Bugatti Owners Club - DVLA - Crackdown on old cars

[a8hex]

austin said:

I was only referring to the title of this thread, which is about cars being made up from bits and then being registered as historic cars when they shouldn't have been.

As far as I can see the cases you mention with a V5 are one step away from fraud / ringing. The identity in the case of the Jag belongs to the body shell surely? If you take that away it's a different car IMHO.

This has been allowed to happen for years though, there's a whole business built up around this which no one has questioned before.

[Willhire89]

a8hex said:

austin said:

I was only referring to the title of this thread, which is about cars being made up from bits and then being registered as historic cars when they shouldn't have been.

As far as I can see the cases you mention with a V5 are one step away from fraud / ringing. The identity in the case of the Jag belongs to the body shell surely? If you take that away it's a different car IMHO.

This has been allowed to happen for years though, there's a whole business built up around this which no one has questioned before.

The boundaries got pushed too far by the 'pur sangs' and it started to make a mockery of the DVLA system - there may be a bit of an overreaction as a result.

I don't think your 150 will ever come onto their radar - there's no reason as it is a continuous history car which still is largely as ever it was.

[DonkeyApple]

a8hex said:

DonkeyApple said:

Thanks. It was definitely my not appreciating that the MKII was monocoque that was causing the issue.

If you go out and buy a new shell/monocoque and then source second hand parts for the drivetrain etc then I don't really see how you can claim it is anything other than a new car with secondhand running gear? Even if all those parts came from one doner.

However, I assume it isn't as clear cut as this and in fact these replica kits and builds do use some part of the original metalwork, assuming for example the metalwork with the ID tags, and that this has been sufficient to retain the ID?

If you buy a new shell/monocoque which is basically a Mk2 monocoque then as I read the rules you're OK. The bit I quoted said "original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame". That would count as a repair. Although they don't seem to forgiving when it comes to engines/gearboxes etc... perhaps because the webpage I quoted from is titled "8. Radically altered vehicles"

The problem is that for many many years people have been allowed to take Mk2s or old XJs or even say an E-Type and use them to build up a replica of a C or D type. A whole industry was built on the back of this. Cars like Lynxes have become collectable in their own right even when no owner with a brain would claim they were original 50s race cars.
So where are cars like this left now? What about businesses like Suffolk Sportscars with their SS100 and C-Type reps. How much room for manoeuvre have owners of classic cars got now when it comes to replacing parts? My XK150 is mostly original, it has the chassis and body it's warn for ever, at least as well as anyone knows. The engine though is not, it's a 4.2L engine from an XJ so still an "XK". The gearbox is a modern 5 speed unit made especially as a replacement for the XK. I've still got the engine and gear box, but even there the head the car wore when I bought her isn't the one it left Browns Lane with in 1958, I don't know when it was replaced but it was before 1979. Axles, well the stub axles are basically consumables as far as I can see. The rest is more or less original as is the main parts of the suspension, what about shocks? are these counted consumables? The tyres aren't original obviously. If the powers that be wanted to be useful (they clearly don't) they draft legislation limiting the life tyres can be kept for since they age. Currently the tyres aren't of a type similar to the originals, since the car currently has radials fitted. I wouldn't lose any sleep if I was forced to switch back to cross plies, but I think the car is safer (if less interesting) on radial tyres.

Indeed, my understanding is that a replacement shell is fine if it is a direct replacement.

But in the example that you cite, what does it actually matter if the dVLA turn round and say that a replica cannot carry the ID of a donor? Logically it is a new car, does it matter if they have a Q plate in order to be driven on the road?

[DonkeyApple]

Willhire89 said:

The boundaries got pushed too far by the 'pur sangs' and it started to make a mockery of the DVLA system - there may be a bit of an overreaction as a result.

I don't think your 150 will ever come onto their radar - there's no reason as it is a continuous history car which still is largely as ever it was.

There are £60k+ Suffix A Rangies that are 2 door shells dropped onto a mid 90s Disco chassis and running gear. The value pretty much stems from the fact that the DVLA has delivered V5s as early 70s Range Rovers instead of as hybrids or 90s Discos so they've been making a right mess of this in both directions as far as I can see for a while.

