Black numberplates urban myth - the law has changed
Discussion
EDIT: Ignore this - I was talking tosh.
Rest of post unedited for historic reasons (and deleting opening posts is naff), but it's deffo tosh. Apols - finger trouble.
Various rubbishy classic car mags (are there any non-rubbishy ones?) have been purveying the myth that, since the change to the rules about VED that allows cars to become tax free once they turn forty, such cars can also sport black plates of the kind usable by cars built before 1 Jan 1973. I leave aside the question of why anyone would think it other than naff to put black plates on, say, a 1975 car (and as for those who put black plates on modern cars, let us not speak of them, for they are t
ts). This post is just about the yawnsome legalities.
The myth has been circulating on various online old car fora, and, although it may have come up here before, it is perhaps worth mentioning that the law about number plates has not changed along with the law about VED.
Chapter and verse below:-
Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001/561
Part II REGISTRATION PLATES
This version in force from: September 1, 2001 to present
10.— Specifications for registration plates
(1) A registration mark must be displayed on a registration plate conforming to the requirements prescribed by this regulation.
(2) In the case of a vehicle first registered on or after 1st September 2001 the registration plate must conform to the requirements set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2.
(3) Subject to paragraph (4), in the case of a vehicle first registered on or after 1st January 1973 but before 1st September 2001 the registration plate must conform either to the requirements set out in Part 2 of Schedule 2 or to the requirements set out in Part 1 of that Schedule.
[Schedule 1 paraphrased - Parts 1 and 2 relate to post and pre 2001 style white and yellow plates. Black plates come under Part 3 and are only for pre 1973 builds]
...
Part IV MISCELLANEOUS
This version in force from: September 1, 2001 to present
18. Saving for vehicles constructed before 1st January 1973
For the purposes of these Regulations a vehicle which was first registered on or after 1st January 1973 shall be treated as if it was first registered before that date if—
(a) it is an exempt vehicle for the purposes of paragraph 1A(1) of Schedule 2 to the Act 1, or
(b) not being such a vehicle, it was constructed before 1st January 1973.
Rest of post unedited for historic reasons (and deleting opening posts is naff), but it's deffo tosh. Apols - finger trouble.
Various rubbishy classic car mags (are there any non-rubbishy ones?) have been purveying the myth that, since the change to the rules about VED that allows cars to become tax free once they turn forty, such cars can also sport black plates of the kind usable by cars built before 1 Jan 1973. I leave aside the question of why anyone would think it other than naff to put black plates on, say, a 1975 car (and as for those who put black plates on modern cars, let us not speak of them, for they are t
ts). This post is just about the yawnsome legalities.The myth has been circulating on various online old car fora, and, although it may have come up here before, it is perhaps worth mentioning that the law about number plates has not changed along with the law about VED.
Chapter and verse below:-
Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001/561
Part II REGISTRATION PLATES
This version in force from: September 1, 2001 to present
10.— Specifications for registration plates
(1) A registration mark must be displayed on a registration plate conforming to the requirements prescribed by this regulation.
(2) In the case of a vehicle first registered on or after 1st September 2001 the registration plate must conform to the requirements set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2.
(3) Subject to paragraph (4), in the case of a vehicle first registered on or after 1st January 1973 but before 1st September 2001 the registration plate must conform either to the requirements set out in Part 2 of Schedule 2 or to the requirements set out in Part 1 of that Schedule.
[Schedule 1 paraphrased - Parts 1 and 2 relate to post and pre 2001 style white and yellow plates. Black plates come under Part 3 and are only for pre 1973 builds]
...
Part IV MISCELLANEOUS
This version in force from: September 1, 2001 to present
18. Saving for vehicles constructed before 1st January 1973
For the purposes of these Regulations a vehicle which was first registered on or after 1st January 1973 shall be treated as if it was first registered before that date if—
(a) it is an exempt vehicle for the purposes of paragraph 1A(1) of Schedule 2 to the Act 1, or
(b) not being such a vehicle, it was constructed before 1st January 1973.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 7th January 18:17
Crikey, not those old grannies! The FBHVC sometimes resemble the boy crying Wolf. I recall them spreading alarm and despondency some time back about new roadworthiness rules that they incorrectly claimed would take most old cars off the road forever. This did not happen, and still appears unlikely to happen, although I see that the FBHVC may still be in Chicken Licken mode on that subject.
As the FBHVC appear wilfully or accidentally to misinterpret pretty much everything, I wouldn't rely on anything that they claim to have been told by DVLA. DVLA might say, if asked: "No, we said nothing of the kind, but the dudes hadn't got their hearing aids switched on, or something". If DVLA did say what they are alleged to have said, DVLA would have been plum wrong on the subject. DVLA don't make the law, and the law on black plates hasn't changed.
PS: nope, there is no case based on legitimate expectation. I can explain why by reference to public law principles if anyone cares, but it's tedious to do so.
As the FBHVC appear wilfully or accidentally to misinterpret pretty much everything, I wouldn't rely on anything that they claim to have been told by DVLA. DVLA might say, if asked: "No, we said nothing of the kind, but the dudes hadn't got their hearing aids switched on, or something". If DVLA did say what they are alleged to have said, DVLA would have been plum wrong on the subject. DVLA don't make the law, and the law on black plates hasn't changed.
PS: nope, there is no case based on legitimate expectation. I can explain why by reference to public law principles if anyone cares, but it's tedious to do so.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 7th January 14:32
PS: Both of your links go to the same edition of the newsletter. Did you mean to put up two distinct links?
PPS: I have now had a quick squiz at the rest of the mag. Crikey! Eeyore City Arizona. Masses of over technicality and barrack roomish quibbles, and lots of worrying about things that aren't worth worrying about. The glass is much more than half empty. Cheery stuff!
