That's what mine was, but that's not apparently the way it should be. It looks like your V5 is wrong, and you're best off keeping it that way unless there's other consequences... Mine said 3.5 tonne and PLG category with 2 seats, despite me sitting in the DVLA centre when it was first registered telling the clerk it was 3.9 tonnes and had 14 seats.
On or around Tue, 8 May 2007 15:32:58 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:
How many? you can have up to 8 passengers without being a small bus. 9-16 is small bus, 17+ is bus.
9-16 pax is OK not for hire and reward, BUT you have all the hassle about seat belts. Also there's a thing about carrying children on orgniased trips, when you can't use sideways seats.You could probably get around the seat belt thing by them not being available, but not if it's organised. flippin' minefield, now. Not sure about minibuses and lane 3 on the motorway, mind. I suspect maybe minibuses are allowed there but buses aren't.
Well, they wanted 16 of the little grotbags transported 2 miles through the centre of Bristol. I told her I might be able to get away with 6 in the back, one in the front and me, making 8 people and therefore inside the minibus rule. However the weight of the vehicle apparently complicates matters, or perhaps it doesn't, or maybe it does, it depends on what bits you read, which bits contradict with which other bits, and which way the wind is blowing in Bombay.
Yep, and any trip short can be regarded as "organised" I'll bet.. Most trips in which more than a few kids are being taken are likely to be organised I reckon.
The pinz doesn't do lane 3, I don't normally drive it faster than 50 MPH even on motorways.
Currently I'm thinking that if I take some seats out I can avoid the minibus rule, but I have to hope that the weight issue doesn't mean that I have to make a choice between making it a minibus or a goods vehicle, without the option of just having seats in it without it being a minibus. That was how it was left last time I was talking to DVLA. I might have to take out all the seats, or register it as a bus of some kind, with no in-between ground.
On or around Tue, 8 May 2007 22:22:49 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:
I think you can get it as a dual-purpose of some kind. The bit on the reg doc is the taxation class. There's one good thing about that - last one I had which was "bus" rather than PLG cost a fiver a year less to tax.
if it's a "small bus" (9-16 pax) then you don't need PCV. You don't in fact need PCV if you never carry passengers anyway, I don't think, but don't quote me.
If you have less than 9 pax, then from the seating POV it's a "heavy motor car" (or mine are). not sure about weight limits, though. I've got most of the legislation somewhere, I'll have a look if you like.
Yes, I might end up saving a few quid a year, might make up for the phone calls I've been making recently to try and sort it all out!
I think that's the category that might fit the best, class 5 as someone else said recently.
If you can just give me a hint for what bits are important I can have a look myself rather than impose on your time, I've not even found a list of the different categories yet!
The Land Rover 110 owners manual clearly states that the gross weight is 3050kg on unlevelled suspension or 2950kg on levelled suspension. Either way, I would have thought that you would have no problem in registering it as PLG.
John
On or around 9 May 2007 01:20:11 -0700, dumelow enlightened us thusly:
yeah, but we're talking about a 6x6 pinzgauer...
On or around Wed, 9 May 2007 08:59:40 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:
It's a minefield. However, I can point you to where I GET the legislation (or some of it, anyway: all the legislation would fill my computer and then some...)
You want to look among other places:
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 Road Vehicles (Authorised Weights) Regulations 1998 Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993 Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children in Front Seats) Regulations 1993 Road Traffic Act 1988 Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002
from MV(WSB)R 1993, in the definitions:
Cheers mush, I'll have a wade through at some point :-(
On or around Wed, 9 May 2007 08:59:40 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:
definitions in C&U yield:
Heavy motor car:
A mechanically propelled vehicle, not being a locomotive, a motor tractor, or a motor car, which is constructed itself to carry a load or passengers and the weight which unladen exceeds 2540 kg.
Motor car:
A mechanically propelled vehicle, not being a motor tractor, a motor cycle or an invalid carriage, which is constructed itself to carry a load of passengers and the weight of which unladen :-
(a) if it is constructed solely for the carriage of passengers and their effects and is adapted to carry not more than seven passengers exclusive of the driver, does not exceed 3050 kg;
(b) if it is constructed for use for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description, does not exceed 3050 kg;
(c) does not exceed 2540 kg in a case falling within neither of the foregoing paragraphs.
but note that the seatbelt regualtions say "more than 9 including driver". I suspect that someone's overlooked that little bit in C&U, the C&U definition of "bus" is "over 16 passengers" but it makes no reference to "small bus"... we do have
minibus:
A motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 but not more than 16 seated passengers in addition to the driver.
which agrees with the seat belt rules but not with the one above about motor cars: according to C&U, a vehicle designed to carry 8 passengers in addition to the driver doesn't exist, being neither a motor car ("not more than 7") nor a minibus ("more than 8 and not more than 16")
Hmmm. wonder if I can get away with not paying road tax on th egrounds that it's a non-existent vehicle...
oh, BTW, another bit of legislation that might be pertinent:
Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994
Well, I just got a call back from DVLA, for taxation purposes they will still regard it as a PLG despite it having too many seats and too much weight. The reason for this is twofold, one is that I have dual use, so there are three possible taxation classes for it, and in that situation they will go for the class that nets them the most money! And that's PLG. So basically they ignore the rules regarding weight, and as I'm not using it for hire and reward then they ignore the rules regarding seat counts, and stick it in the most expensive category that they can find... So the V5 will still show up as a PLG apparently.
All I have to do now is find out if that clears me re 12 side-facing seats in the rear, because this is only for taxation purposes, in terms of health and safety, I doubt they'll use the same categories, it'll be the construction and use categories you've already mentioned most likely.
Glad you've got it sorted finally:-)
Speak to your insurers about passengers if you haven't already. They'll give you a yes or no. I'd be more worried about that than the officialdom bit, meself....
Tciao for Now!
John.
Not there yet, just the taxation class!
I asked them yonks ago, they don't care what the government think about the truck, as long as it's carrying people in the manner for which it was designed then I'm insured to carry the designed number of people. That's what they say on the phone at any rate, hope I don't find out they're fibbing the hard way!
It's never good, finding that out:-/
Tciao for Now!
John.
; I like it, maybe you will too!
I tried that a while ago and Purfleet DoT station agreed; even faxed me the relevant page in his documents. However higher up the ladder and Bristol DoT said no
Make sure you check with the organisation you are transporting for re rear side seats if its something like a school or scout group. They sometimes have caveats regarding side seats even if insurers allow it.
I wouldn't do such a trip, this one is just a 1.7 mile trundle through the centre of Bristol in 30MPH limits, that's all I'd do with lots of kids in the back. I'd be so nervous on a longer trip about crashing that I'd get distracted and crash ;-)
I do have a half-hatched plan to take non-offroad people on tours around the local lanes at some point in the future, that's a whole different ball game! I thought about OAPs too but the seats would need revamping, they're seriously uncomfortable and you get bruises easily if the truck's bouncing around.
On or around Wed, 09 May 2007 15:25:57 GMT, "Hirsty's" enlightened us thusly:
that's the thing about "organised trips" again. Must be forward (or rearward) facing seats with belts. Which is why I'm embarking on a plan to fit a transit body to a 110 chassis, rather than simply using the 110 as-is;
110 will easily seat 8 pax if you use the original side-facing seats, but I'm not allowed to, and fitting forward-facing ones in the back-back (BTDT) only gets you 2 more, there's not enough room.
Finally got the "definitive" answer, the vehicle will be classed as a PLG despite being overweight, and I can carry kids in the back legally as long as they're over 3 years old as the seats never had belts so they don't need to be restrained. It won't be classed as a bus so the more strict belt rules don't apply.
The caveat however is that there is an amendment to the RTA that states a police officer can judge that they are being carried in an unsafe manner and do me, at which point I'd go before the beak and risk a £5,000 fine. I spoke to Bristol police and they said that there's no way they could say that I wouldn't risk getting done without seeing the vehicle and also being present at the time, the kids might get over-excited (10-year-olds straight out of a laserquest game) and push the situation outside of the comfort zone.
Given that even a low-speed accident in the pinz, or even in the 110, with a crowd of kids in the back would result in them being chucked around in a sharp-edged metal box I'll give it a miss, I was never comfortable with the idea, glad to have a get-out clause really!
Useful to know that even in an old landy it's at least not totally illegal to carry kids around on bench seats though. Modern vehicles with side-facing seats with lap belts can't carry kids but the older ones it seems are OK as they never had belts in the first place. It's judged that lap belts in side-facing seats are more dangerous than no belts at all in a front or rear end collision as the body doesn't bend well sideways.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.