Do I have to have this car approved by Dvla.?

[Lemonentry]

I've got one for you here. I'm half way installing a Sebring outer shell on a full 1990 Tvr tasmin wedge. So all running gear, chassis and even the " tub" of the Tvr have been used. I have the tvr log book and the tvr is on SORN. So as technically I'm only changing the front / rear clip, doors, bonnet, boot, windscreen, lights etc. so other than the log book saying " tasmin" am I breaking any law, and is there any definition on what's a body change?

[Seanick]

http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/forum/showthread.p...
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/forum/showthread.p...
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/forum/showthread.p...

Try the above links for rebodying info.

As I understand it as of Jan 1st this year it has to say on the V5 what it looks like, in order to be MOTed. Ie, it does not look like a Tasmin!!

[Steffan]

Seanick said:

http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/forum/showthread.p...
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/forum/showthread.p...
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/forum/showthread.p...

Try the above links for rebodying info.

As I understand it as of Jan 1st this year it has to say on the V5 what it looks like, in order to be MOTed. Ie, it does not look like a Tasmin!!

I think that is essentially correct. Vosa and the DVLA have given up trying to establish whether the chassis is substantially original. They have adopted the sensible attitude that the car must look like it should in the V5 description. I would suggest you contact your local offices and see what they think. I think it need testing.

This is still a grey area but clearly your car is not a Tasmin. You might get away with it but as the message seeps through the system such cars will become very difficult to MOT and very difficult to sell. I think it would be better to deal with the problem now and then enjoy the properly described car.

[EFA]

Oh no Steffan, the fact that the content of INF26 has become unenforceable must upset you greatly.

[Steffan]

EFA said:

Oh no Steffan, the fact that the content of INF26 has become unenforceable must upset you greatly.

I dislike bureaucracy. I intensely dislike excessive state interference in the quiet pursuit of hobbies by taxpayers. Just managing to pay the grossly excessive taxation required by profligate politicians determined to make unemployment most attractive to the burgeoning Benefits Society, in order to buy votes, all at the taxpayers expense, is an achievement in itself.

In direct consequence I dislike all the requirements for IVA and Kit car testing intensely. However I am old enough to remember some of the plainly unsafe Kit Cars registered years ago on the road and offered for sale which were deathtraps. That could not be allowed to continue and this is the new approach. We are better off than most of Europe for Kit Car testing requirements which is why so many Kit Cars are now selling to Europe particularly when genuinely registered in the UK.

I still collect and rebuild kit cars for pleasure. I am looking for a Banham Sprite and and TT copy and
I have viewed nine in the last year. Not one was correctly registered, all were still registered as Metros and clearly that cannot continue. If I can find a properly registered Banham I will buy it.

[smash]

EFA said:

Oh no Steffan, the fact that the content of INF26 has become unenforceable must upset you greatly.

Seriously, are you stupid? This makes it more enforcable than ever. Car's not correctly described HAVE to approach the DVLA now or they won't get a ticket* - no more Renault 25 GT40s/P4s/Countachs or whatever still getting MOTs. And here's the thing - pretty much all the local DVLA are due to close this year so where are they gonna send you for inspection? (which as we have established before is their right to demand courtesy of that statutory instrument). Yes, that's right - the nearest IVA centre and guess what they work to....

• You might have a friendly MOT centre but with the increasing amount of ANPR cameras how long are they gonna risk it for you?

[Steffan]

smash said:

smash said:

Seriously, are you stupid? This makes it more enforcable than ever. Car's not correctly described HAVE to approach the DVLA now or they won't get a ticket* - no more Renault 25 GT40s/P4s/Countachs or whatever still getting MOTs. And here's the thing - pretty much all the local DVLA are due to close this year so where are they gonna send you for inspection? (which as we have established before is their right to demand prior to amending V5 courtesy of that statutory instrument). Yes, that's right - the nearest IVA centre and guess what they work to....

• You might have a friendly MOT centre but with the increasing amount of ANPR cameras how long are they gonna risk it for you?

That is precisely why I will not buy completed Kit Cars UNLESS they are correctly registered. The days of making a mess of a Capri and calling it an Aston Martin whilst underneath there was a lowly 1300 cc Ford body are long gone. Unregistered Kit cars are constantly advertised on Fleabay and constantly fail to sell or even attract a bid. Locosts and Robin Hoods abound unregistered. The truth is they are uneconomic projects to attempt to register because the designs simply are not suitable for IVA.

As you rightly say you might have a friendly MOT centre currently but the word is out and this source will disappear. Registered Kit cars looking as they are supposed to is the future. My solution is to only buy properly registerd cars, or build kits ready for IVA but that is by no means cheap. I cannot find a decent registered Banham TT copy or Sprite copy and I regret that fact. But is is a fact.

[EFA]

Smash, You miss the point completely.

They are saying the V5 has to reflect what the car looks like. They are giving up on INF26 enforcement as by closing local offices they have no infrastructure to support the process. VOSA wont do it as the DVLA will not pay for it.


I also doubt ANPR operators nor your typical MOT tester will be able to provide any evidence that Dutton did not make replicas such as GT40 etc.

This is a good day believe me.

I do concur with Steffan that cars with GRP suspension mounts etc, should not be on the road, but I'l also sure the MOT should pick that up.

[PaulKemp]

Body kits using all the original chassis etc still don't require IVA.
The INF 26 still stands at this time
It does say a revisedl description on the V5 will be needed
I will be interested on how regulations change after the imminent closure of DVLA local offices, that said there are limits due to EU regs

[Steffan]

PaulKemp said:

Body kits using all the original chassis etc still don't require IVA.
The INF 26 still stands at this time
It does say a revisedl description on the V5 will be needed
I will be interested on how regulations change after the imminent closure of DVLA local offices, that said there are limits due to EU regs

I think EFA ia pretty well correct in his view that the DVLA are looking to remove the need to check chassis etc and push for IVA and Q plates for all cars not passing out as new vehicles. The closures of the local offices have caused this. I suspect a lot of radically altered cars are going to fall into this trap and that includes Kit cars. The DVLA want the income generation of IVA testing plus all the retests because so few pass first time. All about money once again.

I think the radically altered incorrectly registered cars about are on borrowed time. Hence my problem finding a decent properly registered Banham. Plenty of well finished supposed Banhams but the owners are in for a shock. They do not look anything like the Metro's they are registered as at the DVLA. Here comes trouble.

[Lemonentry]

Hi guys, thanks for the input and advice, this is quite a subject. I agree with the comments about poor builds needing to be banned., but a point not made about this 1st jan 2013 rule and the silly thing is, I don't see any rule about the law being retrospective on older kits and rod cars , in fact reading the rules they say, if the car is over 10 years old, then it doesn't need testing or I would imagine renaming either, so then it comes down to proof to which photographs in the world of the Dvla are not proof. I've been into beach buggies for over 30 years and the silver one below I built in 1997, and is registered as a convertible 2 axel rigid body. Back in 1997 i asked dvla for new name, but thats the label the Dvla gave me, they just dropped the word "saloon off the log book, as there was no such car as a beetle ether, thats a nickname anyway and vw owned the label "beach buggy" in Europe believe it or not, cause the clever company found again, it was a wprld wide nickname, so What happens to it now? Then back to my Sebring re body, as said its still using the inner Tvr tub, so 50% of the body is still tasmin. But I understand the rule of look, however "Sebring" can be a jeep also a type of PT cruiser, as both did limited editions of this under sebring, so did mgb. I can't call it a Healey either as that's a known make. So I'm going to call it a "Sebring tasmin" which technically is the correct name. Now I wonder if adding a word to the log book title will get passed the Dvla, as you can't take a name away and you can't change it 100% because the dvla computer says no, but has anyone just tried adding?

Edited by Lemonentry on Sunday 10th March 21:12

[smash]

@EFA Interestingly everyone I've spoken to about rebodies who've submitted V5 description change have been pulled for inspection and also enforced submission of V627/1 form. One exotic rebody I know of also got pinged through the post out of the blue from local DVLA saying "discrepancy with their records and they had been asked to inspect the vehicle". ANPR or PNC prompted? Who knows but the point is the last thing they are doing is lying down...

[Lemonentry]

Agreed, maybe there is need to clear their books up, for not only descriptions but for stolen cars, however in all that the Dvla have got no cash and may look to close down satellite offices, private regs are not that popular anymore as most who want them have got them. Lets see.

[Skyedriver]

Is this really any different to a Ferrari bodied MR2, MEV or 250GTO style bodied MX5, etc where it is merely (?) a body kit on an existing floor pan/suspension/engine/trans.

[Fastpedeller]

Skyedriver said:

Is this really any different to a Ferrari bodied MR2, MEV or 250GTO style bodied MX5, etc where it is merely (?) a body kit on an existing floor pan/suspension/engine/trans.

Agreed - but isn't the situation (and has been for several years) that the description has to change?
As an aside, what do they do with the mini look - alikes that use a GRP replica of a mini bodyshell? I suspect they then become Make: Austin, Model EFA or something. I suspect many of these are travelling around with Model: mini on the logbook, and surely because they have a new chassis (GRP rather than steel) they need IVA?
My take on this (FWIW) is that it's reasonable to expect IVA if something has changed structually/mechanically, and if not (as in this TVR Sebring case) then a change of description should be requested to avoid any nasty comebacks later.
I recall a strange thing about 15 years ago, where a kit car replica of a Mercedes SSK? was imported from USA - When the owner approached DVLA, they registered it as a Mercedes SSK. No mention of the word replica or anything else!: It would have made it easier for someone less honest to pass it off as the real thing!

[Steffan]

The number of incorrectly registered kit cars has grown over the years. I have seen perhaps 30 Banham kit cars built from Metros and none of them were registered as Banhams. All retained the metro registration. Equally there are kit cars on Ebay virtually every week which are clearly not correctly registered. Robin Hoods and Locosts and Locusts are frequently still registered as the donor car.

I think this is why Vosa have changed the rules. These rogue cars are going to become virtually unusable without SVA and few could pass SVA. There are going to be some very cheap kit cars about as the MOT stations begin to pick up on the warnings from Vosa.

I do hope every enthusiast heeds the warnings that abound currently. If a car does not look like the V5 description it will become impossible to get an MOT. Anomalies will need to be sorted with Vosa. Otherwise the owners will have an unusable scrap car.

[Skyedriver]

Steffan said:

I have seen perhaps 30 Banham kit cars built from Metros and none of them were registered as Banhams.

Would imagine a few GTM were also still minis, I was "watching" a Westfield a few weeks ago still registered as a Cortina although it had been insured as a Westfield.
Even cloudier situations might be the Tifosi Rana frogeye on a later sprite or MG Midget floorpan
Then even more cloudy, some of these extreme bodykits on Corsas etc
Or an RS2000 replica on a 1300 shell......
Where will it end, in many cases does it really matter, except for the insurance co get out of course.
The kit car registered as a Cortina is still exactly the same vehicle and as safe or dangerous whatever the name. It's just the plate on the front.
Out of curiousity, how difficult would it be to get an old GTM/Midas or many others through an IVA.
I know I was told (on here) that a Westfield wouldn't be too difficult. I wonder about a lot of the unfinished projects, Locosts etc?

[Lemonentry]

Fastpedeller said:

Agreed - but isn't the situation (and has been for several years) that the description has to change?
As an aside, what do they do with the mini look - alikes that use a GRP replica of a mini bodyshell? I suspect they then become Make: Austin, Model EFA or something. I suspect many of these are travelling around with Model: mini on the logbook, and surely because they have a new chassis (GRP rather than steel) they need IVA?
My take on this (FWIW) is that it's reasonable to expect IVA if something has changed structually/mechanically, and if not (as in this TVR Sebring case) then a change of description should be requested to avoid any nasty comebacks later.
I recall a strange thing about 15 years ago, where a kit car replica of a Mercedes SSK? was imported from USA - When the owner approached DVLA, they registered it as a Mercedes SSK. No mention of the word replica or anything else!: It would have made it easier for someone less honest to pass it off as the real thing!