PPS: I have now had a quick squiz at the rest of the mag. Crikey! Eeyore City Arizona. Masses of over technicality and barrack roomish quibbles, and lots of worrying about things that aren't worth worrying about. The glass is much more than half empty. Cheery stuff!
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 7th January 14:49
The 2001 Regulations cannot be trumped by a statement by HMRC as to tax treatment of vehicles. DVLA deserve a slap for giving out duff info. Also, statute law does not operate in a series of parallel streams, allowing you to pick and choose which stream will apply in a given situation. If a statute or regulation says X, then X applies unless and until that statute or regulation is amended or repealed. Where there is a head to head conflict between two items of legislation, problems can arise, but that is not the case here.
The rolling tax exemption takes effect by virtue of Schedule 2 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, as amended. That has nowt to say about black numberplates.
As for naffness, I think that, if you want your car to look "period" and it is, say, a 1971 sports car, then it is more likely than not that the original owner, who would probably have been or would have aspired to be a groovy dude, would have specified new style plates. If the car is, say, a 1971 granddad style saloon, it may have had black plates from new.
A 1977 car with black plates doesn't look "period", because it couldn't have been on such plates in 1977 (assuming that it was not a pre 1973 build).
I confess that I once had a pre 1973 (registered 1973) Lotus that the previous owner had put on black plates and I never got around to changing them before I sold the car. My 1969 Jensen was more debatable because I knew who the first owner was and reckoned that he would probably have specified black plates (he could have had new style as an option then).
The rolling tax exemption takes effect by virtue of Schedule 2 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, as amended. That has nowt to say about black numberplates.
As for naffness, I think that, if you want your car to look "period" and it is, say, a 1971 sports car, then it is more likely than not that the original owner, who would probably have been or would have aspired to be a groovy dude, would have specified new style plates. If the car is, say, a 1971 granddad style saloon, it may have had black plates from new.
A 1977 car with black plates doesn't look "period", because it couldn't have been on such plates in 1977 (assuming that it was not a pre 1973 build).
I confess that I once had a pre 1973 (registered 1973) Lotus that the previous owner had put on black plates and I never got around to changing them before I sold the car. My 1969 Jensen was more debatable because I knew who the first owner was and reckoned that he would probably have specified black plates (he could have had new style as an option then).
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 7th January 15:37
marshalla said:
Breadvan72 said:
Guess what - marshalla is correct and I have been chomping on my boot. My only rather feeble mitigation is that for some reason Westlaw took me to an incorrect version of the legislation, but that's driver error to blame, or GIGO as the geeks may say.
What do I win ? 
ging84 said:
Silent1 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Guess what - marshalla is correct and I have been chomping on my boot. My only rather feeble mitigation is that for some reason Westlaw took me to an incorrect version of the legislation, but that's driver error to blame, or GIGO as the geeks may say.
Wait until the lunatics see this 
The change reflects, I suggest, an unsurprising lack of knowledge of and and interest in old vehicles in the rule making department. There is no historical sense in allowing cars from the mid to late 70s and onwards (as the rolling tax exemption moves into the 80s, if it remains in force) to have black plates. As early Golf GTis, BMW E30s, Lancia Deltas, Ur-Quattros and so forth become more and more established as classic cars, they will continue to look dafter than daft if people put black plates on them, just because they can.
I could just about see why someone might put black plates on, for example, a mid to late 70s Series Landy or Triumph Dolomite, because each of those cars is a 1970s car that is in some ways more of a 1960s car (1950s, even, for the Landy). A Rover P6 might be another candidate. I hasten to add that neither my 1975 Dolomite (now tax free, yaaaaay) nor my 1976 Landy will be getting black plates. Black plates on a Rover SD1 or a Lotus Excel, to name two other heaps that I own, would look naffer than naff.
I could just about see why someone might put black plates on, for example, a mid to late 70s Series Landy or Triumph Dolomite, because each of those cars is a 1970s car that is in some ways more of a 1960s car (1950s, even, for the Landy). A Rover P6 might be another candidate. I hasten to add that neither my 1975 Dolomite (now tax free, yaaaaay) nor my 1976 Landy will be getting black plates. Black plates on a Rover SD1 or a Lotus Excel, to name two other heaps that I own, would look naffer than naff.
lowdrag said:
... I don't go looking to kill a Scotsman carrying a bow and arrow in York, which is legal. ...
Not sure if serious, but, if so, that is 947,000 per cent bks. Those lame Xmas stocking filler books that go on about "the whacky laws of Olde Englande" are all made up, as are their even lamer "crazy but true"* website equivalents.*That's "true" as in "false". Just like this thread!
mybrainhurts said:
marshalla said:
mybrainhurts said:
Breadvan72 said:
Arrrrrrghhh - Typo in topic title. There should be a space between "Black" and "numberplates".
And another one in the middle of "numberplates"
ellroy said:
BV with regard to the York/bow issue as I understand it, it's a local bye law applying to a free born citizen(?) of York.
In simple terms is that the usual law of the land overtakes such local old nonsense?
Just curious as someone who until recently lived in the City.
A byelaw could never make homicide lawful. In modern public law terms, such a byelaw would be beyond the powers of the byelaw making authority (eg a City Council). Also, given that there is a general legal prohibition on homicide (in common law and under statute), and given the positive obligation of the State to protect life (now guaranteed by article 2 ECHR), no such byelaw could have legal effect. If the rule you allege lurks somewhere in primary legislation, it has been impliedly repealed.In simple terms is that the usual law of the land overtakes such local old nonsense?
Just curious as someone who until recently lived in the City.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff