Location: Derby

Location: N W Kent

Stephen Voller

As I understand things, the DVLA 'is a Quango'
Maybe the Government should allow the DVLA to have dedicated staff to deal with things properly... oh wait, that's what we used to have before Local Vehicle Licensing Offices were scrapped and successive cutbacks brought in!

Location: N W Kent

Hi Steve,
that's pretty much what I surmised.
Doesn't help that DVLA no longer have adequately trained and knoweledgable staff.
Having worked for another government Quango involving rules and regulations, the making thereof and implementation of same, -seeing the current DVLA half ars*d we'll make it up as we go along approach doesn't inspire me with confidence.

Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

'has it not always been the case that an MOT was required before a "lost" registration could be re-activated'

Nope, when I got my Austin 10 Lichfield's original registration re-issued to me circa 1980, I had the car inspected by on officer from Brighton LVLO and had to hand over the old buff logbook and once verified the original reg was was re-issued on a V5.
Things aren't the same now obviously.

Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

I went into my local DVLA office before they all shut to try to get my car's number back. I found them very helpful, took my Norfolk club dating cert, period pics and buff log book, they photocopied them and sent them off. Two weeks later V5c drops through the door, ahh the good ol days. No need for an mot to apply for the V5 but once issued it stays dormant until the car is mot'd.

Location: Eye on the Norfolk / Suffolk border

From one of the Facebook Austin 7 special groups.

interesting one today my friends special had ruby on log book so as he heard new rules that if body type is not the same as what the car is he decided to chat to them and find out what to do ,there straight away took original old number of car and has to be q plate ,mot and taxed really bad but seems no special will be save unless it has tourer specail or two seater on log book

Location: Buxted

I missed reading this bit in FBHVC News issue 1,2016 until just now.

"I have to report that the first approach by the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicles Group (APPHVG) to Government has not achieved very positive results. Following the presentation of our arguments in a meeting with the Minister, Mr Andrew Jones MP by the APPHVG chairman, Sir Greg Knight, and our chairman David Whale, the only response has been that: “The policy has not changed”. While this comment was made during a speech and so was accompanied by no detail, we understand Mr Jones is writing to Sir Greg, which might mean we get more clarity on the reasons why DVLA consider this to be the case. We do not doubt that Sir Greg will wish to take the matter further and we will be working out how best to support him.

Meanwhile we can only say to those with projects which now appear to be at risk because of changed bodywork styles that they ought not to despair, but on the other hand would probably be best to be patient and not to put forward applications for the next little while, as things might well get a little better."

This was published a number of weeks ago now.

So what's the latest?
Can we expect a happy conclusion to this fiasco soon or will it carry on interminably?
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

We can expect nothing if we do nothing.

Hi Nigel,
do we know when we will hear what happened as a result of the 'All Parliamentary Historic Vehicles Group' meeting held on the 10th February?
I seem to remember around the end of Feb was mentioned somewhere or is my memory playing tricks?!
Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Hello Steve, I'm still waiting for a reply to my last letter to Sir Greg. I've no idea what the agenda was for their last meeting but I would hope that ours and anyone else's comments would have been discussed. As soon as I hear, you'll hear.

I’ve heard today from Sir Greg who writes,

‘I am having a number of discussions with Ministers about the current attitude of the DVLA […]
Ministers do appear to be both interested and willing to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion […]
I will do what I can!’

Here’s something from Martin Luther King Jr (perhaps a shade melodramatic but nevertheless topical):

‘The saving of our world from pending doom will come not from the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority but from the creative maladjustment of a non-conforming minority.'

Special builders and Ministers take note.

I quite like the idea of being creatively maladjusted

Location: Kent

'creative maladjustment of a non-conforming minority' - that must be us!

I hate built in obsolescence and the brain washing of ''if it's new it must be better'' - don't get me wrong if somethings good then it's good - whatever the age.
However I like things that can be repaired and given renewed life, which is in part why we like our old cars.

Also if it's old, repairable and still as good or better than it's modern counterpart then I like that even better still.
Which is why I play vinyl records on a 1970's turntable played through late 1950's valve amplifiers all of which I have rebuilt.
Ironically they compete very well for sound quality and don't seem to display the muddy sound that can be associated with some vintage systems.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Look more appropriate in here

Jeff Taylor
Feb 24, 2016 - 1:57PM
Quote Reply FIVA Press Release 11am Feb 24th
See 'Practical Classics' Facebook page for the full discussion - needless to say they're not too happy with the FIVA press release:

https://www.facebook.com/PracticalClassics/posts/1121395297878756

https://www.facebook.com/PracticalClassics/photos/a.268875403130754.70714.225407620810866/1121407311210888/?type=3&theater

Also mentioned in the left hand column of their web page - scroll down the page.

http://www.practicalclassics.co.uk

DH: FIVA says: “By ‘historic vehicle’, we mean a mechanically
propelled road vehicle at least 30 years old, preserved and maintained in a historically correct condition and not used as a means of daily transport. These vehicles are part of our
technical and cultural heritage and, in our opinion, should not be lumped together with old, badly maintained cars.”
FIVA.... you have a fight on your hands. I have started by asking an official question - how will they define and police 'historically correct'. We need to mobilise around this. This is a picture of my daily.... which according to FIVA is not historic because I use it regularly.

Jeff.

Location: Almost but not quite, the far North East of England

Location: East Sussex

just to repeat what I said in Jeffs thread.

I don't like the idea of being told when I can and cannot drive my vehicle.
Being historic and a daily driver shouldn't be totally mutually exclusive.
I don't want old, well maintained cars to become glorified museum pieces otherwise what's the point of having one.
Also if there are no affordable newer old cars permitted, how will we get younger people into the old car world?

Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

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

As predicted here and elsewhere, we are being led by the nose into a situation where the definition of "historic vehicle" is laid down by the E.U. in accordance with the Charter of Turin.

Location: Derby

Would someone who has precise knowledge of these matters care to explain the route that a "rank and file" club member needs to traverse to elicit information from high level discussions/decisions being made on our behalf. For example the PWA7C has a committee and officers who one would expect to be kept informed by the FBHVC (or are there others as well as FBHVC?)regularly of all matters of concern to the old vehicle movement. This is then passed down to the r and f member. Since this DVLA business started about a year ago there have been many rumours,much speculation,especially on our "Friends" website but very few facts and from what I have seen this is not the fault of said committee and officers. I realise that all the above committee and officers do this job for no payment and entirely out of enthusiasm for old cars.
So do clubs pay the FBHVC and if so how much and wouldn't that entitle us to a decent level of service from them as far as reporting back or am I being too naive?
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

I think I'm right that the rate paid by a club for membership is about 40p per member. That doesn't sound a lot until you work out that for a large club like PWA7C that's almost 500 quid a year. All the more reason that we should be demanding better consideration than we get. Personally I think FBHVC take us for a ride.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

We could soon find ourselves being restricted by EU regulations on old and historic vehicles, and they would appear to be more concerned about air quality than history as well as any thing the DVLA may wish to introduce on top.

The thing that does not get mentioned anywhere is that an old or historic vehicle may pollute the air more than a modern but when you take into account the pollution caused by manufacturing,shipping, scrapping and recycling several new cars to replace that vehicle over the years the older vehicle becomes quite environmentally friendly.

Location: Pembrokeshire

Too many regulations, too many jobsworths.

Location: The Centre of the Universe

Location: Buxted

Location: Derby

In my capacity as VC of the A7CA and Chair of the PWA7C, I think a brief response to the comments made by Dave Wortley and Stephen Voller is in order.

We agree, and sympathise with, many of these views and comments; our Committees being as concerned as everyone is and trying our best to liaise and lobby the necessary bodies. I personally have communicated with the two MPs mentioned previously but was directed back to the DVLA. As you are aware I published the latest " edict " from the DVLA recently but have heard nothing more officially, despite trying. There are many comments floating about, many of which I would describe as spurious, and I am loathe to pass these on. Our Pre War Authentication Officer, Peter Rowlands, is working hard but is very frustrated and embarrassed at having to be the bearer of bad news to our members. We are seeing changes in the DVLA but these only seem to be increased questions and paperwork.
The Association did its best to attend the meeting at Swansea last year as the official body representing the thousands of owners, but were not selected. The whole situation seems to have stalled but we are being proactive as far as we can and monitoring the whole sorry saga constantly. Personally, and maybe pessimistically, I think our Masters will have other things on their minds leading up to the referendum, to bother about us and our plight!

