Interesting ... Perhaps yours have somehow slipped the net! Over the years I have had numerous cars with re-issued age-related numbers - a quick count makes it eight, but I think I have missed a couple! - and they have all been issued on a non-transferable basis(the earliest I can recall dates back to the mid-1980s). So perhaps this Austin Eight may have also slipped through with a transferable number, in which case the owner should have left well alone ...

Like a few other Austin owners trying to retain their original registration numbers( in my case HU xxxx) I was fobbed off by DVLA and given an BF xxxx number ., supposedly an age related number , but further research has revealed that BF was last issued in 1904 and was withdrawn as the county set in Dorsetshire objected to having a number plate that inferred they were Bloody fools!

I've seen lots of other BF xxxx numbers recently now on Austin 7's and wonder if DVLA have decided Austin enthusiasts are all Bloody Fools!

"Under the Motor Car Act, 1903 the Local Government Board allocated BF to Dorsetshire. These letters did not find favour with some local motorists( ed : as BF was regarded as a short version of Bloody Fool!) and representations were made by the Dorset Automobile Association in 1903, the County Council applied for a change, which was permitted and by an LGB Order of 27/12/04 the mark FX was assigned.

The order did not require existing marks to be changed, but it provided that the owner could have the mark FX substituted for BF on giving notice to the county council.The last BF registration originally alloted was BF 162 on 20Dec 1994.

42 car owners and 41 motorcycle owners did not change their registration letters, but any remaining on the roads on 1/1/1921 were re-registered with FX numbers, since BF was not allocated under the Roads Act 1920 "

The above information quoted from Philip Riden's useful booklet "How to trace the History of Your Car" published in 1991.

I think I might write again to DVLA and claim my "legal" right to get an FX number, quoting the Dorsetshire precedent!

No doubt the HU xxxx I should have been allocated will now be sold for £1500? In the regular DVLA auction?as they say follow the money.

Bill G

Sent from my iPhone

Location: ScottishBorder

They only sell previously unallocated numbers

HU was a Bristol registration .

Location: Bristol

Has anyone been through the re-registration process recently with a standard car/project that has no paper evidence?

Location: Fife

Hi Ian

I knew it was an early Bristol number and wrote to the City Museums who hold some incomplete registration records.
They kindly supplied me with a copy of a receipt showing the HUxxxx vehicle record being transferred to Argyllshire , where the car was purchased/taxed by the owner I bought it from, Along with a 1976 Tax disc and MOT. But DVLA said I had not linked the 1925registration to the 1925 chassis no!

I asked them how many 1925 HU cars were transferred from Bristol to Argyll in 1976!!!!!!!! There seems to be no way to appeal either , so I gave up and accepted an age related BF( aka Dorsetshire Bloody Fool) number which now appear regularly on Austins and even on Bugatti's . What irony!

If it had been a BG number then I would have been happy!

Regards

Bill G

Location: Scottish Border

Classic Car Weekly

DVLA 'SWAMPED' BY
BARN FIND ENQUIRIES
Barn finds are increasingly common - but some might hide sinister pasts

leading group of experts are calling on the DVLA to do more about barn find-related car crime.
The IAATI says it's currently too easy for criminals to steal cars, and have them re-registered as barn finds with the DVLA.
The institute reports that criminals are stealing classics and with minimal questioning from the DVLA, can get the car re-registered.
Communications director Dr Ken German says: 'There's been a lot of barn finds being pumped through the DVLA's enquiry office lately. Unfortunately, the system is being abused by thieves. It's becoming far too easy to have stolen cars reregistered as barn finds. Most of the time, if you have a registration for it you will probably get an age-related numberplate for the car. 'All the things the DVLA are supposed to check seemingly aren't getting checked. It appears as long as someone has an old buff log book, they can get the forms through.

The DVLA has fought back against the criticisms, stating that although situations like this may happen, it's not a common occurrence. David Whitbread, media relations officer for the DVLA, says: 'We've not seen any rise in these situations - in fact, we haven't seen much change in tlie number of registration of barn finds.

