Yet another Ebay rouge car Its NOT am Eagle!!

[Steffan]

smash said:

@EFA - The thrust of your argument seems to be that the car has already been registered in the UK therefore DVLA only need minor notifications of changes whereas cars that have not been previously registered have a legal requirement to be subject to IVA.

The question then has to be at what point does a car become so substantially modified that it ceases to be the car that was previously registered and becomes something new and therefore previously unregistered? The IVA points system is, as I understand it, the measure of whether the resulting car is technically one deemed to be previously registered or not. It's provides a definition of the point at which the original registered car effectively ceases to exist and something new and not previously registered is created.

If the judge in a court case took the classic "man on clapham omnibus" approach in this respect i.e. this is the pic of the originally registered car and here (M'lud) is a picture of a shiney new cobra replica with entirely different braking system, suspension, engine, chassis etc. he'd conclude it is not the same car and therefore not previously registered - off to the IVA centre with you me lad! Admittedly simplistic view but you get my point. And from what has been said about incorrectly registered cars being taken off road permanently by police/DVLA it seems that this is the approach they are legitimately taking.

I've not seen the enabling legislation for the "previously not registered requires IVA" bit, but would be interested to see it.

I wish you good luck in the courts!

I agree with thus post. Particularly with the final comment.

It does seem that the number of these suspect cars appearing on Ebay is increasing and the owners frequently ignore the whole question of the reality of the history of the car and the validity of the registration.

Clearly EFA has examined the legislation and he may be right. I am not sure that the DVLA take a similar view of the interpretaion of the regulations. As the man says above it is largely down to interpretation.

And interpretation is down to individual officials within the DVLA and in my experience they are highly suspicious of rogue registrations and becoming very keen to withdraw registration until IVA has been satisfied on cars with obvious discrepancies in V5 descriptions.

Perhaps the experience of others is different but some of the individuals who buy these cars are going to have real problems actually using them on the road. Seems a shame when they are buying trouble in looking for a fun car.

[EFA]

smash said:

The thrust of your argument seems to be that the car has already been registered in the UK therefore DVLA only need minor notifications of changes whereas cars that have not been previously registered have a legal requirement to be subject to IVA.

No, the DVLA need nothing. YOU are only required to notify them. They have no defence but to update the V5.

smash said:

The question then has to be at what point does a car become so substantially modified that it ceases to be the car that was previously registered and becomes something new and therefore previously unregistered? .

The level of modification is irrelavent. The LEGISLATION says the car must be as described on the V5. If YOU alter the car, the DVLA HAVE TO update the record. If they do not, they are in breach of the SI.

smash said:

The IVA points system is, as I understand it, the measure of whether the resulting car is technically one deemed to be previously registered or not. It's provides a definition of the point at which the original registered car effectively ceases to exist and something new and not previously registered is created.

Not of any relevance. Anyway the IVA is a VOSA mandate. VOSA and the DVLA are totally disconnected agencies.

smash said:

If the judge in a court case took the classic "man on clapham omnibus" approach in this respect i.e. this is the pic of the originally registered car and here (M'lud) is a picture of a shiney new cobra replica with entirely different braking system, suspension, engine, chassis etc. he'd conclude it is not the same car and therefore not previously registered - off to the IVA centre with you me lad! Admittedly simplistic view but you get my point. And from what has been said about incorrectly registered cars being taken off road permanently by police/DVLA it seems that this is the approach they are legitimately taking.

A judge will look at the SI, not the car.

smash said:

I've not seen the enabling legislation for the "previously not registered requires IVA" bit, but would be interested to see it.

All non EU type approved new cars.

smash said:

I wish you good luck in the courts!

Who IS going to court???

[EFA]

Also, are there any actual cases where the DVLA have effectively withdrawn a V5.

And are there actually any cases where the police have been successful in assisting this?


I think it is all hearsay. They have never made it stick with anyone who challenged them.

[Steffan]

Interesting Posts.

EFA may be right he clearly has an excellent knowledge of the legislation.

I would make the proviso that there must be clear evidence that the car concerned has been on the road in the form that is being notified to the DVLA.

Otherwise, to give an example, I could take a Dutton, add new chassis drive train and body and insist that the DVLA register the car as a Dutton with different bits.

Now that cannot be right and VOSA and the IVA would be circumvented en masse.

I know PERSONALLY of several Kit Cars ordered off the road because they had been on the road modified and not in the correct form for the identity and ended up scrapped.

I would like to test the hypothesis that EFA has put forward by offering to seek registration of any Kit Car that PH readers may own that are currently in this predicament with their car at my cost.

If it is really possible for a car currently off road to be given a lawful registration without IVA in a case where this car has been ordered off road by the DVLA/VOSA/POLICE then there is a HUGE saving for the owner and I would like to test this out at length.

This could save a lot of currently unregisterable cars.

If anybody has such a car they would like to test out please PM me,

[smash]

EFA said:

No, the DVLA need nothing. YOU are only required to notify them. They have no defence but to update the V5.
The level of modification is irrelavent. The LEGISLATION says the car must be as described on the V5. If YOU alter the car, the DVLA HAVE TO update the record. If they do not, they are in breach of the SI.

No that's not true is it? They don’t have to do anything unless they are satisfied as per parts 15 and 16 of Road Vehicles Regulations 2002 (RVR).

Let’s say we’ve built our Cobra replica and we look at regulation 16 of RVR covering notification of an alteration to a vehicle which states:

16.—(1) Where any alteration is made to a vehicle so as to make any of the particulars set out in the registration document incorrect, the registered keeper shall deliver to the Secretary of State—
(a)notification of the alteration;.
(b)except where the registration document is lost, stolen or destroyed, the registration document..

We are being required to notify – it’s not optional – because we’ve “altered” our Jaguar XJS into a Cobra.

(2) If the alteration makes any of the particulars shown on the vehicle licence or nil licence incorrect, the registered keeper shall also deliver to the Secretary of State the appropriate licence, unless it is lost, stolen or destroyed.

In our case the car is no longer a Jaguar XJS so we must send the tax disc back

(3) The Secretary of State may require the registered keeper to furnish such evidence as he may reasonably require to show that the alteration has taken place.

We may have to allow them to inspect the car…

(4) On receiving notification under this regulation the Secretary of State shall, subject to regulation 15, if he is satisfied that the vehicle has been altered in the way notified to him,—
(a)record the alteration in the register;.
(b)send to the registered keeper a new registration document showing the correct particulars; and.
(c)in a case falling within paragraph (2), send to the registered keeper a new vehicle or nil licence showing

We should be OK here – we’ve told him it’s changed, we’ve shown him a completely different car to prove the point we must be good to go? Unfortunately not quite, there’s a rider built in to this part of the regulation that cannot be ignored and offers the Secretary a get out clause – “subject to regulation 15”

So we look at Regulation 15 and we find that says:

15.—(1) Before issuing a new registration document in respect of a vehicle under any provision of these Regulations, the Secretary of State may require the keeper of the vehicle to satisfy him by the production of the vehicle or other sufficient evidence that the vehicle—
(a)accords with the particulars furnished when a vehicle or nil licence was last applied for in respect of it; or.

In other words does the car match the last tax disc description – this is a nonsense in our case because we are registering an alteration so it couldn't possibly - skip to the “or” clause:

or. (b)is the registered vehicle..
(2) The Secretary of State may refuse to issue a new registration document in respect of a vehicle if he is not satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (1).

Ah – if we can’t satisfy the Secretary of State that the vehicle that we’ve been asked to provide for inspection IS the registered vehicle then he has the right (granted by Reg 16 requiring Reg 15 be considered in relation to an application for alteration) to refuse to amend the registration and you’re stuffed.

So, the DVLA look at our Cobra and say, “No, the DVLA do not believe that is the registered car”.

We say, “How do you make that?”

They say, “The chassis has been replaced by one of entirely different specification and design”

We say, “Hang on, the chassis number is the same”

They say, “The engine and ID number is different (V8 vs V12)”

We say, “Yes, that’s all part of the alterations”

At this point it would be useful to have a legal definition of “registered car” but the RVR doesn’t have one so we’re into interpretation.

DVLA insist it needs an IVA as it is not mere alterations, it is an entirely different car altogether and is therefore not the registered car. They’re entitled to make the decision by virtue of Reg 15 – they are not satisfied it is the registered car – it’s their call. This being the case and the cobra kit not being type approved it's required to have an IVA.