Well the silly thing in all this is you can't call it a "Austin" because on a rename its not, made by Austin. So you have to call it something not made by any car manufacturer,. So you could call call it " A bucket of bolts" and as long as you stick to the rules,everyone including the mot station, police and insurance have to then call it a bucket of bolts, just imagine the tax disc description or even worse a statement read out in court, stating " I saw the bucket of bolts traveling at high speed down the high street" . but that's looking on the lighter side, however it doesn't have to be a description of what the car looks like its just got to have a different name. In my case most know what a tasmin looks like, if of course you say it's a wedge!!!! And this is why mot stations are taking no notice. It's the insurance and the police on a street stop we all have to convince I'm afraid.

[Steffan]

Skyedriver said:

Steffan said:

I have seen perhaps 30 Banham kit cars built from Metros and none of them were registered as Banhams.

Would imagine a few GTM were also still minis, I was "watching" a Westfield a few weeks ago still registered as a Cortina although it had been insured as a Westfield.
Even cloudier situations might be the Tifosi Rana frogeye on a later sprite or MG Midget floorpan
Then even more cloudy, some of these extreme bodykits on Corsas etc
Or an RS2000 replica on a 1300 shell......
Where will it end, in many cases does it really matter, except for the insurance co get out of course.
The kit car registered as a Cortina is still exactly the same vehicle and as safe or dangerous whatever the name. It's just the plate on the front.
Out of curiousity, how difficult would it be to get an old GTM/Midas or many others through an IVA.
I know I was told (on here) that a Westfield wouldn't be too difficult. I wonder about a lot of the unfinished projects, Locosts etc?

Interesting post and I share your concerns. Three points, Firstly I think it would be uneconomic and very very difficult to get a Midas or GTM through SVA. My kit car manufacturer friends say impossible. Secondly I do think the Tifosi Rana might be OK because only an expert could tell the original from the copy. All BMC underpinnings with common chassis engine gearbox etc I cannot see that failing. Finally I think again that the unfinished Locosts etc are not realistically SVA capable.

That is why so many non SVA nearly finished Kit Cars are on the bay. These cars are NOT capable of being completed and SVA'd without huge costs and work. There is really no way to get such cars legally on the road.

[EFA]

Smash,

My Caterham was investigated after a letter from the DVLA saying "discrepancy with their records and they had been asked to inspect the vehicle".

It had recently featured in a car magazine and there was a section stating the chassis had been modified with 29 additional tubes and triangulations. It was very much the same Caterham as I had purchased new 16 years before. Some jealous knob reading the mag reported the car. They came to me stating INF26 says original unmodified chassis and my car was "radically altered". Externally it was still of identical dimensions as when new, and no structural parts of the chassis had been removed (except the mounts for the handbrake cable - it passed 14 MOTs with no handbrake!). Eventually, after forcing them to come to my house an inspect the car, they closed the investigation with no changes or requirements on my part.


As I have always said, the DVLA create a bunch of unenforceable rules, unenforceable as they are riddled with exceptions, and also because they are not law.

This case makes a great precedent for anyone being investigated for "radically altered" however, as it did breach the black and while wording of INF26. This was one of several occasions when I successfully stopped the DVLA in their tracks as INF26 is not a Statute Instrument.

Of course my heart bleeds for all the DVLA employees involved in my case who will be redundant when the local office involved in this closes.



Also I note there is nothing about car ID checks and V5 description matching physical vehicle in the MOT Manual or the latest revisions from March 20th http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/SN%2001%2020... or any version before. Its all hearsay.