I'd be interested to see the full story behind that as the only reason why it would be picked up on by DVLA would have been if the vehicle was being inspected for other reasons. However if it was a rally car, as I have been told, then it could be as part of DVLA's ongoing 'purge' on Mk1 and Mk2 Escort rally cars, and was just an easy item to home in on. Whatever way we look at all this, times are changing and we can't expect to get too much support from the 'higher ups' in government when they're all after the green vote.
And let's not forget, much (if not all) of the blame for DVLA's increased interest in classic and modified cars can be laid at the door of those who OK'd the Pur Sang Bugatti replicas, allowing them to be registered as genuine Bugattis...
More scary cr@p from DVLA
Moderators: hot66, Miggs, 58A - 71E, impmad2000, drummerboytom, Barry, Helen, Viv_Surby, Derek, KS, abm914, Mike Usiskin
-
Nine One One
- Put a fork in me, I'm done!
- Posts: 1639
- Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:45 am
- Location: Kernow - good old Cornwall
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
Putting my legal head on here, this is nothing more than a further stealth tax to draw in income, with the DVLA trying very hard to change the status of ‘Classic Cars’ to another category, by any means possible.
The original point of a ‘Q' plate was to register a vehicle with an unknown identity on the road (so they could charge VED on it!). These could have been stolen/recovered cars, with all identity removed, or kit cars made up of multiple parts from various vehicles. Hence they always had a bit of a stigma attached to them.
The Classic Car industry generates around £18.3bn a year. That is a huge sum towards the economy, whichever way you look at it, actual car sales, restorations, parts, employment.
As of 2020 1.5 million historic vehicles – including cars, buses, lorries, motorcycles, agricultural, military and steam vehicles – are currently registered with the DVLA. The segment represents 3.4 per cent of all registered vehicles in the UK.
Classic Car status also changed, so any vehicle up to 40 years old qualifies for the status, meaning less VED.
Not my personal favourite, as I never agreed with it, but the same vehicles are also exempt from a yearly M.O.T. Again less income for the Government, and leaving a lot of cars running around that quite frankly are not fit for the road. An M.O.T at least every 2 or 3 years may have been better?
DVLA have tried to get around this, by now requiring a current M.O.T for any private plate transfer, or insisting on an inspection to re tax a classic vehicle (more revenue).
If you think about the changes being introduced, not ANYWHERE, is there a written policy document, or legal statute, putting their framework for this decision making process by DVLA, and they have failed to produce such a document to those requesting it.
The legal basis for safety, of all vehicles on the road in the UK, is the Construction and Use Regulations.
Basically DVLA have dreamed up their own set of rules, to try and change the status of Classic Vehicles, to generate more VED, and issue a Q plate undermining the vehicles pure original status. If they want more revenue from the owners of classic vehicles, just charge a set VED, issue say, black and white/silver number plates to them, and everyone is happy. Do not move the goal posts to suit a money making exercise, and change it as and when it suits.
How can a car, fitted with say a brand new Heritage shell, restored properly, be placed in the same league as a kit car, built in a shed from a multitude of second hand parts (and yes there are some excellent quality built cars out there, but you knew it was likely to be issued with a Q plate when you started to build it)
As Cortina has already stated, this would include every rally car built prior to April 2023, by todays dates, and a lot of the the modifications made, are to comply with RULES issued by the FIA or MSA on safety grounds. Just because you install a roll gage in your 911, even for aesthetic appearances, still adds safety to the car. It is not a cut a shut shell. Like wise drilling holes for a fire extinguisher, or making correct structural repairs to rusty parts.
Likewise, most repairs or modifications are done to a higher standard than when it left the factory, add rigidity, safety and allow it to stay on the road longer.
I know, let us now charge a higher Council Tax if you use oak timbers to rebuild your home instead of steel or Pine, or class it as a caravan or mobile home, because you changed the structure in some way???
Rant over………………..
In the last Federation News of
2022, I alluded to the hope of a form of Christmas present from DVLA – and somewhat to my surprise they did indeed provide one! For the first 2023 edition of Federation News we were just able to squeeze in a statement to the effect that DVLA had announced two initiatives with regard to vehicle registration policy. I had hoped that in this edition I would be able to report progress on each of them but unfortunately that is not the case as there has been very little discernible progress and at least some of what has been made is not helpful.
