As announced earlier, this forum with it's respective web address will go offline within the next days!
Please follow the link to our new forum
http://www.austinsevenfriends.co.uk/forum
and make sure, you readjust your link button to the new address!
Location: Kent
"They have acknowledged that replacement bodies, and even replacement chassis, are acceptable when applied to existing vehicles on their database."
Where precisely is that stated?
Mike
With respect, there has been a lot of water under the bridge since BOC sent out the letter. DVLA have not yet responded to the specific question regarding new bodies following the meeting in Swansea earlier this year.
Found this on the DVLA web site today, it should help with bitsa's not sure how it will effect specials though.
Get an age-related registration number
DVLA can only recognise your vehicle as a reconstructed classic vehicle if it meets certain criteria. It must be:
built from genuine period components from more than one vehicle, all over 25 years old and of the same specification as the original vehicle
a true reflection of the marque
The appropriate vehicle owners’ club for the vehicle type (‘marque’) must inspect the vehicle and confirm in writing that it:
has been inspected
is a true reflection of the marque
is comprised of genuine period components all over 25 years old
They must also give manufacture dates for the major components.
DVLA will assign an age-related registration number to the vehicle based on the youngest component used.
New or replica parts
Your vehicle won’t get an age-related registration number if it includes new or replica parts. DVLA will give your vehicle a ‘Q’ prefix registration number. Your vehicle must pass the relevant type approval test to get a ‘Q’ prefix registration number.
Keep a vehicle’s original registration number
A rebuilt vehicle can keep its original registration number if you can prove you’ve used:
the original unmodified chassis or bodyshell (car or light van)
a new chassis or monocoque bodyshell of the same specification as the original (car or light van)
the original unmodified frame (motorbike)
a new frame of the same specification as the original (motorbike)
You must also have 2 other major components from the original vehicle from the following lists.
For cars or light vans:
suspension (front and back)
steering assembly
axles (both)
transmission
engine
For motorbikes:
forks
wheels
engine
gear box
Get a Q registration number
DVLA will give your vehicle a ‘Q’ prefix registration number if you don’t meet the conditions for keeping the original registration number.
Your vehicle must pass the relevant type approval test to get a Q registration number.
Location: Pembrokeshire.
My understanding of that is :
I am using the parts from a Ruby (long deceased) but all parts present and with along standing age related plate, using a special body tub built more than 25 yeras ago but never used, I can build a special with no problem ?.
what do you think?.
Location: Oakley ,Hants
DVLA will assign an age-related registration number to the vehicle based on the youngest component used.
New or replica parts
Your vehicle won’t get an age-related registration number if it includes new or replica parts. DVLA will give your vehicle a ‘Q’ prefix registration number.
Does not make sense
In one hand You will get an aged related number based on the youngest component New or Replica.
In another hand you don't get an aged related number if it includes New or Replica parts.
Location: Middlesex
What we seem to be loosing sight of is the fact that DVLA do not have a category of "Special". To them a car is either new, old, or a reconstructed classic.
If it is new, then everything is straightforward.
If it is old and unmodified, it's a bit more complicated but subject to inspection it should get an age related number.
If it is a reconstructed classic, or "bitsa", the stated criteria is unequivocal - it must be built from genuine period components from more than one vehicle, all over 25 years old and of the same specification as the original vehicle. So, as I read it, putting a two-seater body on a Ruby chassis does not meet the stated criteria, nor does converting a saloon into a van. Even putting on an identical new replica body would seem to be not allowed.
As to whether this makes sense, or will be rigidly enforced is not the question. These are currently the rules of the game, with which we are obliged to comply. Lobbying may get them changed or relaxed, but I'm not holding my breath!
Rick
Location: Deepest Norfolk
The fact that DVLA have neither issued minutes or confirmed any avenues for clarification after the meeting over two months ago is pretty dammed weak. If they set themselves up as judge and jury (as they have) the least they can do is act with a degree of respect and professionalism.
