Babu,
Ok got the message. I will be sending letter to FBHVC shortly. Thank you for info. I should have done this early doors.
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

Babu

I'm not sure that the FBHVC represent special builders interests at all. They are only interested in standard cars - as they left the factory.

Additionally, inspection or otherwise, the DVLA may consider any car that has not been previously registered and has not been recently imported as a "kit of bits" and therefore falls into the category of needing a DVLA provided VIN and all parts must be over 25 years old.

I'd still be worried if I was building a new special out of a load of accumulated parts.

I don't think I'd be worried at all by a nice Ashley special or similar, even if it didn't have a log book - because the worst case is you'll get a 1950's number.

Pedro

Pedro,
Many cars in the 1920's and 1930's left the factory without bodies,to be fitted with bodies by the numerous coach builders.
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

Is there any word on how we stand if we have a V5C with correct chassis number but a replacement 2 seater body, but the V5C still has 'saloon' on it? Is it too risky to get this changed to, say, 'tourer' or 'sports'?
thanks .. I'm of a mind just to leave it at the moment, I would be very upset to lose its original registration

Not sure that they've done much for prewar cars at all. Useful if you have a bus though....
They took us down the "No Mot" route and most prewar owners that I speak to didn't want it.

Charles

This whole subject is another example of "improvements" which have not been requested by the customer !!

A civil servant can only sit with their thumb up their b** for so long , then seek to justify their cushy job .

Bonuses all round , chaps .

Merv
End of rant

Location: New Forest

successive governments have demanded more done for less money and with less staff.
You can only do this for so long before services suffer and the staff that are left don't understand the full workings / implications of the service they are trying to provide.
The DVLA situation is a case in point.

Steve V - redundant from the NHS!

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

MP's push for parts talk.

Chair of All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicle Group, Sir Greg Knight MP, has met the Transport Minister to discuss concerns about DVLA attitude to historic vehicles fitted with new parts.
Sir Greg asked for the meeting following complaints received by a number of MP's around the country.
Following the meeting, Transport Minister Andre Jones MP agreed to look into the matter and report back to Sir Greg.
He said: because a historic vehicle has a number of replacements parts should not mean that it ceases to be historic.
There is a distinction to be drawn between a brand new vehicle which is a replica and a genuine historic vehicle which has been with some new parts to keep it on the road.
Sir Greg hopes to have a report from the Minister in December.

Classic Car Weekly 18 November 2015

Location: East Sussex

As usual, people are trying to fight the wrong battle!
DVLA have, on several occasions, accepted that older vehicles may, and indeed will, need replacement parts during the life of the vehicle. They have acknowledged that replacement bodies, and even replacement chassis, are acceptable when applied to existing vehicles on their database.
The problem we now have is that they are now saying that an assembly of parts, even if they are all from the same type and age of vehicle, is no longer acceptable as a datable historic vehicle.In the past a datable chassis frame has been accepted as a datable basis for a reconstructed vehicle; now it is not. I don't have a problem with DVLA clamping down on a completely new recreation, like the Pur Sang Bugattis and Alfa Romeos, but they are now showing their ignorance in motoring history by applying that thinking to vehicles assembled from old parts.

Aaargh! My Captcha letters are bu9aTi!

They have acknowledged that replacement bodies, and even replacement chassis, are acceptable when applied to existing vehicles on their database.

thats what I wanted to hear!

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

"They have acknowledged that replacement bodies, and even replacement chassis, are acceptable when applied to existing vehicles on their database."

Where precisely is that stated?

See the BOC letter on page one of this thread:

"The DVLA have also confirmed that where an owner of a correctly registered historic vehicle needs to replace an original component, due to accident damage, failure, safety or other reasons, then this will not invalidate the vehicle's historic status or registration. They accept that original cars will, during their 'life-span', require replacement components and will be assessed in line with the Agency's leaflet, INF 26."

Mike

With respect, there has been a lot of water under the bridge since BOC sent out the letter. DVLA have not yet responded to the specific question regarding new bodies following the meeting in Swansea earlier this year.

Found this on the DVLA web site today, it should help with bitsa's not sure how it will effect specials though.

Get an age-related registration number

DVLA can only recognise your vehicle as a reconstructed classic vehicle if it meets certain criteria. 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
a true reflection of the marque

The appropriate vehicle owners’ club for the vehicle type (‘marque’) must inspect the vehicle and confirm in writing that it:

has been inspected
is a true reflection of the marque
is comprised of genuine period components all over 25 years old

They must also give manufacture dates for the major components.

DVLA will assign an age-related registration number to the vehicle based on the youngest component used.
New or replica parts

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.


Keep a vehicle’s original registration number

A rebuilt vehicle can keep its original registration number if you can prove you’ve used:

the original unmodified chassis or bodyshell (car or light van)
a new chassis or monocoque bodyshell of the same specification as the original (car or light van)
the original unmodified frame (motorbike)
a new frame of the same specification as the original (motorbike)

You must also have 2 other major components from the original vehicle from the following lists.

For cars or light vans:

suspension (front and back)
steering assembly
axles (both)
transmission
engine

For motorbikes:

forks
wheels
engine
gear box

Get a Q registration number

DVLA will give your vehicle a ‘Q’ prefix registration number if you don’t meet the conditions for keeping the original registration number.

Your vehicle must pass the relevant type approval test to get a Q registration number.

Location: Pembrokeshire.

My understanding of that is :
I am using the parts from a Ruby (long deceased) but all parts present and with along standing age related plate, using a special body tub built more than 25 yeras ago but never used, I can build a special with no problem ?.
what do you think?.

Location: Oakley ,Hants

DVLA will assign an age-related registration number to the vehicle based on the youngest component used.
New or replica parts

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.



Does not make sense
In one hand You will get an aged related number based on the youngest component New or Replica.
In another hand you don't get an aged related number if it includes New or Replica parts.

Location: Middlesex

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

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

It strikes me that there is a key misunderstanding within the DVLA of the difference between the body of a car with a separate chassis and a more modern Monocoque.

Location: New Zealand

Dave, I am sad to say that I think you are probably right. You ask for any ideas? I think any opinions that any of us may have will be disregarded by the authorities essentially because they think they know best. My guess is that if the DVLA are to determine the definition of "historic vehicle" they will look no further than the E.U. A cynic might suggest that this current hiatus is simply a way of mandating the definition that has already been accepted in principle.

Location: Derby

That looks interesting DVLA putting Replica on a V5c.
So why not call an Austin 7 Special replica, Bugatti special replica etc...and keep it as Historic as they've done with this Porsche?

Porsche 356 Speedster LEGEND replica in metallic silver RHD - Classed as a Historic Vehicle, based on a 1971 VW Beetle chassis and running gear and registered as a Porsche 356 Replica with DVLA by previous owner.

http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C662533

Location: Middlesex

It was said earlier that my MP, in a ministerial post, is to look into this issue. So I have asked to meet with him to discuss the issue.

Andrew, if you have the ear of a Minister, collect signatures via an e-petition.