Chris Garner

Location: Melton Mowbray

Chris,
Thanks for putting forward your thoughts. We special builders are going to be in limbo for a while yet possibly.
Cheers,
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

Hi Chris,
May I also thank you for your response.
I do appreciate that club officials are doing what they can and that they are having an embarrassing time dealing with faceless officialdom.
I don't think the DVLA are giving club officials the level of respect that they deserve.

If you've managed to wade through this whole thread you will have seen that I worked for a government QUANGO in the NHS and have seen how these things work behind the scenes.

I think this means I'm taking the whole situation rather personally as I've seen how a major arms length government body can ride roughshod over those they seek to legislate over, in my then employers case it was NHS dentists and all in the name of cutting costs.

Whilst I agree that Whitehall will be busy with the In/Out vote, the DVLA will still be pushing on with their agenda regardless, as this is how these departments work.

My Austin 2 seater doesn't have a registration as lack of funds, life, health and a mortgage got in the way and it's only since last October that I was able to resume working on my dream car.
It was only then that I discovered the current debacle.

I partially console myself that if the worst comes to the worst, because the project was so long term (beginning 1983) I can recoup most of my outlays by selling it off piecemeal, but that will still leave my goal of restoration and driving the finished vehicle unfulfilled - but such is life.

Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Make no mistake, our historic vehicle world is being lured onto the rocks.

In 2013, The Charter of Turin was ratified by a bunch of people most of us have never heard of and the FBHVC hailed this as a triumph of good sense.
Well, as Senior Vice-President of FIVA at the time and latterly, Head of the FIA’s Commission Historique Internationale Legislation Working Party happened to be no other than David Whale, current Chairman of the FBHVC, the Federation’s rather nebulous position in the present crisis comes as no surprise.
David Whale’s ‘holistic’ approach to the ‘wider ranging global status of historic vehicles’ (in other words a ‘fits-all’ solution) dovetails neatly with the DVLA's new position and is precisely what the historic vehicle movement in this country doesn’t need.

We are being hood-winked by the FBHVC; their support for the Charter of Turin and its restrictive formula for historic vehicles is unequivocal and their complaint about the DVLA’s ‘obsession with originality’ is a complete smoke-screen.

Follow the wrecker’s lights at your peril.

I understand that if the E.U. referendum results in Britain leaving, it will take a minimum of two years - and probably a lot longer - for this country to extract itself from the numerous treaties that we are signed up to. Plenty of time for the DVLA to adopt the E.U. formula as a permanent policy.

...or am I being pessimistic again?

Location: Derby

As there seems to be quite wide variations in the regulations in France, Germany, Belgium and Holland I cannot see how anyone can believe we are to be subjected to "EU rules". If we are, how come no EU member country has the same identical regulations rather than individual nations doing their own thing based on their historic national traffic regulations?
It would appear that much of this "discussion" forms part of the constant drip-feed of poison as has been stock "straight bananas, ban 8 year-olds from inflating balloons " propaganda from the likes of the Daily Mail.
If people are prepared to make their decisions on such an ill-informed basis, heaven help us!

Location: Ripon

Re the issue with DVLA has anyone / club thought of raising an e petition to have the issue raised in the Westminster it appears to be a straight forward process, 6 signatures to start the process get over 100,000 and it should be debated. Clearly there would need to be a clear issue and resolution required and not just a moan against DVLA. More info in the link below.

http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/sign-a-petition/e-petitions/

Just a though as I am sure there are enough people to sign the petition and we may get some resolution before we get bogged down in the EU debate.

Location: Dorset

Location: Derby

The government’s ‘gold-plating’ of an EU directive is no guarantee of its palatability.

The discussion about the DVLA’s new rules – or new interpretation of the old rules – is connected to the EU only in that Brussels is blamed generally for everything we care to disagree with.
The root of the problem is FIVA, its Charter of Turin and the lack of foresight of those (the FBHVC) who failed to perceive (or were pleased to ignore) the problems it would spawn for the historic and classic vehicle movement in the UK with its adoption even in part, by the DVLA.
There is no doubt that the DVLA have adopted the Charter’s definition of an historic vehicle and there is absolutely no doubt about the FBHVC’s support for the DVLA’s new regime and the Charter’s malignant content.

I would argue that Special builders have less interest in (but no less respect for) the historic status of their creations than owners of production vehicles and would likely be quite happy to forego the privileges associated with conventionally bodied historic vehicles; road tax is not a huge imposition and an MoT test, many regard as a must in any case. The DVLA have overlooked any provision for the accommodation of this class of vehicle and this wilful cultural cleansing, promoted by the insidious Charter of Turin must not go unchallenged.

There was a particularly good letter written by the late Stanley Mann in praise of Dr Clare Hay’s erudite comments on the originality of vintage Bentleys and which might be usefully applied to all vehicles that achieve Historic status. Hay concludes, ‘As far as Bentley Motors were concerned, the identity of a car is not straightforwardly a function of the chassis frame or any other major component. It is a function of continuity. Even if over time every component on a Bentley has been changed, provided it has existed throughout as a single identifiable entity it remains the original’.

Such good sense seems in very short supply.

Ref a Government petition, would somebody like to come up with appropriate wording?
All I can come up with at the moment is :-

''We request the Government to direct the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to treat the registering of Historic vehicles that were originally built with a separate chassis (ie non unitary construction / non monocoque) that have been subsequently fitted with replacement bodywork due to the irretrievable loss or damage of the original bodywork, on an equal basis to vehicles which have still retained there original bodywork when issuing or reissuing age related registration numbers, thereby recognizing and confirming the re-registered vehicles historic status.''

Please feel free to offer alternatives.

Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

My only suggestion would be to use a site like Change.org in preference to the Government's site because there's too many 'maybe's' in the description - an excuse to kick everything into the long grass if it's not a Cinderella issue.

Ref a Government petition, would somebody like to come up with appropriate wording?
All I can come up with at the moment is -slightly re-worded :-

''We request the Government to direct the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to treat the registering of Historic vehicles originally built with a separate chassis (ie non unitary construction / non monocoque)and subsequently fitted with replacement bodywork due to irretrievable loss or damage of the original bodywork, on an equal basis to vehicles still retaining the original bodywork when issuing or reissuing age related registration numbers, thereby recognizing and confirming the re-registered vehicles historic status.''

Please feel free to offer alternative wording - don't see much in the way of maybe's above?
-not totally convinced on Change.org - but am having a look.
Q:showing my ignorance here but:- how does the Government know you've put a petition on Change.Org.

Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Sorry Steve, I meant that there are too many ‘maybe’s’ in the government’s petition site.
I'm probably a little sceptical but, if you start a petition on a government run site, who is controlling it?

And not to pour cold water on your idea, after thinking about starting one myself, I considered the following:

1. In 2009 there were approximately 178,000 registered classic and historic vehicles in the UK.

2. In 2009 approximately 68,000 were presented for an MoT test.

3. In response to the government’s consultation on the lifting of the requirement for pre-1960 vehicles to be tested, there were 447 responses (0.66% of those presented, 0.25% of the total!).

I realise that some of these responses were collective but I would consider the show of hands pathetic considering that it was clearly an act of blatant chicanery (the removal of officially sanctioned roadworthiness) paving the way for the sort of problems we’re experiencing at the moment.

In other words, I concluded that I couldn’t rely on the support of enough people to get a petition off the ground. Apathy and the fact that most people wouldn’t put their heads above the parapet or say boo to a goose, are our biggest enemies and we hand these most effective weapons to the DVLA on a plate.
I think there’s no substitute for our individual efforts and that’s why I continue to write letters to people who I hope can make a difference if pushed hard enough.
As I say, I may be completely wrong.

Sir Greg Knight’s closing sentence in his last reply was ‘I’m doing what I can!’ The exclamation mark suggests that I’m hitting the spot :)
Good. But not yet good enough.

Steve

I have a few concerns about how such a petition might be interpreted later on (assuming successful number of signatories!).

Mainly that "due to irretrievable loss or damage of the original bodywork" could place a burden on the applicant that the body was beyond economical repair. The owner of a barn find car missing a body altogether would struggle to prove that the body was not simply removed for the purpose of building a replica sports.

Secondly "equal basis" is concerning because this may still cause problems for special builders. Even if the body were permitted as a replica, the rest of the components are from a number of different cars and would still fall into the kit car section of the rules.

I would like to see an extension of the existing rules. Replacement bodies are already permitted from the original manufacturer. If this were extended to "marque experts" then those professionals such as Roach, Yates, etc... would be able to supply bodies for replacement purposes.

The problem with my proposal is that the home special builder doesn't really meet the requirements for a marque expert - and worse, what if there is no expert for your make of car.

I'm not sure that there is a way of satisfying everybody.

Peter

Is not the special builder, be they professional or home, part of the culture of the Austin 7 that has is existed since the very early days and certainly more than 40 years? I thought the historic vehicle movement was all about protecting the living culture, which includes the special, of historical vehicles and allowing them to continue to be maintained and driven on public roads not withstanding the modern regulations that might exclude them if applied.

If individuals are to lobby then who do they direct their representations to? Just who are the key stakeholders, how can they be contacted, and what are their objectives and how can they be influenced?

I am not a special builder just a RP owner who wants to be able to continue driving on the roads without undue restriction, but I also do think the special side of A7s is worth sticking up for.

Location: NE Peak Corner

Thank you gentlemen,
It just goes to show that 'getting it right' is crucial and what is stated and how it is phrased is of great import.
I wouldn't want for example to disenfranchise those who create their own bodywork which is part of the great british tradition of special building.

A friend of mine Ernie Randall who is now sadly too old to actively take part, was building his own bodies from the early 1950's through to the mid to late 1990's.
They were all 2 seaters as far as I can recall, none were highly tuned as his enjoyment was rebuilding standard mechanics with the creative element of thinking up and building the body.

He said to me a good few years ago, ''I think I've had the best days of the old car world''.

Reluctantly I feel he may be right but I sincerely hope we haven't seen the end of them.
Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Does any one remember the Dave Gorman show, he did a piece on government petitions and it would appear that they are vetted before being presented and are not guaranteed in any way to get approval.

As it seems the FBHVC are the only people to whom the DVLA will listen too should we not be telling them exactly what clubs expect from them, and get them to present a case that will cover all angles. If the organisation that is supposed to represent us does not work for us, then its time to get a new one that will.

Location: Pembrokeshire

David,

I've directed all my correspondence to Sir Greg Knight, Chairman of the All Parliamentary Historic Vehicle Group. Both he and the FBHVC's representatives meet with the relevant Ministers from time to time.

As you demonstrate, we're all stakeholders in this regardless of our views on Special building.

Our objective generally might be to rein in the DVLA's enthusiasm for changing the rules to suit its straitened circumstances.

My more specific objective is to have reinstated the 8-point system as was applied to my Special in 2009 in which the nature and construction of its new body was considered irrelevant for the retention of its identity.

Phil,

I couldn't agree more.

I'm totally with you on that Nigel.
It would be a major step back to normality.
Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Nigel thanks, I was more thinking about what were the objectives of the "other" side. If one of the objectives of the DVLA is to live within a reduced budget, not unreasonable, then the A7 community needs to help them find alternative ways of doing this without compromising the ability to register or re-register historic vehicles. Unfortunately abuses in the past, not A7s in the main part, have, in the eyes of the DVLA and the general public, made this more difficult to achieve through a certification system relying on the various clubs.

Location: NE Peak Corner

As someone who is trying to rebuild/restore a 1925 car
This topic is causing a great deal of uncertainty to the Aysti 7
Community . The re-invention of Austin Sevens has been as much a part of the heritage
left by Herbert, for example all the period coach builders and the all the "special" builders
Who kept so many of these cars on the road, often on a budget in the 1950's and 60's for us and the general public to enjoy now.

How can folk who are restoring ancient buses and trucks, all with their coach built bodies,
Cope with any new draconian regime. So if you make a cab from scratch, then you cannot get a V5C.

In period many coach built cars had their bodies exchanged
Given that A7 bodies cost only £7? New at the factory And many Rolls Royce cars
Were regularly given new bodies in the 1930's and 40's.

Anyone know how the Commercisl Clubs view this Saga?

Regards

Bill

Location: Scottish Borders

I agree Bill, At one time Rolls Royce only sold a rolling chassis, so there is no defined type of body for them, as with many commercial vehicles, in fact many company's made rolling chassis available to coachbuilders. The only important part of a vehicle like this is the driving chassis, that is the bit that is drivable and the part that is registered. If we take a newly made body and stick a box section chassis under it and fit a draw bar is not a motor car its trailer put it on an original chassis and it a motor vehicle and subject to all the relevant laws that go with it.

