Important DVLA consultation paper - it could change our hobby for ever!

From what I've read, only the 'cowboys' need weep...

I've read half of it and fallen asleep. What's the problem? It's a consultation document. I think you're going to have to wait untill they decide to do something before you weep.

Alex

Why? Do you drive around in cars not taxed and or registered to you or yours?

""I've read half of it and fallen asleep. What's the problem? It's a consultation document.""

So you've read the 'Reconstructed Classics" section then? And you've no objection to having to SVA that nice old classic you've got sat outside? You've got no objections to using 25 year old brake components the next time you rescue a forlorn classic that needs recomissioning? A fan of Q plates, are we? Read it carefully and think about what it says. Certainly, I find that many sections affect me - Reconstructed Classics, Radically Altered Vehicles, Kit Built Vehicles, Kit Conversions, V765 Scheme.

""I think you're going to have to wait untill they decide to do something before you weep.""

And then it'll be too late. We need to respond now, not later. Imagine turning up for your MOT next year, and being told you'll need an SVA pass before you can submit for an MOT - any idea how difficult it would be to get the average classic through an SVA test? Dale

In message , on Sun, 11 Jul 2004, MrT writes

They are not saying that every single component down to the last nut and bolt has to be over 25 years old. The components referred to are major component assemblies, essentially:

The bodyshell, suspension, axles, transmission, steering assembly and engine.

The procedures laid out in the consultation document are those that (should) already happen now. The document is asking for views on whether those procedures can be altered or improved upon.

Phil

Rebuilt Vehicles:

viii. Whether you consider that, in the interests of road safety, all amateur rebuilt vehicles should be subject to ESVA/ SVA/MSVA/DAC (in NI)?

So where's the problem? How, precisely, are they going to KNOW you've rebuilt the vehicle? If it's been reconditioned and has a new chassis its identical to the old one....

As far as I can see the same principle lots of us already use when we totally rebuild a Landrover appiles. Don't tell em.

As for Q-plates, if you're going to bugger about with a cut-and-shut job then you should have one. If it's rebuilt with the original componenets then you aren't going to get one anyway. And if you don't know how old it is, then what else do you expect?

"Radically altered vehicles" as far as I can see already covers those people that fit a coil chassis to a series and keep on pretending it's a series. That is already illegal, and lots of people apply the same principle as above - don't tell em. You're breaking the law, and if they tighten the regs you'll still be breaking them.

So who precisely is to be worried by a tightening of the rules? Whilst I don't agree that they need changing, this is a consultation document, not a rule change (yet). If you think it will create problems, then get writing, but bear in mind that the government in it's misguided wisdom sees this as a method to crack down on dodgy cars on the road, and will totally fail to see how any changes affect us genuine enthusiasts anyway. Like the new car tax rules, it will not stop those who drive uninsured, untaxed in bangers, but will penalise those of us who genuinely forget.

Alex

I think that this is very relevant to anyone who owns a classic or a kit car. It more red tape and more costs. They are asking who should pay for any inpections, well, with MOTs and SVAs we do, I don't expect it will be any different with this.

Anyway, get your answers in quick folks cos the deadline is just over a week away.

And the rest of us should consider joining the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs ...

Ron Robinson

I'm only skim reading it as it's very late, but this bit worried me:

1. In order to qualify for registration as a Reconstructed Classic, the completed vehicle must comprise of all genuine period components, of the same specification, all over 25 years old. The vehicle is allocated a non-transferrable, (this does not prevent a registration mark being transferred onto the vehicle) age-related registration mark and the date of manufacture is based on the youngest vehicle component. The vehicle will qualify for exemption from vehicle excise duty if the components were manufactured prior to January 1973.
2. The historic vehicle enthusiast clubs play an important part in this process as they have to verify that all the components used in the build are over 25 years old and are of the correct specification.

Does that mean that any part that wears out needs to be replaced with a part that's been sat on a shelf for 25 years or more then?

Or has tiredness got the better of me?

It's rather early in the morning for me so tiredness might have got the better of me but I assume that "component" means one of the major parts, chassis, engine, suspension as a whole, etc. Otherwise, taking things to the extreme to make a point, changing a bush or a seal or a tyre etc would mean your car is no longer tax exempt!

I imagine what they are trying to do is stop people ringing cars as many classic owners do. Eg. You have a MK1 Mini Cooper which is a total rust bucket and will never make it back on the road so you take the VIN plate, attach it to your 1986 Mini City E and hey presto you have a tax exempt classic which is worth far more than it should be.

In fact, re-reading your post, what I have just said is not relevant, as what it is talking about it obtaining a new registration I think but the ringing issue is one of the things they are trying to tackle in the other points they outline.

Cheers, Dave

I assume being a member of a club that is a member of the FBHVC counts?

No, read things more carefully. This only applies to "reconstructed classics", ie cars that have been rebuilt from parts from other cars, and are applying for an age-related plate. There will be no difference to repairing your existing classic, as long as you don't make wholesale changes to major components. That part (radically altered vehicles) already exists. If you re-shell, for example, you may need a Club expert to certify that it is to original spec. But on the points system, there's nothing to stop me dropping a 2 litre Sierra engine (for example) into my Standard Eight if I can work out the technicalities. As long as I retain the original shell, suspension, axles, etc.

How that would stack up with mods over a period of time is another matter.

But of course. However if you aren't, there is nothing to stop you supporting them by becoming a member yourself.

Ron Robinson

In other words (as I read the document) the chassis / body shell should be original - 'panel' replacement is allowed, as would be a replacement shell IF :-

The engine block, gear-box casing, axle assembly etc are basically original and un-modified.

What is the problem there, what they are saying is that the / major / component numbers should match the build records or the known number sequence.

Of course not, no one is saying that (for example) the big end shells have to be 'old new stock', only that the block that they go into should be period.

What the DVLA are trying to stop I suspect are the 'cut 'n' shut' cowboys and those who think rebuilding a classic is about replacing everything with more modern (better) components etc.

That section is intended for insurance write offs

You say that is if it's a bad thing.

More modern bits can be a bad thing and not necessarily better. Can't see the point in buying an old car then upgrading everything so its character changes and it goes like a modern.

Whats the point in having a magneto engine and doing a coil conversion? Too many other cars are ruined by raising the compression ratio or being fitted with disc brakes when they never had them. We are only custodians of these cars and future generations might have trouble working out what they were built like originally.

What concerns me about this document is that it might eventually lead to home restorations being outlawed. I'm restoring the earliest known Hillman and using all the original running gear. The body panels are original but the woodwork isn't. So does it have its original body or not? As far as I know the blocks are ok (it has 4 separate ones) but if I have one recast does that mean it might have to be inspected? What happens if I have to change the crankcase is that a major modification? Knowing the way bureaucrat minds work anything is possible.

We all know what DVLA are like when they introduce their rules. I don't recall the law ever being changed in the 80's to allow them to say that if you didn't register a car on their computer and have a V5 then you lose your registration number. Now they are at it again by saying that from next year they won't re-issue original numbers even if you have proof of what the number should be.

So I object to any changes DVLA want to make on principle.

Andy

: So you've read the 'Reconstructed Classics" section then? And you've no : objection to having to SVA that nice old classic you've got sat outside?

It's not talking about restoring classics. It's talking about building a new old car from component parts, and the rules for that have always been very strict.

Ian

: Does that mean that any part that wears out needs to be replaced with a part : that's been sat on a shelf for 25 years or more then?

Not at all. It doesn't cover maintenance of classic at all. This is if you want to create an entirely new, has-never-been-registered-before classic from a pile of bits and then get it registered as a classic. To do that, all the bits have to be old. Which seems quite fair to me.

If the car already exists you can repair it as you wish.

Ian :