Nigel thanks, I was more thinking about what were the objectives of the "other" side. If one of the objectives of the DVLA is to live within a reduced budget, not unreasonable, then the A7 community needs to help them find alternative ways of doing this without compromising the ability to register or re-register historic vehicles. Unfortunately abuses in the past, not A7s in the main part, have, in the eyes of the DVLA and the general public, made this more difficult to achieve through a certification system relying on the various clubs.

Location: NE Peak Corner

Just an indication as to how far out of hand this has become: I know of a complete, all-original Renault Dauphine which has been imported from France. All the correct documentation required by DVLA has been presented, and rejected; a letter of authentication from the British Renault Club (which is DVLA approved) has been rejected; rubbings and photographs of all the relevant plates and stampings have been rejected. DVLA have now arranged for an independent company (SGS UK) to inspect the vehicle, presumably at some vast expense to the DVLA (and the taxpayer) ...

I'm (almost) speechless!
This SGS uk authentication will cost a fortune.
It really makes you wonder just how much more insane it can get?
-and all be cause of some over rich tossers building fake Bugatti's and trying to pass them off as original.
Steve V

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Hi Mike I would be very surprised if the cost of this independent inspection were to be bore by the DVLA/ tax payer. It's more likely to be at the applicants expense even if the said inspection has a negative outcome.

Location: Work ( Sheffield)

I was about to say similar Ian.
Having thought on this some more, could this be part of the way forward out of the current predicament?
If the DVLA were to be a little less intransigent over replacement bodies it could be part of the solution we need.
Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

David,

The FBHVC and the DVLA’s objective in my view is quite simply to carry the day with the Charter of Turin. I can’t be certain of his involvement in its architecture but the current Chairman of the Federation, David Whale, was in a senior position at the FIVA at the time of the charter’s creation and ratification and the Federation has championed the charter ever since. Read what you will into that.

If, as I read, the DVLA are withdrawing authority from club officials without explanation then it could be that they’re closing down lines of direct communication and plan to leave open only a conduit via, for instance, the FBHVC.

The abuses you mention and I assume you’re talking about the Bugatti Owner’s Club and others allegedly involved in falsifying provenance, I’ve always felt were a complete red-herring but gave the DVLA a moral high-ground from which they could exploit their economies and excuse their excesses.

Hi again Nigel,
did you mention the above concerns to Sir Greg Knight in your communications with him, particularly the Charter of Turin issues and David Whale's involvement with both the FBHVC and FIVA?
The possibility of DVLA withdrawing any authority from club officials is worrying. Has this been confirmed anywhere yet or is it speculation of a likely outcome?
It would help if FBHVC were more open about proceedings.

Steve V

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

I am aware that the DVLA have asked some owners clubs to re apply for the scheme, the club I know who reapplied were accepted without question.

NO TO 25 YEAR TAX EXEMPTION

The Government has ruled out reinstating the original 25-year road tax exemption for classic cars – despite more than 18,000 of you calling for it in an online petition.

The Treasury says it recognises that classics are an important part of the UK’s heritage, but feels the current 40-year rule is sufficient, allowing 10,000 vehicles to become exempt every year. It also recognises the importance of the historic vehicle movement, and reckons by its own data it supports the livelihood of 28,000 people across the country.

‘The Government is working to deliver a long-term economic plan to repair the public finances and will continue to take the difficult decisions to achieve this goal. Therefore, the Government currently has no plans to re-introduce a rolling 25-year exemption for this category of vehicle,’ a Treasury spokesman says.

He adds that in recognition of the contribution made in the 2014 Budget the Government announced a rolling 40-year Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) exemption for classic vehicles.

The online petition calling for a return to tax-free status at 25 years runs until 24 July, and had attracted 18,063 signatures as this issue of CCW went to press. Creator Logan Walker – who owns a Jaguar XJ-S and Mercedes-Benz SL R107 – says he’ll continue promoting the petition, but adds there’s a long way to go to reach the 100,000 signatures needed to prompt a Commons debate on it.

‘I was flabbergasted to see it even reach 15,000 signatures but it needs more than me pushing the debate to get any change,’ says Logan.

‘It needs to be a bandwagon that gets more mainstream support – imagine if someone like Chris Evans lent his support to it.

‘It’s not helping rich people who buy classics as investments. It’s about supporting ordinary working people who love bread and butter cars, for whom paying road tax every year might be the difference between them choosing to preserve an old car or not.

Location: East Sussex

The inspection has been booked for tomorrow (March 1st) and there has been no mention of a charge being made to the applicant.

Liam

I think the VED is a minor issue and although a zero rate is welcome what is at stake here is the ability of some A7s especially specials to be able to gain a status that allows them to be registered for use on the public roads at all.

Location: NE Peak Corner

I still maintain that tax concessions are like M.O.T. exemptions; a cynical means to an end. The more that old cars are segregated from the mainstream, the more likely they are to be singled out as receiving "special treatment". We would be better advised against special pleading.

On the contrary, we should be seen to pay our way. There are many people wishing old cars would disappear from our roads. We are portrayed as polluters of the environment and regardless of the facts there are vocal "envirofascists" who it seems are being heard at Government level. With luck, the freedoms that we presently enjoy will get enough support but these are uncertain times.

Location: Derby

Fair do' s Mike. 👍🏻
Regards Ian.

Location: Work ( Sheffield)

The article in Classic cars for sale yesterday may give some encouragement that the government acknowledges the importance of historic vehicles.





The Government has ruled out reinstating the original 25-year road tax exemption for classic cars – despite more than 18,000 of you calling for it in an online petition. The Treasury states why it’s sticking to the 40-year free duty rule on CCFS.

The Treasury says it recognises that classics are an important part of the UK’s heritage, but feels the current 40-year rule is sufficient, allowing 10,000 vehicles to become exempt every year. It also recognises the importance of the historic vehicle movement, and reckons by its own data it supports the livelihood of 28,000 people across the country – but the current road tax rules are here to stay.

Location: Oakley ,Hants

Please let us not be drawn of topic.

There is a vast difference between being asked to pay the tax on a 25 year old car and not being able to register, or risk losing the registration of a previously registered pre-war car because of a reinterpretation of the rules.

If our message is not consistent, then we will not be listened to.

Peter


PS.

In my distant past, I was on a National Union of Students rally through Birmingham to keep the cap on tuition fees (at that time £1000 or so). Despite the clear goal, those present were protesting for "Grants not fees", "No fees" along with a load of other self interests. The NUS lost that campaign, and those subsequent campaigns - partly because they could not come up with a single clear message.

I was drawing your attention to this part of the text. Not trying to muddy the water


"It also recognises the importance of the historic vehicle movement, and reckons by its own data it supports the livelihood of 28,000 people across the country"

Location: Oakley ,Hants

Agreed Peter,
the ability or loss of to register our vehicle for use on the road is what we are fighting for and discussing here.

Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

I've just heard the inspection went ok, and DVLA are expected to respond within a couple of weeks ... and DVLA are footing the bill!

If they instigate professional inspections for every new application, they will soon be spending more than if they had retained the local offices!

I think that the two issues are inextricably linked.

Why on earth should we expect to get something for nothing?

I was opposed from the outset to both the exemption from tax and exemption from MOT. It seemed to me to be blindingly bloody obvious that by ceasing to treat our cars in the same way as all others, the first steps towards restricting their use had been taken.

Did anyone seriously believe that the Government had done this out of the kindness of their hearts? There had to be a motive behind it and it seems to me that we're now in a position (to turn the phrase around) of "No representation without taxation!"

I would happily pay tax to run my cars in an unrestricted way, with the revenue being used by DVLA to employ some officers with specialist knowledge and understanding of historic vehicles to deal with the issues unique to them.

I would also welcome the return of some form of MOT for old vehicles, perhaps a little "softer" and less frequent than that for modern cars.

Location: Herefordshire, with an "E", not a "T".

The free road tax and no road tax is a red herring. Nothing whatsoever to do with the DVLA situation.

The problem is that the environmental lobby are effecting government policy of lots of issues. Transport being a notable issue.

London currently has an emissions zone, how long is it until other large conurbations have similar? Not long I expect. They are already common in Europe.

The legislation created to police these is defined against the manufacturers stated emissions (what the european wide Vehicle Type approval is all about).

