Class VII MoT (1 Viewer)

[oldfozzie]

The other day I took the mh into our local garage for the annual MoT, which thankfully it passed.
Chatting with the guy as I was having my pockets emptied I asked him how big a motorhome could be and still be a Class IV MoT.
His response surprised me in as much that the size didn't matter but if it had a garage it was classed as a good vehicle and therefore was Class VII; the significance being that Class VII tests are required every year from new!
Perhaps I won't have a garage on the next on:Sad:
Anybody come across this status? He quoted VOSA as his authority.

 

[John & Joan]

The other day I took the mh into our local garage for the annual MoT, which thankfully it passed.
Chatting with the guy as I was having my pockets emptied I asked him how big a motorhome could be and still be a Class IV MoT.
His response surprised me in as much that the size didn't matter but if it had a garage it was classed as a good vehicle and therefore was Class VII; the significance being that Class VII tests are required every year from new!
Perhaps I won't have a garage on the next on:Sad:
Anybody come across this status? He quoted VOSA as his authority.

There has been some discussion on other forums when this was proposed.

A Motor Caravan with an area inside the bodywork that can carry goods not directly related to living in the vehicle (bicycles, Motor bikes or car or other goods not for the domestic use of the user) ceases to be a Motor Caravan and becomes a Dual Purpose Vehicle (Living Van).

I was not aware that this change had been applied. VOSA will provide the correct answer. Link Removed

John

 

[vwalan]

this as been the law for years . my trailer is a living van as i carry a motorbike in the back.
it as been up to the owner to disclose if they carry goods or burden in a m,home .
recently your tax reminder should have had a note about making sure you had the right mot .
i had a problem about 20 yrs ago with a coach conversion as i carried m,bikes then . the coach had a large garage are and the ministry knew what i used it for .
i have mentioned about this several times on the forums but it asnt been taken as being serious . now vosa can stop and restrict vehicle movement if the wrong mot is in force.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[oldfozzie]

Thanks Guys,
It doesn't affect me I just thought I would post it in the hope it might stop somebody getting in the doodoo

 

[phil1946]

Soooooo

What if the motorhome is only carrying legitimate items for the domestic use of the user (Class IV MOT) but is towing a trailer with a motorbike on it?

 

[pappajohn]

and in VOSA/Dtf's own words re class VII...


Goods Vehicles over 3,000 kg up to and including 3,500 kg DGW

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[vwalan]

Soooooo

What if the motorhome is only carrying legitimate items for the domestic use of the user (Class IV MOT) but is towing a trailer with a motorbike on it?

as it will be towing a trailer thats fine . m,home towing a trailer
its only if the m,bike is in the m,home .

 

[tony_g]

This topic comes around every so often and has been discussed on 'another forum' too. It is from there that I have lifted this link, which itself has another link which seems to clarify matters. Or not. In short, read through the whole malarkey but take on board only the very last paragraph. It is up to you to tell the tester whether or not you are carrying goods for commercial purposes and not up to them to to make the decision.

 

[steveclecy]

What a particularly useful post and links.

It strikes me that we sometimes see problems that do not, in practice, exist. It is only the courts that can interpret the law, even the law-makers cannot do that and similarly the Police and VOSA.

I throw out a challenge: Has any Funster been prosecuted (successfully or not) for breaching this particular piece of legislation?

I would hazard a guess the answer is "No"

Steve

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[vwalan]

its got nothing to do with goods being commercial. its goods or burden. forget commercial.
if caught on the road with m,bikes or burden not directly for use in living in the camper and you have the wrong mot possibly wrong insurance as well. you could be appearing in court.
all m,homes carry goods . your goods .they might not be commercial but definately a burden.

 

[Peter & Elaine]

I get the goods part no problem
But what is a definition of burden if you are transporting you own items for recreational purpose only such as a motorbike or even dare I say a push bike
In a onboard garage external bike rack or even a platform ether attached to tow bar or one of these towable platform thingies with casters
Am I just thick or is this over complicated

What about the wife surely that a burden we all have to bear

No doubt will suffer for that later when she reads it

 

[vwalan]

a m,bike possibly a push bike is not required in living in the camper . if you like you could have a word with ross frost .he is in charge of mot section at vosa swansea . pm me for a number . i have spoken to him a few times on this subject . a disability scooter would not make a m home a living van . a bigger bike can. i build and convert trailers etc . just to use the rules to the best advantage . just like using mini artics . dropping weights etc can use the rules to far more uses.
once you accept some things then other things fit into place

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[rainbow chasers]

What a particularly useful post and links.

It strikes me that we sometimes see problems that do not, in practice, exist. It is only the courts that can interpret the law, even the law-makers cannot do that and similarly the Police and VOSA.

I throw out a challenge: Has any Funster been prosecuted (successfully or not) for breaching this particular piece of legislation?

I would hazard a guess the answer is "No"

Steve

It would be a risky strategy to rely on chance alone. All you need is an enthusiastic young officer at a road check, or be unfortunate to have an accident - even if nothing to do with you, and it will be the silly things like this that they look into.

It gives the insurers a good escape route too - always check so you are certain, and get those findings in writing.

If you look at the unfortunate boat accident over the weekend - first thing asked at the press conference was 'Was the kill cord attached to him as it should be'....the guy has lost his life, his kids life and two others are seriously injured and all they can think about is 'Did he mess up, not foillow the book to the letter'

Tis a sad fact that they always look to proportion blame!