Charles
"Your vehicle won’t get an age-related registration number if it includes new or replica parts. DVLA will give your vehicle a ‘Q’ prefix registration number. Your vehicle must pass the relevant type approval test to get a ‘Q’ prefix registration number."
New or replica 'Parts'. This all hinges around the definition of 'parts'. Would the fitting of one newly made wing mean a refusal? What about a new battery? Or wiring loom?
What about new pistons?
And what if the replica part is thirty years old?
The DVLA is a government (arms-length body?) service provider and I repeat, successive governments have asked all the service providers -NHS, DVLA etc to do more with less.
This means they have reduced staff and those staff left don't have the historic knowledge to fully understand and carry out the work now expected of them.
Whether we like it or not they are probably learning on the job and yes, making it up as they go along! - to some degree.
So we have to hope that those in the old car world purporting to look after our interests have enough sway to guide the DVLA and that the DVLA are willing to listen rather than just dictate.
Steve V
Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom
The solution to our problem is to pay road tax.
If we eradicated this daft tax free status and all vehicles covered by the rolling 40 year exemption paid a flat £50 a year the DVLA could fund dedicated resource to understand and police our sector of the motoring world with some surplus for good measure.
In simple terms if you pay nothing you can expect nothing.
Charles[/quote]
I agree 100%, Charles.
Location: Herefordshire, with an "E", not a "T".
And so do I.
According to yesterday's papers far from saving ten million pounds the demise of the road tax disc
has actually caused an eighty million pound loss.
What a surprise!
Doing away with the MOT is yet another example of how out of touch with reality are most politicuans.
It'll all end in tears.
Location: Wessex
Am I the only one on here that is astounded by the fact that some posters are complaining about concessions granted by HM Government to the old car movement?
Location: Bonnie Galloway
I don't think even if we paid £500 a year road tax it would have any bearing on the subject in question. I don't think we'll get anywhere dealing with the DVla or FBHVC either, one appears to be an unaccountable public body, the other a luncheon club. I think the only way forward is if someone with enough money takes the DVla to court and gets a judgement on what constitutes an historic car.
Location: Herefordshire, with an "E", not a "T".
And so do I.
According to yesterday's papers far from saving ten million pounds the demise of the road tax disc
has actually caused an eighty million pound loss.
What a surprise!
Doing away with the MOT is yet another example of how out of touch with reality are most politicuans.
It'll all end in tears.
Location: Wessex
an interesting advert text in light of this thread...
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C553944
Location: Middlesex
Aaah! I thought that link was going to take me to this advert:
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C685975
The Reliant is not to my taste, but it has more entitlement to its 'historic' registration than this one!
you can see why it is for sale, given that it is openly a reproduction but on an age related plate....
When I first saw it, I thought that's not bad for £45,000?
... then I realised it said £450,000!...
Location: Derby
The Bugatti add is honest enough, but what are its chances of passing a ( relevant ) IVA test?
The Reliant on the other hand in affect has only had a body swap and has had its V5C voided. ( The DVLA have voided registration and logbook and want an IVA test and a Q registration plate. " Pigs might fly." This after 2yrs of street legal ownership and 2 Mots. )
Now presuming it has its original standard Reliant chassis under it, remember the chassis number is the important bit to the DVLA, the question has to be where do you draw the line, in theory one could take a Ruby driving chassis fitted with just enough original Ruby bits mudguards and reflectors and it would get an age related plate and not need an IVA test, but fit a replica or new body and it does!
The issuing of a Q plate is not an important factor but the IVA test is, what the DVLA and clubs have to realise is that in the case of a car with an independent chassis the type of body fitted is NOT important and never has been. Austin, Rolls-Royce, Triumph and many other manufacturers sold rolling chassis's and this is the part of the vehicle that has all the relevant numbers required for it to be registered correctly.
If we cannot agree and get this point across to the DVLA, then any vehicle that is not totally original could be subjected to the same fate as the Reliant.
Location: Pembrokeshire
I wrote to the Editor of Prewarcar.com and had hoped to encourage some lively debate:
‘the ultimate truth of the English peoples’ existence lies in that mixture of order enforced by authority with freedom exercised under authority which is not to be found elsewhere’.
We in the United Kingdom are certainly the envy of our European fellow enthusiasts when it comes to what we can and can’t do with our cars and long may this state of affairs continue.
But these freedoms are now under threat and everyone who adds to, takes away from or alters their vehicles, certainly of Historic status, has cause for concern, possibly alarm because there is as yet no provision within the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority’s (DVLA) system for vehicles that are clearly of Historic status but might be denied that privilege on a new interpretation of the current rules. There has, up until now, been no suggestion of an accommodation for this new class of vehicle.
At a recent meeting concerning the registration of Historic vehicles, DVLA said that they would be tightening up their application of the existing regulations (the 8 point system that determines whether a car is Historic or not). This is fair, but the DVLA has also made a statement that as a record-keeper, must be not only outside their remit but is illustrative of their unsuitability for the rule-makers role:
‘What is DVLA's attitude to Specials?’ the DVLA response given was: ‘They could be a Reconstructed Classic, but if it has new components (including a new body) it must have a Q plate.’
The Government brief for the DVLA does not include the gift of policy making or re-interpreting rules to suit the Department’s now straitened and centralised circumstances. Add to the mix opinion from the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs (FBHVC)….
‘There is a valid question as to whether our fairly liberal regime in the UK permitting wide change to engines, brakes, gearboxes and bodies, might not of itself be a safety risk.’
… and we have confirmation that if we as Historic vehicle owners, Special builders and Classic Car enthusiasts don’t take up the cudgels ourselves and put a stop to the erosion of our freedoms, nobody else will. The centralisation of government departments is not an excuse to implement ‘fits-all’ policies. To destroy our heritage through laziness or pressure from beyond our shores is inexcusable.
Even if the specifics of this debate do not affect us all directly, our freedoms under authority are at stake. Please write to your MP and express your concern with these proceedings otherwise all too easily, part of our culture will be consigned to history.
N. Wright
I think the fundamental issue here is that the DVLA are not prepared to consider - far less accommodate - the creation of a new (to them) class of vehicle. The FBHVC are not an effective ally in this debate (I spoke to the Chairman at the NEC who said nothing to convince me that the Federation was pursuing this issue with the remotest vigour or had even considered the future of Special building or replica-bodied vehicles).
Quite honestly, what difference does it make to anything for the DVLA to put 'Replica', 'Special' or 'Rebuilt - Assembled from parts some or all of which were not new' on the log book if someone wants to be a bit creative and have some fun?
We can't let this nonsense dictate the future of our interest. Even if you don't like anything that isn't original, it's not about that. It's about losing a part of our culture and a long tradition of creativity that most people beyond these shores would give their eye teeth for.
Once it's gone, it's gone. so speak up!
Dear all,
There have been 31000 views and over 300 written responses to this thread which must be a record on this forum. Probably more discussion than many items in the House of Commons. I think we are going over the same points now but unless we can influence the relevant organisations , whoever they may be then decisions will be made which many of us will be complaining about for many years to come. I am probably stating the bl**ding obvious. I have written to FBHVC so far and will probably write to my MP but I am not convinced that either party will want to take up our case. So any ideas?
Dave.
Location: Sheffield
It strikes me that there is a key misunderstanding within the DVLA of the difference between the body of a car with a separate chassis and a more modern Monocoque.
Location: New Zealand
Dave, I am sad to say that I think you are probably right. You ask for any ideas? I think any opinions that any of us may have will be disregarded by the authorities essentially because they think they know best. My guess is that if the DVLA are to determine the definition of "historic vehicle" they will look no further than the E.U. A cynic might suggest that this current hiatus is simply a way of mandating the definition that has already been accepted in principle.
Location: Derby
That looks interesting DVLA putting Replica on a V5c.
So why not call an Austin 7 Special replica, Bugatti special replica etc...and keep it as Historic as they've done with this Porsche?
Porsche 356 Speedster LEGEND replica in metallic silver RHD - Classed as a Historic Vehicle, based on a 1971 VW Beetle chassis and running gear and registered as a Porsche 356 Replica with DVLA by previous owner.
