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

Up to a point, I agree; but what about the owner of the remains of a 'fifties special that wishes to rebuild the vehicle back to original. It would appear as if DVLA would be quite happy to keep the vehicle as a 2-seater sports, but not to re-instate it as a van, for instance!

we went in confused and we are now out and extremely confused

Location: East Sussex

Vintage Hot Rod Association write up of the meeting.

Location: United Kingdom

Thanks Austin - that is pretty clear.

Does anyone know where this leaves special building for road use? I’ve been offered another short chassis which I need as much as a hole in the head but my brother is quite keen on building a special.

Tom

Location: Eye on the Norfolk / Suffolk border

VSCC Response - see last paragraph about specials.

http://www.vscc.co.uk/page/news?newsItemID=615

Peter

Mmmh, that's a worry, not only does that indicate that virtually every Ulster style special witha body under 25 years old will come under scrutiny but also rebodied cars that remain true to the original.

As Ruairidh has just reminded me, that will certainly effect those applying for a registration number, existing cars, should be okay.

Nevertheless, I still think there's more work to be done!

Location: Near Bicester.

In effect this will rule out specials without registration docs unless there is a change of policy.
Having put two cars through SVA which is LESS stringent than IVA and MSVA my humble opinion is that NO Austin 7 could pass without serious modification to contemporary standards. This conformity would totally remove any authenticity from a pre-war car and seems designed to prevent restoration of old vehicles.

That is a much more helpfull report than the ratrod one.

let us hope the DVLA see sence with respect to replacement bodies.

However the days of building a car from a ruck or parts, bodying it with whatever is wanted and applying for an age related plate is gone.

What is obvious is that the DVLA consider that the routes discussed are for Historic Vehicles, modify it far enough from what is a very woolley line and you will loose that status

Bad news for all special builders. Anyone like to join the Ex Austin Special Builders Garden Appreciation Society?
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

Yes Dave I might have to join. Very depressing reading indeed having recently embarked on building a special from parts. I certainly do not intend to stop the build, and we can only hope that with the assistance of our clubs progress can be made.

I don't like to see anyone treated unfairly but not being involved with special building ( rather like the DVLA officials who have to make judgements about such things) if one is building a "special" is it not possible to meet the requirements?

Please be gentle with me; I am only asking the same question that the DVLA will be asking.

I don't make the rules!

Location: Derby

Thanks Ray. Well I was under the impression that by keeping the chassis & running gear original I was safe under the old 8 point rule. (I have endeavoured to keep all the components as close as possible to the chassis date). The problem will be adding a sports body less than 25 years old, then having to put it through an IVA test. I’m sure I’m not the only one very frustrated with this situation.

If a four wheeler weighs less than 350kg and has less than 12 HP it can go through MSVA as a "heavy quad" but I think an A7 would exceed that weight. IVA regulations are available on the DVLA you gov site
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-approval/individual-vehicle-approval
but the basics are radius related , seat belt mountings, chassis members,collapsible steering columns, glass,mirror, lens markings,fuel lines, braking efficiency etc. any of which will be difficult to comply with. There is a lot more than the above and IMHO they would change the car so much as to remove its personality and it would no longer be an Austin 7. Of course it would be possible to undo all the "specially for inspection" stuff but that would invalidate the insurance.
I don't want to be a downer but my guess is that IVA would be so difficult and expensive as to make it beyond the bounds of reasonable achievability.

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

Many thanks, Gentlemen. I had not realised that the regulations would change the nature of the car so much.

Does this open up a market for "aged" replica bodies?

Location: Derby

How many businesses are going to close? How many people will lose their jobs? I know of one well-known bodybuilder who told me that since this situation reared its ugly head his phone has stopped ringing. Many home built special builders went on to run successful businesses based on their skills. Colin Chapman, John Haynes - the list goes on.

Location: Inside the M25

Thank you for the link Peter.
Well that's a real kick in the teeth, I wouldn't be too worried about running on a Q plate, if the car is built from bits and has a 2015 body I can kind of see the sense, if a Q allows you to at least insure and drive your car. However to then make what is basically a 1930 car try to jump modern hoops makes it a no go. A real shame that this might halt a long history of special building. Guess I shouldn't be surprised, it's not the first time things have been wrecked for the many by the actions of the few.

Location: Eye on the Norfolk / Suffolk border

Yes Tom, I don't care about the number on the car, but I do want it to be as much A7 as possible. If money would have allowed a 'Nippy with log book' restoration would have been my choice. I would be interested to know if any special builders have managed to get an age related registration on a 'parts' built project in the last 18 months???

The requirement for an IVA to go with the Q plate is the bugbear. We can only hope that the FBHVC can prevail upon DVLA to see sense andr relent on the IVA requirement. If not we will lose a multi- million pound industry with the loss of skills that that entails.
The trouble with common sense is that it's a rare commodity.