I will expand on the above a little later but it might be useful initially to add some detail to the previous necessarily short announcement. DVLA informed us of
two separate vehicle registration policy exercises which they would carry out. The first of these was a ‘clarification of existing policy’ whilst the second was a total review of policy for the future. These two operations are considered to be separate and independent in the sense that a policy point clarified in the first exercise might be completely revised in the second.
The clarification exercise is an entirely DVLA internal exercise, although they have sought input from one or two clubs on particular issues, whilst the second
will in due course lead to a full public consultation.
The clarification exercise results from the many complaints that DVLA received from the Federation and others that over the last few years they have changed long-standing practices and apparently reneged on existing agreements without warning or explanation. In some instances, these changes have been communicated directly to the Federation, and in some cases we have been left to find out from member clubs. In outline some of the issues involved are –
Refusal to register cars with recently constructed but period typical bodies in apparent contradiction of agreement previously reached with Vehicle Policy.
Dating certificates from an existing manufacturer rejected for having a ‘digital’ signature despite them having been accepted for many years.
Refusal to register vehicles originally supplied in CKD form because an exact build date in the destination country is not available. Some progress was made on this last year but has stalled
• Non-acceptance of build date stamped directly on vehicle.
• Non-acceptance of model year information encoded within VIN
• Original chassis number marking. There are many variations and facets to this issue, it can arise with chassis numbers originally stamped onto a plate or to numbers stamped onto a component liable to corrosion and/or damage.
• Refusal to accept that a historic vehicle is most unlikely to be able to obtain an IVA and that as a result the allocation of a Q registration to such a vehicle renders it incapable of registration in the UK.
• Contrary to long-standing practice that like-for-like repairs to a vehicle were not considered to affect its identity or status it now appears that any repair to a chassis or monocoque will be regarded as a modification and the vehicle will no longer be considered as historic
• Making holes in a monocoque is also considered to be a modification with the same consequences.
• No information sourced from the internet is permissible as vehicle
dating evidence. The long-standing agreement was that Wikipedia was not an acceptable source of information but other online sources could be considered if an endorsement and explanation was supplied by the relevant specialist club.
DVLA claim that vehicle registration policy is the same for vehicles of all ages. If that is the case, we consider the rulings regarding repairs to chassis or monocoques should apply equally to repaired accident damaged modern vehicles but that they clearly don’t. Similarly, the decision to regard the making of holes in a monocoque as a modification should apply to modern vehicle but there is no evidence that it does.
At the present time the Federation does not profess to understand the reasoning or motivation behind these changes and our requests to DVLA for further insight have not borne much fruit. Thus, we await the formal ‘clarification’ with great interest. At the time of writing no formal reports or conclusions from the clarification exercise have been provided by DVLA but we know from various sources that some of these points have been addressed. In a few cases positive progress has been made but in others DVLA have confirmed their current unhelpful position. It is our understanding that as a result of the latter one justifiably aggrieved owner of two affected historic vehicles has initiated legal action.
It should be noted that members of the Historic Vehicles User Group have repeatedly requested from DVLA sight of the much referenced ‘Policy’ on which all their decision making is allegedly based. It is felt that knowledge and understanding of the origin of the sometimes apparently inconsistent conclusions reached by DVLA might be to everybody’s mutual advantage. However to date it has not been disclosed and this is creating some doubt as to its status and structure.
The second part of the announcement was more encouraging and the verbal introduction by DVLA of the total registration policy review was very positive and acknowledged that the existing policy was old and may not in all cases still be fit for purpose. At the announcement in December it was claimed that internally work had already started on the review and this would
be shared with the User Group when ready. Since then, we have heard no more but I remain cautiously optimistic of the outcome whilst recognising that the process will not be quick. The bigger problem is that we have to live with the not necessarily satisfactory outcome of the current policy clarifications until the review is complete and enacted.
So, yes, we did receive a ‘Christmas present’ but it is yet to be seen what is within the pretty packaging!
The original point of a ‘Q' plate was to register a vehicle with an unknown identity on the road (so they could charge VED on it!). These could have been stolen/recovered cars, with all identity removed, or kit cars made up of multiple parts from various vehicles. Hence they always had a bit of a stigma attached to them.
The Classic Car industry generates around £18.3bn a year. That is a huge sum towards the economy, whichever way you look at it, actual car sales, restorations, parts, employment.
As of 2020 1.5 million historic vehicles – including cars, buses, lorries, motorcycles, agricultural, military and steam vehicles – are currently registered with the DVLA. The segment represents 3.4 per cent of all registered vehicles in the UK.