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C662533
Location: Middlesex
Andrew, if you have the ear of a Minister, collect signatures via an e-petition.
https://petition.parliament.uk
Letter in December 2015 in the Automobile
THE DVLA AND HISTORIC SPECIALS
While our Publisher may feel confident that DVLA will not inaugurate a witch-hunt regarding those vehicles already registered with V5C documents (Starting Handle, October), the same may well not apply to vehicles which though genuinely more than 25 years old, have lost their identity documents and for records are no longer available from the original issuing local authority. Over the last 40 years I have rescued for restoration a number of interesting vehicles which have no documentation but also do not neatly fit into a category suitable for an age related number plate should the DVLA chose to be difficult. One example is a 1955 production sports car bought 40 years ago as a restored rolling chassis with all matching numbers and, fortunately, the remains of a bulkhead with chassis plate the rest of the body having been stolen, probably for scrap. My intention, finally realised last year, was to fit rare period fibreglass body from 1958. Should the DVLA choose they may decide, despite all the components being pre-1960, as proven by a Heritage Certificate for the original car and contemporary advertising for the bodyshell, to treat the vehicle as a reconstructed classic' refusing an age-related number and requiring an IVA test, which would be unattainable for a 1955 vehicle, before offering a Q-plate. In other words, the car would be fit only for parts. I also own a fibreglass special based on a shortened saloon chassis dating from 1949, bought as an abandoned project but without an engine.
This leads to the same problem while as above with the added burden of having to produce receipts for the engine (correct for the the car, but originally from another vehicle) which I have owned for almost 40 years and therefore now have no receipt for. Although constructed considerably more than 25 years ago, with a 1949 chassis and a 1961 body, in the absence of documentation the DVLA may decide that it is a "radically altered vehicle' (shortened chassis, different body), again requiring an IVA group and Q-plate.
Then there is the rare Ford 10 special, one of three thought to exist, bodied with an early example of the work of a manufacturer later to go on to much greater things and with a contemporary 1961 tubular chassis from a well-known constructor of the time.
Work on these three retirement projects has now stopped since I have no wish to spend yet more money on vehicles which, despite being close to roadworthy, may end up being as the scrapped as unusable should the DVLA see fit.
White It appears to me to be iniquitous firstly that the DVLA can act as judge, jury and executioner when they offer no guidelines about, for example, what they consider to be 'major components' and, secondly, that of the a vehicle cannot even be considered for an age-related number and V5C until much time and money has been spent bringing it to even a minimum MoT standard. If refused, of course, it may render the vehicle unusable
I believe the rules relating to the registration old vehicles need to be radically reviewed, How many of the rare and sometimes incomplete vehicles feature in Finds & Discoveries will otherwise end up as scrap because it cannot be proved that all components are correct, particularly where a new body (or a period body from another car) is fitted to an otherwise correct chassis? A major issue may be, if I understand correctly, the DVLA staff issuing age-related numbers are the same as those issuing modern registrations, while those issuing new documents to replace old logbooks are a different group altogether. If so, the latter probably know something about older vehicles while the former probably do not even know that cars once had separate chassis and bodies. The problems I have outlined above appear not to have occurred when local offices dealt with the issue, and it seems sad that a small group of people can have caused so much concern and scrutiny through passing off tool room' copies as the real thing.
Location: Berkshire
I also read this in the Automobile. A perfect example of the need for a degree of " discretionary flexibility" which is,unfortunately, beyond the wit of the agency.
How will DVLA treat this car?
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C670172
Location: East Sussex
I'm sorry, but but which part of the DVLA guidelines is not clear?
Whether you agree with the stance DVLA is taking or not - and before you jump on me, I don't, by the way - the above is pretty unequivocal.
Rick
Location: Deepest Norfolk
It is not just the DVLA , even newspapers, including the " up market " ones , have a tenuous idea of correct grammar . I do wonder what legal minefields are being created by newly qualified solicitors !!
Merv
End of rant .
