VED musings

[woodieallen]

A conversation overheard at the Department for Transport .....

"Pretty clear that any Govt will have a revenue hole as petrol/diesels get phased out and the tax on fuel disappears. So what to do ? Only real alternative is pay-per-mile. But how does one know what that is for any vehicle ? " mused the Minister.

"The answer, Minister, is the mileage recorded at MOT time" said Smithers. "Well done, Smithers", said the Minister.

"Sir, sir, sir ?"...."Yes, Curmodgeon, what is it now ?" said the Minister. "What about classic cars, Minister? They are exempt from the MOT. The public will cry foul, Minister. Think about the bad press ? Two-tier and all that."

"Good point, Curmudgeon. Anyone have any ideas ?"

"Me, Sir...Me, Sir " cried A-Licker. "Why not pretend that the 'public' have been consulted about this and think that these cars are 'dangerous' and need testing?"

"Well done, A-Licker. Have a pretzel."

And so it came to pass. The results of the 'consultation' were released to the press but strangely enough no-one knew anyone or had read anything about the consultation. FOI enquiries fell on deaf ears.

You heard it here first.

 

[Jacob]

A conversation overheard at the Department for Transport .....

"Pretty clear that any Govt will have a revenue hole as petrol/diesels get phased out and the tax on fuel disappears. So what to do ? Only real alternative is pay-per-mile. But how does one know what that is for any vehicle ? " mused the Minister.

"The answer, Minister, is the mileage recorded at MOT time" said Smithers. "Well done, Smithers", said the Minister.

"Sir, sir, sir ?"...."Yes, Curmodgeon, what is it now ?" said the Minister. "What about classic cars, Minister? They are exempt from the MOT. The public will cry foul, Minister. Think about the bad press ? Two-tier and all that."

"Good point, Curmudgeon. Anyone have any ideas ?"

"Me, Sir...Me, Sir " cried A-Licker. "Why not pretend that the 'public' have been consulted about this and think that these cars are 'dangerous' and need testing?"

"Well done, A-Licker. Have a pretzel."

And so it came to pass. The results of the 'consultation' were released to the press but strangely enough no-one knew anyone or had read anything about the consultation. FOI enquiries fell on deaf ears.

You heard it here first.

Couldn't quite follow this. Are you saying that classic cars not requiring MOTs won't be taxable? Can't see why - they could be taxed on the fuel, on the mileage, flat rates, etc etc.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Couldn't quite follow this. Are you saying that classic cars not requiring MOTs won't be taxable? Can't see why - they could be taxed on the fuel, on the mileage, flat rates, etc etc.

It’s a conspiracy theory Jacob

 

[Lons]

They can't use the MOT anyway as it isn't required until the vehicle is 3 years old by which time many will have been sold on, some with high mileage. OK they could get it back by using a VAT type system with the garage as a collector if sold through the trade but that wouldn't work for private sales. Also would encourage the less than honest owner to "clock" the car.

Have you been on the wacky baccy over Christmas?

 

[John Brown]

What about cars less than 3 years old? Will they have to pay a lump sum after their first MOT?
Older exempt cars account for less than 1% of cars in the road, I believe, so fairly insignificant.

 

[paulrbarnard]

What about cars less than 3 years old? Will they have to pay a lump sum after their first MOT?
Older exempt cars account for less than 1% of cars in the road, I believe, so fairly insignificant.

To say nothing off the inevitable low mileage driven by those cars.

 

[DrPhill]

A conversation overheard at the Department for Transport .....

By whom? When? Who were the speakers?

 

[Blackswanwood]

No need for a FOI request to find the consultation - Google finds it very easily as it’s published on the .gov website.

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls...-for-evidence/outcome/response-summary-report

 

[woodieallen]

No need for a FOI request to find the consultation - Google finds it very easily as it’s published on the .gov website.

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls...-for-evidence/outcome/response-summary-report

A good ‘spot’. But it doesn’t say what prompted the consultation in the first place. A rash of accidents involving classic vehicles? I suspect not. My money is on VED .