Classic Car status also changed, so any vehicle up to 40 years old qualifies for the status, meaning less VED.
Not my personal favourite, as I never agreed with it, but the same vehicles are also exempt from a yearly M.O.T. Again less income for the Government, and leaving a lot of cars running around that quite frankly are not fit for the road. An M.O.T at least every 2 or 3 years may have been better?
DVLA have tried to get around this, by now requiring a current M.O.T for any private plate transfer, or insisting on an inspection to re tax a classic vehicle (more revenue).
If you think about the changes being introduced, not ANYWHERE, is there a written policy document, or legal statute, putting their framework for this decision making process by DVLA, and they have failed to produce such a document to those requesting it.
The legal basis for safety, of all vehicles on the road in the UK, is the Construction and Use Regulations.
Basically DVLA have dreamed up their own set of rules, to try and change the status of Classic Vehicles, to generate more VED, and issue a Q plate undermining the vehicles pure original status. If they want more revenue from the owners of classic vehicles, just charge a set VED, issue say, black and white/silver number plates to them, and everyone is happy. Do not move the goal posts to suit a money making exercise, and change it as and when it suits.
How can a car, fitted with say a brand new Heritage shell, restored properly, be placed in the same league as a kit car, built in a shed from a multitude of second hand parts (and yes there are some excellent quality built cars out there, but you knew it was likely to be issued with a Q plate when you started to build it)
As Cortina has already stated, this would include every rally car built prior to April 2023, by todays dates, and a lot of the the modifications made, are to comply with RULES issued by the FIA or MSA on safety grounds. Just because you install a roll gage in your 911, even for aesthetic appearances, still adds safety to the car. It is not a cut a shut shell. Like wise drilling holes for a fire extinguisher, or making correct structural repairs to rusty parts.
Likewise, most repairs or modifications are done to a higher standard than when it left the factory, add rigidity, safety and allow it to stay on the road longer.
I know, let us now charge a higher Council Tax if you use oak timbers to rebuild your home instead of steel or Pine, or class it as a caravan or mobile home, because you changed the structure in some way???
Rant over………………..
In the last Federation News of
2022, I alluded to the hope of a form of Christmas present from DVLA – and somewhat to my surprise they did indeed provide one! For the first 2023 edition of Federation News we were just able to squeeze in a statement to the effect that DVLA had announced two initiatives with regard to vehicle registration policy. I had hoped that in this edition I would be able to report progress on each of them but unfortunately that is not the case as there has been very little discernible progress and at least some of what has been made is not helpful.
I will expand on the above a little later but it might be useful initially to add some detail to the previous necessarily short announcement. DVLA informed us of
two separate vehicle registration policy exercises which they would carry out. The first of these was a ‘clarification of existing policy’ whilst the second was a total review of policy for the future. These two operations are considered to be separate and independent in the sense that a policy point clarified in the first exercise might be completely revised in the second.
The clarification exercise is an entirely DVLA internal exercise, although they have sought input from one or two clubs on particular issues, whilst the second
will in due course lead to a full public consultation.
The clarification exercise results from the many complaints that DVLA received from the Federation and others that over the last few years they have changed long-standing practices and apparently reneged on existing agreements without warning or explanation. In some instances, these changes have been communicated directly to the Federation, and in some cases we have been left to find out from member clubs. In outline some of the issues involved are –
Refusal to register cars with recently constructed but period typical bodies in apparent contradiction of agreement previously reached with Vehicle Policy.
Dating certificates from an existing manufacturer rejected for having a ‘digital’ signature despite them having been accepted for many years.
Refusal to register vehicles originally supplied in CKD form because an exact build date in the destination country is not available. Some progress was made on this last year but has stalled
• Non-acceptance of build date stamped directly on vehicle.
• Non-acceptance of model year information encoded within VIN
• Original chassis number marking. There are many variations and facets to this issue, it can arise with chassis numbers originally stamped onto a plate or to numbers stamped onto a component liable to corrosion and/or damage.
• Refusal to accept that a historic vehicle is most unlikely to be able to obtain an IVA and that as a result the allocation of a Q registration to such a vehicle renders it incapable of registration in the UK.
• Contrary to long-standing practice that like-for-like repairs to a vehicle were not considered to affect its identity or status it now appears that any repair to a chassis or monocoque will be regarded as a modification and the vehicle will no longer be considered as historic
• Making holes in a monocoque is also considered to be a modification with the same consequences.
• No information sourced from the internet is permissible as vehicle
dating evidence. The long-standing agreement was that Wikipedia was not an acceptable source of information but other online sources could be considered if an endorsement and explanation was supplied by the relevant specialist club.
DVLA claim that vehicle registration policy is the same for vehicles of all ages. If that is the case, we consider the rulings regarding repairs to chassis or monocoques should apply equally to repaired accident damaged modern vehicles but that they clearly don’t. Similarly, the decision to regard the making of holes in a monocoque as a modification should apply to modern vehicle but there is no evidence that it does.
At the present time the Federation does not profess to understand the reasoning or motivation behind these changes and our requests to DVLA for further insight have not borne much fruit. Thus, we await the formal ‘clarification’ with great interest. At the time of writing no formal reports or conclusions from the clarification exercise have been provided by DVLA but we know from various sources that some of these points have been addressed. In a few cases positive progress has been made but in others DVLA have confirmed their current unhelpful position. It is our understanding that as a result of the latter one justifiably aggrieved owner of two affected historic vehicles has initiated legal action.
It should be noted that members of the Historic Vehicles User Group have repeatedly requested from DVLA sight of the much referenced ‘Policy’ on which all their decision making is allegedly based. It is felt that knowledge and understanding of the origin of the sometimes apparently inconsistent conclusions reached by DVLA might be to everybody’s mutual advantage. However to date it has not been disclosed and this is creating some doubt as to its status and structure.
The second part of the announcement was more encouraging and the verbal introduction by DVLA of the total registration policy review was very positive and acknowledged that the existing policy was old and may not in all cases still be fit for purpose. At the announcement in December it was claimed that internally work had already started on the review and this would
be shared with the User Group when ready. Since then, we have heard no more but I remain cautiously optimistic of the outcome whilst recognising that the process will not be quick. The bigger problem is that we have to live with the not necessarily satisfactory outcome of the current policy clarifications until the review is complete and enacted.
So, yes, we did receive a ‘Christmas present’ but it is yet to be seen what is within the pretty packaging!
-
KS
- Nurse, I think I need some assistance
- Posts: 14949
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: Cornwall
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
The problem with the Federation is that it is almost entirely reactive rather than showing any evidence of being proactive. Or indeed pre-emptive by engaging with the DVLA. However, having said that, DVLA has largely succeeded in shrouding itself in a cloak of invisibility, making it impossible to discover which department – or, indeed, individual or committee – is responsible for dreaming up this nonsense. What doesn't help is that it isn't a government department, but part of the civil service and as anyone who's watched episodes of 'Yes Minister' will know, the civil service is a law unto itself and arguably holds more power than the elected government…
-
one-two
- DDK rules my life!
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:47 pm
- Location: West Sussex and The Scottish Borders
- Contact:
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
I am not sure how far we get by belittling government officials. It's clear some old cars can reasonably said to be radically altered from their original spec - and subject to whatever consequences might flow from that - and others aren't. I don't think many people would see a roll cage - quite possibly to a period or approved design - as being a radical alteration. I wonder if there is more to the case in question than that - for example, had the car effectively become a space-frame? I will ask UK Motorsport what they make of it all. Best wishes, Robert
-
911hillclimber
- Nurse, I think I need some assistance
- Posts: 18928
- Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: West Midlands
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
Several points please and I know we are all on the same page here.
The 'Bugatti' registration action was by the DVLA? They themselves did it. They allowed and approved it. They need to look in the mirror.
The Federation seems to be the only 'active' group representing all classic vehicles, 'we' do not have another voice. If you want to be heard, join (about £14 iirc) and make your case, even take action.
The DVLA do seem to be a law to themselves, and we must be nervous of that as 'we' have no route to them, but see above...
MoT exemption is a rule made by the ...DVLA...
The point about the MS uk (motorsport body for UK) is interesting.
The 'Blue Book' their own thick book of rules for mods to cars for competition have lots of details about roll cages, fire devices, seat belts and seats etc.
They support a road going set of classes for stock and modified road cars where these mods are carefully regulated. Their approach is opposite to the DVLA.
I would say an old car from the 70's is a safer car with a cage than without, but the DVLA would say the opposite.
Can't help feeling this subject needs sub-sections designed to control different sectors of the whole vehicle arena in the UK.
The 'Bugatti' registration action was by the DVLA? They themselves did it. They allowed and approved it. They need to look in the mirror.
The Federation seems to be the only 'active' group representing all classic vehicles, 'we' do not have another voice. If you want to be heard, join (about £14 iirc) and make your case, even take action.
The DVLA do seem to be a law to themselves, and we must be nervous of that as 'we' have no route to them, but see above...
MoT exemption is a rule made by the ...DVLA...
The point about the MS uk (motorsport body for UK) is interesting.
The 'Blue Book' their own thick book of rules for mods to cars for competition have lots of details about roll cages, fire devices, seat belts and seats etc.
They support a road going set of classes for stock and modified road cars where these mods are carefully regulated. Their approach is opposite to the DVLA.
I would say an old car from the 70's is a safer car with a cage than without, but the DVLA would say the opposite.
Can't help feeling this subject needs sub-sections designed to control different sectors of the whole vehicle arena in the UK.
73T 911 Coupe, road/hillclimber 3.2L
Lola t 492 / 3.2 hillclimb racer
Boxster 987 Gen II 2.9
Lola t 492 / 3.2 hillclimb racer
Boxster 987 Gen II 2.9
-
Ignatzcatz
- I luv DDK!
- Posts: 907
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:20 pm
- Location: West Sussex
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
Does this horror story affect motorcyles as well?
Porsche 356B T6 (modified), Porsche Macan Turbo , Porsche SSE, Dax 289 Cobra, Buell S2 Thunderbolt, Honda ST 70/125, Harley Davidson custom evo softail
-
911hillclimber
- Nurse, I think I need some assistance
- Posts: 18928
- Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: West Midlands
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
Yes, all historic vehicles.
73T 911 Coupe, road/hillclimber 3.2L
Lola t 492 / 3.2 hillclimb racer
Boxster 987 Gen II 2.9
Lola t 492 / 3.2 hillclimb racer
Boxster 987 Gen II 2.9
-
KS
- Nurse, I think I need some assistance
- Posts: 14949
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: Cornwall
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
Thing is, DVLA relied (and still do) on people telling them the truth. When asked by DVLA if a Pur Sang replica Type 35 is a genuine Bugatti, the club said 'yes', so that's not DVLA's fault. But when the responsible parties were shopped, then DVLA took notice.911hillclimber wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 12:56 pm Several points please and I know we are all on the same page here.
The 'Bugatti' registration action was by the DVLA? They themselves did it. They allowed and approved it. They need to look in the mirror.
The Federation seems to be the only 'active' group representing all classic vehicles, 'we' do not have another voice. If you want to be heard, join (about £14 iirc) and make your case, even take action.
The DVLA do seem to be a law to themselves, and we must be nervous of that as 'we' have no route to them, but see above...
MoT exemption is a rule made by the ...DVLA...
The point about the MS uk (motorsport body for UK) is interesting.
The 'Blue Book' their own thick book of rules for mods to cars for competition have lots of details about roll cages, fire devices, seat belts and seats etc.
They support a road going set of classes for stock and modified road cars where these mods are carefully regulated. Their approach is opposite to the DVLA.
I would say an old car from the 70's is a safer car with a cage than without, but the DVLA would say the opposite.
Can't help feeling this subject needs sub-sections designed to control different sectors of the whole vehicle arena in the UK.
The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs appears to adopt a roll over and pretend nothing's happening attitude. The old ACE (Association of Car Enthusiasts) was far more proactive but either way, DVLA is now less accessible than ever. Never forget that the ultimate aim of all governments is to drive all petrol/diesel vehicles off our roads for a cleaner future. DVLA will still get their funding from road taxes whatever the means of propulsion. Expanding ULEZ zones, so-called 15-minute cities, vehicle-free town centres, park and ride schemes...DVLA doesn't care - and why should they?
It will be interesting to see if Robert gets any response from MSUK - to be honest, I have my doubts as the subject has been raised in the past, to no avail. One could argue that it doesn't really affect MSUK as their job is to oversee motorsport and provide a set of rules for everyone to compete on a level playing field. Maybe we'll see all road rallies become closed single-venue events held on private land, road-going classes at hillclimbs and sprints being trailered there and back.
Where's that crystal ball when you need it?
Meanwhile, the most vulnerable remain those coming off longterm SORN, vehicles changing hands and those being registered for the first time. Have you noticed how often these days imported cars are sold with the words 'have Nova certificate - just needs registering with DVLA...'. Many dealers are now becoming more aware of potential pitfalls that await a new registrant. So Caveat Emptor, and all that.
