Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:37 pm
by Noccer
The problem is my DVLA paperwork is wrong in other areas, like my 110 was registered with a Gross Vehicle Weight of 3000kg, but is plated as 3050kg. So the Registration document says it will go on a class 4 MOT, but the plating says it has to have a class 7. I contacted the DVLA to straighten it out, but they don't care. They have processes for down-plating heavier vehicles, but not where it doesn't change the tax. I have to drive 15 miles for a class 7, but the class 4 was right on my doorstep.
So I took it that this clearly demonstrated they aren't bothered with differences between the reg document and the vehicle, unless it affects their revenue.
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:09 am
by kiwicar
Hi
Keep the communication with the DVLA on the vehicle weight. Having the plating done for the hight class is defiantly good but you may need the communication to prove you tried to get the paper work correct.
What people don't seem to realise is insurance companies have whole departments who's job it is to get them out of their liability to pay up in the event of a big accident.
Best regards
Mike
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:34 pm
by badger
Landrover used to "plate" all normal 110's as 3050Kg, even though the "taxable weight" on the V5 was 3000Kg. This was common knowledge within the motor trade (well, those who did a lot of work with landrovers, at any rate) since 1983!
3000Kg or 3050Kg matters not for the MOT - it is a class 4 test as long as it is a dual-purpose vehicle with a gross weight of less than 3500Kg and an unladen weight of not more than 2400Kg. This may be changing in coming months or years, but that has been the rules for a long time.
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:15 pm
by Noccer
Rude words ! - my local tester refused to test it as it was over 3000kg (he used to do it), next one I went to did the same (both could only do a class 4).
I always used to get it tested as a 4, but no-one could find the words and music to this dual-purpose ritual, and even if I found them they would probably say the computer says otherwise.
If you can back this up with hard evidence then that would be useful.
However I feel this is a bit of a Hi-Jack to the original poster - I hope that is OK, as it all sort of overlaps in one way or another.
Steve
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:07 pm
by badger
Steve, go to
http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/tgi00000001.htm and page down using the page buttons at the top of the page until you get to "A.4 Test Classes", then look for page A.4.2 which gives the full and legal definition of a dual-purpose vehicle.
I was right in what I said, but I misquoted the weight, it is 2040Kg unladen weight, and there is NO legal requirement for the tester to prove this weight, as there is a legal anomoly by which the manufacturers do not quote unladen weights - only gross and kerb weights - so the absence of a written unladen weight is NOT reason for refusal to test and the tester will be penalised with penalty points by VOSA for refusal!
How do I know all this? I'm a tester and I ran up against this same issue some 20-odd years ago when trying to get a 110 mot'd locally! The 3000Kg weight limit only applies to Goods Vehicles - not Dual-Purpose Vehicles - the testers manual says this, but you need to look in the testing guide I've quoted for the definitions.
Oh, and while I remember, there was a special notice issued to all testers a couple of years back stating that the unladen weight was to be ignored in the interim until further clarification was issued (and never has been, typical!) due to the influx of new jap vehicles known to be over the 2040Kg limit but without written evidence, vehicles such as the Navaras.
MOT regs
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:46 pm
by Noccer
Thanks very much for your informative reply. I will print that info off ready for the next MOT - which is 9 months away. I hope the DVLA computer has read that note otherwise I can see the tester saying "The computer says NO".
It doesn't seem to matter that it is a hard top with only one passenger seat, I think that might be what forced them to conclude it is a goods vehicle, and it is not. I don't use it for business.