Location: Pembrokeshire

TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT MEDDLING. SAYS FBHVC
Federation fears over-rigid interpretations will wreck classic ownership
The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs has accused the UK Government of trying to railroad thousand into a hugely restrictive German style class of vehicles.
This historic sector: Vehicle of Historic Interest could restrict moderate and safe modifications being made to classics - or even force owners to return their vehicles to pre-modified and less safe condition.
In a no holds barred response to the Department for Transport's EU Roadworthiness Directive proposal the FBHBVC highlights several problems with DfT’s handling of the consultation.
In it the FBHUVC criticises the DfT for following EU Directives to the letter, and offering little to no acknowledgement of Brexit, Britain's intention to start , of leaving the EU next year The Govemment’s stance on the matter is that it needs to adhere to EU rules for now. But by the time the consultation comes into place in 2018 the UK is expected to have left the union. One of the main concerns is with modifications, as the EU Directives aren't that speci about what is considered to modified on an historic vehicle. Geoff Lancaster, the communications director for the
FBHVC, says he fears over-rigid interpretations ruining classic ownership. He says: 'There are suggestions that we might adopt the German model of very rigid specifications. But what the DfT doesn't realise is that we're very different culturally. 'In the case of modifications, from our point of view, the Government should not be arbiters of authenticity. It should only be an arbiter of road safety. Why should authorities care about authenticity? We care, clubs care, but it shouldn't affect the Government. The only issue is compliance in road safety.'
Along with classic enthusiasts in the UK, the FBHVC believes there are numerous question; on the Roadworthiness Directive that the DFT has failed to answer.
Asked by Classic Car Weekly to respond specifically to the modifications issue raised by roadworthiness testing proposals, a spokesman for the DFT says: •Classic cars are an important part of this nation's motoring heritage. It is important that enthusiasts can continue to enjoy them and that these vehicles are safe and appropriately maintained. 'We have consulted on plans to exempt vehicles over 40 years old from MOT’s. The responses are now being considered and we will respond in due course.'

www.fbhvc.co.uk
German-style historic class that could be coming to the UK
In Germany and Austria, classic cars can get an H plate -to signify it being a historic car.
Registering as an historic car gains cheaper tax and insurance; but cars have to adhere to the following stricter rules:
They must have been registered at least 30 years ago.
They must be 'mostly' in their original condition. No murals or custom paint jobs.
No modern' modifications are permitted on the vehicles.
Modifications that are allowed include changes that benefit safety or emissions.
Modifications that are in period can be allowed.

Location: Berkshire

NOW THEY CALL IT CONTINUATION WHAT IS DVLA PLAYING AT?
In the CCW 23/11/16
New classic Jaguar XKSS
The first Jaguar XKSS made in 60 years has been revealed - and Jaguar will build eight more at its Special Operations Division headquarters in Coventry.
Jaguar will use chassis numbers allocated to original cars destroyed in the Browns Lane factory fire of 1957.
All nine have already been sold for £1m a piece, though. Jaguar exploited state of-the-art technology to digitally recreate the XKSS shape, which was then used as a blueprint for these continuation models. Coupled with original technical drawings, the original XKSS was recreated in every detail. The magnesium alloy body was made using a bespoke styling buck based on the original cars, while the chassis was bronze welded as it was in period. The new XKSS is powered by a 3.4-litre straight six D-type engine with a new cast iron block, new cylinder heads, triple Weber carbs and a stronger fuel cell - the latter a concession to safety. Other changes compared with the original cars are said to be 'minor'.
Tim Hannig, director of Jaguar Land Rover Classic, says: 'Our continuation XKSS reaffirms our commitment to nurture the passion and enthusiasm for Jaguar's illustrious past by offering exceptional cars, services, parts and experiences.'

Location: Berkshire

They must be 'mostly' in their original condition. No murals or custom paint jobs.
No modern' modifications are permitted on the vehicles.
Modifications that are allowed include changes that benefit safety or emissions.
Modifications that are in period can be allowed.

These rules would seem to be a bit contradictory, are they saying that as long as you have an original colour scheme you, can fit a modern more efficient and less polluting engine and transmission, change the axles and steering so as to be able to fit disc brakes with bigger wheels and tyres and also change the chassis for one with a crumple zone and seat belt fittings as all these modifications would benefit safety and emissions, and turn a historic vehicle into a hot rod, but then again the are no modern modifications allowed! But on the up side a change of body to a special would be allowed as that is a well proven and common period modification.It could also be argued that the lighter special body would make the car safer improving braking and handling characteristics. The mind boggles!

Location: Pembrokeshire

I think it will take a court case to show the muddled thinking to be unfit for purpose. A Judge would probably throw it out if it got that far!

Location: Derby