In essence the legislation is designed to keep older vehicles out of London, older vehicles being considered more damaging to the environment. This is mirrored in the Vehicle Excise Duty policy, older vehicles are taxed more than younger ones, the rates for modern cars are based on emissions. That said Historic Vehicles excepted.

Make no mistake it is current government and European policy to discourage the use of older vehicles, and encourage the use of modern ones. This it is said is about emissions, a cynic may well suggest it has a lot to do with the larger European car manufacturer lobby also!. The why isnt really important to me, but the how is.

There is a clear understanding and will both by the UK government and Europe to exempt historic vehicles from much of this legislation, the stumbling block seems to be the definition of what is a 'historic vehicle'.

FIVA http://www.fiva.org/site/en/ and in the UK the FBHVC http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/ have done a lot of work on gaining a european wide accepted definition, based on the Charter of Turin. I believe the current accepted definition is:

‘vehicle of historic interest’ means any vehicle which is considered to be historic by the Member State of registration or one of its appointed authorising bodies and which fulfils all the following conditions:
– It was manufactured or registered for the first time at least 30 years ago;
– Its specific type, as defined by the relevant legal acts of the Union on type approval, is no longer in production;
– It is preserved and maintained in a historically correct condition, and therefore has not undergone major changes in its technical characteristics.

There are lots of threads on various discussion groups, but it seems the two main hangups people have with this definition is with dates and modifications, with some getting hung up about daily use.

Dates, the long and short of it is that somewhere someone needs a cut off, yes this means a motor built 30 seconds before the cut off is historic, and one built 31 second later isn't, but hey ho, thats life. The rolling 30 year definition negates this in anycase (though this is sadly not mirrored in our UK DVLA rules - it seems from reading above the UK governement wants the income!)

modifications, the charter suggests period mods are fine, but on the other end of the scale when you make it into something it never was, or put a modern engine in it it isn't.

Looking at the whole picture, and ignoring the minority groups who think it should still be ok to do as they please and thus oppose FIVA, the FBHVC. We need to understand that those organisations are looking after the interests of historic vehicle owners by agreeing a definition and by ensuring that exemptions are in place.

Those who want to continue as they always have need to consider the reality, is your ford Zetek powered Lotus Elan really a Historic Vehicle?. Is your newly built bodied Austin 7 Special? The answer is probably NO, they are not. Certainly by the definition above. Can anyone even suggest a historic definition that would include for these?

Going forward, I expect that what has gone on to vehicles in the past will no longer be possible and still use the vehicle on the highway. In 10 years time you may well still be able to build a new special but you will not be able to take it on the road because all the exemptions for historic vehicles will not apply. And the type approval rules for new vehicles will similarly bar you.

If truth be known we are not far away from that now.

Without a definition and without exemptions we will be legislated off the road by the environmental lobby.

But Hedd, do you not accept that the fact that we are paying nothing significantly weakens our bargaining position?

Location: Herefordshire, with an "E", not a "T".

What I type next will be controversial.......
Understand what your saying Martin, but try telling that to some pensioners or low income groups.
For people in service industries a lot of whom are lucky to see £10 per hour it could make the difference in enjoying an old car or not, not everyone is in skilled employment paying upwards of £20 to £50 per hour.

Playing devils advocate, say the Tax was around the £230 mark, -that could be the difference between maintaining the car to keep it on the road or not for some people.

I'm with you regarding M.O.T's.

Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

But Steve, don't forget that until quite recently we WERE all paying tax - I don't recall droves of owners abandoning their hobby because of it.

Out of interest, why £230? Doesn't an older "modern" 750cc pays £145?

Location: Herefordshire, with an "E", not a "T".

I do not.

If it is the plan to use the historic vehicle class as a weapon to use to rid us from the roads. Why are they not rolling the dates? And why has it not yet happened?

The free tax dates from John Majors days, it is quite a conspiracy theory to suggest that this government is going to use it against us. Blairs red torys never did, nor did this lot when imposed upon by the half loony lib dems. I can't see it somehow.

Our bargaining position is the amount of money we spend in the economy. Something the current lot will take heed of.

On a quick skim read through, the DVLA's contract with SGS appears to be flat rate @ £595,000 per year. More info on the contract here. https://www.delta-esourcing.com/delta/viewNotice.html?noticeId=123102368

According to someone who has had his vehicle inspected by SGS (car was another import), they took chassis engine etc. numbers and took loads of photos, a couple of weeks later the V5C turned up in the post.

Location: N W Kent

In truth It turns out I wasn't comparing engine size like for like, I was thinking of an average 15 to 20 year old 1600cc car as an example because I happened to know of a car in that category ie mid sized engine range - big enough to cost a bit more in terms of emissions.
I accept that that it turns out I was talking a bit out of the top of my head!
I was thinking that a lot of old car insurance policies require that you must have a 'modern' as an everyday car with our old Austins being occasional use only - I wasn't thinking of the lower Tax band of £145 which would be less onerous.
Although I don't think paying road fund license will give us any more sway with
government or the DVLA.
Now taking foot out of mouth......
Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

That's quite interesting reading, the contract appears to be for 2 years from 4/2015, it would be interesting to see if the current discussions impact on SGS contract as it probably can not be changed until it ends so 4/2017 may see changes.

Location: Dorset

If it became too costly for SGS they would probably just walk away - at least that's what's happened with outsourcing in the NHS.
Steve V

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Historic vehicles are not simply ‘old’ vehicles

http://www.classicandsportscar.com/forum/classic-chat/fiva-calls-to-separate-old-cars-from-historic-cars-%E2%80%93-have-your-say-here

Location: East Sussex

Quite a good article from James at C&SC about the whole FIVA shambles that has also appeared.

Not sure if the two are linked though!

On a side note I built the C&SC site a few years ago.

Location: Buxted

As someone who is trying to rebuild/restore a 1925 car
This topic is causing a great deal of uncertainty to the Aysti 7
Community . The re-invention of Austin Sevens has been as much a part of the heritage
left by Herbert, for example all the period coach builders and the all the "special" builders
Who kept so many of these cars on the road, often on a budget in the 1950's and 60's for us and the general public to enjoy now.

How can folk who are restoring ancient buses and trucks, all with their coach built bodies,
Cope with any new draconian regime. So if you make a cab from scratch, then you cannot get a V5C.

In period many coach built cars had their bodies exchanged
Given that A7 bodies cost only £7? New at the factory And many Rolls Royce cars
Were regularly given new bodies in the 1930's and 40's.

Anyone know how the Commercisl Clubs view this Saga?

Regards

Bill

Location: Scottish Borders

I agree Bill, At one time Rolls Royce only sold a rolling chassis, so there is no defined type of body for them, as with many commercial vehicles, in fact many company's made rolling chassis available to coachbuilders. The only important part of a vehicle like this is the driving chassis, that is the bit that is drivable and the part that is registered. If we take a newly made body and stick a box section chassis under it and fit a draw bar is not a motor car its trailer put it on an original chassis and it a motor vehicle and subject to all the relevant laws that go with it.

Location: Pembrokeshire

... and DVLA have issued a correctly recorded age-related Historic status V5C!

Hi Mike
Is that with BF letters and 4 number?
Liam

Location: East Sussex

No, it's for a 1950s Renault Dauphine, so it's three numbers, three letters.

I do wonder whether DVLA are running out of numbers, and that's an ulterior motive for the present difficulties!

Here's an interesting one to consider with relation to this thread- Apparently has a historic registration but gives few details further than that as to what it's actually registered as. Either way, the description of "90% new parts" would suggest that it doesn't really qualify..... I suspect this is a very expensive can of worms! (also I'm no fan of hot rods, so I'm automatically suspicious!)


http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Classic-Ratrod-Hotrod-Austin-7-Morris-V8-LSD-Mustang-Modified-New-Retro-V5-PX-/121926924288?hash=item1c63693800:g:kY0AAOSwoudW6ekV

Location: Herefordshire

You can bet your sweet patootie that the V5C doesn't reflect the vehicles current status!
Steve V.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

I was talking last night to someone who had reported this particular vehicle to DVLA, for its claim to historic vehicle status.

The car is being sold as tax and MOT exempt, but the only "historic" part is a heavily-modified Ruby bodyshell.

DVLA's response was that it was nothing to do with them and that the matter should be referred to VOSA.

Location: Herefordshire, with an "E", not a "T".

So they'll accept a vehicle with so little left of the original that it's barely recognizable to keep a an age related plate but won't accept a rebodied vehicle with all original chassis and mechanics?
Plus seemingly they're now picking and choosing who to harass or not, regardless of a vehicles legitimacy?

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Reporting stuff like this to "the Authorities " is guaranteed to make life more difficult for the rest of us.
I hope he didn't take his whinge "'Snot fair, I couldn't do it so I'll stop anyone else by reporting them so there" to VOSA. This is the sort of behaviour that has engendered the nightmare we are dealing with, pace Pur Sang etc.
I'm not condoning or promoting the committing of Civil Offences but drawing bureaucrats' attention to something only encourages them and spoils it for everyone else!

Location: Ripon

S'pose there's truth in that, especially as there are others patiently keeping their head down waiting for sense to prevail so they can eventually then get a legitimate registration.

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

I have to say Duncan, I totally disagree with you on that point. I think something which is BLATANTLY taking the mick should be reported. It might make life harder for the rest of us, it might not. Just letting people do what they want won't solve the problem either, it'll just perpetuate it and this issue will never go away.

Location: Herefordshire

I won't win any friends for saying so, but I don't think "hot rods" like this cobbled together heap of crap should be considered as a legitimate vehicle - let alone an historic one. Unless a hybrid vehicle meets modern standards of road worthiness (which it likely never will) it should be kept off the road. It is not an old car; it is a new car built from old parts. Motor manufacturers have to meet certain standards and mixing disparate parts like this is just stupid.

Location: Derby

I think it does raise another point worth making-This is a potentially very powerful, handbuilt missile. The idea of it being considered MOT exempt terrifies me! Who knows how well done the work actually is. To be honest I don't agree with MOT exemption on any car, but especially so in cases like this.
And what about the person who buys it? They could potentially spend £16+K on something that is very dodgy indeed. If there was latterly a problem, the seller (who doesn't appear to be a motor dealer) could wash their hands of it. If it's reported, then that could save someone a lot of money and a lot of trouble.

Location: Herefordshire

I tend to agree, the CLAIM was for an historic vehicle, I'd be surprised if he could insure it without declaring all the modifications which would take him back to DVLA and VOSA. It would never pass an IVA test at the VOSA inspection and therefore would not end up on the road legally. If someone did take it on the road it would not get far without being stopped, let's hope that would occur before injury or death.

My beef was against the guy with a pointed stick poking the sleeping dog ...

Location: Ripon

Well said Ray!

Duncan, While I agree almost entirely with your most recent post, I totally disagree with your original point. The current "nightmare" has, I gather, been brought about by the failure of certain clubs and individuals to responsibly self-regulate their activities.

Surely it's better for "US" collectively to distance ourselves from gross abuses by reporting them, than to wait for their inevitable discovery by the authorities?

Why should the the rest of us be dragged down by a bunch of arseholes who, for whatever reason, operate way, way outside the rules?

Location: Herefordshire, with an "E", not a "T".

Tax evasion and tax avoidance
One is criminal and the other is a legitimate loophole.

DVLA rules allows it and is legitimate, not kosher in our eyes.

I reckon there is over 10k which fall into this category from SS100 Jaguars, D and C types, New 4,5 Bentleys with 1952 RR engine and chassis, AC Cobra, majority of the Bugatti with BC chassis numbers etc. this is the tip of the iceberg.

Going the reporting route will only complicate things.

Location: East Sussex

Location: Herefordshire, with an "E", not a "T".

I have to say I have a lot of sympathy with this comment.
I don't particularly want to 'poke the sleeping dog' but do we really have a choice?

Said dog is as far as we can see happy to doze in the knowledge that it is in charge and not particularly bothered about the fact that it is making life difficult for those with totally original chassis and mechanics having long lost an original registration and for whatever reason have needed to have a replacement body fitted, but are at the same time happy to ignore or permit abominations that have no legitimate entitlement.

To carry the analogy further we are currently dismissed as nuisance fleas that the dog has to occasionally acknowledge with the odd scratch to ease irritation!

If we want to be taken seriously do we not have a certain obligation to be self regulating?

I've only been following the situation since the beginning of October 2015 but this whole sorry state seems to have been going on for perhaps 2 years or more.
We're already over half way through March 2016 and at least publicly don't seem to be any further forward (it's anybodies guess what goes on behind closed doors).

Location: Polegate, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Location: East Sussex