Speed Limits - Dual Purpose Vehicles - Registered As Vans
Discussion
I'm aware of most of the debate around this subject but can anyone clarify which rule trumps the other.
I've recently bought a Merc Vito with all windows (no metal panels) and 8 seats it was this way from new yet is still registered N1 and hence enjoys cheaper road tax.
It also fits the description of a dual purpose vehicle:
"A dual purpose vehicle is a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage both of passengers and of goods and designed to weigh no more than 2,040 kg when unladen, and is permanently fitted with a rigid roof, at least one row of transverse passenger seats to the rear of the driver’s seat and will have side and rear windows - there must also be a minimum ratio between the size of passenger and stowage areas"
For speed limit enforcement is it N1 - a van - or as it meets the requirement, is it a dual purpose vehicle ?
I've recently bought a Merc Vito with all windows (no metal panels) and 8 seats it was this way from new yet is still registered N1 and hence enjoys cheaper road tax.
It also fits the description of a dual purpose vehicle:
"A dual purpose vehicle is a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage both of passengers and of goods and designed to weigh no more than 2,040 kg when unladen, and is permanently fitted with a rigid roof, at least one row of transverse passenger seats to the rear of the driver’s seat and will have side and rear windows - there must also be a minimum ratio between the size of passenger and stowage areas"
For speed limit enforcement is it N1 - a van - or as it meets the requirement, is it a dual purpose vehicle ?
If it meets the criteria of a dual-purpose vehicle (briefly - rigid roof, at least one row of transverse seating for two or more passengers behind the driver, side and rear glass of at least 1.85m2 on both sides & 0.77m2 to the rear AND an unladen weight not exceeding 2,040kg), then it's a dual-purpose vehicle for which special speed limits do not apply.
True, won't stop the usual shower trying to nick him though, as back office will simply look at vehicle information on the system, think it's a van, at which point OP is into a long and frustrating argument. You might even get into the argument earlier with a particularly truculent organic example of North Welsh enforcement . They'd still be wrong, it would still be a dual purpose vehicle, special speed limits not applicable, but a helluva pain to get their agreement and backing down.
Just a thought, if it's an 8 seater, does the luggage area meet this bit of construction and use regs for dual purpose.
(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.
??
And if it's an 8 seater wouldn't it classify as a passenger vehicle motor car with the <3050kg , assuming the 8 seats is 7 + driver?
(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.
??
And if it's an 8 seater wouldn't it classify as a passenger vehicle motor car with the <3050kg , assuming the 8 seats is 7 + driver?
FiF said:
Just a thought, if it's an 8 seater, does the luggage area meet this bit of construction and use regs for dual purpose.
(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.
??
And if it's an 8 seater wouldn't it classify as a passenger vehicle motor car with the <3050kg , assuming the 8 seats is 7 + driver?
I suspect this is where it all gets further complicated.(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.
??
And if it's an 8 seater wouldn't it classify as a passenger vehicle motor car with the <3050kg , assuming the 8 seats is 7 + driver?
V5 states 8 seats inc driver
But all the rear seats are quick release (the same as older MPVs) so sometimes there are 2, 4, 5, 7 or 8 and they slide so they could easily meet the criteria (or not) depending how they were configured
Generally I use it as a 4 or 5 seater (inc. the two front seats)
Edited by V8RX7 on Monday 6th August 15:29
Ok SS2 would know better than I on this, out of office, just a phone, but re DPV I seem to recall that the quick release seat mountings still count as seats even if the seat itself isn't in position and the vehicle would still be a DPV. Very happy if someone could confirm or disprove that memory, can't recall where it originated, a ruling or an interpretation, not sure now.
The I'd be tempted to get the vehicle registered correctly, it's not a van with van limits imo
The I'd be tempted to get the vehicle registered correctly, it's not a van with van limits imo
FiF said:
Ok SS2 would know better than I on this, out of office, just a phone, but re DPV I seem to recall that the quick release seat mountings still count as seats even if the seat itself isn't in position and the vehicle would still be a DPV. Very happy if someone could confirm or disprove that memory, can't recall where it originated, a ruling or an interpretation, not sure now.
The I'd be tempted to get the vehicle registered correctly, it's not a van with van limits imo
Wouldn’t that mean he has to pay the higher VED though?The I'd be tempted to get the vehicle registered correctly, it's not a van with van limits imo
It comes under Buses, coaches and minibuses (not more than 12 metres overall length)
See
https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits
This came up only a few weeks ago.
See
https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits
This came up only a few weeks ago.
Pica-Pica said:
It comes under Buses, coaches and minibuses (not more than 12 metres overall length)
See
https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits
This came up only a few weeks ago.
The OP's vehicle has 8 seats including the driver so it's not a bus or minibus.See
https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits
This came up only a few weeks ago.
Pica-Pica said:
Well that link conflicts with mine"Vehicles under 2 tonnes laden (loaded) weight may qualify as a ‘car-derived van’ or ‘dual-purpose vehicle’. These vehicles have the same speed limits as cars"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/car-der...
"A dual purpose vehicle is a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage both of passengers and of goods and designed to weigh no more than 2,040 kg when unladen"
The above is the same in C&U Regs
The first link seems to refer ONLY to car derived van but it explains some of the confusion.
You may well be over-thinking this.
The vehicle was constructed solely for the carriage of passengers (7 or less, excluding the driver) with an unladen weight of less than 3,050kg.
Whether or not the permanency or otherwise of the rear seats would affect its classification as a DPV, its construction from new would seem to place it in the normal car category as far as speed limits were concerned.
The vehicle was constructed solely for the carriage of passengers (7 or less, excluding the driver) with an unladen weight of less than 3,050kg.
Whether or not the permanency or otherwise of the rear seats would affect its classification as a DPV, its construction from new would seem to place it in the normal car category as far as speed limits were concerned.
It is an M1 vehicle, not N1. What does V5 say in section 4.J vehicle category?
http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/vehicletype/definition-o...
Edited: to correct from M2 to M1
http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/vehicletype/definition-o...
Edited: to correct from M2 to M1
Edited by Pica-Pica on Monday 6th August 17:48
Pica-Pica said:
It is an M2 vehicle, not N1. What does V5 say in section 4.J vehicle category?
http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/vehicletype/definition-o...
Does it matter ?http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/vehicletype/definition-o...
SS2. said:
Pica-Pica said:
It is an M2 vehicle, not N1. What does V5 say in section 4.J vehicle category?
http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/vehicletype/definition-o...
Does it matter ?http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/vehicletype/definition-o...
I suspect it was a ruse to reduce the tax when new.
Does it matter ? That's what I'm asking
TooMany2cvs said:
V8RX7 said:
That's why I posted - it says N1 which IMO it isn't and never was.
Get a Certificate of Compliance from the manufacturer - it'll tell you what type approval category it falls under, M1 or N1. But I very much doubt it'll differ from what's on the V5C...Vianos were only M1
If it meets the criteria of either a motor car ( s.136 RTRA 1984 / s.185 RTA 1988) or that of a dual-purpose vehicle ( Reg 3(2) RV(C and U) Regs 1986) then, IMHO, it matters not how the vehicle has been classified with DVLA.
That said, and as FIF has suggested, a goods vehicle classification may see you having to argue the toss with a safety camera drone if you were pinged at 'non-car' speeds and, if they refused to back down, you might need to take it to the magistrates.
That said, and as FIF has suggested, a goods vehicle classification may see you having to argue the toss with a safety camera drone if you were pinged at 'non-car' speeds and, if they refused to back down, you might need to take it to the magistrates.
Edited by SS2. on Monday 6th August 18:35
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff