April 2025

by Robin Astle.

From HISTORIC, the FBHVC magazine 2024 Issue 5

Legislation by Lindsay Irvine

Seatbelts (Again)

It was in Edition 3 of Historic (Sep 24) that I wrote on the topic of mobile camera units which can detect drivers not wearing a seatbelt or illegally using a mobile phone. Whilst the latter was uncontroversial, I noted that in relation to seatbelts, whilst the overwhelming majority of vehicles on the road are fitted with seatbelts which must therefore be used, there was an issue over HVs (such as my own 1954 car) which are not so equipped (nor are obliged to be so equipped). I further observed that seatbelt equipment is not on the list of vehicle details on the DVLA register and queried at what stage would it be identified that the driver is not in fact committing a moving traffic offence in the event of being photographed by such a mobile camera. I set out some authoritative feedback from the Chief Constable on the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) responsible for Roads Policing. Whilst he thought the age of the vehicle and lack of seatbelt requirement would not be picked up at force level and therefore a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) would be sent which would need to be challenged, he thought the numbers would be extremely low. He undertook to consider a better way if numbers did escalate.

I received zero feedback to that piece until it was picked up by parts of the motoring media in a quiet spell over Christmas. Though our advice from the NPCC was not quoted, the research done by the media outlets came to the same conclusion. We have since had a number of concerned emails suggesting that those media outlets have a larger readership than my column which will be relief to them and an obvious disappointment to me! We do understand that readers will not want to receive a NIP and the demand for improved algorithms is understandable. However, our impression is that as this is new technology, unlike speeding fines, the Artificial Intelligence (AI) is simply highlighting potential transgressions and then a human looks at it. We do not think at this juncture the police will want to be undermined with ‘AI gets it wrong’ headlines. Further, the cancellation of a wrongly sent NIP by a Public Body should be more promptly done than the Notices issued wrongly by many private parking companies. We have our undertaking from the NPCC to look at it again if there is a growing problem.

To MOT or not MOT, that is the Question….

And during that same quiet Christmas period, the following startling headlines could be read in the mainstream media (MSM): “Classic cars face MOTs for first time”

The story arose from one question in the DVLA call for evidence (CfE) which was about the Registration of HVs and not MOTs, over which the DVLA have no jurisdiction. Nevertheless, a hare was set running that a return to MOTs for HVs was being considered. The problem seemed to stem from the way the analysis of responses was conveyed.

There was just one question in the CfE relating to testing:

Question 3.4 Should there be a new type of safety check in place which takes into account the age of a historic or classic vehicle?

The FBHVC response was:

“The existing periodic testing regime (MoT), with an exemption from compulsory testing for the majority of historic vehicles over 40 years old, but with the provision for voluntary tests if desired, is broadly satisfactory although there are issues with its application to historic HGVs. However, there may be circumstances, for example following major restoration or repair work, when a one-off safety check would be appropriate. This may need to be a more in-depth inspection than the MoT, possibly including some degree of dismantling to permit full access to all parts of the vehicle but, in common with the MoT, should assess the vehicle with reference to the technical standards applicable when it was new. Individual Vehicle Approval which requires modern technical standards is entirely inappropriate and not suitable in this context.”

The DVLA, indeed Government as a whole, is well used to receiving consultation responses from representative organisations, for example SMMT. It was clear from our recent discussions with DVLA (see Ian’s column elsewhere in this issue) that due consideration had been given to the fact that some of the CfE responses represented a large number of individuals. Nevertheless, the summary of the CfE results published in December appears to rank each response as ‘one vote’ and thus the percentages quoted are not necessarily indicative of the true situation. Thus, a quote from one of the newspapers that “[more] than two in five respondents to a Department for Transport (DfT) public consultation exercise agreed with officials that new tests should be introduced for cars more than 40 years old” was not entirely accurate. The ratio quoted did not take account of the numbers which the FBHVC represented, the question was not about an MoT as such and “officials” from the DfT were not proposing the re-introduction of such a test. The summary of the CfE results is just that – a summary of results. It is not a statement of intent.

To conclude - the Federation is not aware of any impending changes to the MoT regime!

Road Pricing

For the moment this topic has dropped out of the news headlines with the only New Year discussion I can see in Girlracer magazine https://girlracer.co.uk/2025/01/09/the-future-of-road-tolls-on-uk-roads/ which has a short but effective summary of the issue. My rather long and more detailed version is in Edition 3/2022. As I stated in the last edition it did not feature in the now much discussed first budget of this government and this government had indicated previously that this was not a route it was currently looking at. Given the huge backlash in 2007 when the measure was last brought forward, I can understand that the government is not keen for more bad headlines. If tax income remains squeezed and revenue from ICE vehicles begins to fall, we shall see if there is a change of mind.

When is a car not a car?

Please do not read the above as a comprehensive headline nor the following as authoritative legal advice on motor insurance cover! As ever you must confirm the position with your own broker or underwriter. However, this item arises from a couple of fairly commonly asked question about how far an owner’s normal motor insurance policy covers them at show grounds, rallies and in arenas.

Without going into too much detail, UK law has traditionally required compulsory motor insurance in respect of the use of a vehicle “on a road or other public place” (section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988). The amount of such cover is unlimited by law.

The meaning of “road or other public place” has been the subject of some considerable debate in case law over many years mainly because the same words are used in drink driving provisions where it has been in the defendant’s interests to argue he was not on a road (usually a pub carpark!). Then came the case of Vnuk (Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Trigalev (C-162/13)) in 2014 which pushed third-party liability coverage provided by compulsory motor insurance into new realms, specifically that accidents involving motor vehicles on private land should be covered by policies. For a while that interpretation of the Motor Insurance Directive applied in the UK until, post-Brexit, it was reversed by the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Act 2022. That left the position as it was before Vnuk and as it is set out in the Road Traffic Act.

This leaves open the question about what insurance might cover the use of a motor vehicle not “on a road or a public place”. As already indicated, the decision on what is a “road or public place” for the purposes of the law is complex and much discussed but, based on the recent case of?Brown v Fisk and Others, if the show is taking place in an exhibition centre or showground, it is not necessarily to be regarded as a road or public place. However, there is a difference between what the law?requires?and what is included by an insurer in their policies and what they will cover.

So, whereas a driver must have cover for roads and public places, many insurers seem to take an expansive view of third-party liability and provided the holder is not in breach of his policy terms, will accept claims in respect of injury or damage from the use of the vehicle in public and private spaces such as an arena. That said, others, along with the usual restrictions on racing and competitive rallying, are excluding “any loss or damage arising while any vehicle covered by this insurance is being…[used] in or on a restricted area.” That said, the car park of a venue like the NEC for visitors and members of the public almost certainly would be regarded as a public place for the purposes of the Act, certainly while the showground gates are open and the public have access.

Regarding the requirement by car show organisers to take out Public Liability Insurance (PLI) in respect of vehicles exhibited at the shows, we believe again this is linked to the above Vnuk case. In this case where the vehicle is a static exhibit, an insurer may argue that any claim will not arise from the “use” of the vehicle (the words in the Road Traffic Act) and therefore is a greyer area. Also, if the exhibitor has brought in any additional equipment and for example erected an awning or gazebo or any structure, that would not in any event be covered by motor insurance.

In addition, some event organisers and venues are making such PLI cover a condition of entry. This may be to reduce their exposure in the event of an accident and reduce their premiums but that is simply a commercial issue. They will almost certainly hold PLI in respect of their own or employees and agents’ negligence, but their insurers will wish them to limit their liability in respect of the negligence of an exhibitor. Our understanding is that venue operators are specifically concerned with damage and loss to their property and premises. We have seen conditions such as these:

?"Exhibitors are fully responsible for any loss, damage, or injury to the management and staff of the Venue resulting from Exhibitors’ displays or actions and are strongly advised to take out their own insurance to cover such risks.?The Organisers reserve the right to charge an Exhibitor for any loss or damage to any part of the structure or fabric of the Venue caused by any actions of the Exhibitor or the employee partner or other associate of an Exhibitor."

Some insurers will include in their car insurance policy any liability to third parties arising out of the car being exhibited at a show, and therefore no separate PLI cover would be required. Those terms might look like this:

Rallies, shows and events. Participation in rallies shows and events is included under this insurance provided there is no involvement in racing, pace making, speed testing or time trials nor the vehicle is used for hire or reward.

As ever with such issues, the answer is not totally straightforward. It is by no means clear that all motor policies will cover “static” public liability as opposed to a moving vehicle and we think that conceptually that is understandable as the vehicle becomes an exhibit in a room rather than a vehicle.

In our view, there is no alternative but for an owner to CHECK with his own insurer as to the level of his or her cover or, if the vehicle is part of a club display whether Club Public Liability might cover it. And of course, I would be remiss if I did not remind readers of FBHVC Insurance which provides cover for the situations described here.

FBHVC Insurance by Dave Youngs

Hello! I'm Dave Youngs, Director of Partnerships at Peter James Insurance. At the NEC Classic Motor Show last November, we launched the new Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs insurance scheme. The announcement was made during the traditional Friday press conference and was followed up with more detail at Club Expo. The scheme has already received widespread media coverage, and Federation member clubs are signing up.

The scheme aims to help clubs and other membership organisations in the historic vehicle sector create compelling and valuable membership benefits. It is a vital tool for ensuring that vehicle club memberships remain steady and healthy.

We designed it with the FBHVC with three main aims. The first is to create a tangible benefit for enthusiasts to join and remain members of clubs and membership organisations in the historic vehicle world. The second is to protect historic vehicles and keep them on the road should the unthinkable occur. Finally, we want to offer clubs a way to provide insurance to younger drivers and support the next generation of people in preserving our transport heritage.

The scheme has been designed to appeal to the smaller clubs within the FBHVC family that might need help negotiating specific insurance packages. FBHVC Insurance offers smaller organisations access to the benefits of a scheme usually reserved for larger clubs, using the strength of the combined Federation community.

Furthermore, commission payments fund the FBHVC's essential research and lobbying work to keep historic vehicles on the roads and invest in the support and resources for member organisations.

The scheme will accommodate cars, motorcycles, agricultural vehicles, buses, coaches, military vehicles, commercial vehicles, and lorries, except for steam-powered vehicles for the time being. It is also open to individual supporter members of the FBHVC.

We have designed the scheme to offer FBHVC member clubs valuable support in providing compelling benefits to help vehicle clubs of all sizes attract new members and retain existing ones.

We believe that clubs form the backbone of the historic vehicle community and are committed to doing our part to ensure their survival and to thrive in the future.

I will be running the scheme day-to-day and behind the FBHVC Insurance brand is Peter James Insurance, an expert in specialist vehicle insurance for many decades. We will administer the scheme in collaboration with the FBHVC and take into account feedback from member organisations throughout. Peter James Insurance doesn’t operate call centres, just friendly and knowledgeable specialist staff who enjoy building relationships with fellow historic vehicle enthusiasts.

Your club can easily access FBHVC Insurance by registering as a participant via the simple form at insurance.fbhvc.co.uk. When approved as an FBHVC member organisation, clubs will receive a marketing pack with all the adverts, leaflets, logos, and other information they need to promote the scheme to their members. I look forward to telling you more about the benefits and sharing some handy hints and tips via this column over the following months and years.