As Alan says, accpet the law, understand it and work with it - you can manipulate it, but adhere to it and cover your own butt - no-one else will!

 

[TheDogMan]

The other day I took the mh into our local garage for the annual MoT, which thankfully it passed.
Chatting with the guy as I was having my pockets emptied I asked him how big a motorhome could be and still be a Class IV MoT.
His response surprised me in as much that the size didn't matter but if it had a garage it was classed as a good vehicle and therefore was Class VII; the significance being that Class VII tests are required every year from new!
Perhaps I won't have a garage on the next on:Sad:
Anybody come across this status? He quoted VOSA as his authority.

Had mine tested in April at a truck centre, did not discuss what test class but just looked and its IV class.
5.2t gross and 8.2t train weight, huge garage but caged to carry dogs, do the dogs make it a living van ??? and we also carry windbreaks etc Its a bloody minefield,

 

[vwalan]

the dogs dont effect it. so long as you arent transporting them for reward .
trainweight as nothing to do with it either .
a windbreak i would say is part of the using the camper.
i think there is reasonable thought used by vosa on this subjectits a bit like drivers hours and tacho,s .vehicles or combination of vehicles with a maximum permissablemass not exceeding7.5 tonnes used for the non commercial carriage of goods ....

so if your mass is more .you should have a tacho and drive to drivers hours .
yet i certainly dont know of anyone being in trouble over that. i,m told if it looks like a m,home they will wave you on . but it could change .
all good fun isnt it. ha ha

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[TheDogMan]

I have had opening window's fitted in the garage doors so maybe Vosa will not pull us

 

[tony_g]

the dogs dont effect it. [HI]so long as you arent transporting them for reward . [/HI]
trainweight as nothing to do with it either .
a windbreak i would say is part of the using the camper.
i think there is reasonable thought used by vosa on this subjectits a bit like drivers hours and tacho,s .vehicles or combination of vehicles with a maximum permissablemass not exceeding7.5 tonnes used for the non commercial carriage of goods ....

so if your mass is more .you should have a tacho and drive to drivers hours .
yet i certainly dont know of anyone being in trouble over that. i,m told if it looks like a m,home they will wave you on . but it could change .
all good fun isnt it. ha ha

I'm sorry vwalan, you cannot have it both ways. First of all in an earlier post you dismiss the distinction between goods (actually chattels more like) and 'commercial' goods, then you say dogs don't count unless they are being carried for reward. I don't carry anything for reward/sale but I don't think you could argue that a lemon zester or honey drizzler were essential living/camping items either, to name but two discretionary 'goods' in my posession. Fwiw, I think the whole issue is a fuss about nothing, especially reading the link but who knows the full potential for lunacy contained within our famously sloppy legislation?

 

[Peter & Elaine]

Now that's one thing I can agree on sloppy legislation
I will also chuck in the fact that its written in gobbledygook
Try working with health and safety regs

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Geo]

I'm sorry vwalan, you cannot have it both ways. First of all in an earlier post you dismiss the distinction between goods (actually chattels more like) and 'commercial' goods, then you say dogs don't count unless they are being carried for reward. I don't carry anything for reward/sale but I don't think you could argue that a lemon zester or honey drizzler were essential living/camping items either, to name but two discretionary 'goods' in my posession. Fwiw, I think the whole issue is a fuss about nothing, especially reading the link but who knows the full potential for lunacy contained within our famously sloppy legislation?

How is one expected to zest ones Lemon or drizzle ones Honey without the aforesaid implements

what made I larf was link to the Vosa statment the first reply was wrong the second was right
Says who???
Hands up all those who admit they aint got a clue:thumb: If as a Alan suggested he has access to a top Bod , who says he knows any better
As you rightly say if your Lemon Drizzler can go in why not a motor bike.
I personally thing a living Van designation should only be applied to vehicle carrying goods for hire or reward ie a commercial venture.
Anything else ie Motor home or hobby vehicle should remain motor homes and the onus left to the owner to designate as he/she sees fit and pay any penalty imposed for incorrect registration and MoT test
I believe that possibly was the intention of the rules but as always the barack room lawyers and committees get to work and see all 9 sides to the two way argumnetoh:

 

[vwalan]

I'm sorry vwalan, you cannot have it both ways. First of all in an earlier post you dismiss the distinction between goods (actually chattels more like) and 'commercial' goods, then you say dogs don't count unless they are being carried for reward. I don't carry anything for reward/sale but I don't think you could argue that a lemon zester or honey drizzler were essential living/camping items either, to name but two discretionary 'goods' in my posession. Fwiw, I think the whole issue is a fuss about nothing, especially reading the link but who knows the full potential for lunacy contained within our famously sloppy legislation?

hi. i only thought that if they were in any way connected to a business then that could effect it . but keeping your dogs there to me would be ok.
i think the rules were thought out years ago .before m,homes became so large . and certainly before trucks like mine were made so light yet carry so much.
a total re write is required .
i do speak with vosa on this issue of living vans . as i said mine was converted to suit their rules 13yrs ago. mind i didnt know untill then about mot exemption . the trailer was lowered in gvw to fit the rules . since then i have been involved in several builds . have to keep talking to them just to make sure i,m not doing it wrong.