Auction analyst Richard Hudson Evans thinks it's common sense that some barn finds aren't legitimate. He says: I am amazed they keep coming out the woodwork. Where do they all keep coming from? Interestingly, many so-called barn finds end up making serious money because they're popular at the moment. A lot of people like the idea of themselves being the first people to restore a car.
Silverstone auctions have had big success with barn finds, even selling £1 million-worth of them at its sale at the 2014 Lancaster Insurance Classic Motor Show.
Bosses from the company insist
that these types of cars go through stringent checks to ensure they don't have a chequered past. A spokesperson says: "All of our cars go through vigorous vetting
including HPI checks.

HOW TO REGISTER A BARN FIND

It must be built from genuine
period components from more
than one vehicle, all over 25 years old and of the same specification.

The appropriate vehicle owners' club for the vehicle must inspect the vehicle and confirm in writing that it has been inspected, is a true reflection of the marque, and is comprised of genuine period components all over 25 years old.

They must also give manufacture dates for the major components.

The DVLA will assign an agerelated registration number to
the vehf'de based on the youngest component used.

It must be a true reflection of
the marque.

Location: South London

September the 23rd, now the first anniversary of the DVLA/FBHVC meeting concerning age related registration etc. No progress reported from either concern apparently. Anyone know otherwise?
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

Two months has passed since inspection and one month since receiving DVLA letter of confirmation of inspection.
Nothing at all yet.

Very very fustrating

Location: East Sussex

According to issue 4/2016 of the FBHVC newsletter,progress relating to new bodies on original chassis in order to obtain an age related registration number has been zero. We are advised by FBHVC to remain patient (again).
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

Classic Car Weekly 26/10/16

FBHVC AT WAR WITH DVLA
Our roving newshound takes the pulse of a Federation battling to get the best for classic owners

The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs is at loggerheads with the DVLA over registration plates. So much so, it has called for an emergency discussion with Minister of State for Transport John Hayes. Dealing with the DVLA has proved immensely difficult over the past year/ FBHVC director of legislation, Bob Owen told the Federation's annual meeting at the British Motor Museum on 15 October.
One particular problem, CCW understands, is the V765 scheme, under which vehicles not on the DVLA database can be reunited with their original registrations. This is not working as intended.
Owen said a meeting with Hayes,whose responsibilities include looking at historic vehicle policy is on the cards 'imminently*.
Other serious concerns to be discussed will be the Government's consultation document on the proposed exemption of further classics from MoT testing. Owen emphasised that the problem was not with»the people at the DVLA but the systems it now worked under. We really do get on well with them and we really do believe they are trying to do their best for the classic movement but we are pretty uncomfortable with their policies/ says Owen.
The situation has worsened since the closure of local offices when a revisiting of the DVLA's policies had taken place.
The DVLA thinks it has merely tightened up existing processes but we strongly disagree and believe what in certain respects what has been introduced is new policy.
There were a lot more "yes" or "no" decisions rather than careful consideration of issues/ adds Owen.
The Agency also came under fire after it was revealed that various classic marques were not included on the DVLA database. The problem, which affected applications for vehicle tax, had not been resolved.

Location: Berkshire

OVER 3 MONTHS SINCE THE INSPECTION, HAVE NOT HEARD FROM DVLA.

Location: Esst Sussex

I suggest you start getting the big guns firing - contact your local MP, and also write direct to John Hayes MP (Minister responsible for DVLA): three months and failing to react to an inspection of their own instigation is totally unacceptable. If that was a commercial organisation they would be out of business by now!

I understand and respect DVLA's wish to tighten up Historic registrations - I think some of the vehicles which have been given Historic status should, indeed, be reclassified. But DVLA's handling of the situation has been appalling, and it's about time someone was taken to task ...

Liam,
Rt.Hon. John Hayes MP,
House of Commons,
London,
SW1A 0AA.
Tel 020 7219 1389
Email hayesj@parliament.uk
I have written to Andrew Jones MP the previous holder of this post and to Sir Greg Knight, the All Party Parliamenary Historic Vehicle Comittee chairman. This was February 2016 for the former and early April for the latter. Andrew Jones passed my letter to the DVLA who responded with "There has been no change to the DVLA's policies around the registration of historic vehicles". Sir Greg's response was that he is "currently making enquiries into cases similar to yours" My case is the new body on original chassis problem. I will now write to John Hayes MP.
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

I have today received a personally signed letter from the Rt. Hon. Greg Knight MP, Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicles Group.

I quote:

" I refer to your email of the 18th December last year and have noted what you and many others have said on the subject of change of attitude at the DVLA.

I now have had a very detailed, useful and constructive meeting with the new Minister of State with responsibility for the DVLA, John Hayes MP and senior officials.

Following this meeting, the DVLA have promised to look again at any decisions they may have made which is felt are dubious or wrong, and if you are aware of anyone who currently feels aggrieved, please do not hesitate to let me know as I did say I would filter back specific cases where an injustice may have occurred.

I obviously hope that are currently no specific problems you are aware of, but if there are, then now is your opportunity to let me know and I will pursue the matter further.

I am pursuing this as a general issue of concern to the All Party Group, which I chair. "

Best wishes,
Your sincerely
Greg Knight ( signed

All replies to the above via House of Commons, London. SW1A 0AA.

Location: Melton Mowbray

Chris,

I've received 3 personally signed letters from Sir Greg Knight, all as non-committal and evasive of the issues as the one you've received.

My 4th letter dated 29/02/2016....

Dear Sir Greg,

Thank you for your letter dated 19th February this year and I appreciate enormously your efforts to secure a satisfactory outcome to the problems we face with the DVLA’s current attitude.

I would like to bring to your notice a potential problem with the FBHVC’s participation in the ongoing discussions with the DVLA. I would also like to make it clear from the outset that I have nothing but admiration for the good work that the FBHVC does in other areas but, in this instance, I’m concerned that the Federation’s representation is not entirely unbiased and consciously side-lines the issue of Special building.

The Charter of Turin was ratified in 2013 and the FBHVC hailed this as a triumph of good sense.
As the Senior Vice-President of FIVA at the time and latterly, Head of the FIA’s Commission Historique Internationale Legislation Working Party was David Whale, current Chairman of the FBHVC, the Federation’s rather nebulous position in the present crisis with the DVLA, comes as no surprise.
David Whale’s stated ‘holistic’ approach to the ‘wider ranging global status of historic vehicles’ (in other words a ‘fits-all’ solution) is precisely what the historic vehicle movement in this country doesn’t need.

There is no doubt that the DVLA have sought to adopt the Charter’s definition of an historic vehicle and there is evidence for the FBHVC’s tacit 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.

Perhaps in your group’s upcoming Historic vehicle run to Westminster, you might consider inviting Specials as a theme?

Yours Sincerely

.... Sir Greg has yet to reply to.

However, the good news is that Bob Owen has dug up government guidelines which make a clear distinction regarding the understanding of the identity of a vehicle with a chassis and one of monocoque construction.

Let's see them get out of that one.

Location: Gulf of Finland just now

I also have received a copy of this letter today.

''I refer to your email of the 6th February this year and have noted what you and many others have said on the subject of change of attitude at the DVLA.'' etc.

Now we know that there are memberers of this forum who are still experiencing difficulties with lengthy ongoing applications for registration, so perhaps they would/should like to contact Sir Greg advising of their current situation / problems.

There are still the issues also for those who have replacement bodies who are still stuck in a blackhole / timewarp and are still being advised by clubs car auhentication officers to hold off seeking a period registration (myself included via Mike Burgess -Austin Seven Owners Club) until the situation is resolved / clarified.
Is there any progress on this front? I have been holding off my rebuild because of the above hiatus and really would like to make a start but am still wondering if there is any point.

Last I heard was that FBHVC were still pursuing talks with DVLA.
See below from latest newsletter no.5 2016
''It is actually not a surprise, given that there has been so much
general political turmoil over the last two months, that there
has been no progress on DVLA matters since the last Newsletter,
though I realise it must be frustrating for those still affected by
current DVLA policies. As Ian tells you, normal day-to-day contact
with DVLA on specific matters continues nevertheless. I need to
ask you to bear with us for a further period. We have not in any
way ceased our efforts, nor do we intend to do so.''

So still somewhat depressing.
Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Nigel said :
''However, the good news is that Bob Owen has dug up government guidelines which make a clear distinction regarding the understanding of the identity of a vehicle with a chassis and one of monocoque construction.''

One ray of hope in this whole mess perhaps.
Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

I don't wish to muddy the waters with irrelevant questions but I can't seem to find (in this very long thread) any reference to home build kit conversions and i wondered if the DVLA are as muddled over these as they seem to be about specials.

The DVLA document that covers the registering of kit cars, and rebuilt or radically altered vehicles is INF26. Suffolk Sports Cars produce a look alike Jaguar SS100 and a C type offering either factory or home build options. It would seem that a number of these cars have been built under the INF 26 rules and qualify as a "conversion" so do not get a Q plate. They use refurbished Jaguar XJ6 donor car parts bolted to a purpose built chassis (SS100 copy).

Other builds have gone down the IVA route and are registered as new but also escape the P plate and as their engines are over 30 years old they are exempted from onerous emission regulations.

Suffolk have been building their "replicas" since 1990. It would be interesting to know if they are also having difficulties with the DVLA these days?

http://www.volvoenthusiastsclub.co.uk/pdf/dvla%20vehicle%20approval.pdf

Location: Derby

Hi Ray,
if you go back far enough through the thread, it has been discussed along with 'type approval' which would require an Austin 7 to meet standards it was never designed for and would be impossible to meet.

Along with all the feet dragging and moving of goal posts by the DVLA, what is really needed is for them to recognise that vehicles old enough to be constructed with a separate chassis don't depend on a specific body for their identity as in the case of a monocoque.
As you will appreciate(?) at one time it was possible to buy a complete car minus the body to be be bodied by a coach builder or talented individual with vehicle identity tied to the chassis.
The original government documents and guidance mentioned in earlier posts recognised this but the current DVLA stance is to reinterpret the rules and ignore what was legal and accepted historically.


Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Ray,

All these real or apparent inconsistencies strengthen the case for the DVLA to devolve this minor part of their responsibilities with which they seem to be unable to reasonably cope, to a body that can, whilst retaining oversight.

Location: Gulf of Finland

It will not escaped anyone's attention that Brexit will mean the DVLA will eventually not have to comply with the Charter of Turin and it's malign consequences for our hobby. In the same way that British exporters will need to up their game, the DVLA will also need to be more switched on and if they can't get their act together I can see them being downsized with whole areas of their operation being privatised. In my humble opinion, the best people to oversee our hobby are those who understand it. US.

Just spotted this. Not A7 but same old billhooks.
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C553944

Location: Derby

Did anyone else spot the wording / distinction made in the "Roadworthiness testing for vehicles of historic interest" re Chassis v monocoque, it seams the DoT have our understanding of DVLA rules re the chassis.

From page 12

"We will also have to introduce a definition for ‘substantial change’ if we wish to continue exempting VHIs from testing, as no definition is provided for in the Directive. One option is to use the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s 8-point rule for registering radically altered vehicles. VHIs would need to have 8 or more points, accumulated in accordance with Table 2 below, (5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame) to prove they have not undergone substantial change.

It has a second-hand or altered chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame

Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified"

I'm not confident that DVLA really have got the plot.

In my response to the consultation (which of course is about roadworthiness, not registration) I made the point that I would rather have a sound secondhand chassis of original type than retain a rotten original.

I also registered my profound opposition to the concept of a mileage limitation.

I suspect I wasted my time but one has to try.

Regards,
Stuart

Under the current rules the Suffolk/replicas/lookalikes (or any other car) that uses the motor and two other "major components" from any vehicle for which the builder provides a V5C with the engine number recorded, the kit doesn't get a Q plate, it gets a registration of the same year (but not the original registration) as the donor car. So unless or until someone buys a "dateless" registration for their shiny new "SS100" it would have a letter suffix registration plate if that's what the XJ6 donor had.

This facility is widely used by people who build AC Cobra replicas/kits and it may also be one of the reasons why the DVLA ask for proof (receipt, garage letter etc.) for engine capacity changes now. Reportedly, there have been some people who have "fitted" a Seven litre Ford V8 or such in something like a donor vehicle MGB just a few weeks before then breaking the car up to build their 427 Cobra

Don't see this facility being much use to A7 special builders unless there is someone who really wants to build a new spaceframe or whatever chassis car using the mechanicals from an existing A7 which has a V5c. Of course, they'd still have to jump all the BIVA hurdles even though the car would have a nineteen twenty something or nineteen thirty something registration at the end of the process.

Location: N W Kent

Thank you, Stuart. I just wondered if this might be a way round for special builders but as you have explained, probably not. I did wonder how it was that very few of the Suffolk cars I have seen had a letter suffix registration but I see now that they must have all exchanged the number they had been given for a "cherished" number thus extending the illusion... (or should that be delusion. )

I quite like the idea of building one of these things just for fun. I think they should be appreciated for what they are in their own right (which I suppose you could describe as an XJ6 special??) rather than get too carried away with the SS bit. Either way, there can be no historical connection with an original 1930's car but just a bit of fun which is what it should be about anyway in my opinion.

