Selling vehicles, parts and fuel
These regulations aim to ensure that vehicles using the road are safe, clean and quiet, and to provide information to motorists about fuels and fuel efficiency.
You can find all 20 regulations that relate to selling vehicles, parts and fuel here [opens in new window].
Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:
- Should they be scrapped altogether?
- Can they be merged with existing regulations?
- Can we simplify them – or reduce the bureaucracy associated with them?
- Have you got any ideas to make these regulations better?
- Do you think they should be left as they are?
It now seems that it is an offence to keep my taxed but not insured car in a locked up garage, this is a silly rule. I say rule, because just like the SORN rules, it has never been passed into law through the process of statute, so you don’t have to pay. Remember, this is the DVLA, no longer a government department but an AGENCY of the state. The form sent to you with your car tax renewal is just a scare tactic.
Conclusions published in the QinetiQ report ‘Assessing compatibility of fuel systems with bio-ethanol and the risk of carburettor icing, Final Report’ commissioned by DfT show that approx 8.6 million vehicles in the UK are unable to run on E10 petrol. It is estimated that half of these vehicles will be in use in 2013 when the proposed phase out of E5 will take place, and certainly many of these vehicles will be in use in 2015 when DfT estimate that E5 will actually be phased out. All historic vehicles fall into this category and it is vital that owners of these vehicles are able to identify and purchase fuel suitable for their vehicles for as long as possible. Owners of diesel vehicles are also disadvantaged but to a lesser extent. It is therefore necessary to maintain the labelling regulations.
The DfT’s own stakeholder meeting group have also indicated that the supply-chain for fuel is so random that it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to choose a fuel which is compatible with an historic vehicle on a consistent basis. This is far from an ideal situation and makes the labelling regulations more important for users of older vehicles: petrol should be clearly marked with the ethanol content, be it 5% or 10%, and owners of older diesel vehicles must also be informed of the bio-content of diesel fuel at the point of purchase.
I support the proposal to increase the age at first Test from 3 years to 4 years and to increase the interval between retests from 1 year to 2 years, (the 4,2,2,2, Option) but with two substantive amendments:
Amendment 1:
In 2009, approximately 40% of light vehicles of all ages Fail the Test at Initial Presentation.
The 2 year interval to retest shall only apply when a vehicle passes the Test at Initial Presentation. If a vehicle fails the Test at Initial Presentation the retest interval shall be 1 year. If said vehicle subsequently again fails at Initial Presentation after this 1 year interval, the retest interval shall be 6 months. If said vehicle then passes at Initial Presentation after this 6 month interval, the retest interval shall be increased to 1 year, else it shall remain at 6 months. Only if said vehicle then passes at Initial Presentation after this 1 year interval shall the retest interval be increased to 2 years.
Purpose:
The items to be tested, and the pass/fail criteria, are clearly defined by the VOSA Manual which is freely available on-line via VOSA. They are all ‘common sense’ or ‘good practice’ matters. No vehicle requires any special attention or expenditure beyond responsible routine maintenance to pass an MOT Test.
Despite this a review of letters to motoring pages of the general press and a selection of the many on-line motoring forums indicates that a frighteningly large number of uninformed owners rely on the MoT Test as their sole means of ensuring that their vehicle is roadworthy.
Any responsible owner (maintainer) of a motor vehicle will be broadly aware of a vehicle’s condition at all times and will, in addition, check all ‘MoT Test’ items prior to presentation for Test. A Pass at Initial Presentation indicates a responsible and conscientiousness owner (maintainer) of a motor vehicle, who may be trusted to continue to maintain a vehicle in a safe condition. A Fail at Initial Presentation indicates a less responsible (irresponsible, uninformed or simply lax) owner (maintainer) who cannot be so trusted and should be subject to more frequent (and rigorous) overview.
Impact:
Owners:
Demonstrably responsible owners (maintainers) of a motor vehicle will be subject to less regulation, cost and oversight.
Self-identified irresponsible owners (maintainers) of a motor vehicle will be subject to increased regulation, cost and oversight.
Attention and effort will therefore be more closely focussed on those owners (maintainers) who have self-identified as being in need of it.
Used Vehicle Buyers:
As such details are now available on-line; this will also have to indirect benefit – over time – of indicating to prospective purchasers of second hand vehicles the general manner in which the vehicle has been maintained by previous owners.
Independent Garages (SMEs)
The total number of Tests required per annum (currently approximately 33 million) and the revenue generated by them (approximately £1’650 million at full Class 4 fee), will not halve as with the 4,2,2,2 option. It may actually increase in the early years, depending upon how many vehicles become subject to the more punitive 6 monthly Test interval. This will permit a more orderly adjustment to these SME’s business model. This overcomes the impact on jobs and revenue presented in the submission by Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMI)
Amendment 2:
In 2009, over 20% of all 3 year old cars Fail at their first Initial Presentation .
The greater the cumulative distance travelled, irrespective of age, the higher the rate of MoT failure. More than 50% of cars, irrespective of age, which had driven over 90,000 miles failed at Initial Presentation . This mileage is not uncommon on Light Commercial Vehicles, Private Hire Vehicles and company operated cars less than 3 (4) years old.
When a vehicle changes ownership – IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS AGE – a ‘new’ MoT certificate must accompany the new owner’s Change of Ownership section of the V5.
Purpose:
This is two-fold.
For vehicles more than 3 (4) years old, this will bring a rapid end to the trade in ‘MoT Marginal’ vehicles being advertised and sold solely on the basis of having a few months ‘ticket’ left, with the purchaser knowingly and deliberately acquiring and operating a substandard vehicle, planning to scrap it when the ‘ticket’ runs out.
For vehicles less than 3 (4) years old, this will ensure that at least some heavily used vehicles not otherwise subject to Test– particularly Light Commercial Vehicles, Private Hire Vehicles and company operated cars – will be subject to Test.
Impact:
Sellers:
This should reduce the incentive to knowingly sell on a substandard vehicle rather than taking the responsible step of scrapping such vehicles. More substandard vehicles will be removed from regular use earlier than they otherwise might be. This would, in effect, be a free to the taxpayer Scrappage Scheme, focussed on those vehicles which should be scrapped, irrespective of their age.
This will have no material impact on responsible sellers.
Unlike the previous ill thought out Scrappage Scheme, this will have no negative impact on the premature and unnecessary scrapping of classic or collectors’ vehicles.
Used Vehicle Buyers:
This should, in time, cause a change to standard practice, in that used vehicle sales agreements should become ‘subject to MOT Test’ providing some additional protection to the non-expert used vehicle purchaser of vehicles of all ages.
This should make the cost and ‘hassle-factor’ of the cynical operation of knowingly sub-standard vehicles more than 3 (4) years old less attractive than the responsible operation and maintenance of such vehicles. Attention and effort will be more closely focussed on those owners/vehicles being in need of it.
Independent Garages (SMEs)
The total number of Tests required per annum and the revenue generated by them will be increased.
Road Safety combined Impact:
The 2008 Department for Transport report indicated that a change to the frequency of MOT testing could result in 400 extra road deaths a year. The more rigorous 24th March 2011 Transport Research Laboratory report PPR565 estimated that a change from the current 3,1,1,1 system to the 4,2,2,2 option could result in an additional 1,200-2,200 accidents per year, 16-30 fatalities and 180-330 serious casualties. This report highlighted that existing accident databases have not been focussed on supporting full scale investigations into roadworthiness investigations and that extensive further work would be required for a reliable estimate of the road safety impacts of any change.
The two Amendments proposed will reduce the age at first Test of some potentially high risk vehicles and reduce the interval to retest of self-identified high risk vehicles. Intuitively this should reduce the accidents fatalities and serious injuries relative to the current 3,1,1,1 system, whilst simultaneously reducing the administrative burden on responsible vehicle owners.
Over 10 years under the current 3,1,1,1 system a potentially high risk, high mileage, multiple short term owner vehicle would be presented for Test 7 times. With these proposed amendments to a 4,2,2,2 system the same vehicle if sold at 2½ years old could be required to be presented for Test 14 times or more.
Declaration of Interest:
My family and I own and self-maintain a small ‘fleet’ of vehicles ranging from 8 to 45 years old. In the previous 35 years we have only had 1 instance of a vehicle Fail a Test at Initial Presentation.
Transport Research Laboratory report PPR565
Excluding Pass with Rectification at Station
Including Fail, Pass with Rectification at Station, Abandon and Refusal to Test
ibid
ibid
This legislation is a pointless beauracratic nightmare. I fell foul of it when trying to buy a plate for a trailer lightboard for my (small) sailing dinghy after changing my car. It does not affect dealers who will have their own equipment, and most certainly will not deter “terrorists” but will discourage the law abiding majority from bothering to purchase proper plates for trailers
Number plates are widely available from non-registered sources as “novelty plates”. Very little enforcement action has been taken against non-registered traders. In any case, DIY kits allow people to make their own registration plates- thereby defeating one purpose of the legislation.
For the honest trader and consumer the Regulations are an unnecessary burden whilst for others they are ineffective.
Testing after 3 years is a nonsense. Most manufacturers give a 3 year warranty and take care of any repairs/safety faults in this period. Haing your car serviced regularly is part of that and to have a 3 year service and then pay seperately for an MOT test at the same time is a nonsense and this should be changed to after 4 years and then every 2 years as done on the continent. The only time an annual test makes sents is when a car is 10 years old or more. The only people to support the existing rule are those in the Motor trade benefiting from this excessive testing.