July 2026

by Robin Astle.

From HISTORIC, the FBHVC magazine Issue 10

Insurance by David Youngs

MoT exemption and insurance

There are a number of subjects within our community that generate more heat than light. MoT exemption for historic vehicles is one of them. Each year, I hear the same concerns from club members and FBHVC supporters: “Will not having an MoT affect my insurance? Could a claim be refused? Does it change my agreed value?” This month, I want to address those questions clearly, from an insurance perspective.

How the rolling exemption came about

In 2018, the UK introduced the current rolling 40-year MoT exemption. The change followed sustained lobbying by the Federation at the time, as many reading this will recall. The Federation argued back then that well-maintained historic vehicles, used infrequently and cared for by knowledgeable enthusiasts, present a very low road safety risk.

Many of the vehicles we insure would pass a modern MoT without difficulty. However, it was becoming increasingly problematic for some older cars, particularly pre-war models, to fit comfortably within an ever-modernising digital test system. Features such as flyoff handbrakes, cable-operated brakes and trafficator indicators were not always well understood within a time limited, standardised testing process.

The legislation now allows vehicles over 40 years old to be exempt from annual testing, provided they have not been substantially modified in the previous 30 years. Owners must declare the vehicle as a Vehicle of Historic Interest (VHI) when taxing it, and crucially, the car must remain roadworthy at all times if used on the road.

The exemption recognises something the car community has long understood: historic vehicles are not used for everyday transport. They are carefully maintained, driven sparingly, and preserved as part of our motoring heritage. That trust is valuable, and it remains important that we continue to justify it.

Roadworthy has always been key

Turning to insurance, the principle is straightforward. Every motor policy, whether covering a modern hatchback or a pre-war tourer, contains a fundamental condition that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy condition. That requirement has nothing to do with MoT exemption.

An MoT certificate confirms only that a vehicle met the minimum legal standard on the day of the test. It does not guarantee roadworthiness the following week. Equally, the absence of an MoT certificate does not automatically mean a vehicle is unsafe.

For historic vehicles that qualify for an exemption, there is no requirement to obtain an MoT solely to satisfy your policy. If the car is legally exempt and properly maintained, your cover remains valid.

Agreed values

Another frequent concern is whether not having an MoT affects an agreed valuation. Simply put, it does not.

An agreed value reflects the vehicle’s condition, provenance and market position, based on evidence, photographs, and, often, club verification. The presence or absence of an MoT certificate does not increase or decrease that figure. Value is determined by what the car is worth in the market, not by whether it has passed a statutory inspection.

The “wriggle out” myth

There is a persistent belief that insurers look for technicalities to avoid paying claims. In over twenty years of running schemes in this sector, that has not been my experience.

Third-party liability is a legal requirement under the Road Traffic Act. An insurer cannot simply refuse to meet third-party obligations because a vehicle did not have an MoT.

It is true that policies contain wording allowing an insurer to reduce a policyholder’s own damage settlement if a vehicle was proven to be unroadworthy and that specific defect directly caused the accident. In theory, that provision exists. In practice, I have never encountered a real-world case where it has been applied within the historic vehicle arena.

It would require clear evidence that a known and significant defect was the direct cause of the incident – a very high threshold. The reality is much simpler: maintain your vehicle properly and use it responsibly, and your cover operates as intended.

Why testing can still make sense

When you look at national MoT data year after year, most failures are not dramatic mechanical catastrophes. They are routine wear and tear.

Lighting faults remain one of the most common issues – blown bulbs, poor earths or misaligned beams. Suspension components such as worn bushes, tired dampers, and corroded springs are frequently found. Brake imbalance, sticking callipers or deteriorating hoses can develop gradually. Tyres may have legal tread depth, but ageing rubber can crack and harden. Visibility issues – worn wiper blades, ineffective washers or minor windscreen damage – are also typical. Most, therefore, are simply the predictable consequences of time and use.

Which brings me to my personal view.

However knowledgeable we are about our own cars, a second pair of trained eyes can spot issues we may overlook. Deterioration is gradual. Wear creeps in. A formal inspection provides structured scrutiny that even a careful owner may not replicate in a home garage.

The MoT exemption was granted because the historic vehicle community demonstrated that it takes responsibility seriously. Maintaining high standards – whether through voluntary testing, regular servicing or club-supported inspections – protects not only our individual cars but the wider reputation of historic motoring.

From an insurance perspective, the position is clear. Exemption does not invalidate cover. It does not reduce the agreed value. It does not provide an easy route for claims to be declined.

The obligation has always been the same: keep the vehicle roadworthy.

I don’t say this purely from an insurance standpoint. I say it as someone who values these cars and the people who use them. From an enthusiast’s perspective, voluntary testing comes down to peace of mind. Personally, I would rather know.

Fuels – Nigel Elliott

The ongoing issues with the US/Iran conflict and the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz has had a dramatic effect on global crude oil prices that has immediately fed through to UK petrol and diesel pump prices. Diesel has experienced the highest increase in price, often approaching and sometimes exceeding £2.00 per litre. The UK typically imports around 50% of its diesel demand but exports excess petrol to other countries such as the US.

UK refineries were originally configured like US refineries as gasoline (petrol) machines, as diesel demand was relatively low in comparison. They typically have large catalytic crackers that break down heavy refinery streams and produce lighter products such as catalytic naphtha’s, and it is the most favoured method of increasing the ratio of light to heavy products from crude oil. Over the years, with the increase in diesel demand in Europe, refineries have invested in more units to increase diesel production, but this is expensive.

Esso Fawley Refinery has recently completed an $800 million project to increase diesel production by 40% that should help the UK reduce imports by 25%. This required the construction of a new hydrogen plant in order to hydrotreat (desulphurise) the diesel to meet the European fuel sulphur specification of 10mg/kg (10 parts per million). Modern refineries are highly integrated and optimized and nothing is wasted. The existing diesel plant and hydrotreaters use hydrogen produced in the refinery by the powerformers (catalytic reformers) that upgrade petroleum naphtha octane by dehydrogenization of naphthenes to form aromatics such as toluene. The amount of hydrogen from this process is ultimately limited, so a new hydrogen plant had to be constructed to enable the increase in diesel production.

The closure of Grangemouth and Lindsey oil refineries has exacerbated the diesel supply situation and it’s vitally important for reasons of security of supply that the UK does not lose any more refineries. One good piece of news is that Phillips 66, that operate the Humber refinery, have purchased the adjoining Lindsey Oil Refinery from the liquidator and plan to make use of some of the processing units going forward.

The high cost of energy, carbon taxes and environmental legislation in the UK and Europe, make it very difficult to compete with larger, essentially non-regulated refineries in other parts of the world, such as India. However, it seems that the UK Government is happy to import higher carbon and environmentally poorer finished fuel, and risk security of supply, in the name of artificial net-zero targets that do not take into account the export of the UK’s manufacturing industry to China and India.

We should remember that just over 70% of the UK’s energy comes from oil and gas, and a complete switch over to renewable energy is not possible in the foreseeable future, due to energy density and storage issues. The UK should of course increase the use of renewable energy wherever technically and commercially viable. Security of energy supply is critical to any country, and this is best met by a diverse approach to energy production. This means a rapid expansion of nuclear power generation for baseload and stability, continued expansion of renewables and the use of gas from the North Sea and possibly inland fracking for peak load management and back up for those days when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn't blow.