Can I Change Vehicle from N1 to M1 - DVLA are saying NO
Discussion
I have a brand new Renault Trafic Crew Van (18 plate)
It satisfies all the criteria to be either a Dual Purpose Vehicle (Fixed 2nd row seats, Glazed rear door, under 2040kg unladen, Glazed side windows) or a Kombi / Crew van.
The V5c states it as a N1 (Commercial) classification meaning I can only go 50mph on A roads, 60 mph on Dual Carraigeways etc.
I was under the impression that I could get the V5 changed if the vehicle satisfied all the criteria (which it does). I sent off a letter explaining what I wanted to do along with 17 supporting pictures to the DVLA. They replied that because the Manufacturer origially listed it as an N1 it could not be changed and I am stuck with M1 (60 mph etc etc) I do loads of A road and Dual Carraigeway driving and got 3 tickets last year in my previous crew van from Mobile Cameras ....2 on the same day 15 min apart! That prompted me to buy a new one with Glazed rear door
I don't agree with what the DVLA are saying.....are they correct???
It satisfies all the criteria to be either a Dual Purpose Vehicle (Fixed 2nd row seats, Glazed rear door, under 2040kg unladen, Glazed side windows) or a Kombi / Crew van.
The V5c states it as a N1 (Commercial) classification meaning I can only go 50mph on A roads, 60 mph on Dual Carraigeways etc.
I was under the impression that I could get the V5 changed if the vehicle satisfied all the criteria (which it does). I sent off a letter explaining what I wanted to do along with 17 supporting pictures to the DVLA. They replied that because the Manufacturer origially listed it as an N1 it could not be changed and I am stuck with M1 (60 mph etc etc) I do loads of A road and Dual Carraigeway driving and got 3 tickets last year in my previous crew van from Mobile Cameras ....2 on the same day 15 min apart! That prompted me to buy a new one with Glazed rear door
I don't agree with what the DVLA are saying.....are they correct???
alfietom said:
I don't agree with what the DVLA are saying.....are they correct???
Yes.You bought a vehicle that is type approved to N1 standards. It may or may not meet M1 standards.
If you ask Renault for a Cert of Compliance, they'll hand you one that says it's N1 type approved, not M1.
The time to choose a vehicle that met your requirements was before you bought it, not after.
Having said that, I don't think the actual legal definition of a DPV requires M1, so there should be no reason N1 is a show-stopper.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regul...
The actual law said:
dual-purpose vehicle
a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage both of passengers and of goods or burden of any description, being a vehicle of which the unladen weight does not exceed 2040 kg, and which either—
(i) is so constructed or adapted that the driving power of the engine is, or by the appropriate use of the controls of the vehicle can be, transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle; or
(ii) satisfies the following conditions as to construction, namely—
(a) the vehicle must be permanently fitted with a rigid roof, with or without a sliding panel;
(b) the area of the vehicle to the rear of the driver's seat must—
(i) be permanently fitted with at least one row of transverse seats (fixed or folding) for two or more passengers and those seats must be properly sprung or cushioned and provided with upholstered back-rests, attached either to the seats or to a side or the floor of the vehicle; and
(ii) be lit on each side and at the rear by a window or windows of glass or other transparent material having an area or aggregate area of not less than 1850 square centimetres on each side and not less than 770 square centimetres at the rear; and
(c) the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the back-rests of the row of transverse seats satisfying the requirements specified in head (i) of sub-paragraph (b) (or, if there is more than one such row of seats, the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the back-rests of the rearmost such row) must, when the seats are ready for use, be not less than one-third of the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the rearmost part of the floor of the vehicle.
But ultimately it'll be down to what a court says. If you can demonstrate it meets those requirements to the letter, then there should be no reason why you'd get found guilty for doing DPV-legal speeds.a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage both of passengers and of goods or burden of any description, being a vehicle of which the unladen weight does not exceed 2040 kg, and which either—
(i) is so constructed or adapted that the driving power of the engine is, or by the appropriate use of the controls of the vehicle can be, transmitted to all the wheels of the vehicle; or
(ii) satisfies the following conditions as to construction, namely—
(a) the vehicle must be permanently fitted with a rigid roof, with or without a sliding panel;
(b) the area of the vehicle to the rear of the driver's seat must—
(i) be permanently fitted with at least one row of transverse seats (fixed or folding) for two or more passengers and those seats must be properly sprung or cushioned and provided with upholstered back-rests, attached either to the seats or to a side or the floor of the vehicle; and
(ii) be lit on each side and at the rear by a window or windows of glass or other transparent material having an area or aggregate area of not less than 1850 square centimetres on each side and not less than 770 square centimetres at the rear; and
(c) the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the back-rests of the row of transverse seats satisfying the requirements specified in head (i) of sub-paragraph (b) (or, if there is more than one such row of seats, the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the back-rests of the rearmost such row) must, when the seats are ready for use, be not less than one-third of the distance between the rearmost part of the steering wheel and the rearmost part of the floor of the vehicle.
Isn't this another joy of being part of the EU? Or did we manage to come up with this bit of legislation?
I wish they would limit 2tn plus suv/4x4 to the same speed limits as well.
Most speed camera operators will happily issue you a ticket for the lower limit and then each time you will have to hope the JP isn't an idiot and fight it. nOT Exactly an ideal scenario.
I wish they would limit 2tn plus suv/4x4 to the same speed limits as well.
Most speed camera operators will happily issue you a ticket for the lower limit and then each time you will have to hope the JP isn't an idiot and fight it. nOT Exactly an ideal scenario.
surveyor_101 said:
Isn't this another joy of being part of the EU? Or did we manage to come up with this bit of legislation?
I wish they would limit 2tn plus suv/4x4 to the same speed limits as well.
Most speed camera operators will happily issue you a ticket for the lower limit and then each time you will have to hope the JP isn't an idiot and fight it. nOT Exactly an ideal scenario.
I think you will find most 2tn plus suv/4x4 have better brakes and safety features than most saloon cars.I wish they would limit 2tn plus suv/4x4 to the same speed limits as well.
Most speed camera operators will happily issue you a ticket for the lower limit and then each time you will have to hope the JP isn't an idiot and fight it. nOT Exactly an ideal scenario.
Helicopter123 said:
I think you will find most 2tn plus suv/4x4 have better brakes and safety features than most saloon cars.
Like what?Just looking at a jeremy clarkson's video from about 15 years ago, a focus stopped better than a range rover.
Are you saying now a new range rover 2tn plus is going to stop better than a 3 series?
surveyor_101 said:
Helicopter123 said:
I think you will find most 2tn plus suv/4x4 have better brakes and safety features than most saloon cars.
Like what?Just looking at a jeremy clarkson's video from about 15 years ago, a focus stopped better than a range rover.
Are you saying now a new range rover 2tn plus is going to stop better than a 3 series?
Advocating a limit on SUVs to 50/60 mph because of concerns over stopping distances is 20 years out of date and, frankly, a little childish.
Helicopter123 said:
There will not be much, if anything in it.
Advocating a limit on SUVs to 50/60 mph because of concerns over stopping distances is 20 years out of date and, frankly, a little childish.
They still have issues with high-speed lane changes and most people seem to drive them at 90-100plus like they are sports cars. They have a high centre of gravity.Advocating a limit on SUVs to 50/60 mph because of concerns over stopping distances is 20 years out of date and, frankly, a little childish.
Look at the Porsche Macan>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgVue72wqnI
Edited by surveyor_101 on Thursday 19th July 16:16
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff