What we seem to be loosing sight of is the fact that DVLA do not have a category of "Special". To them a car is either new, old, or a reconstructed classic.

If it is new, then everything is straightforward.

If it is old and unmodified, it's a bit more complicated but subject to inspection it should get an age related number.

If it is a reconstructed classic, or "bitsa", the stated criteria is unequivocal - it must be built from genuine period components from more than one vehicle, all over 25 years old and of the same specification as the original vehicle. So, as I read it, putting a two-seater body on a Ruby chassis does not meet the stated criteria, nor does converting a saloon into a van. Even putting on an identical new replica body would seem to be not allowed.

As to whether this makes sense, or will be rigidly enforced is not the question. These are currently the rules of the game, with which we are obliged to comply. Lobbying may get them changed or relaxed, but I'm not holding my breath!

Rick

Location: Deepest Norfolk

Letter in ~Classic Car Weekly 26 August 2015

Age-related numbers
My MP approached the DVLA on my behalf regarding the issue of age-related numbers. received a reply stating that it would like to reassure me that the procedures and processes around historic vehicles have not changed. The DVLA does not intend to inspect all historic vehicles and potentially withdraw their historic status.' This does not seem to be correct. In the recent past an age-related number could be obtained provided the chassis components were all from one year and model of a particular car. This had to be confirmed by a club authentication officer. A replica body could be fitted or even one that was not to the original design Now the application form for an age-related number states the vehicle must be 'comprised of genuine period components all over 25 years old' and adds that your vehicle won't get an age-related number if it includes new or replica parts. DVLA will give your vehicle a Q-prefix registration number. Your vehicle must pass the relevant type approval test to get a Q-prefix registration number. have replied that it is impossible to restore a car without using new replica parts. Nearly all old cars would have to be modified to pass the IVA test, so they would no longer be to their original design, would be devalued, and part of our heritage would be lost. Car restoration is a billion-pound industry. Firms that make replica parts, especially bodies, will be badly hit if these new rules are not rejected. have asked the DVLA to reassure me that the statements in the above paragraph are a mistake and will be removed from the application form. I await its reply
Chris Gould, via email

Location: East Sussex

Just as a matter of interest, I attended a classic car show this last weekend where there was a mid-60s Wolseley Hornet - you know, the Mini with a boot - sporting very new-looking Q-plates. Unfortunately I couldn't locate the owner to find out the story, but to my eye it looked totally authentic - it certainly wasn't a recent restoration, nor did it appear to be a hotch-potch of parts. It had a well-worn original interior and matching paintwork which, if not original, was very old.

Hi Douglas
On the selves they have the November edition of Octane with a barn Ferrari on the cover is that the one?

No it is the one with the Aston Martin DB6, October.

Location: Dorset

Is there not a contradiction here?

Location: Derby

There seems to be many diverse interpretations of the DVLA rules. Would it be a good idea for the DVLA to give examples of typical/various vehicles awaiting new registration and whether these vehicles would or would not require an IVA examination and similarly if these vehicles would be issued with a "Q" plate or whatever solution there is. Currently I cannot make sense of the whole issue, except that on reading the 65 page notes on IVA has hardly any relevance to an 80 odd year old car.
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

And not to mention grinding off the original chassis number to replace it with a 16 digit VIN number!

I would hope it depends on the definition of a selection of parts. My special was bought from a scrap yard, there would have been no way to tell if it had its original engine/gearbox/axles for that chassis but they were still Austin of the right period.

Location: Eye on the Norfolk / Suffolk border

but thats the issue. Piles of bits were 'entities', they simply have not had a DVLA ID.

If you were to buy yourself a chassis with a genuine number stamped on it, provided you have not bought a 1923 chassis, or a genuine Ulster a couple of hours on the phone and a day out in a van (and a pile of cash) and you would very easily have all the correct period components to build a rolling chassis of the correct specification, that provided you knew what you were doing that neither any of the club reps, nor the DVLA (nor anyone else for that matter) would be unable to tell it was a bitza.

To all intents and purposes it is exactly the same once assembled. Indistinguishable once painted up. Who knows, that rolling chassis you bought Charles, may well have been thus. The simple matter is that no one would be able to tell.

Then you have many (hundreds of legitimate cars)that have a say 1932 chassis that has a slightly earlier engine, and slightly later axle etc (or variations thereof). It becomes even more difficult for the clubs and DVLA to spot a bitza. Unless some fool tries to pass off a grasshopper engine on a uncoupled short chassis with girling braked axles and a ruby steering box.

To give fathers RP as an example, with us since 1979, with a family friend before that, same chassis, same body. Its had at least 2 front axles to my knowledge, the first one is now on my box, the RP now has a girling axle. Its also on the 2nd rear axle to my knowledge. A conrod got frightened of the dark when I was 3 destroying what was probably its original crankcase. A replacement engine was built with a 2 bearing ruby crankcase, that broke no soon as it was put in with a porus block, then in a rush we put in a 3 bearing ruby item which stayed in for 5 years before the 'rebuilt' engine went back in, which promptly bust the crank, another austin crank went in which eventually broke. Now it had a different crankcase with a phoenix. And that is a 'genuine car', never raced or rallied....

After all this I am rather pleased that the V5 on my special states that it is a car 'built up from parts' and first registered in 1960!. It did put me off a bit when I bought it.

For as long as I can recall, the chassis has always been considered the basic identity of a car. There are a number of well known cars which have been 'revived' around the original chassis frame of an historic car, but which contain no more parts of that original car than that chassis. For example, at least three of the Roesch Talbot team cars, which in recent times have each sold for many hundreds of thousands of pounds, are complete 'bitsa's but have their identifiable original chassis frames; are these cars now going to lose their historic registration numbers and be required to go through the IVA proceedure? I doubt it! Will a thriving sub-culture of Edwardian aero-engined cars now be nothing more than worthless scrap? There's too much money invested for this to be taken lying down!
The real cause for concern to me is that this will sound the death knell for any number of restorable Sevens (and Rileys); if a derelict Ruby can be shown to be a complete entity, then it can be given an age-related plate, and then turned into a special, whilst a complete kit of parts, but collated from different sources, now becomes almost worthless! We've already seen the death of a restorable Mulliner saloon in recent times; what else are we going to lose?

What about this
http://www.classiccarsforsale.co.uk/detail/motors/classic-cars/bugatti/type-35/140497

What do you make of this one in Australia
http://www.prewarcar.com/classifieds/ad180699.html

Location: Southport

Swallow didn't produce a tourer. You could have a saloon or a two seater. From my understanding of the rules, the DVLA were seemingly unhappy about replacing one with another but have gone away to reconsider their position.

Location: Derby

Lets hope they can make a decision before people start going out of business!

Spoke to one well known builder of new bodies last night and he hasn't had a single order in the last four months.

Location: United Kingdom

Sorry- roadster.

Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.

The loss of these skills would not only affect complete new bodies either. Anyone who needs specialist attention to their existing car body will be affected too. If some pleb runs into the back of my car I'm not likely to be taking it to the local bodyshop.

Location: Derby

There is a massive amount still at stake here.

Its good that the meeting has happened and that the DVLA are mulling over the feedback.

As has been stated, Special building and new bodies are still areas for concern. The FBHVC, I believe (and hopefully I'm wrong!), only represent part of what we do with old cars in that their area of interest appears to be "historical accuracy" maybe it is this has driven the DVLA's thinking to date?

There has, and still is, been a special building culture in this and other countries; this is an area where the FBHVC don't appear to be involved, but the old car world would be poorer without some of the aero specials, and hybrids that are around (and that are being built)

Location: Kent

DVLA should create a new category which take care of all our concerns. Call it Replica Special Classic for example and charge a set annual car tax. A lot of people will settle for this and will solve a big problem.

Location: Southport

Ray, I believe as things stand at the moment you could probably still be OK, because you are talking about a complete entity (less body) rather than a collection of parts from miscellaneous sources. In your particular case, I think you need to be talking to the VCC about your specific example, as they are going to be the ones who will have to provide the authentication letter for the DVLA. Once you have suitable dating information, you will be able to register it with the DVLA before any rebuild starts; if you need bodywork, just stick a 25 year old household chair on the chassis!

Thanks Mike. Great stuff. Yes, it would need to be more or less all there as I will be at the mercy of the VCC dating committee. I'm not sure how much confidence one can have following the fiasco a few years ago but like with the DVLA we have to make the best of the hand we have been dealt.

I wonder if 'er indoors would miss the odd chair?

Location: Derby

and since the Vintage Hot Rod Association interpretation of the meeting,there is a complete silence from DVLA. Has anybody heard anything?
My car is awaiting a new replica body.
Richard

Location: Southport

One information that DVLA has released during the meeting on the 23 September.
That Non reflective number plates black and white or black and silver are now permitted on classics built before January 1975 as long as the cars have been registered as Historic Vehicles.

The authorities seem intent on providing us with exemptions that are not needed.

Location: Derby

I was just about to buy a Austin 7 special but having read this will now be investing in my other hobbies at least they have not been banned yet.

How can Joe public ie me not an expert although I have done my research tell what he is buying. The vehicle I was buying is on it's original reg. It has a new body, but does it have it's original engine or gearbox? probably not it's been used a trial vehicle since the 60's and then there is the honesty of the chap selling it, he may not even no himself. So I buy it and then DVLA say sorry mate cannot drive it. Open a can of worms killed classic car ownership more like.

Fed up

Brian

Location: Wiltshire

Brian,
I think you are over reacting. I know plenty of people in the old car world still building specials/restoring with 'new' bodies and they are not unduly worried especially if the car already has its original reg number/log book.
What does the log book say about body style? Saloon,Tourer,Sports? Did you check that?
My understanding is the DVLA will not be contacting everyone to ask them to 'prove' the provenance of their cars but will be contacting individuals where there is the possibility of say a Type 35 claiming to be 1920 something when it was in fact made from scratch in South America a couple of years ago from 100% new parts.

Paul N-M

Location: Edinburgh

Paul
Approximately 200 letters sent from DVLA to Bugatti owners:
Fact one: Only 3 cars in the UK are known to be South America Pur Sang
Fact two: The rest 99 pct are home build by the like of Tula Engineering, Gentry Restorations, Ivan Dutton and Crosthwaite and Gardiner.

Location: East Sussex

Hi Pat

It shown on the V5 as sport was registered in 1983 but declared new 1936.

Brian

Location: Wiltshire

Liam,
The problem with Bugs is that the dodgy ones have effected many less dodgy ones as well as totally genuine straight cars and the DVLA now think they are all at it!

Location: Edinburgh

So you mean dodgy is not acceptable but less dodgy and genuine are acceptable.
Out of the appro 200 cars 90 pct are dodgy and semi dodgy.
You need to keep in mind that in the 60s a big majority of genuine cars was dismantled and three cars appeared in lieu, one with a genuine chassis one with a genuine engine and one with a genuine body.
Where do you draw the line

More a case that we all appreciate that old cars need ongoing work/replacement parts, sometimes major parts like engines, body etc to keep them on the road. Keeping them in a usable condition and driven by enthusiasts is what its all about. No one bothered about making up a 'bitza' as values were relatively low and the old car movement a lot smaller than it is today.
Its now big business with lots of money driving values ever skyward and supported by companies that have capabilities way beyond swapping a clapped out engine for a slightly less clapped out one, albeit still made in period.
To pick up on your point about one original car spawning three 'original' cars. Again some may have raised eyebrows at this practice anticipating where it may lead, the courts in some cases as values rocketed, but most were comfortable that we had two more of our type of car on the road/track. Has this now come back to haunt us?
So much so we now have situations of 'toolroom' copies being raced in stead of the original due to astronomical values. The very fact it is seen as economical to go to the huge expense of making a brand new tool room copy is astounding!
Yes, we all want our cars to be kept going and need our cherished suppliers.
With so much money driving the market there are many who will supply whatever the customer wants even if almost 100% new.
It could be argued this has ruined it for the run of the mill enthusiast now that the DVLA has woken up to what's been going on. Lets hope not and as I said in a previous post many restoration businesses are carrying on as usual but obviously with a watchful eye on developments and hopefully considered advise to their customers.
Some people just could not resist the lure of big bucks!

Paul N-M

Location: Edinburgh

I'm told a large percentage of the FBHVC's funding (without which it may not exist) comes from the prewar car clubs; the clubs who's members are suffering as a result of this situation - withdrawing the funding would probably be a very bad thing as like it or not, the DVLA liaise with them, but we at least need to be getting them to properly fight our corner?

My car fits into this "problem" group, a bitsa I have been rebuilding for 15 years, with a part replacement body (or "non-structural body" as we should now refer to them) - I spoke to them at Beaulieu, they said there shouldn't be problems, but if there are, they are there to help...apparently - my car is years away from needing their help, but others may?
Colin

Location: Kent

The fact that DVLA have neither issued minutes or confirmed any avenues for clarification after the meeting over two months ago is pretty dammed weak. If they set themselves up as judge and jury (as they have) the least they can do is act with a degree of respect and professionalism.

Charles

"Your vehicle won’t get an age-related registration number if it includes new or replica parts. DVLA will give your vehicle a ‘Q’ prefix registration number. Your vehicle must pass the relevant type approval test to get a ‘Q’ prefix registration number."

New or replica 'Parts'. This all hinges around the definition of 'parts'. Would the fitting of one newly made wing mean a refusal? What about a new battery? Or wiring loom?

What about new pistons?

And what if the replica part is thirty years old?

The DVLA is a government (arms-length body?) service provider and I repeat, successive governments have asked all the service providers -NHS, DVLA etc to do more with less.
This means they have reduced staff and those staff left don't have the historic knowledge to fully understand and carry out the work now expected of them.
Whether we like it or not they are probably learning on the job and yes, making it up as they go along! - to some degree.
So we have to hope that those in the old car world purporting to look after our interests have enough sway to guide the DVLA and that the DVLA are willing to listen rather than just dictate.

Steve V

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Andrew Jones is my MP and I know him. He does not have technical knowledge but he's not daft and should listen if we explain carefully. I suggest people should campaign him and explain that the old car movement is big, and is generally good honest folk, but there is a problem with how DVLA are interpreting the law and coming up with ambiguous guidelines.

The solution to our problem is to pay road tax.
If we eradicated this daft tax free status and all vehicles covered by the rolling 40 year exemption paid a flat £50 a year the DVLA could fund dedicated resource to understand and police our sector of the motoring world with some surplus for good measure.

In simple terms if you pay nothing you can expect nothing.

Charles

The solution to our problem is to pay road tax.
If we eradicated this daft tax free status and all vehicles covered by the rolling 40 year exemption paid a flat £50 a year the DVLA could fund dedicated resource to understand and police our sector of the motoring world with some surplus for good measure.

In simple terms if you pay nothing you can expect nothing.

Charles[/quote]


I agree 100%, Charles.

Location: Herefordshire, with an "E", not a "T".

And so do I.
According to yesterday's papers far from saving ten million pounds the demise of the road tax disc
has actually caused an eighty million pound loss.
What a surprise!
Doing away with the MOT is yet another example of how out of touch with reality are most politicuans.
It'll all end in tears.

Location: Wessex

Am I the only one on here that is astounded by the fact that some posters are complaining about concessions granted by HM Government to the old car movement?

Location: Bonnie Galloway

I don't think even if we paid £500 a year road tax it would have any bearing on the subject in question. I don't think we'll get anywhere dealing with the DVla or FBHVC either, one appears to be an unaccountable public body, the other a luncheon club. I think the only way forward is if someone with enough money takes the DVla to court and gets a judgement on what constitutes an historic car.

I don't want to re-start a topic that was done to death a couple of years ago, but it has always seemed to me that having to put our cars through an MOT and paying some amount of annual tax keeps us on a par with "normal" road users and gives us a much stronger voice. It's difficult to complain about something that you're getting for free.

To turn the expression on its head, "No representation without taxation!".

Location: Herefordshire, with an "E", not a "T".

And so do I.
According to yesterday's papers far from saving ten million pounds the demise of the road tax disc
has actually caused an eighty million pound loss.
What a surprise!
Doing away with the MOT is yet another example of how out of touch with reality are most politicuans.
It'll all end in tears.

Location: Wessex

an interesting advert text in light of this thread...
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C553944

I don't blame DVLA

Location: Middlesex

Aaah! I thought that link was going to take me to this advert:

http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C685975

The Reliant is not to my taste, but it has more entitlement to its 'historic' registration than this one!

you can see why it is for sale, given that it is openly a reproduction but on an age related plate....

When I first saw it, I thought that's not bad for £45,000?
... then I realised it said £450,000!...

Location: Derby

The Bugatti add is honest enough, but what are its chances of passing a ( relevant ) IVA test?
The Reliant on the other hand in affect has only had a body swap and has had its V5C voided. ( The DVLA have voided registration and logbook and want an IVA test and a Q registration plate. " Pigs might fly." This after 2yrs of street legal ownership and 2 Mots. )
Now presuming it has its original standard Reliant chassis under it, remember the chassis number is the important bit to the DVLA, the question has to be where do you draw the line, in theory one could take a Ruby driving chassis fitted with just enough original Ruby bits mudguards and reflectors and it would get an age related plate and not need an IVA test, but fit a replica or new body and it does!
The issuing of a Q plate is not an important factor but the IVA test is, what the DVLA and clubs have to realise is that in the case of a car with an independent chassis the type of body fitted is NOT important and never has been. Austin, Rolls-Royce, Triumph and many other manufacturers sold rolling chassis's and this is the part of the vehicle that has all the relevant numbers required for it to be registered correctly.
If we cannot agree and get this point across to the DVLA, then any vehicle that is not totally original could be subjected to the same fate as the Reliant.

