'By the way the rules for rebuilding cars allow for the use of a new monocoque bodyshell but not to reuse an old one (that is a Q plate crime). So anyone rebuilding an MGB with a new heritage shell and keeping the original V5 is in the clear. No Q plate. A re-shelled MGB built from parts could be a Q plate depending in the points score.'

Charles are you sure this is still the case? I know it always used to be, but as far as I can tell if they are not allowing new coachwork on an otherwise original pre war chassis, then t seems strange they would allow esentially a complete new body and chassis. It seems like the points score system has been disposed of with the requirement of all parts over 25 years old. In my opinion the points system was pretty reasonable without the 25 year old stipulation.

It seems that they accept that they no longer have the resources, knowledge or in fact don't want to bother to deal with cars on a case to case basis. Subsequently it seems they are trying to make a blanket deterrent to anyone wanting to build a car up from parts. Yes they may stop some of the questionable cars (new cars, clones and ringers), but this blanket enforcement is wholly damaging to the historic car movement, depriving many bodiless chassis or collections of parts from seeing the road again. If for example a rolling chassis turned up for a marque which no other survivors exist, the DVLA are saying that fitting replica original coachwork would mean the car being subjected to an IVA test for which it would have to be extensively modified the chassis numbers ground off (this particular part makes me sick to my stomach) and stamped with a new number. How more comprehensively could this process destroy the cars history? Acknowledging that no sane person would put the car through this it means either the car sits unused in a museum or leaves the country a real shame for the British car community. I think logic dictates these cars get registered age related and if they really feel they need to do something then just a note on the log book to say replacement coachwork or whatever.

I think Ivor is right, and I shared the apprehension when the MOT exemption was given. I am sure we would rather pay tax and have an MOT (obviously the MOT must be relevant to to the age of car) than have cars denied the use of the roads. I don't know whether a resentment of these privileges could be part of the reasoning for this action?

I think the historic car movement needs to make a stand as a whole to make our voices heard, I'm sure there are many unaware or don't feel it affects them that don't understand the gravity of the situation. If the FBHVC could draft a concise letter to be distributed through clubs, magazines, forums ETC for everyone to lobby their local MP's this alongside an on-line petition, would surely be our best chance of getting this issue talked about. I would assume that most of government have no idea this is happening or realise the adverse implications to the classic car industry in the UK. Although accepting we live in a country that let the worlds first purpose built racing track get into the state it is now, I'm not sure how much hope we have.

Location: United Kingdom

If they ever get to them, there are going to be some MGB, Mini and similar cars owners feeling a bit sick, when their expensive heritage shelled rebuild gets to be put through an IVA test for a Q plate......

Location: Devon

Hi Ben

I think the Bugatti club letter refers to reconstructed classics (DVLA parlance). There is another category "rebuilt vehicle". I would be interested to know if these new rules would apply to these.

Current regulations (DVLA 7th April) states that for reconstructed classics ALL components must be over 25 years. For rebuilt vehicles there should be an original chassis and 2 other original major components (the body isn't mentioned) albeit the presence of an original log book or suitable evidence of the cars period existence is also required. Many specials built on a chassis kit or by stripping off the body from a car fall in this category

My special also falls into the second class (although in my case the body had rusted into oblivion) and I guess many others will be in a similar situation. If these new rules apply to both categories then huge numbers of rebuilt vehicles will be affected, old chassis cabs converted into motorhomes Is one example.

Howard

Location: Mid Wales

Completely confused ?
No one is telling me to put my DY plate on a Q plate ?
I have an original 1929 Austin Seven with all the history and that it will stay.
Thank God for a EU referendum is all I can say and even better I look forward to the protest drive we will all do to London and stop the traffic in protest of such stupid laws.
But once again I tell you right now - no one is taking my DY plate away from me.
The least I will do is fight for the car to a bloody end.
Can we clarify this post please?

It notes-

"built from genuine period components from more than one vehicle, all over 25 years old and of the same specification as the original vehicle"

I have just put a 'new' coil, spark plugs and a set of tyres on my complete original Saloon - basically the same specification as the original vehicle but definitely not 25 years old - under these badly worded rules this would give me a problem in the UK, or is there a let out for wearing parts?
I will stay with our recently updated Victorian Club Permit Registration (red plate) system thanks! (it is defined as a 'registration' on the document)
Maybe I can only drive for 90 days a year (with three cars that is 270 days!) but I can retain the original road registration plates if I want and the system is so much easier to comply with than the above proposal.

Tony.

Location: Malvern, Melbourne, Australia.

