufacture from the year of manufacture of the engine. god bless someone in Cardiff not
really paying attention that morning!
quote:
Originally posted by Sanzomat
Like others have said the wording is very ambiguous but it appears to suggest that not just Q plates but most kit cars, even if historic VED, will no
longer be MOT exempt.
Your vehicle must have an MOT if it:
has been substantially changed
is a type or model of vehicle still in production
is a large vehicle being used commercially
has a registration number with a ‘Q’ prefix
is a kit car constructed from components from different makes or models
is a reconstructed classic vehicle (as defined by DVLA)
is a kit conversion where a kit body, chassis or monocoque is added to an existing vehicle, or vice versa
So based on that, even if I wait another 18 years for my GTM to become VED exempt it'll never become MOT exempt. It states on the V5 notes
"Kit built/converted with parts all of which may not be new" but has an age related 1994 M plate (although currently wears an "H"
personal plate)
Oddly my Locost might though as the V5 simply gives a first registered date of 1988 (even though it was built/SVA'd 2004) and states in the notes
"declared new at first registration" I suspect there was an error when it was registered (not by me, I bought it in 2020!). The Sierra donor
V5 in the folder of bits was a 1988 F and the locost carries an age related F plate but it is not registered as a Sierra but as make: "Racing
Design Works" which I guess was made up by the builder. Will be interesting to see what happens in a couple of years although I keep it SORN and
only use it on track.
[Edited on 18/3/26 by swanny]
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 19/3/26 at 09:11 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cliftyhanger
quote:
Originally posted by swanny
I've got a tax free kit car but it always gets MOT'd. I suspect the insurance would want to wriggle out of any claim if I couldn't wave
a bit of paper that says "it was safe to drive" glad I spotted the post on here though as mine was currently without an MOT as I didnt
bother to get it done over winter as it was getting a few upgrades.
Despite thousands of classic cars not having an MoT I have not yet heard of an insurance claim being denied.
However, you are correct. Despite some people moaning that MoT are only "valid" on the day they are issued, anybody with half a brain
understands that the certificate is the accepted way to show a car is roadworthy. (of course there are obvious stuff that can go wrong, but the MoT is
way better than saying "it looked ok to me" when the sh!t hits the fan)
It's not even insurance I'm worried about. I want someone to keep an independent safety eye on it as the chief mechanic who works on it is
a total idiot who doesn't know what he's doing.
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 19/3/26 at 11:34 AM |
|
|
Yeah I'm a mech eng with 3 decades experience working on cars from end to end, it's always nice to have someone who can see the system with
fresh eyes. I hate the idea that cars are floating about without MOT, I don't care about tax exemption, that's fine, but MOT is a bare
essential in my mind. It's one more chance for someone to spot the fact that the brakes will fail and kill my kid walking by.
[Edited on 19/3/2026 by coyoteboy]
https://www.fixmystreet.com/
|
|
|
Sanzomat
|
| posted on 19/3/26 at 03:56 PM |
|
|
I agree with the last couple of posts re MOT tests being another pair of eyes picking up things we may have missed even if we consider ourselves
competent and diligent in maintaining our pride and joys. I recall being somewhat shocked when my trusted MOT tester called me under the ramp to look
at my front discs on the GTM a few years ago. The discs were vented and were drilled. The outer side was fine but the inside face had radial cracks
joining most of the drill holes. I check the brakes regularly but without the benefit of a ramp I couldn't see the inner face easily so had
missed this. To be fair, the outer face is joined to the hub flange and the inner face is just joined to the outer by radial strips of casting and the
cracks were in between and thus it would have been unlikely for the cracks to lead to a catastrophic failure but I was very glad the tester spotted
it. Being a good guy he marked it as an advisory as "pitted" on the promise I'd sort it straight away (which I did).
Also, on the daily, he noted a slight rumble in a wheel bearing that I couldn't even hear myself (no play) so I was able to get that sorted
before it became more of an issue. When I took the old bearing out the wear was evident so he was right.
I doubt the average "kwik fit" type place would be as good but there is a reason I keep going back to this place and as I do all my own
servicing a fresh pair of eyes (and ears) is well worth the £54.85.
|
|
|
SteveWalker
|
| posted on 19/3/26 at 11:27 PM |
|
|
I am quite happy to have my Land Rover checked over (and would be for my Robin Hood when it reaches 40), but I do like not having to do it officially.
I much prefer to pay the garage to look it over, but not enter it on the MOT system - that means that it can be parked up until I can obtain necessary
parts and do the work when it suits me (other commitments, weather, etc.) and not be up against the deadline for a free retest.
|
|
|