At this point we can simply fold or we can take up a legal challenge – so we decide to go to court.

The judge makes reference to the legal provisions within RVR and asks the DVLA why they are not satisfied it is the registered car. They produce documents showing an XJS body shape, XJS original chassis components, interior shots, original engine and comparative shots or our new cobra replica which, unsurprisingly, is entirely different in all respects. “It’s a different car” say the DVLA, “Not the one that is registered”.

We mount our defence saying it simply represents very comprehensive alterations to the registered car and state the chassis number is the same. DVLA point out this has been copied from the original chassis to the new one. We say we are complying completely with RVR reg. 16.

The judge has to make a decision – ultimately he has to decide if the evidence we produced is in his opinion enough to have satisfied the DVLA that the altered car IS in fact the car that is registered (as that condition from Reg 15 needs to be met.)

Which way would he jump? No idea but again I’d say good luck in the courts!

Edited by smash on Thursday 7th July 23:59

Edited by smash on Friday 8th July 00:04

Edited by smash on Friday 8th July 00:05

Edited by smash on Friday 8th July 12:51

[EFA]

You need to take a more open view. You also need to understand the legal definition of WAS vs. IS.

[smash]

You can take as open a view as you like but it counts for nothing as the DVLA don't have to do anything other than follow the SI (as you previously pointed out). Do you deny Reg 15 para 2 allows the DVLA the ability to judge whether the car is the registered vehicle? Like it or not it is their decision.

You're right "was" isn't relevant to the application of this law - I just argued out a virtual case in my head when in actual fact the DVLA don't have to make any call on what they think the car "was" just, whether or not it is the registered car at time of inspection.

You mention the legal definition of "is" in relation to registered vehicle identity - what is that definition? Is there one?

Is there legislation that tells them what they must accept or not? I couldn't find any legal definition - perhaps you can point me to one - if there isn't (as I suspect) you have to ask the question how do the DVLA satisfy themselves of this fact? You might argue chassis and engine numbers are all that's required but that isn't provided for in the legislation so they may choose to accept that information or may choose to investigate further.

With no legal definition Regulation 15 becomes enabling legislation allowing them to interpret law and produce additional guidelines outlining their departmental viewpoint i.e. what they require to be demonstrated in order that they are satisfied an altered car presented for registration amendement is the registered car. This leads directly to the IVA points system . . .

Edited by smash on Sunday 10th July 20:59

Edited by smash on Sunday 10th July 21:04

[EFA]

I think the point you are missing is that the make/model description fields are what we are submitting for update. Theya re going to change. How do the DVLA justify making an update to turn a VW Beetle into a Beach Buggy (as they do today) if your rules apply? The two cars are very different.

[Frankthered]

EFA said:

I think the point you are missing is that the make/model description fields are what we are submitting for update. Theya re going to change. How do the DVLA justify making an update to turn a VW Beetle into a Beach Buggy (as they do today) if your rules apply? The two cars are very different.

@Smash - thanks for writing your detailed response to EFA - I have been part way through a similar post and had to abandon it due to time constraints a couple of times. I hope you don't mind me weighing in!

@EFA The difference with a VW Beetle to Beach Buggy update is that the Buggy (in such a case) uses an unmodified Beetle floorpan. In this case, when questioned, the owner can point out that the "chassis" is unmodified and only non-structural, cosmetic body parts have been changed. This would also be true for body kits such as the MEVX5 and kits like the Sammio Spider that use an unmodified Triumph Herald chassis. In these cases it is quite reasonable to argue that the identity of the donor car can be retained.

In the cases where a Beetle floorpan is modified (usually by shortening) when building a Beach Buggy or Porsche replica, my understanding is that current practice would require an IVA test to be completed and a new (age related) registration to be issued for the car.

As for your earlier query as to whether this is all hearsay, I can say that I have seen a car that was taken off the road as it was a Robin Hood 2B that was registered as a Ford Sierra. The unfortunate new owner had been informed that the car required an IVA and due to the excessive cost that would have been involved, had decided to break the car for parts rather than go through the IVA process. I have no idea how much that owner challenged the legality of the process.

I have also heard anecdotally of several other owners and cars who have challenged the process with little success - however, as you note, this is merely hearsay.

