# Headlamps - new MOT regulations for LHD vehicles reg in UK



## Festie (Jul 11, 2007)

MOTORHOMERS WITH OLD LHD VEHICLES REGISTERED IN THE UK PLEASE NOTE:

Our LHD Hymercamp, 1994, failed its MOT because we were using deflectors on the headlamps. I have looked at the new regulations and it seems that it is because they have 'products on the light source that obviously reduce the light's intensity' - see copy of regs below - this came into force on 1st April 2012. We have had to pay an extortionate price for replacement lamps because of the age of the vehicle (£175 the pair) but we could have bought LHD lamps in Europe for £16-£28.

"Products on the lens or light source that obviously reduce the light's intensity or change its colour will become a reason for failure – applies to front/rear position lamps, registration plate lamps, stop lamps, rear fog and direction indicators,

Headlight requirements are updated to take account of the particular characteristics of High Intensity Discharge (HID) lamps.

HID headlights can cause dazzle if they are dirty or aimed too high so car manufacturers must fit headlamp cleaning and levelling systems. Where HID or LED dipped beam headlamps are fitted the tester will switch on the headlamps and check the operation of any headlamp levelling and cleaning devices fitted.

The car will fail if a headlamp levelling or cleaning device is inoperative or otherwise obviously defective.

If a headlamp bulb is not seated correctly the resulting beam pattern will be indistinct and this will result in a test fail."


----------



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

I would take a copy of this and show it to you MOT tester:
http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m1s01000603.htm

(From the .GOV site)

*Masks or converter kits. *
Right hand dip headlights can be temporarily altered for use in the UK by fitting masks or converter kits which remove the beam "kick up" to the right.

A headlamp altered in this way is not a reason for rejection, if;

A. the headlamp aim is not rejected for the reasons listed in the Reason for Rejection column (except that the top of the beam image will be a straight line).

B. the light output is not duly reduced.

C. the mask or converter is securely attached.


----------



## Festie (Jul 11, 2007)

Thanks Addie, however that manual was written in 2008. I believe that new regs came into force April 2012.

I've had a similar reply from the AA quoting the same manual, but they have suggested that I seek advice from VOSA for official confirmation.

Unfortunately, whatever the outcome, we have already purchased said lamps which will be fitted this week as we are off on our travels on Sunday  

If I find out more I will post for future reference.


----------



## Addie (Aug 5, 2008)

Festie said:


> Thanks Addie, however that manual was written in 2008. I believe that new regs came into force April 2012.
> 
> I've had a similar reply from the AA quoting the same manual, but they have suggested that I seek advice from VOSA for official confirmation.
> 
> ...


I think it's more of a over zealous MOT tester then the rules. The "new" rule mean light tinting films and sprays that car modifiers use to alter the appearance of the cars lights and reduce their performance.

If they replaced the old rules then there would be a "Special Notice" to say as such and they would have been removed from guidelines.


----------



## Wizzo (Dec 3, 2007)

I too think that you may have been wrongly failed. My (RHD) Boxer still has my home-made beam deflectors fitted and was passed in May this year.

Also the bit about Headlamp adjusters and washers ONLY applies to HID or LED headlights, not to normal halogen headlights.

JohnW


----------



## johnthompson (Jul 29, 2010)

We had this out with our MOT tester when I first became aware of the change.

He quoted the same as Addie and said he would not fail the vehicle for having the beam deflectors fitted.

Our MOT is due in December but we will be having it done in September as we will be in Spain all winter.

John


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Just in case.
I have a pair of RHD Ducato, Boxer headlights from my 2000 Hobby for £50 the pair. But of course they are here in Normandy.

Ray.


----------



## Festie (Jul 11, 2007)

Wizzo said:


> I too think that you may have been wrongly failed. My (RHD) Boxer still has my home-made beam deflectors fitted and was passed in May this year.
> 
> Also the bit about Headlamp adjusters and washers ONLY applies to HID or LED headlights, not to normal halogen headlights.
> 
> JohnW


Thanks Wizzo, I'm pretty sure now that we have an over-zealous tester! I told my husband but he said that as we are always getting 'flashed' by other motorists he'd rather fit the new lamps. We will mention everyone's comments to our garage when we get him to fit the new lamps.


----------



## Festie (Jul 11, 2007)

raynipper said:


> Just in case.
> I have a pair of RHD Ducato, Boxer headlights from my 2000 Hobby for £50 the pair. But of course they are here in Normandy.
> 
> Ray.


Very kind offer Ray, but we have already been ripped off buying new lamps from ebay! As we are due to travel this weekend we were desperate to ensure that we were legal! I wish we had contacted the forums first  however, as I said to Wizzo, hubby is fed up of being 'flashed' by other motorists when driving at night so he's content to fit the new lamps.


----------



## ralph-dot (May 10, 2005)

My van was failed its MOT in 2005 for having LHD headlights, none of this is new to me.


----------



## Wizzo (Dec 3, 2007)

ralph-dot said:


> My van was failed its MOT in 2005 for having LHD headlights, none of this is new to me.


I doubt they would have failed it though had you had the right hand dip beam portion blocked out.

JohnW


----------



## carol (May 9, 2005)

Our LHD Rapido passed its MOT end of April with beam deflectors without problems

Carol.


----------



## ralph-dot (May 10, 2005)

Wizzo said:


> ralph-dot said:
> 
> 
> > My van was failed its MOT in 2005 for having LHD headlights, none of this is new to me.
> ...


Well it did.

It also failed four years later because the reversing light was on the wrong side.

I think MOT stations are a law unto themselves.


----------



## locrep (Dec 5, 2011)

Reverse light was not part of the MOT, or did you mean fog lamp..

Dave.


----------



## Uller (May 29, 2010)

Our LHD m/home, with reflectors, passed its MOT on Tuesday, the same day as the OP's van was failed!


----------



## ralph-dot (May 10, 2005)

locrep said:


> Reverse light was not part of the MOT, or did you mean fog lamp..
> 
> Dave.


Could have been fog, they wsitched them over


----------

