Converting 110 SW to 5 seats

John, It is not the seats - it is literally the number of people you carry . Try having an accident in a Fiesta with six up and see what happens.

To elaborate: Technically you do not even need to take out the seats. All the preserved buses etc. that you see at vintage rallies have more than eight but unless you have an appropriate licence you cannot carry more than eight passengers or your insurance is in-valid. Nobody ever checks, as such, but if there was an accident then witnesses could be asked and there would be trouble. To avoid complication you could indeed take out the extra seats in your Landy (as I have done on my 110, but to gain space) and nobody could dispute the fact that you might have had more than eight passengers. You simply declare the number of seats to your insurance company and that is that. I'm not even sure that it is possible to re-register the vehicle as different from standard, because the DVLA computer does not like things that cannot be neatly standardised. They are mostly concerned with regulating crime through the use of traceable numbers. Your insurance company are much more interested in the fine details of your car and take what you say as correct - but if it is wrong (new powerful engine, wrong number of seats, fitted anti theft device etc.) and you declare incorrectly then the insurance is invalid from day one. Declare everything correctly: No problem.

Nick Webster

110 TD5, CPC & PCV licence holder

But beware - Direct Line, for example, will not offer insurance on a

110 SW, or breakdown cover, because the vehicle was *built* with more than 8 seats - regardless of the number it now has. Just be careful is all I'm saying - suddenly finding yourself uninsured after an accident will be very costly* and the on-line buying systems often don't make clear whether the cover is for a 110, or a 110SW as I found out.

Richard

• unless you don't bother insuring it all seemingly.

But beware - Direct Line, for example, will not offer insurance on a

Yes, you are quite right, these days there are an increasing number of companies doing insurance (as oppose to Insurance Companies) who take their information from a computer database. They advertise apparently huge savings. When I gasped at a Tesco quotation offered to me they rather ruefully said that their product was primarily directed at the average small family car and Land Rovers did not fall into that category. To discourage "that kind of risk" the quote was not even remotely competitive. Thank heavens there is a choice of specialist Land Rover insurers to choose from.

Nick

But that is more people than there are seats. Not quite the same as less people than seats.

I take the point about the insurance but why does the licence use the words "passenger seats" not just "passengers"? And shows pictograms of different sized vehicles.

On or around Mon, 3 Oct 2005 20:15:50 +0100, "John Page" enlightened us thusly:

I think so. Send in the V5 with "New seating capacity" filled in, having removed the bench seats from the back. No need to remove the centre front unless you want to.

Then make sure you inform your insurance company, or they'll use it as an excuse not to pay out if you ever need 'em to.

'course, if you then have more in than 5 or 6, you have problems if caught at it.

Alternatively, get the missus to pass a D1 test.

Probably because the licence simply assumes you will potentially carry as many passengers as seats and the are various degrees of commercial licence to cover different capacities. I think there is probably an uneasy coexistence between Eurolicences with pictograms and what DVLA had enshrined in small print. There have been many confusing variations over the years. For example you have to be 21 to hold a psv licence but a 17 year old could drive an empty bus.

The V5C for my 110CSW does not give the seating capacity because it is in the group PLG, not a commercial. In fact I've never seen a PLG V5 with section S1 filled in. Sometimes the manufacturer uses it in the model description but this is a different thing entirely. In another post someone is suggesting that the seating be declared to DVLA, end of story. I think their first response might be is it being used commercially then? We do not need to get down to tiny details - if you declare the correct number of seats to the insurance company then there should be no problem and no need to involve DVLA. Nick

My Ninety is a CSW and originally had bench seats in the back. I took the benches out as soon as I purchased the vehicle and fitted two forward facing fold-up seats with 3-point belts. I also fitted a cubby box in place of the front centre seat. My insurance certificate states the number of seats as 7. I always use the same garage for my annual MOT. He does not even look at the rear seats/belts. He says that they do not count as seats as far as the MOT is concerned; and the same goes for the rear bench seats with or without lap belts. So my insurance company says it's a 7 seater. The MOT will test it as a 2 seater. I swear it is a 4 seater, because it has 4 seats and 4 seatbelts!!!!!!!!!

Stew.

benches out as soon as I purchased

also fitted a cubby box in

rear seats/belts. He says that

for the rear bench seats with

seater. I swear it is a 4 seater,

Unfortunately your tester has got it wrong section 5.1 of the MOT manual states "this inspection applies to all seat belts fitted including child seats/ restraints" However rear and side facing seats do not require seat belts

In news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net, Andy.Smalley blithered:

so neither rear nor side facing need testing or side facing in the rear or rear or side facing? Regret that sentence is too ambiguous to be any definitve use!

Rear and side facing seats do not require seatbelts. However if seatbelts are fitted (to a rear or side facing seat or child restraint) said seatbelts are subject to inspection.

Clear enough now?

Just looked this up on t'internet.

Seat belts Most vehicles after 1965 must have seat belts. Irrespective of that requirement, all seat belts fitted to any vehicle must be inspected for:

a.. security of seat belt mountings and locking stalks b.. security and operation of the locking/release mechanism c.. condition of webbing d.. retraction of the belt (it is allowed to manually feed it in). Notes: 1. For technical reasons the inertia locking mechanism is not checked. 2. On some vehicles the belt is attached to the seat, in which case the security of the seat to the vehicle would also constitute part of the seat belt check.

I think this agrees with EMB

Stew.

the number of seats as 7.

seater. The MOT will test it

rear or side facing?

OK try Unfortunately your tester has got it wrong section 5.1 of the MOT manual states "this inspection applies to all seat belts fitted including child seats/ restraints" However rear FACING and side facing seats do not require seat belts

My rear seats are forward facing fold-ups. They spend 95% of their time folded up, including during the MOT test.

I had that done on mine when I bought it and the garage just declared it with the new number of seats when they filled-in the change of owner forms for DVLA. I now have the right number of seats on the form.

Fred

Think I understood first time, was just trying to point out the text was open to (mis)interpretation, does the (second) 'facing' apply soley to 'side' or 'rear' as well. Your first sentence specifies rear AND side facing, WTF does that mean? Obliquely mounted? I know I'm being obtuse? I'm famous for it, but descriptions and especially definitions must be unambiguous to be of any use.

In news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net, Andy.Smalley blithered:

That is a bit better, awfully easy to write one thing and mean another, and even easier to say and mean somat else entirely.