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
When I applied for a V5 about 4 years ago, DVLA sent an inspector (I think it was called SGS). Despite being undriveable and needing a restoration, it passed and I was issued with a V5 and age-related number plate.
Shortly after, I stupidly made a SORN. The only reason I did that was because the storage facility were insuring all the vehicles in their storage rather than me insuring my own car.
Now, the car is in a different storage and I insured it myself this time (laid-up policy).
So, I need advice on what to do now. I understand that once a vehicle is taxed again, it will automatically cancel the SORN status. Should I tax my car now or wait until after restoration?
Are historic vehicles still exempt from MOT?
Shortly after, I stupidly made a SORN. The only reason I did that was because the storage facility were insuring all the vehicles in their storage rather than me insuring my own car.
Now, the car is in a different storage and I insured it myself this time (laid-up policy).
So, I need advice on what to do now. I understand that once a vehicle is taxed again, it will automatically cancel the SORN status. Should I tax my car now or wait until after restoration?
Are historic vehicles still exempt from MOT?
-
911hillclimber
- Nurse, I think I need some assistance
- Posts: 18928
- Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: West Midlands
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
Thanks Keith, but I still feel DVLA should have checked, but it was a long time ago.
The MoT is not needed if the vehicle is unmodified and carries the correct 'points'.
This is simple addition of numbers, but I can't remember the system now, Keith will!
If a standard spec then you can ignore it if the vehicle is Historic I think.
The MoT is not needed if the vehicle is unmodified and carries the correct 'points'.
This is simple addition of numbers, but I can't remember the system now, Keith will!
If a standard spec then you can ignore it if the vehicle is Historic I think.
73T 911 Coupe, road/hillclimber 3.2L
Lola t 492 / 3.2 hillclimb racer
Boxster 987 Gen II 2.9
Lola t 492 / 3.2 hillclimb racer
Boxster 987 Gen II 2.9
-
KS
- Nurse, I think I need some assistance
- Posts: 14949
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: Cornwall
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
You have nothing to worry about regarding the SORN - it can be a problem, particularly in the hot rod world, when a car is laid up on SORN as an original vehicle and then, hey presto, it pops up again as the owner applies for tax and the engine has mysteriously changed from a weedy 1172cc side-valve to a 427ci V8. Hmmm, it wouldn't take much to guess that some serious mods have taken place and the car is no longer 'historic' in the DVLA's meaning of the word. To be honest, unless you need to alter details on your V5c then it should all be a straightforward case of tax being issued (even if it is 'free'). Yes, historics are still exempt from MOT as long as they stay within the 8-point rule (see DVLA's website for details of what currently constitutes radically modified in that regard).IanM wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 4:22 pm When I applied for a V5 about 4 years ago, DVLA sent an inspector (I think it was called SGS). Despite being undriveable and needing a restoration, it passed and I was issued with a V5 and age-related number plate.
Shortly after, I stupidly made a SORN. The only reason I did that was because the storage facility were insuring all the vehicles in their storage rather than me insuring my own car.
Now, the car is in a different storage and I insured it myself this time (laid-up policy).
So, I need advice on what to do now. I understand that once a vehicle is taxed again, it will automatically cancel the SORN status. Should I tax my car now or wait until after restoration?
Are historic vehicles still exempt from MOT?
By the way, you didn't do anything stupid by putting it on SORN - it was theoretically the right thing to do. It could be argued that if the car is historic and tax exempt, then you could have just taxed it there and then, and kept doing so each year, even with the car off the road and undrivable.
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
KS, how about all the veedubs running around on narrowed beams, airbags, with tubbed arches and aesthetically modified body shells. I imagine it's a case of shhhussshhh, it's all stock governor.
-
KS
- Nurse, I think I need some assistance
- Posts: 14949
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: Cornwall
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
But as long as the chassis (floorpan) is untouched, then you’re safe. However, yes of course there’s a huge element of keeping quiet…
-
Jonny Hart
- Put a fork in me, I'm done!
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:28 pm
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
^ Well that is an interesting point. if you take any car with a separate chassis then drilling holes in the upper body is ok. Yet put a hole in a monocoque for, say, fitting seatbelts and you're in the Q club.
-
KS
- Nurse, I think I need some assistance
- Posts: 14949
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: Cornwall
Re: More scary cr@p from DVLA
Yup, complete body swaps are fine - just don’t modify the chassis… A good example is that of a long wheelbase VW-based beach buggy versus a short wheelbase one. The former can sidestep IVA, the latter can’t. What a difference 14 inches makes.