https://petition.parliament.uk

Letter in December 2015 in the Automobile

THE DVLA AND HISTORIC SPECIALS
While our Publisher may feel confident that DVLA will not inaugurate a witch-hunt regarding those vehicles already registered with V5C documents (Starting Handle, October), the same may well not apply to vehicles which though genuinely more than 25 years old, have lost their identity documents and for records are no longer available from the original issuing local authority. Over the last 40 years I have rescued for restoration a number of interesting vehicles which have no documentation but also do not neatly fit into a category suitable for an age related number plate should the DVLA chose to be difficult. One example is a 1955 production sports car bought 40 years ago as a restored rolling chassis with all matching numbers and, fortunately, the remains of a bulkhead with chassis plate the rest of the body having been stolen, probably for scrap. My intention, finally realised last year, was to fit rare period fibreglass body from 1958. Should the DVLA choose they may decide, despite all the components being pre-1960, as proven by a Heritage Certificate for the original car and contemporary advertising for the bodyshell, to treat the vehicle as a reconstructed classic' refusing an age-related number and requiring an IVA test, which would be unattainable for a 1955 vehicle, before offering a Q-plate. In other words, the car would be fit only for parts. I also own a fibreglass special based on a shortened saloon chassis dating from 1949, bought as an abandoned project but without an engine.
This leads to the same problem while as above with the added burden of having to produce receipts for the engine (correct for the the car, but originally from another vehicle) which I have owned for almost 40 years and therefore now have no receipt for. Although constructed considerably more than 25 years ago, with a 1949 chassis and a 1961 body, in the absence of documentation the DVLA may decide that it is a "radically altered vehicle' (shortened chassis, different body), again requiring an IVA group and Q-plate.
Then there is the rare Ford 10 special, one of three thought to exist, bodied with an early example of the work of a manufacturer later to go on to much greater things and with a contemporary 1961 tubular chassis from a well-known constructor of the time.
Work on these three retirement projects has now stopped since I have no wish to spend yet more money on vehicles which, despite being close to roadworthy, may end up being as the scrapped as unusable should the DVLA see fit.
White It appears to me to be iniquitous firstly that the DVLA can act as judge, jury and executioner when they offer no guidelines about, for example, what they consider to be 'major components' and, secondly, that of the a vehicle cannot even be considered for an age-related number and V5C until much time and money has been spent bringing it to even a minimum MoT standard. If refused, of course, it may render the vehicle unusable
I believe the rules relating to the registration old vehicles need to be radically reviewed, How many of the rare and sometimes incomplete vehicles feature in Finds & Discoveries will otherwise end up as scrap because it cannot be proved that all components are correct, particularly where a new body (or a period body from another car) is fitted to an otherwise correct chassis? A major issue may be, if I understand correctly, the DVLA staff issuing age-related numbers are the same as those issuing modern registrations, while those issuing new documents to replace old logbooks are a different group altogether. If so, the latter probably know something about older vehicles while the former probably do not even know that cars once had separate chassis and bodies. The problems I have outlined above appear not to have occurred when local offices dealt with the issue, and it seems sad that a small group of people can have caused so much concern and scrutiny through passing off tool room' copies as the real thing.

Location: Berkshire

I also read this in the Automobile. A perfect example of the need for a degree of " discretionary flexibility" which is,unfortunately, beyond the wit of the agency.

How will DVLA treat this car?

http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C670172

Location: East Sussex

If DVLA are told it has been converted to a convertible, modifying the monocoque body, then they will insist it undergoes the IVA test. This means fitting dual circuit brakes and an approved immobiliser, dealing with sharp edges in the cab, fitting a catalytic converter etc.

On the other hand it will have a registration easily if no-one tells them about the modified body.

But that is just my guess. Part of the problem is that the guidelines are not clear.

I'm sorry, but but which part of the DVLA guidelines is not clear?

Whether you agree with the stance DVLA is taking or not - and before you jump on me, I don't, by the way - the above is pretty unequivocal.

Rick

Location: Deepest Norfolk

Well, for starters, since the DVLA is sparing in the use of commas in their guidelines, this is ambiguous:

"Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer) - 5 points"

That could be read as either "original or new, and unmodified", in other words no modifications to original specification at all; or "original, or new and unmodified", in other words the original can be modified, but the new replacement can not.

The DVLA guidelines are riddled with such ambiguities.

It is not just the DVLA , even newspapers, including the " up market " ones , have a tenuous idea of correct grammar . I do wonder what legal minefields are being created by newly qualified solicitors !!

Merv

End of rant .

Location: New Forest