Duncan I couldn't agree with you more, in fact I think we should get the OED to change it to uncommon sense as it is definitely no longer common!

Location: Eye on the Norfolk / Suffolk border

There appears to be slightly different comments from the Hot Rod feedback and the VSCC feedback, not saying either is right or wrong but I suppose we need to wait for the full DVLA statement if they issue one. The VSCC appear to indicate that DVLA will review the situation re prewar cars with new bodies which is a bit of hope. Putting aside specials it appears you can not find a chummy chassis and rebuild with a new chummy body which can't be right.

I hope those that can in the clubs will lobby DVLA and get some sense to prevail, or is it a case that there needs to be more of a general people power lobbying? As others have said the government will lose out in the end through loss of income through us spending money on old cars and the kit car industry.

Location: Dorset

I don't want to sound like a miserable sod but since when was it allowed to cobble together a selection of parts and register it as a car?
When I built my Ulster rep more than 25 years ago and applied for an age related plate I had a conversation with the DVLA inspector who came to visit. He made it crystal clear that it was against the rules even then. However back then a new body on an original rolling chassis was not a barrier to an age related number plate.

Charles

"I don't want to sound like a miserable sod but since when was it allowed to cobble together a selection of parts and register it as a car?
When I built my Ulster rep more than 25 years ago and applied for an age related plate I had a conversation with the DVLA inspector who came to visit. He made it crystal clear that it was against the rules even then. However back then a new body on an original rolling chassis was not a barrier to an age related number plate."

This was certainly not the case when I built my two cars, nor with the 300+ other Pembletons which have been given age-related numbers. The points system was applied to items such as suspension,steering, transmission, engine/gearbox which together with a photographic record of the dismantling of the donor vehicle and the original V5 would allow qualification for the plate.

An entire kit car industry was built around the concept of fitting GRP bodies onto the likes of Ford Pops and Austin 7 s in the post war decades.

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

Apologies but I had to Google what a Pembleton is first!
It's a Morganish kit car based in a 2CV yes? Looks quite fun actually. Not a reconstructed prewar car looking for an age related plate but a vehicle with a DVLA identity that is effectively "reskinned". If that's the case then the points system is still in play because you are starting with a registered entity and making changes whilst keeping enough of the original vehicle to stay above 8 points or whatever. Not sure why a car like that would need an age related plate. It's got the reg number of the donor.
The whole kit car industry isn't impacted here as long as you start with an entity that exists that has an identity registered at DVLA.
The problems come in when you have a pile of bits that has never been an entity and has no DVLA identity.

Charles

So were does a car fit in if over time the chassis, engine, gear box, body, suspension etc has been replaced or refurbished, all ok as the same car, bit like Trigger's broom.

Location: Dorset

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.

I may havre expressed my view badly. The point I was trying to make was that with documentation there should be no problems retrieving an "original" date V5. However, a collection of parts with no documents at all will present a problem. Common sense says that the chassis and engine numbers will identify the year(s) of manufacture and that these should provide a fair starting point in dating a re-built vintage or pre-war car and this was the case until Pur Sang threw a spanner in the works.
An IVA certificate is given to what is thereafter classed as a new car which is MoT exempt for three years but then has to have its annual test. If dateable provenance is unavailable or not presented when the registration is applied for it will also get a Q plate.
The Pembleton does not retain the original chassis but uses a new space-frame and monocoque body, hence the need for re-registration.

As I said in a previous post the scarcity of common sense, particularly in bureaucracy, is tragic.

Location: Ripon

When changes/replacements took place the licensing authority should have been notified.
If a chassis was/is changed the vehicle took/takes the identity of the donor vehicle.
Engine change will show as a dated amendment in the beige/green registration book or more recently the issue of a new V5 or V5C.
Body type change will also show as a dated amendment/new V5 or V5C as does colour change.
Changes to gearbox and suspension were/are not notifiable.

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?

Precisely! The chassis and its number is the basic identity of a vehicle; if a vehicle receives a new chassis frame, then it is considered to have been rebuilt onto the new chassis, not to have had a replacement component. The chassis frame IS the basic identifiable entity - all other components are period-identifiable replacements.

Dear FBHVC,
I hope you are noting this discussion and they are used to put a very valid case to the DVLA. What would be so wrong in keeping the points system and just how relevant is a body,as long as it is made to a style and using the same construction method as an Austin Seven of that period and similar to commercial coachbuilders who fitted their wares on many an A7 in the 1920's and 1930's? Would this be an example of the DVLA's "True to the marque"? This would be in line with the DVLA's philosophy of "keeping cars on the road".
Dave

Location: Somewhere in the Northern Powerhouse

I may not have assimilated all the facts so perhaps someone can help me with a question. According to the current register of Austin Swallows, there are seven cars which have had a replacement chassis at some point in their past; only one of which has retained it's original engine. Are these cars possibly going to be affected?

In terms of relevant importance, the "Swallow" coachwork has usually taken priority over the Austin Seven mechanical parts.

Location: Derby

Hello Ray, unless the DVLA receives a report that a particular car has questionable provenance, those cars that have had replacement chassis, as long as they have informed the DVLA in the past and the details are correct on the V5, should be fine, I imagine.

Location: Near Bicester.

Thank you for that Ivor. I have no idea whether or not the paperwork for these re chassied cars meets with DVLA approval. I do know that two of them have been re registered so I suppose they at least are in order?

I was personally interested in the VSCC report of the meeting stating that "there had appeared to be a revised interpretation of accepting new bodies on existing vehicles, either as like for like or bodies of an appropriate style, even if changing from a saloon to a tourer for example".

I expect to see this confirmed (or not) when the DVLA publish their report.

Location: Derby

I think it will boil down to what becomes the accepted norm for what is acceptable as ''appropriate style'' and ''True to the marque''.

Rebuilding your Ruby chassis as an 'Ulster' with a new body may be that little far from those definitions for some people.

Whearas rebuilding a short wheelbase mag engined rolling chassis as a chummy, or perhaps a c type van with new bodies would fall squarely in those definitions.

Accepting of course that the definitions are far from clear, and only one is stated as a rule as it stands!.

This isn't in my book (remember it?)



Charles

I remember that.

It was interesting, but I think the question for me was not so much "what?" as Why?

Location: Derby

I think that, now the furore has blown itself a little, we should perhaps revert to the default "keep our heads down " position until there is a clear and unambiguous definition of the policy.
I won't be holding my breath!
Another letter to the MP might not go amiss..

Location: Ripon

Are we going to see more people reporting their fellow enthusiast to DVLA? it remind me of the Gov department who encourage people to report the benefits cheats.
Just imagine if I dislike David and I report him to DVLA. he may have a proper car etc but it will create a big problem and years of fighting for him to prove that his car is 100 pct genuine.

Location: Southport

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

As mentioned before the chassis is the car, like it or not, it is the part that is numbered and registered and is identifiable in most cases, the body like axles, wheels, suspension is only another variable component. Individuals, clubs and the DVLA need to accept this as fact for all our sakes. If the chassis has a number it's heritage is/should be traceable and it should be allowed to be registered as such once it providence is proven even if it is just a rolling chassis.

If a pile of OLD bits that can be identified and aged,without a chassis number it can be said that at some point they must have come from a once registered car and therefore should not be a problem in getting them re-registered as well, age related and made from parts would seem appropriate in this case.

Our current problems stem from new chassis being passed of as old and being accepted as old by people who should know better. There has to be a limit as to how many replacement new parts can be used when reconstructing an old car. In the case of a replacement chassis an identifiable large part of the old chassis should be available to the DVLA or reliant club as proof of existence of a vehicle in the first place and proof of scrap-page of said chassis needed after approval.

If we can all agree that the chassis is the car or in the case of cars without a chassis the body-shell, life would become a lot simpler for everyone.

Location: Pembrokeshire

Phil I support your comment 100 pct.
Chassis was always the most important part of the car for any pre 1960 cars.
Maybe we need to hammer this message to DVLA

Whilst I agree with you both Phil and John, there is the subject of those Swallows that were mentioned earlier.

For whatever reason (I can't imagine what, because if it was due to corrosion a Swallow body would have long disappeared into a pile of dust) their chassis have been replaced and the DVLA has accepted that I assume as the cars are running around at the moment...should they have their historic status removed?

Personally I don't think they should, if their provenance can be proved, but once again, the chassis is the key to a vehicle's identity, much as a bodyshell today has a number stamped into it and if a car is "shelled" it has to be re-stamped and a new log book issued by the DVLA before it can go back on the road.

Location: Near Bicester.

As it happens, all Swallow bodies were given a unique number. Some cars like mine still have this number - it can be found etched into the wooden floor and chalked onto the inside of a door skin - however, over the years, this evidence has been lost on probably half of the surviving cars.

I can imagine an irony where the Swallow body - especially a saloon - would have been removed from the chassis and replaced with a light weight sports type. If by some chance the saloon body survived it would eventually become worth restoring and another chassis would be needed.

Swings and roundabouts.

Location: Derby

I may have missed it somewhere in the preceding 5 pages but has anyone worked out what the consequences/options are for a numbered chassis with a buff log book.

Re bodied with the origonal style but new build, refitted with an old body if available, local tip???

Confused of Cheshire

If the chassis number and buff log book match and the original body can be proved to be over 25 years old, there should be no problem!

Location: Near Bicester.