EFA said:

I think it is all hearsay. They have never made it stick with anyone who challenged them.

Is your last statement anything more than hearsay? Or indeed more than speculation??

[Comadis]

what happens when you have not used the "amnesty period" for changing the V5c to a correct one?

i mean, if there is a kitcar (e.g. sylva phoenix, westfield seven from mid 90ies) still retaining its (nowadays)wrong registration by saying in the V5c : Make: Ford, body type : convertible, chassis-no.: taken from the donor ( ford ecort mk2)

and you can prove that is has run like that since it was built, as during the "old" times the registration-laws for kitcars have put out such (legal) results?
a kind of "prove" to start with, is the body-type: as there was never an original escort convertible.

can you insist that the DVLA issues you a correct V5c, without IVA or is it always up to the DVLA how they decide?

Edited by Comadis on Monday 11th July 11:34

[C Lee Farquar]

Frankthered said:

In the cases where a Beetle floorpan is modified (usually by shortening) when building a Beach Buggy or Porsche replica, my understanding is that current practice would require an IVA test to be completed and a new (age related) registration to be issued for the car.

That's certainly where they draw the line on the DVLA website.

Stepping back and looking at the scenario from a common sense point of view, all other things being equal, is a Beetle chassis that has been shortened by 12" any less identifiable with the original car than one that hasn't been shortened?

[Steve_D]

Comadis said:

what happens when you have not used the "amnesty period" for changing the V5c to a correct one?

i mean, if there is a kitcar (e.g. sylva phoenix, westfield seven from mid 90ies) still retaining its (nowadays)wrong registration by saying in the V5c : Make: Ford, body type : convertible, chassis-no.: taken from the donor ( ford ecort mk2)

and you can prove that is has run like that since it was built, as during the "old" times the registration-laws for kitcars have put out such (legal) results?
a kind of "prove" to start with, is the body-type: as there was never an original escort convertible.

can you insist that the DVLA issues you a correct V5c, without IVA or is it always up to the DVLA how they decide?

Edited by Comadis on Monday 11th July 11:34

Having run the amnesty period I suspect the general line would be that it has to go IVA.
However you may find your local DVLA office may take pity and issue the V5 but you would have to have plenty of evidence in the form of old MOT certificates and tax discs. A batch of old photos would also be good.

Steve

[smash]

EFA said:

I think the point you are missing is that the make/model description fields are what we are submitting for update. Theya re going to change. How do the DVLA justify making an update to turn a VW Beetle into a Beach Buggy (as they do today) if your rules apply? The two cars are very different.

It doesn't matter what fields on the V5 you want to change - all submissions for alteration to V5 lead to Reg 15 para 2. full stop. The DVLA need to satisfy themselves the car is the registered car before issuing a new V5. This is where the law stops however - there is no definition of what represents "satisfaction" for the DVLA. If it was left at this point any decisions made would be entirely subjective - approach several different DVLA employees and you'd get several differing opinions. It would be total and utter madness if you submitted a change of colour and an overzealous official said "no" so DOT/VOSA therefore produce guidelines/measures to remove this subjectivity and ensure equity of treament (in theory!) whichever person deals with the amendment request hence the IVA points system.

Anyone submitting a V5 update amending VW Beetle make/model to, for example, a Manx Beach Buggy should be asked to produce the car for inspection. If the chassis isn't modified no IVA (all other things being equal) - based on IVA points system. There has been some suggestion that submitting the V5 alterations in "stages" might avoid this sometimes or also being a bit creative with descriptions - but these seem to be local anomolies and largely hit or miss.

Plenty of info on Buggy Club UK and attempts to re-register. My old buggy is here http://partsemporium.co.uk/BUGGYCLUBUKFORUM/phpBB3... - and just to appear completely contradictary it had a 15" chassis chop and was registered as VW Sports Utility - no SVA at the time!!

Anyway your original point was that the DVLA didn't have a legal basis for imposing the IVA guidelines - I think it is very clear that they do in the shape of Reg 15. I know I'm being like a dog with a bone on this but I really think that no one should get any false hope regarding swerving IVA where the DVLA want to impose it.

@Frankthered of course not - not my thread (well it wasn't supposed to be!)

Edited by smash on Monday 11th July 22:47