Location: Derby

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

More farce than Brian Rix with half a dozen french maids, and episodes of 'Yes Minister' and 'Allo Allo' combined!

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Gentlemen , it is all just a farce , to keep the civil servants in a job . It is not designed to be efficient in any shape or form .

Merv

Location: New Forest

Ben, What's the source of your information re the FBHVC?

Hi Nigel

Classic Car Weekly 23/11/16

Location: Berkshire

Thanks Ben.

Accessed via the VHRA's website and well worth a read is the FBHVC's comprehensive and surprisingly robust response to the DfT's consultation on annual testing for Historic Vehicles.

WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF DVLA IS GOING TO CLASSIFY THOSE NEW CONTINUATION AS HISTORIC?

NOW THE WORD FACSIMILE ACCORDING TO Denis Jenkinson HAS BEEN CHANGED TO CONTINUATION
"Facsimile"
Purely and simply a racing car that now exists when there never was an original. If a factory built four examples of a particular Grand Prix model, for instance, and there are now five in existence, then the fifth can only be a facsimile, fake, clone, copy or reproduction. If the fifth car was built by the same people or factory who built the four original cars, then at best it could be a “Replica” of the four original cars, but such a situation is very unlikely. There are many reasons for building a facsimile, from sheer enthusiasm for a particular model to simple avarice, and it is remarkable how many facsimiles have been given a small piece of genuine history in order to try to authenticate the fake, and thus raise its value.
Facsimiles have been built of just about everything from Austin to Wolseley, some being so well made that it is difficult to tell them from the originals. Some owners have been known to remain strangely silent about the origins of their cars when they have been mistaken for the real thing. Other facsimiles have been declared openly and honestly by the constructors, such as the facsimile that has been built of an A/B-type E.R.A., or the series of facsimiles of 250F Maseratis that have been built.
The trouble usually starts when the cars are sold to less scrupulous owners, who first convince themselves they have bought a genuine car, and then try to convince the rest of the sporting world. The disease is very prevalent in the world of museums, on the assumption that the paying public are gullible.


MANUFACTURER CONTINUATION MODELS

ASTON MARTIN DB 4 GT CONTINUATION
There will be a run of 25 models. Prices are estimated to be around £1.5m per car and the first is expected to be delivered in the third quarter of 2017. CCW understands the order book is already full.

JAGUAR XKSS
Nine models are to be built to the exact specification as those made in 1957, replacing cars lost due to the Browns Lane fire. Prices will be in excess of £1m and deliveries will start early next year.

JAGUAR LIGHT WEIGHT E-TYPE
The 'missing' six models were intended to fill the gap left by those that were never built from the intended original 18-car series from 1963. Prices were around £1.2m and cars were delivered to new owners in 2015.

Aston Martin is following the trend for continuation models by confirming it will build 25 lightweight track-only DB4 GTs.
The original car was launched in 1959 and a total of 75 were built from an intended run of 100 up until 1963. These new GTs will complete the run.
Values for the original models that still exist can exceed £3 million.
Each DB4 GT Continuation will be built by Aston Martin Works in Newport Pagnell "with a blend of old world craftsmanship and modern techniques'. The privately owned British carmaker says the continuation cars will have improved engine performance, handling, braking and safety features.
A spokesman for Aston Martin confirms more DB4 parts will be manufactured for the restoration and enthusiast market as a result of the project. He says: 'As an example, original door latches haven't been available for some time as it wasn't viable. However, we have gone back to the original supplier for this project and it will make parts for the 25 cars plus the restoration market/ Aston Martin's continuation project follows on from Jaguar building new versions of models like the Lightweight E-type and XKSS.
Graham Searle, Jaguar Enthusiasts Club (JEC) chairman, says the strong global interest in classic cars means manufacturers can now cash in on their heritage. (It is now a practical proposition because of the high values certain classics are now making. Ten years ago as they couldn't have charged enough to make it pay,' says Searle.

Location: Berkshire

I don't see how DVLA could accept the 'new' cars as historic based on their own current criteria which won't accept original running chassis to which a replacement body has been fitted or whereby any deviation from the original mechanics is rejected.

Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

I don't know about the other makes, but I believe the Aston Martins are intended for racing only and not road use at all, so probably would not need to get involved with a DVLA registration. Should any of these new classics? be used on the road, the V5C should show the date of its first registration, which is a bit of a giveaway to the origin of the vehicle.

Location: Pembrokeshire

Never mind chaps.
The fellow in charge at the DVLA did very well in the New Year honours.
A Knighthood I gather.

R.M.

If any of these cars were registered for road use I wonder if they would be issued with a new car number that could then be changed to a "cherished" plate? Anyone looking on would be none the wiser?


I think that some lesser "look alike" efforts can be a generous "homage" to the original without getting silly with the price. I imagine there are a few kits that could be fun to assemble. I am thinking about the superficially accurate representations of the SS100 Jaguar and "C" type that are produced either in house or in kit form by Suffolk Sports cars. Not cheap, but well done, none the less.

http://www.suffolksportscars.com

Location: Derby

Hi Folks

Looks like there has been some progress between DVLA and FBHVC on the subject of appropriate replacement bodies to vehicles with original chassis, and running gear, whose old bodies are beyond repair.

See page 2 in this weeks's Classic Car Weekly! Also try www.fbhvc.co.uk

This may help those currently in limbo with A7 replica body projects but might still be tricky for "Specials" and also bring some relief to all our valued spares suppliers, whose businesses I suspect have been a bit dented by all the uncertainty over the last two years.

I hope that further clarification should become available in the next few weeks....???

Makes a pleasant change from reading about Brexit c**p and Trump.

So get out to that cold garage and get back to work on your new body on an old chassis?

Take care

Bill G

Scottish Border ( no wall here yet!)

Location: Scottish Border

Two quotes from the Classic Car Weekly article mentioned by Bill " New guidelines suggest that the replacement body is one that could have been placed on it from the outset,or is of a style which has become associated with the marque". "The FBHVC and DVLA are to develop a valid glossary of terms to identify bodies which it will share in the future" . The latter quote is open to interpretation. Anyone got a clue about what it could mean? If it is going to be a long list we could be waiting to register our cars until Doomsday.

Location: Sheffield

'Sigh'

If only it wasn't taking sooooo loooonngg it's worse than watching paint dry.
On the plus side it's beginning to sound like repro' sports-tourer bodies would become acceptable finally, but it would be good to have something concrete to work from.
Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Can I suggest that the Austin 7 fraternity are proactive in putting forward some ideas initially within the Forum and the A7CA? To ensure that those in the A7 scene can dispel the cloud that has hung over many restorers for the last 2 years or more.

For starters: please consider the following, as ways to replace or change a body type on an original factory chassis. Should we also argue for period type spaceframe chassis?

A) Replacement replica bodies: of a type made by the factory or by coach builders in period: for A7's this might run to 50 kinds?

B) Sporting bodies : of a type commonly made and accepted by Clubs such as A7 Clubs, VSCC for sporting , trialling or other motorsports.

C) Commercial bodies: modelled on body types manufactured by the original manufacturer, or period commercial coach builders.

D) Special bodies: bodies made as one offs or in very small numbers by enthusiasts, following in the footsteps of Bill Williams, John Haynes and Colin Chapman whose A7 efforts changed motoring in the UK significantly.

All of the above , for Austins anyway, to be eligible for DVLA Historic road fund status should use period components wherever possible, but in all cases, A7 clubs should jointly establish a set of guidelines lines ( and an inspection regime similar to the existing system)and via A7CA and FBHVC for our line of cars.

I hope that a sensible on line consultation scheme can be organised.

FBHVC 's recent economic survey of the value of the historic vehicle sector should by now have made it clear to policy makers and politicians that this industry both had real heritage and economic benefits to a the Uk.

Take care!

Bill G @ Scottish Border

Location: Scottish Border

The latest newsletter from the FBHVC reports on the current position regarding vehicle identity and the replacement of bodies on vehicles with chassis.
There’s so much ambiguity in the report that it begins to smack of obfuscation. On the face of it the DVLA, the FBHVC and assorted worthies have had a bit of a cosy chat and come up with a scheme which allows for replacement bodies on vehicles with chassis. But there’s something in the report’s wording that makes me think that not all is as it seems and points towards a future where replacement bodies will be acceptable if they come only from an ‘approved’ supplier. The first nail in the coffin for the home-built Special.

‘We have reached an understanding with DVLA on how the
treatment of replacement bodies on chassis will be dealt with
through their different schemes. DVLA accept that original
bodies may properly be replaced, not least because bodies
deteriorate and may need replacing over time’.

Properly? What’s that supposed to mean? Well, one suggestion is that a ‘properly’ replaced body is one that’s identical to the one that was originally on the chassis. That’s the second nail in the coffin for Special builders but good news for specialist suppliers.

‘For vehicles applying under the V765 Scheme for the recovery
of an original registration number, the applicant or supporting
club should set out clearly the nature of the replacement body
fitted, especially if the style is different to that quoted on a
supporting original log book, which of course must always
be supplied if available, as it is DVLA’s preferred primary
evidence of the identity of the vehicle’.

Is this saying that the DVLA’s preferred primary source is the body or the logbook? If it’s the body, the DVLA is ignoring the government guidelines unearthed by Bob Owen that indicate perfectly clearly that the identity of a vehicle with a chassis is determined only by the chassis; the vehicle’s body plays a part only in the designation of its type; Saloon, Sports, Tourer, etc.
If the logbook is the primary source (which seems sensible) and a change of body style takes place, it is crucial that the DVLA have no part in the process other than to record the change. That, after all, is their job.

‘The application should demonstrate that the replacement body is one that could
have been placed on it from the outset or is of a style which
historically has become associated with the marque’.

Who, I wonder, is considering setting themselves up as the arbiter of style? Surely not the DVLA or the FBHVC! And what constitutes an historical association? My Hillman 14 was once a tractor and I’ve got the picture to prove it! This is all completely barmy and it’s clear that the determination of the DVLA to pigeon-hole everything is the driving force behind this malevolence.

I know I bang on about Special builders but, a long-standing freedom under law and a tradition of Special building that’s the envy of the world is being subtly eroded and, unless the FBHVC include and get a ‘Special’ body category in their demands, I regret to say that the FBHVC and all their friends in high places will be responsible for the cultural cleansing that’s likely taking place.

Location: Suffolk

I take properly to mean as in the dictionary definition:-
'correctly, or in a satisfactory way'

My immediate personal interpretation was it meant 'in a satisfactory way' so not far off the dictionary definition.

We still need to keep a close eye on proceedings though, just in case the DVLA has a different interpretation of the meaning
I also agree we must maintain emphasis that a variety of bodies were and are possible because of the historically normal practice to purchase a motorized chassis to be subsequently bodied elsewhere - either by individual or company.

Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

The blurb states previously that all this is expected to be part of the V765 process. So, for an Austin Seven, I would be expecting the relevant club's named V765 representative to be stating that my Ulsteroid or other "period" replica coachwork is entirely representative of the marque.


In the case of Cambridge sports replica/other vaguely vintage looking body
or come to that a Hamblin Cadet or even a Markham-Peasey style body, I would expect the V765 representative to state that any of these body styles are historically associated with the marque, so should also get a "tick in box"

Of course, this happy situation would rely on the DVLA accepting the V765 reps' word, something for which they don't have anything like a 100% record to date.

Location: N W Kent

Steve,

It’s not the definition of ‘properly’ I’m concerned about, it’s the criteria.

The FBHVC newsletter announces that it and the DVLA have ‘reached an understanding’ but doesn’t describe that understanding with any real clarity; in fact, with careful reading the report raises more questions than it answers, hence my comment about obfuscation.

I think the FBHVC need to come clean and state clearly what their position is regarding Specials. I asked David Whale this very question and he replied, ‘It depends what you mean by Special’.

That to me spoke volumes.

Location: Suffolk

Hi Nigel,
Yes I totally agree that there's still a lack of detail and clarity.
We still need specifics regarding specials, David Whale must know what is meant by a 'special', particularly in connection with Austin 7's but as we know there are Ford's and other chassis based vehicles too.
So he would appear to be being deliberately vague which is worrying.

Steve.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Since the examination We heard nothing from DVLA. This morning received a letter from DVLA (it must be the decision) It was not, it was a reminder to get the vehicle to be taxed for a further year.
My friend is still in limbo he can use the car but he can still receive a letter from DVLA at any moment cancelling the V5c.
WHAT A MESS

Location: East Sussex