Reading the responses suggests the overwhelming responses were DFIIIAB Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke

 

[DrPhill]

But it doesn’t say what prompted the consultation in the first place

Maybe just a policy review:

“DVLA wanted to seek expert knowledge about whether these policies need updating, in particular to reflect evolving technologies that support the restoration and rebuilding of vehicles and vehicles that are being converted to electric.”
(From the doc Google found)

 

[Blackswanwood]

Maybe just a policy review:

“DVLA wanted to seek expert knowledge about whether these policies need updating, in particular to reflect evolving technologies that support the restoration and rebuilding of vehicles and vehicles that are being converted to electric.”
(From the doc Google found)

Yes - seems a sensible thing to be keeping under review as I would expect there is an increasing number of these vehicles around.

 

[Jaydee]

I was in the motor trade many years ago. I dealt with a number plate supplier that was convinced that charge per mile would work with embedded computer chips in the number plate. These would register on roadside monitors. They went as far as developing a number plate that could not be removed from a car without destroying it, therefore stopping the theft of the chip.
This isn’t a theory, it happened. I don’t think they’d have gone to the trouble of developing a plate if they had not been given a steer by government.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Thank you Blackswanwood for the link.

I'm a bit of a petrolhead. I knew of this consultation as soon as it was posted. I contributed to it both on behalf of myself as an individual, and as a "spokesperson" for a particular segment of the petrolhead community.

The consultation certainly wasn't hidden or obfuscated in any way - and was subject to a bit of chatter on car forums.

I also don't believe it had anything at all to do with VED and was solely a fact-finding exercise from laymen in suits who had zero knowledge or contact with the car community - particularly with respect to rebuilds and alterations of older vehicles. It didn't restrict itself to older vehicles, though, and had a section on "modifications".
For my part, my input was centred around old vehicles that have potential for "brake improvements", amongst a host of other things, and wanted the policy makers to realise that the term "modifications" carries a derogatory meaning in some circles, but that singling out "modifications" as somehow a negative term that should be avoided. I personally didn't want a host of new regulation that made it impossible to carry out work on older vehicles - TO KEEP THEM ON THE ROAD instead of becoming scrap and new vehicles being built to replace them. I also mentioned that an entire segment of industry exists solely to cater for classic and modified vehicles.

As an example, I own a 25yr old JDM modern classic. It has a number of "modifications" including brake discs and pads, tyres, uprated fluid and braided brake lines. This means it is both safer and more pleasurable to drive. It could be argued that the brake pads are "not legal" since they outperform the standard pads by over 10%. So I also wanted to highlight the dangers of overly-prescriptive regulation and the law of unintended consequence - for example rendering vehicles that are objectively more safe as "not legal" within any new regs. Classic minis with rear brake conversions from drum systems to hydraulic disc systems would be another good example of potentially outlawing objectively positive active safety improvements in any new regs that would clearly not be fit for purpose.

TLDR - this particular consultation had zero to do with VED and everything to do with roadworthiness.

 

[Chris152]

For my part, my input was centred around old vehicles that have potential for "brake improvements", amongst a host of other things, and wanted the policy makers to realise that the term "modifications" carries a derogatory meaning in some circles, but that singling out "modifications" as somehow a negative term that should be avoided.

Insurance companies can be very odd on modifications, especially for youngsters. My lad has a Volvo 240 that he'd like to do some mods to but the slightest mention of anything - not even performance related - either closes the conversation with them or results in utterly ridiculous premiums. It's particularly bizarre as he's now thinking to sell it and buy an MR2 as the insurance is cheaper - cheaper than the unmodified Volvo, and way cheaper and much more 'athletic' than the modified Volvo would be. He's had numerous quotes on other higher performance cars and all are far cheaper than the Volvo with pretty minor mods, all perfectly safe. I do think the system needs rationalising, at all levels.

 

[John Brown]

My father used to run two Riley Monacos, a 1929 and a 1931, I believe. By the time the compulsory MOT was introduced (1961?) he had just the one, and had to sell it for scrap value, as the MOT tester said the (mechanical)brake linkages were excessively worn. It was our family car, and he used it for work, so he had no choice but to get rid of it. I acquired a couple of books about old Rileys a few years later, and discovered that the brake linkages were designed with oversize bushes to reduce friction.
Not really that relevant, but it still irks me...
As far as I know, the only modification the MOT has ever required was windscreen washers, unless you could raise the windscreen, like in the old Landrovers.

