Sorn

Certainly, provided you pay for the cost of sorting that out and don't expect everyone else to "pick up the tab" for your irresponsibility.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it, they said the same thing when the last V5 chgange happened. And the same when the old "log books" went out.

It's just another example of this government's attempts to grind us into the ground using big brother tactics.

Alex

Andrew Wheeldon ( snipped-for-privacy@ntlworld.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

If you could prove the date of manufacture, then you would get an age- related plate, not a Q.

How are you going to prove the date of manufacture with no proof of the vehicle's identity?

If you can prove the date of manufacture, then you can apply for an age-related plate, and the DVLA will issue you with a VIN. To prove the age you'd need records of when the vehicle was manufactured, either from the manufacturer or a recognised club for the vehicle. If the chassis/vin number is absent, dating can be done on other componets, ie Engine, axle, gearbox no's, providing the records are available.

Alex

Alex ( snipped-for-privacy@cbmsys.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Will you be paying the cost of the hospitalisation or the fatal accident team's time? No, didn't think so.

A Q-plate means that the vehicles age is unknown. Tax exemption states that the vehicle must be pre 1973. There would be no tax exemption as there would be no proof as to when the vehicle was built...

BTW, for the MoT, Q-plate vehicles are treated as 1972 cars... so you can get away with the old style plates!

As far as I am aware, if there is no VIN, then it's a Q-plate. If there is a VIN, but no plates, then you can apply for an age-related number for your car. No VIN - no proof of age = Q-plate.

I just asked my friend who works there :-)

The message from Adrian contains these words:

It is not so much the date of manufacture as the cut-off date that really matters so the official taking the decision would have to be a complete jobsworth not to maintain that a model that went out of production before the relevant date wasn't maufactured before said date.

Roger

Roger Chapman ( snipped-for-privacy@zetnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Oh, good. In that case, I'll just go off, collect a large pile of remanufactured MGB spares and a heritage shell, and make a "new" one from them? I should be able, by your logic, to get it on an "age-related" plate.

MGB, could be post-73? OK, I'm sure there's pretty much anything available for Austin 7s.

: I used to take the car off the road for 6 months each year. : : Now I just can't be bothered with the paperwork.

It's a bummer, isn't it? Going into the Post Office, ticking a box on a form, picking up the receipt. Took me almost five minutes to tax one car and SORN two others a couple of weeks ago - it's a bloody imposition.

Ian

I think you'll find that there are rather too many people around who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and think that more and more laws (however inappropriate) are the answer.

Only in a nanny state like ours is fast becoming.

I was commenting that the miles covered and time wasted by the officer in question were poor value for the £20 they got out of it.

BTW I note you didn't answer my point about relative dangers, and there being very dangerous things which it is totally legal to do.

I do so wonder why?

What about far more dangerous activities than not wearing a seat belt. Does the same apply? And how do you propose policing it?

That's not good enough evidence, unfortunately. The DVLA will only go by the chassis number as that's the only documentary proof of the date of manufacturer.

Without a chassis number, it's just considered a heap of parts and treated as a Q-plated homebuilt car, no matter what the age.

What about far more dangerous activities than not wearing a seat belt. Does the same apply? And how do you propose policing it?

.:\:/:. +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:. | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.: | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: | | '=(\ 9 9 /)=' | Thank you, | ( (_) ) | Management | /`-vvv-'\ +-------------------+ / \ | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \ | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\ @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__ \||/ | | | jgs (______Y______) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

I take it that's a "no answer".

Can't say I'm surprised. At least you were gentlemanly enough not to try.

Simon Worby ( snipped-for-privacy@bb-bc.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

No, it's a "I haven't seen your post yet".

Not putting a seatbelt on is a positive act with no benefit whatsoever. It's also the single biggest cause of preventable injuries and deaths in road accidents. If they start to get lax on enforcing that, they might as well not bother even trying to enforce anything else.

Simon Worby ( snipped-for-privacy@bb-bc.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Not I.

Did it stop you driving without a seatbelt after you were caught? I should imagine that that rather than the twenty quid was the return they were after for their effort.