Location: New Forest
A friend who received a letter from DVLA in July regarding his Historic registration on his 1930 A7 which he registered with DVLA two years ago. Has just received a letter from DVLA.
Quote
Thank you for your letter of 29 August about vehicle registration number …..
I apologise for the delay in my reply.
This letter is to let you know that DVLA are continuing to look at your case, however I will write to you again soon with a full response.
Unquote
Location: East Sussex
Is your friend trying to get the cars original number officially reissued to his vehicle or trying to get a new age related number allocated ?
Certainly seems to be a lengthy process, I dread to think how many vehicles currently involved and that's without those of us still waiting to register.
Steve V
Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom
DVLA BLAMES £80M LOSS ON OLDER CAR OWNERS (Classic Car Weekly)
The DVLA has stated that older car owners are a major reason behind the Government losing £80 million in revenue from scrapping the car tax disc – but is clueless as to why.
New official statistics released in November revealed that it has lost £80m
in revenue from unlicensed vehicles, which the DVLA says is caused by scrapping the tax disc. Around 560,000 drivers are now evading the annual payment, up from 210,000 in 2013.
Of the unlicensed vehicles in the survey, 45% of these cars were more than 10 years old. The DVLA has credited these statistics to owners of older vehicles, but doesn’t understand why.
Karen Powell, press officer for the DVLA said: ‘We don’t know why cars older than 10 years old are the main culprits for tax evasion. The stats are what they are.’
Oliver Morley, DVLA chief Executive added: ‘Almost 99% of all vehicles on the road are correctly taxed but we are taking action against those who are determined to break the law.’
Clubs have fought back accusations from the DVLA, refusing to accept that members would be evading vehicle excise duty. Tony Ridge, head of public relations for the Jaguar Enthusiasts’ Club said: ‘It’s a generalisation really. There’s a big difference between the type of person with a cherished classic and someone who just has an older car.’
Lesley Phillips, president of the Stag Owners’ Club added: ‘Club members take care of their cars in general and are more than likely not evading anything. It seems like the DVLA could be doing more with their figures, it should include or exclude possible club members.’
Worrying statistics
The analysis of road users carried out this summer showed that 1.4% of vehicles were being driven without vehicle excise duty – up 0.6% from two years ago when the disc was still required. This new system caused many admin problems, including innocent motorists having their cars clamped.
Many groups were opposed to the new measures, including the RAC. Chief engineer David Bizley. He said: ‘Sadly, the concerns we raised about the number of car tax evaders going up at the time the tax disc was confined to history have become a reality.
‘These are very worrying and disappointing statistics indeed. We really cannot afford for this to increase again for the sake of both road safety and the country’s finances.’
Location: East Sussex
I know it is a big ask , but perhaps the DVLA could admit they have messed up , and re-instate the tax disc .
Is this another example of an official improvement which has had the opposite effect ??
Merv
Location: New Forest
Perhaps it is what happens when cuts go too deep too quickly in search of political ideology?
Location: Derby
The significant excerpt from that announcement is the statement that "the DVLA are clueless"; what a surprise!
It doesn't take an informed expert to realise that most cars reach the nadir of their value at between ten and twenty years old; that is when money is tight and the majority of tax-avoidance occurs, but of course the DVLA doesn't understand this
I think all this is getting to me. I had a bad dream last night that the DVLA was being run by idiots.
Unfortunately, when I awoke I found it wasn't just a dream!
Location: Derby
If the percentage has gone up from 1.4% by .6% and the government have made a loss of £80m the 98% of us must be paying a lot.
Also if 99% are paying their tax 1% equates to £80m then 99 x £80 = a pretty good income anyway.
How did they arrive at these figures?
Roger
Location: Haverfordwest
"Of the unlicensed vehicles in the survey, 45% of these cars were more than 10 years old. The DVLA has credited these statistics to owners of older vehicles, but doesn’t understand why."
So that means 55% were less than 10 years old which is the majority. The owners of younger vehicle are clearly to blame.
Its all a load of nonsense. There is no proven link between cause and effect
David
Location: NE Peak Corner