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

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

Location: Leics

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.

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

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