Location: Pembrokeshire

I wrote to the Editor of Prewarcar.com and had hoped to encourage some lively debate:

‘the ultimate truth of the English peoples’ existence lies in that mixture of order enforced by authority with freedom exercised under authority which is not to be found elsewhere’.

We in the United Kingdom are certainly the envy of our European fellow enthusiasts when it comes to what we can and can’t do with our cars and long may this state of affairs continue.
But these freedoms are now under threat and everyone who adds to, takes away from or alters their vehicles, certainly of Historic status, has cause for concern, possibly alarm because there is as yet no provision within the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority’s (DVLA) system for vehicles that are clearly of Historic status but might be denied that privilege on a new interpretation of the current rules. There has, up until now, been no suggestion of an accommodation for this new class of vehicle.
At a recent meeting concerning the registration of Historic vehicles, DVLA said that they would be tightening up their application of the existing regulations (the 8 point system that determines whether a car is Historic or not). This is fair, but the DVLA has also made a statement that as a record-keeper, must be not only outside their remit but is illustrative of their unsuitability for the rule-makers role:

‘What is DVLA's attitude to Specials?’ the DVLA response given was: ‘They could be a Reconstructed Classic, but if it has new components (including a new body) it must have a Q plate.’

The Government brief for the DVLA does not include the gift of policy making or re-interpreting rules to suit the Department’s now straitened and centralised circumstances. Add to the mix opinion from the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs (FBHVC)….

‘There is a valid question as to whether our fairly liberal regime in the UK permitting wide change to engines, brakes, gearboxes and bodies, might not of itself be a safety risk.’

… and we have confirmation that if we as Historic vehicle owners, Special builders and Classic Car enthusiasts don’t take up the cudgels ourselves and put a stop to the erosion of our freedoms, nobody else will. The centralisation of government departments is not an excuse to implement ‘fits-all’ policies. To destroy our heritage through laziness or pressure from beyond our shores is inexcusable.

Even if the specifics of this debate do not affect us all directly, our freedoms under authority are at stake. Please write to your MP and express your concern with these proceedings otherwise all too easily, part of our culture will be consigned to history.

N. Wright

I think the fundamental issue here is that the DVLA are not prepared to consider - far less accommodate - the creation of a new (to them) class of vehicle. The FBHVC are not an effective ally in this debate (I spoke to the Chairman at the NEC who said nothing to convince me that the Federation was pursuing this issue with the remotest vigour or had even considered the future of Special building or replica-bodied vehicles).

Quite honestly, what difference does it make to anything for the DVLA to put 'Replica', 'Special' or 'Rebuilt - Assembled from parts some or all of which were not new' on the log book if someone wants to be a bit creative and have some fun?
We can't let this nonsense dictate the future of our interest. Even if you don't like anything that isn't original, it's not about that. It's about losing a part of our culture and a long tradition of creativity that most people beyond these shores would give their eye teeth for.

Once it's gone, it's gone. so speak up!

I see the difference as being with regard to safety, and Type Approval. Type approval, and the IVA test for individual vehicles, was created to ensure that new cars being manufactured were of a safe design. If we allow one-offs to be manufactured without this test, then how do we cope with a small-scale manufacturer that makes one this month, and one next month?

The problem seems to be that DVLA are saying something is a new car, when we would say no it is an old car with a few replacement parts.

If a small manufacturer was making new cars, but using second-hand gearboxes, I think we would all say that was NOT an existing car and it should get Type Approval or an IVA test.

But what if a specialist firm was repeatedly overhauling Morris Minors from the early fifties, using the vast majority of the old vehicle but always fitting a new 5 speed gearbox? I think we would all say that the gearbox makes little difference, so IVA testing is not required.

In the real world there are so many different scenarios and it is difficult to know where to draw the line. But I think DVLA need to realise that saying NO REPLICA PARTS is a nonsense. Every fifty year old car is almost certain to have a replica exhaust system.

Dear all,
There have been 31000 views and over 300 written responses to this thread which must be a record on this forum. Probably more discussion than many items in the House of Commons. I think we are going over the same points now but unless we can influence the relevant organisations , whoever they may be then decisions will be made which many of us will be complaining about for many years to come. I am probably stating the bl**ding obvious. I have written to FBHVC so far and will probably write to my MP but I am not convinced that either party will want to take up our case. So any ideas?
Dave.

Location: Sheffield