 

[Amplidyne]

Insurance companies can be very odd on modifications, especially for youngsters. My lad has a Volvo 240 that he'd like to do some mods to but the slightest mention of anything - not even performance related - either closes the conversation with them or results in utterly ridiculous premiums. It's particularly bizarre as he's now thinking to sell it and buy an MR2 as the insurance is cheaper - cheaper than the unmodified Volvo, and way cheaper and much more 'athletic' than the modified Volvo would be. He's had numerous quotes on other higher performance cars and all are far cheaper than the Volvo with pretty minor mods, all perfectly safe. I do think the system needs rationalising, at all levels.

The thing is that insurance has nothing to do with common sense. It just goes with the risks. They know that a certain type of car is more likely to be involved in claims, and that if it has seemingly irrelevant mods, it makes it even more likely to be involved in a claim. So they want more premium.

 

[John Brown]

INSURANCE, n. An ingenious modern game of chance in which the player is permitted to enjoy the comfortable conviction that he is beating the man who keeps the table.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

 

[Chris152]

The thing is that insurance has nothing to do with common sense. It just goes with the risks. They know that a certain type of car is more likely to be involved in claims, and that if it has seemingly irrelevant mods, it makes it even more likely to be involved in a claim. So they want more premium.

Agree - but it can't be too much of a stretch to imagine a scenario in which they can differentiate between different kinds of mods having different potential outcomes. The more that's done to standardise different kinds of mods, I'd think the more chance insurance companies could drop the 'mod = higher risk' default connection.
As it is, I'd imagine there's a lot of 'pimped' up cars driven by youngsters who, in spite of having an insurance document, in fact have little or no insurance on account of the undeclared mods.

 

[sploo]

Insurance companies can be very odd on modifications, especially for youngsters. My lad has a Volvo 240 that he'd like to do some mods to but the slightest mention of anything - not even performance related - either closes the conversation with them or results in utterly ridiculous premiums. It's particularly bizarre as he's now thinking to sell it and buy an MR2 as the insurance is cheaper - cheaper than the unmodified Volvo, and way cheaper and much more 'athletic' than the modified Volvo would be. He's had numerous quotes on other higher performance cars and all are far cheaper than the Volvo with pretty minor mods, all perfectly safe. I do think the system needs rationalising, at all levels.

All done on risk data (as mentioned by Amplidyne).

I had a weird situation many years ago where I was looking at getting an "M Performance" upgrade on a BMW. Basically it was little more than a tune (by reprogramming the car's engine management system for a bit more power), uprated brakes, and a different intercooler. Despite being provided, installed, and fully warranted, by BMW, I couldn't find a (non-specialist) insurer that would touch it.

Turned out that people were having turbos uprated (requiring a different intercooler). They'd declare the intercooler as it's visible at the front of the car, but keep quiet about the turbo. So in the insurance industry (at least at the time) their data told them that "different intercooler" equals "someone messing with a turbo and not telling us".

In the end I went with a third party tune, which produced more power than the BMW offering... and made almost no difference to my insurance . I guess their risk data told them it wasn't a big deal.

 

[Chris152]

I think the risk data that's affecting the Volvo from the outset (no mods) is the 2.3L engine. Again, anything over 2L, it seems, gets the computer's 'no'. Regardless of the car's limited performance.

There's something odd about it tho - for about the same money as the unmodified Volvo, he's recently been quoted for a 3.5 V8 TVR and a 4.0 inline 6 Jaguar. The trick seems to be to go for something other youngsters/ high risk people don't drive, then there's limited stats (at least, that's our guess).

He has a 125 KMX motorbike, about 500 to insure; he tried to insure a 1953 BSA Bantam (worth less, and ridiculously low power) and the best price was about £2.5k.

No doubt the price of insuring a Sierra Cosworth would be tied to stats, of course.

It seems to me insurance is its own hallucinogenic world where prices frequently wander from day to day, regardless of sense or stats.