Location: Auckland

Location: Devon

The way that I understand it:

The 25 year old part rule applies to cars that are seeking an age related number or to reclaim an original number. ( ie neither have V5s)
The reshelled MGB case is neither of these. It is a car with a current valid current registration having a new bodyshell fitted in line with the points system.

Charles

Apologies Charles and anyone else for any confusion I read the second bit 'a reshelled MGB built from parts could be a q plate depending on the points score' as meaning a car seeking a reg. It still however is a complete contradiction on the DVLAs part. as long as your car is registered you can replace parts with new, but if it's not it has to include all over 25 years old.

In the BOC letter there is a part written to the club from the DVLA, which says the DVLA will be contacting the owners of all Bugatti cars asking them to provide evidence of the age and origin of the components of their cars, along with history of the car in it's constructed form and the evidence will be reviewed to decide whether the car deserves its registration, or requires an IVA and Q plate. The way it says all rather than recently registered cars. It also sounds as if they are taking a lack of evidence of innocence as a proof of guilt. which is the opposite of the way our law works, Innocent until proven guilty. How are they intending on proving the age of components? It seems like they are treating this in a very blasé manner, and do not understand the implications of their actions, as if the cars can just have an IVA and all is ok. The modifications required for the IVA ruin the car and deleting the chassis number is sacrilege. I can understand if you're fitting a bike engine in the back of a mini it needs an IVA and the modifications for the IVA are not a problem as the car has already been modified out of period, likewise if you are building a kit car. For someone wanting to put an old car back on the road that has needed new coachwork or a new part made to original specification, the modifications required for the IVA would rob the car of what it stands for and defeat the whole point of resurrecting the car in the first place.

Location: United Kingdom

Mike

I'm reading the INF26 rules as applying to a correctly registered historic vehicle (that's what paragraph defines). The wording is deliberately precise.
In my book that means a car that has a V5 and passes the current McCarthy-ite process unscathed. That cannot mean a car without a current V5 (pile of bits) or one that the investigations suggest has acquired a V5 through some degree of fibbing.
I may of course be wrong on this. I await some comment from the FBHVC!

Charles

One small point that no-one has yet mentioned is that perhaps the stock of two letter four numbers has been sold off by the DVLA and possibly some of we A7 Friends have one on their modern vehicle(s). I see a 4 wheel drive Chelsea tractor drive up our road every day with such a reg "DS....". I have also been recently to the H&H auction where much dosh is spent on purchasing these numbers. (I went to look at the cars,not a pile of letters and numbers.)I believe you can do what you want with your own money but it does seem such a shame that it is allowed to happen purely to satisfy vanity. I am happy to be corrected on the above because I am no expert on this subject.
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

The DVLA HAVE DONE PLENTY OF SILLY THINGS.

If they have sold of the two letter reg numbers, that's as stoopid as it comes.

I've been approached by plenty of reg number sellers over the years ( and not sold to any of them ).

And they all give and get better prices for the number regs.

If you think about it, right your own initials don't, and see how many plates for sale with your initials.

Mine are APB and not to many of those reg numbers about.

Tony

Location: Leics

I feel this could be my fault

In Sept 2013 at the auction at beaulieu summer auto jumble there was a PUR SANG Bugatti 35 entered that I was bidding on. It was a 2002 creation which the auction did not deny although it had a BO chassis number. Aware of what it was I questioned the MOT as it should be subject to 2002 compliance rather than 1930 vintage,. The following January while working for VOSA I questioned its excistance in the United Kingdom providing the registration number ect. Feeling this was a mondern recantation rather than a period replica.

David

I am thinking that out there,there must be lots of Austin 7 two seater specials that are still registered as four seater saloons, and even more with the wrong engine number . So what the hell do they do. Maybe someone in authority can advise such owners.? Terry .

Location: Leics

Terence
In regards to specials still being registered as saloons I must say that it is the owner's responsibility to ensure the paperwork on their car is correct. Regardless of what these new rules supposedly are, if a special is running on the road still registered as a saloon then there is no-one else to blame if something is queried than the owner.

For my 31 Montgomery special the V5C under section S.1 number of seats including driver is left blank, but then looking at the cars old buff logbook of 1956 (probably the time it was converted to a special) thats also been left blank after seating capacity, Geoff.

Location: Sunnyish Suffolk coast

Tony,
Now I understand! Some people would like to think they don't have a middle name because they find it embarrassing. I am one of those people.
There has been so much speculation about this situation of age-related reg numbers. We will have to see what happens with a few of the test cases. Currently I am losing enthusiasm for completing my special after working on it for 2 years plus.(And planning what to do for the last 25 years.)
Dave.

Location: Sheffield

Dave, just sent you an email on the subject... Let me know if you need any further info
Cheers
R

Location: Horsham

What does is mean for this company and others who produce these D Type cars and other car make?
http://www.realmengineering.com

It must be more far reaching than we think a lot of closing down, a lot of reduncancy

Location: London

I think Charles P has summed up the problems clearly in his posts. The DVLA website describes the situation very well with clear and concise explanations of the various issues. The BOC situation is very different. Cars were being produced which were completely new across a number of factories in different parts of Europe and South America while then being registered as period. As far as I am aware this was always incorrect but as the situation regarding registration seemed poorly policed these cars were "slipping through the net"

As far as I can tell from reading the DVLA site nothing has really changed, other than the rules are now going to be inforced properly?

Location: Leics

PGS I wish you were right about nothing changing and it not affecting us, but this has been proven to be wrong on both accounts. Please read the following thread in which Malcolm Parker explains that he was denied an age related plate for his GE Brooklands replica despite the cars application being supported by the PWA7C DVLA officer.
http://pub25.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=2099944454&frmid=5&msgid=990301&cmd=show

Part of the Bugatti problem is, as you say completely brand new cars being registered as old cars, but is also cars which have had original parts added to fraudulently claim that these are old cars rebuilt with some new parts. In order to stop the new cars being passed off as old they are now saying all parts must be of original manufacture to gain an age related plate. This unfortunately rules out the cases where a genuine original car has required a replacement part, which given the limited life and availability of some parts is completely understandable. (the DVLA admit that parts will need replacing during a cars life in the BOC letter however will not allow the same replacements on cars seeking registration) A newly manufactured part to the original specification is sometimes the only way of putting a car back on the road, and I think acceptable as long as no fraud is involved to pass these new components off as old with identification numbers. This I think is where they should just implement the points system, if the majority of the parts are original then it makes sense its a restored/reconstructed period vehicle, if the majority are new then it is a new car (this would also deter people from putting original parts to poor use on new cars rather than going towards restoring old cars). The body on a car with separate chassis should as it always has been not affect the cars points score.

Location: United Kingdom

Doesn't the old car movement deserve a full and unambiguous statement from the DVLA, rather than people popping up and giving their interpretation of current DVLA bureaucratic 'rules' what are frankly ambiguous. Maybe the FBHVA could liaise with or assist the DVLA to produce a statement.

Mr Simon, I am thinking that your sentiments are entirely those of decent fellows but must debate that FBHVC might have headed Indians off at pass before this time if it had set of teeth. FBHVC involving itself in things at this level is not bearing fruits.
But yes, clarity is demanded by old car movement and then we can be making proper fuss and palaver correctly.
Thank you.
PS I am making four questions:
1. When old car is disrupted of its ‘Historic’ status and is getting ‘Q’ plate with IVA testing people, if now not ‘Historic’ car can pass ordinary MOT, why is IVA needed?
2. If all ‘Historic’ cars are paying tax and having MOT so becoming ordinary cars, what is problem?
3. Is Chancellor of Exchequer asleep?
4. If 1 million cars is translating to 1 million votes to jettison from EU, is it wise of Gov’t?
Thank you

Simon - an article in the latest FBHVC News contains the following

"...recent feedback suggests that these changes in the DVLA approach are leading to particular difficulties in three areas:

Age-related registration of vehicles with new bodies

Data obtained from internet sources

Expertise of clubs

FBHVC are in the early stages of discussion on these points with DVLA. Although DVLA stated a willingness to enter into those discussions, they were very restricted in what they were permitted to discuss in the period leading up to a General Election, in common with all of the Civil Service."

So they are doing something!

Rick

Location: Deepest Norfolk

Thank you for that information Rick.

I note the issue of new bodies comes up again from the FBHVC. There seems to be some confusion here, with some feeling that only monocoques are affected.

Location: Dover

Just Heard on Facebook that DVLA has written to all Bugatti owners requesting informations.It looks it is the start of a long process.
No doubt it will affect a lot of clubs.

Location: Berkshire

Perhaps those with cars with suspect pedigree should be concerned, it may be the case of chickens coming home to roost. Where cars have been 'manufactured' using very little of an original car then it is only right that DVLA should be concerned. After all, building a kit car and putting an Bugatti badge on it does not make it a Bugatti..

Those of us with cars with good pedigree have nothing to worry about, have we?

Location: Falmouth

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