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

Andrew Jones is my MP and I know him. He does not have technical knowledge but he's not daft and should listen if we explain carefully. I suggest people should campaign him and explain that the old car movement is big, and is generally good honest folk, but there is a problem with how DVLA are interpreting the law and coming up with ambiguous guidelines.

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

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.

I don't want to re-start a topic that was done to death a couple of years ago, but it has always seemed to me that having to put our cars through an MOT and paying some amount of annual tax keeps us on a par with "normal" road users and gives us a much stronger voice. It's difficult to complain about something that you're getting for free.

To turn the expression on its head, "No representation without taxation!".

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

I don't blame DVLA

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!

I see the difference as being with regard to safety, and Type Approval. Type approval, and the IVA test for individual vehicles, was created to ensure that new cars being manufactured were of a safe design. If we allow one-offs to be manufactured without this test, then how do we cope with a small-scale manufacturer that makes one this month, and one next month?

The problem seems to be that DVLA are saying something is a new car, when we would say no it is an old car with a few replacement parts.

If a small manufacturer was making new cars, but using second-hand gearboxes, I think we would all say that was NOT an existing car and it should get Type Approval or an IVA test.

But what if a specialist firm was repeatedly overhauling Morris Minors from the early fifties, using the vast majority of the old vehicle but always fitting a new 5 speed gearbox? I think we would all say that the gearbox makes little difference, so IVA testing is not required.

In the real world there are so many different scenarios and it is difficult to know where to draw the line. But I think DVLA need to realise that saying NO REPLICA PARTS is a nonsense. Every fifty year old car is almost certain to have a replica exhaust system.

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

It was said earlier that my MP, in a ministerial post, is to look into this issue. So I have asked to meet with him to discuss the issue.

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

If DVLA are told it has been converted to a convertible, modifying the monocoque body, then they will insist it undergoes the IVA test. This means fitting dual circuit brakes and an approved immobiliser, dealing with sharp edges in the cab, fitting a catalytic converter etc.

On the other hand it will have a registration easily if no-one tells them about the modified body.

But that is just my guess. Part of the problem is that the guidelines are not clear.

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

Well, for starters, since the DVLA is sparing in the use of commas in their guidelines, this is ambiguous:

"Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer) - 5 points"

That could be read as either "original or new, and unmodified", in other words no modifications to original specification at all; or "original, or new and unmodified", in other words the original can be modified, but the new replacement can not.

The DVLA guidelines are riddled with such ambiguities.

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

Without going off to check the DVLA website, the ones that come to mind are...

(and I wasn't just thinking of re-constructed vehicles)

There are references to 'all components' - but nothing to say what is meant by the word 'component'. Is a nut and bolt a component? Is a battery a component? And a piston ring?

It used to mention that vehicles over ten years old are not subject to IVA testing - but it is not clear whether this applies to a recently drastic-modified vehicle, based on a twenty year old vehicle.

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

For the DVLA's benefit I would like to point out to them that cars over and around 10 to 15 years old are as a rule are very cheep to buy, they are generally purchased by younger people or people with very little money, and they cannot afford to tax, insure or MOT them, a few points on their license if they have one and a fine are still cheaper than the price of the tax and insurance, if their couple of hundred quid old banger gets crushed as a result it is no great lose to them.

On the other hand when an older car gets to the age when it becomes tax exempt its price goes up in value, its new owner wants to preserve it as they know it will only go up in value and makes sure it is road legal.

Whilst I am having a rant here, can anyone explain why we have to renew our S.O.R.N every year? Once a vehicle is declared of the road there is no reason to re-declare it every 12 months, as its has to be either off the road or on it. The owner has declared the vehicle off the road and they use it they will be fined, its as simple as that.
Renewing the deceleration every year is just more D.V.L.A bureaucracy and a waist of time and our tax money, though it may create a few jobs in Swansea sending out all the reminders.

Location: Pembrokeshire

You no longer need to renew SORN on a vehicle every year (assuming that you did not tax the vehicle since the last SORN).

For once something was done which made some sense.

Location: Scotland

I feel that the entire SORN system should be relegated to history. The DVLA should have no interest in vehicles that are not on the road. They didn't need to keep tabs on unused vehicles in the past. As to being fined for not complying with the regulations it smacks of taxation by stealth.

Location: Derby

At least with S.O.R.N they are not likely to loose the records ? or take vehicles that have not be taxed for a few years out the system, although I would not be surprised if they did, so we have to go though all the aggravation of trying to get them re-registered.
Lets face it nearly every pile of bits pulled out of a barn has got at least a chassis number and has been registered for the road at some time, some even have a history in club records, and it was The D.V.L.A that did not record these vehicles in the first place.

Location: Pembrokeshire

I take your point, Phil. It's just the element of compulsion that sticks in my craw. It looks to me like yet another example of Government trying to criminalise it's population.

Location: Derby

The usual think of an idea, implement it without doing adequate research, then the normal "Oh ****, what have we done!" reaction from the moronic politicians/beaurocrats, who then scrabble around trying to find innocent scape goats to blame, except themselves.

What world are they living in?

Oh, ivory tower with heads up @arses?

Geoff - My Southern Hemisphere bluntness

Location: South Norfolk - Next to Suffolk

that's how it seems to work in the NHS, so no reason to expect it to work any different in another government owned/run body.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom