Practical Classics Magazine has just published one of the DVLA letters being sent out to owners of Historic Vehicles on its Facebook Page - it would appear from their comments that this is the first they've heard of this new DVLA policy and seem rightly concerned as to the implications for the Classic Car Movement.







Jeff.

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

Hi Jeff,

Have you forwarded this thread to practical classics.

Tony

Location: Leics

someone else has linked to it

Hi Tony,

As Hedd says, someone else has mentioned this thread, but not me. I have however added my comments to the Practical Classics Facebook page. Hopefully if the journalists on the magazine get behind the story, we might see some action.

The latest edition of Practical Classics has an article on the restoration of a Ruby by one of their readers and there's an update on the black Ruby that the PC team have been messing about with for some time.

Jeff.

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

A post on the FHBVC suggests it is very specific to individual cars.

Hedd,
I don't have access to the item you are referring to on the FBHVC website. Would you be good enough to tell me a little more about what you have read.
Cheers,
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

From the FBVHC Facebook page:

"There have been a number of communications and chatroom postings in recent days relating to an exercise whereby DVLA are contacting owners of historic vehicles requesting documentary proof of the vehicle’s age and in particular its eligibility for an age related registration.

One such communication strongly implies that this DVLA request will be sent to the owners of all historic vehicles.

As the representative body for many of the historic vehicle clubs in UK we see it as a prime responsibility to ensure that clubs and their members are not unfairly or without grounds required to engage in such an exercise.

We have today met with senior officials of the DVLA with the objective of establishing from them their view of the scope of the exercise they have commenced.
On the basis of that meeting we are clear that there is no current intention to send a letter to all historic vehicle owners.

Rest assured that the Federation will stay very close to this situation and will vigorously defend the interests of bona fide historic vehicle owners.

9 July 2015"

Location: Penrith, Cumbria

I am fairly sure that Practical Classics also recently constructed a Special out of the remains of a Box Saloon. Presumably this will give them a vested interest and is likely to have inspired some of their readership to undertake similar projects.

Location: NZ

Thank you Andrew.
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

Amid all the hysteria, I was pleased to note NO reference in the DVLA letter to bodies - the age and origin of chassis, engine, axles and steering seem to be the prime criteria.

Can Ulsteroid owners sleep easier?

Rick

Location: Deepest Norfolk

So the first post by Ben Mitchell on this matter is b*llsh*t and an un-necessary attempt to frighten all Austin Seven owners?

Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.

It was the letter from the Bugatti Owners Club that implied that the wider movement may have problems.

I think that's a bit harsh.
At least one builder has had a Q plate assigned and all appeals to reason have failed.
Other car owners and builders have reported similar problems.

Location: Ripon

It may appear that the DVLA are officially becoming aware of the overall problems regarding Historic vehicles.

Our Club's Authentification Officer and myself have received letters from the DVLA advising us that they are hosting a meeting in September " to clarify the policies of late conversions, V765 and reconstructed classic schemes, along with other general issues relating to the registration and licensing of historic vehicles " and inviting us to attend.

I would expect this letter has gone out to most pre-war / historic car clubs.

Chris Garner
Chairman - The Pre War Austin Seven Club Limited

Location: Melton Mowbray

Not sure if that's good news or not.

I'm sure of you may remember when I posted the details of the FIVA Charter of Turin, which appeared to be driving EU legislation...well sad to say, it certainly looks like things are heading that way here in the UK.

ACE has been monitoring the situation for nearly a decade now an it is a fact that the DVLA is picking up on historic vehicles with a questionable identity.

We have one example of a vehicle inspected by a recognised club (no names, no pack drill) that was the subject of an 18 month £30,000 rebuild and after trying to register it on an old buff logbook with V765 confirmation.

Following correspondence back and forth, no inspection and the car ended up being sent for BIVA...if the car actually passes the test (which is unlikely) it will be issued with a new VIN (the old one must be removed) together with a Q plate and therefore loses its historic status, as in the actual words of the DVLA: "it has been altered from its original specification" this sounds very much like the words from the Charter.

In my view (and it is only my opinion) the skulduggery of a few greedy people building fakes, particularly high end ones like Bugs and Bentleys and passing them off as originals, has spoilt all the fun for the rest of us.

If I had an Ulster rep or a special originally registered as a Box or Ruby saloon, I would be tempted to keep my mouth firmly shut and just enjoy driving it while I could!

I don't think the government has any idea the extent of size and value of the historic car business in the UK and how much damage it can do to businesses, exports and ultimately, people's livelihoods.

I hope common sense prevails, but I'm not holding my breath.

Location: Near Bicester.

Ivor Hawkins

ACE has been monitoring the situation for nearly a decade now an it is a fact that the DVLA is picking up on historic vehicles with a questionable identity.

We have one example of a vehicle inspected by a recognised club (no names, no pack drill) that was the subject of an 18 month £30,000 rebuild and after trying to register it on an old buff logbook with V765 confirmation.

Following correspondence back and forth, no inspection and the car ended up being sent for BIVA...if the car actually passes the test (which is unlikely) it will be issued with a new VIN (the old one must be removed) together with a Q plate and therefore loses its historic status, as in the actual words of the DVLA: "it has been altered from its original specification" this sounds very much like the words from the Charter.

In my view (and it is only my opinion) the skulduggery of a few greedy people building fakes, particularly high end ones like Bugs and Bentleys and passing them off as originals, has spoilt all the fun for the rest of us.

I hope common sense prevails, but I'm not holding my breath.

Location: Dover

Richard,
"100's of A7's on the road have got a new chassis mounted on an original nose and or newly fabricated chassis!!!" You mean that someone is actually manufacturing new chassis or even side rails? I haven't heard of this practice. It doesn't make economical sense on a mass produced car like an A7 as there must be plenty of original manufacture chassis around. Or am I mistaken?
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

It's common practice over here Dave, no more splits, extra holes, etc. cheers Russell

Location: Oz

To quote Ivor

"I don't think the government has any idea the extent of size and value of the historic car business in the UK and how much damage it can do to businesses, exports and ultimately, people's livelihoods."

I recall a major survey in the UK maybe 10 years ago which showed the incredible expenditure on the old car movement. I took comfort that the info should assist in preserving the situation in the UK and, indirectly, here also. Most motorists here loathe old cars which obstruct 105 kph progress and the AA, despite soothing utterances, and now being primarily a commercial enterprise, generally goes with the majority.

Quoting the situatopn in the UK is one argument the old car movement has to avoid draconian measures. Any loss of rights in the UK will worsen the situation here.

Bob Culver

Location: Auckland, NZ

Location: Dover

In my capacity as a signatory under the V765 scheme, I have just received a letter from DVLA inviting me to attend a meeting at Swansea which "aims to clarify the policies of the late conversion, V765 and reconstructed classic schemes, along with other general issues relating to the registration and licensing of historic vehicles"

Sadly I will not be able to attend, as I will be in Spain, but I hope one of the many other signatories who will have been invited will report back to us.

Rick

Location: Deepest Norfolk

Whilst we are all getting hot under the collar over DVLA's treatment of old cars, it seems strange that DVLA can allow this new build Morgan three-wheeler replica (sic) to be MSVA inspected and registered retaining the identity of its donor motorcycle

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/AERO-CYCLE-CAR-MG3-Morgan-3-Wheeler-replica-New-build-of-VERY-high-quality-/141729373031?hash=item20ffba9b67

Double standards, or what?

You are absolutely correct Mike,I would have thought that should have a Q plate...I'll look into that one!

Location: Near Bicester.

I think you might be slightly missing the point a little bit here, that Morgan replica is not trying to pass itself of a genuine Morgan and claim historic status, as it is very obviously not an old car. Having said that, how on earth did it retain the registration, when the only part of the original motorcycle would appear to be the engine and drive train, with no trace of the main chassis/frame?

Location: Pembrokeshire

Agreed Phil, that's what I was looking at, it certainly is not a Morgan replica, it's just the shape that is vaguely reminiscent of an Aero...it' that Moto Guzzi F registration that's the mystery...

Location: Near Bicester.

I have spoken to the oracle and discovered the situation with the Moto Guzzi trike...Because all the donor bits are from one vehicle, and the chassis is brand new it gets not the bikes original VRM but an age related VRM, so whilst it's an 88 F reg, it's not the same 88 F reg that the bike carried.

Location: Near Bicester.

That makes total sense, its all to easy to assume that it got issued with the motorbikes old VRM, and of course it has had to go though all the inspections and re-registration process to get it on the road.

Location: Pembrokeshire

So a vehicle built on a brand new chassis (and body), but using second-hand engine and other components from an age-identifiable vehicle can be issued with an age-related plate, but an Austin Seven built of all period mechanical components including an age-identifiable chassis, but with a new body, is issued with a Q plate? That doesn't make sense to me...

... and that would put most Bugatti recreations (but admittedly not the Pur Sang cars) in the same category, and therefore eligible for the age-related number they have presumably been issued, so why are DVLA stirring things up as we are led to believe?

The difference Mike is that the Trike, had to undergo the MSVA test in order to retain it's 1988 age related plate, which is quite demanding as it has to comply with modern C&U regulations and having passed, the V5 will be marked accordingly, the trike is not historic.

Under the new rules, the Austin, although the majority of which may be built with period items cannot be given historic status, unless all the parts, including the body can be proved beyond doubt that they are at least 25 years old...whether every new Austin Seven special is being subjected to these new rules is unclear, I haven't had any reports back yet, only other makes and models that have had their registrations withdrawn due to non compliance.

Don't you just love it when the EU tinkers with our regulations

Location: Near Bicester.

Ivor,
On the same basis as the trike being given an age related reg,albeit 1988, after a motorcycle IVA examination and bearing in mind that it has a very new body I am finding it difficult to understand how a vehicle made up of all components manufactured in the 1930s except for a new body and subject to the equivalent car IVA test would be allocated a Q reg. It begs the question "what is the definition of a vehicle body?"for example cars in the past were delivered by road under their own steam with a bonnet, rudimentary driver's seat and if the delivery driver was lucky, a windscreen. I don't expect you can give answers to these questions as only the DVLA would be in that position but I am interested in your opinion.
Cheers,
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

In Classic Car weekly 2 weeks ago
DVLA change of policy raised at Westminster
A DVLA crackdown on classic car owners which threatens them with Q-plates if they cannot prove their car's age is being discussed at Westminster. The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs has met with the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicle Groups to raise its concerns about what it fears may be a 'de facto' change in the DVLA's policy towards Historic Vehicles. Geoff Lancaster, FBHVC communications director, told CCW While we understand the DVLAs legal obligation to ensure its database is correct and owners are supplying the correct information we do not condone owners supplying fraudulent information we don't believe the agency sending out these letters on a seemingly random basis is in accordance with its statutory duties or an appropriate use of public money Lancaster added that the FBHVC was also concerned about at how historic vehicle applications were handled by local offices previously. 'Deciding they didn't meet with the DVLA’s rules and guidelines previously, and then reinterpreting them, represents a de facto change of policy on how the agency deals with historic vehicles," he said. 'If that's the case then such a policy should be properly consulted before being implemented. It has all sorts of implications for the historic vehicle movement in the UK and it must be handled sensibly I think it's only now the DVLA is beginning to realise what an enormous can of worms it's opened A classic owner who has received one of the letters told CCW the iniative was linked to DVLA preparations for the EU Roadworthiness Directive, although the FBHVC believes this is not the case.

The owner who did not wish to be indentified in case it affected his dealing with the agency said: it doesn’t make sense, cars that would pass the DVLA’s 15 point checklist for kit cars with ease are being targeted for not being original enough. I am aware of vintage cars that have been rebodied that are otherwise forced into Q plates.
It’s a misapplication of the rules and it’s already causing problems- people are scared of rebuilding vintage cars because they don’t want to get into trouble with the DVLA.
A spokesman for the DVLA said: We are only able to comment in general terms. However I can confirm that the letters are not linked to the implementation of the EU Roadworthiness Directive.
CCW knows of an Austin Seven owner who has been contacted by DVLA about whether a replacement body fitted to it during a restoration affected its originality and another owner who was sent a letter about an MGB. The VSCC said: the VSCC is aware of this issue and the potential implications for the historic car movement in the UK. We intend to make a representation to the DVLA.

Location: Dover

Hi
I received the same letter from DVLA two weeks ago I don't know what to do.
I have a A7 Special for 10 years I decided to put a new ulster replica body, also I installed a new replica tuned engine which I bought few years ago at Beaulieu.
I been using the car with this configuration for couple of years, the car is licensed to drive on the road.
Shall I reply to DVLA or wait and see what happen and let DVLA do the first move?
I am intrigued to how DVLA was made aware as I did not notified them.
Your advise will be much appreciated.
Keith

Location: Wembley

The way I see it with the trike is that it is made from all new components except for the parts from the donor bike, the engine from the donor bike is datable from old V5C, so the trike gets an age related plate dated to the oldest documented datable component the engine. Had a new or undocumented engine been fitted it would have been issued with a Q or modern type registration number.

For an older car without V5c documented numbers no accurate proof of age can be given, even if the experts all agree that the parts are genuine, there is still a chance they could have been re manufactured, so a Q plate is issued. I do not know for sure, but should have thought that 40 years after the Q plate issue date the vehicle should gain historic status?

The main problem we have is a lack of definition from the DVLA as to what is what, there does not seem to be any consistency in the way registrations are issued, some vehicles get age related or retain the original, whilst others get Qs. It seems to me that it really all boils down to who handles the paperwork on the day.

If the DVLA are unwilling to accept the words of the experts on the cars then we are all in a lot of trouble as this could mean any car with an historic status could be randomly picked out and reclassified or taken off the road completely. Someone be it the DVLA and/or all individual owners clubs must define what constitutes the vehicle and/or what is an acceptable modification for their particular make of vehicle.

Just to make a point here, my son recently sold his 1954 series 1 Land Rover in the same condition as he bought it,as far as the DVLA were concerned it was an historic vehicle, when in fact it had had a new replacement galvanized chassis, the engine, gearbox and axles were all from a series 3 LWB. The only parts that were truly original were the scruffy body panels,and these could all be replaced by new items, the chassis plate and engine matched numbers/CC in the V5C. The modifications were considered as a bonus when he bought it and made features of when he sold it.

To the purest its a bitsa, to the LR enthusiast its a very usable practical and upgraded historic vehicle using genuine easily available LR replacement components. What the DVLA would make of it on inspection is another matter.As the replacements / modifications were made to the vehicle whilst it was taxed and tested or on sorn there were no problems with the DVLA. Had the vehicle been of the road and rebuilt with little or no paperwork well that's a different matter a Q plate for sure.
In either case the car is the same vehicle and a double standard applies as all the numbers are still the same, it is only the paperwork that differs, and this cannot be right by anyone's standards. An appointed expert, DVLA approved should have the final say as to what the vehicle is and how it is to be registered and taxed with no arguments.

So in the case of this Land Rover, does it deserve the historic status it all ready has?

The original chassis plate is present ( I believe these can be verified by the type of lettering used at the time ) proving with the factory records a vehicle of that type did exist in 1954, but remember every other single component of the vehicle can be replaced either with NOS/second hand genuine parts or the modern replacement/replica equivalent.

So like the Bugatti's mention earlier in the post a completely new old car can be built, but it can only be legal if you have already have a similar car with a current V5C to start with and with a bit of jiggery pokery and a bit of legitimate number swapping with the DVLA you end up with two Bugatti's one brand new and one completely original genuine car awaiting verification which it will get as it is a genuine car and a new log book will be issued, whilst the brand new car with all the right paperwork fetches millions at auction. What a crazy system we have in the UK.

Location: Pembrokeshire.

Phil,

You are game broadcasting this information if as has been suggested the DVLA read these posts!

Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.

Getting back onto the topic of Austin 7 Specials the thing that I don't understand is the significance of the "Body" when interpreting the DVLA stance on this.
If we remove the body from the conversation and have a chassis with engine, gearbox, axles etc. all from the same 1920/30's car that has no paperwork then you would justifiably expect to get an age related number plate for it as everything can be traced back to its original manufacture date and these are the main components of the car.
Now, introduce a body and the whole process goes into meltdown. Trouble is, if you have any form of accident the first thing that gets dinged is the body and hence the first thing that needs replacing is the body panel or in some more severe cases the body shell itself.
What I don't understand is why this would make the car ineligible for an age related number plate. The car is still as old as it was just with replacement panels. If we took this scenario to the extreme any car that gets a new body shell should lose its age relation, should it not?
I can understand a little more, the issues when building a special from a bunch of collected parts from different sources as this then becomes far harder to trace and also effectively starts to become a "new construction" but if the main components are from a single donor vehicle and only the body shell is "new" I don't see why the DVLA should have any issue with it at all.

What happens to the guy that has an Austin Seven, that has had its paperwork generated by the DVAL in years gone by, who has an accident that results in either a new body shell or significant body panel replacement? Do they subsequently lose their age related plates?? It would seem so, if the DVLA were to investigate that particular car as the body would no longer be of the correct age..

In any normal walk of life you would expect a little common sense to be used and the regulatory organisation to apply some logic, issue clear guidance and instruction and the problem to be well understood... trouble is, none of the above is likely eh....

The joys!

Location: London

To get an age related plate the rules says that all the parts must be more than 25years old.

This is not a new stance.

And it doesnt say 'major parts' either.

Yes its woolly. And yes its not consitentley applied. But the rule hasnt changed.

Agreed Hedd, the rule has not changed, just the way it is being enforced/interpreted seems to have altered over time..

In truth though, the rule has never been that clear (at least to me anyway ) when it comes to the "Body" being an integral part of the car or not when it comes to "Ageing" the car. Should a new body-shell trump the vehicle age as demonstrated by ALL the other major parts of the vehicle? Is the body classed as a "Part" or is there misunderstanding/misinterpretation between "Body" and "Chassis".
As has been stated before, back in the day Austin supplied "rolling chassis'" with no body on them! Maybe the way to go is to seek DVLA age related approval without putting a body on the vehicle in the first place? might be a bit breezy though eh

Location: London

The consistent question regarding the body is actually very straightforward in the eyes of the DVLA.

There must be literally hundreds of Ulster specials out there on low chassis that started out as Ruby saloons and maybe the odd Opal or van, indeed some are still registered and driven around on V5C's listing the car as a saloon and that is what flags up the attention of the DVLA, because the original identity of the vehicle as a saloon has been lost, it has suddenly become a two seater sports, so historically it's not what it was.

For argument's sake if you took a genuine type 75 Speedy chassis, registered as a two seater sports and had a brand new replica Ruby saloon bodyshell made and bolted that on, you'd get a Q plate, because historically it's incorrect...imagine how many Austin Seven aficionados would throw their hands up in horror on that one!

Basically, if the body layout of the vehicle hasn't changed, it's unlikely to catch the eye of the DVLA inspectors.

As for the idea that the 1988 registered trike could be considered historic in 30 or 40 years time, I suppose the answer is yes, if the government continues to roll it over.

Oh and the details of the Land Rover haven't changed in the yes of the DVLA and frankly, I don't see any problem with it...the DVLA are after all those late model Defenders with the Series one bodies on them masquerading as historic and defrauding the customs and excise.

Location: Near Bicester.

As I mentioned earlier, hopefully someone will be attending the meeting at DVLA Swansea on 23 September and will be in a position to report back "straight from the horse's mouth".

Rick

Location: Deepest Norfolk

A newly built trike with a brand new body and chassis with a 1988 engine and gearbox from a motorcycle donor, subjected to a motorcycle IVA which it passes and gets an age related reg.(not a Q reg)
A 1930s car with genuine and original chassis,axles,engine,gearbox,wheels but a new body gets a Q reg because It originally had a different body? Can the latter vehicle's owner allow it to be subject to an IVA, successfully pass and then get an age related plate?
How stringent is this IVA and can it be used for older vehicles? Yet another set of questions for which I am not expecting an answer!
Dave .

Location: Sheffield

Hello Dave, happy to help with what I know!

The IVA (BIVA) is very stringent indeed, and an Ulsteroid simply will not pass unless it is fitted with seat belts, correct EU approved lighting, no external excrescences that could damage pedestrians in the event of a collision and all glass, including the screen will have to carry EU markings...and that's just for starters!

Then, guess what? you get a Q plate!

Location: Near Bicester.

Mike, I can't be 100% sure, but I believe the motorcycle SVA is a very different kettle of fish to the car test and as the Aero is a trike, it doesn't have to jumpo all the hurdles a car does...

Location: Near Bicester.

Interesting article on Page 12 of this months "Classic and Sports Car" regarding the DVLA and BOC cars.