And obviously, when there are huge financial gains from recreating long gone cars and lax regulatory enforcement then it's why we've reached the point that some people, as you say, are not necasarily seeing an enforcement of the legislation as a bad thing or even a change to more Draconian parameters as totally negative.

[aeropilot]

Willhire89 said:

aeropilot said:

Hmmmmmm.......there's a fair few fibreglass bodied hot rods/street rods on repro frame rails running new crate motors etc that will fall foul of this is if it happens......

You mean they are not actually real Model B's? !

The thing is, (maybe unlike some of these Bugatti recreations) no one ever tries selling them as the 'real thing', they are what they are, even the more expensive ones that fitted with proper steel repro steel bodies.
And some of the real steel ones aren't cheap either now, in the same way that a Lynx D etc isn't.

[a8hex]

Willhire89 said:

The boundaries got pushed too far by the 'pur sangs' and it started to make a mockery of the DVLA system - there may be a bit of an overreaction as a result.

I'm not 100% familiar with the situation with the Pur Sangs, my understanding is that 100% new cars were being given original IDs. If that's the case then yes it seems like someone was taking the p*^s, but I guess there is a grey area between the 100%new and say a Lowdrag's Kettle C-type. This had many original Jaguar parts but it also had a new body and chassis. In that case I guess it could be argued that it's registered as a XK120 and technical it still is, since a C-Type is an XK120, that's how they were originally described. Just a competition type of an XK120.
There are a lot of C-Type reps built either out of XKs or Mk2s. I for one think the world is a richer place for their existence.
Similarly there are D-Types built out of E-Types, same story.
People have manufactured D-Types using a variety of original spare parts.
But what would differentiate a C-Type replica built up using a donor XK120 from one with a C&G engine, a Guy Board gearbox and other reproduction parts. I'm just thinking out loud.

Q Plates are a minor irritant. Perhaps the DVLA could just refuse to issue year related plates for the claimed year of manufacture and force owners to buy one if they want to avoid having a Q plate. But if replicas were suddenly forced to adhere to 2015 safety and emission rules, that would be a big problem for owners.

[Willhire89]

a8hex said:

Q Plates are a minor irritant. Perhaps the DVLA could just refuse to issue year related plates for the claimed year of manufacture and force owners to buy one if they want to avoid having a Q plate. But if replicas were suddenly forced to adhere to 2015 safety and emission rules, that would be a big problem for owners.

You have hit the nail on the head - if you fail to meet the requirements for being aged you then have to comply with al the modern regs - next stop is an SVA test.

My understanding is that Q's issued are non transferrable - but I may have that wrong.

[Willhire89]

DonkeyApple said:

There are £60k+ Suffix A Rangies that are 2 door shells dropped onto a mid 90s Disco chassis and running gear. The value pretty much stems from the fact that the DVLA has delivered V5s as early 70s Range Rovers instead of as hybrids or 90s Discos so they've been making a right mess of this in both directions as far as I can see for a while.

This exact scenario is on the DVLA target list - they issued V5's with reference to the L R Club - not so much different to the BOC and brand new 'pur sang' 35B's

Let's say one of these owners write to their MP detailing they've got a valuable car knowingly built up around the identity of another long deceased car to flout VED and safety regs - good luck with that.....

[a8hex]

Willhire89 said:

a8hex said:

Q Plates are a minor irritant. Perhaps the DVLA could just refuse to issue year related plates for the claimed year of manufacture and force owners to buy one if they want to avoid having a Q plate. But if replicas were suddenly forced to adhere to 2015 safety and emission rules, that would be a big problem for owners.

You have hit the nail on the head - if you fail to meet the requirements for being aged you then have to comply with al the modern regs - next stop is an SVA test.

So the next question, which presumably no one yet knows the answer to is which set of safety regs? Lynx were making their D-Types when I was at school, so latter half of the 70s. Would it be the case of applying the relevant rules for say 1978 or would they be saying you've escaped the system till now, so it's the rule in place now, which would clearly be impossible.

Totally off topic, but on the subject of the Lynx, Tony, 57 SAL was the long nose you used to have wasn't it? I've just realised it's the car in their brochure (which you probably knew) http://www.jag-lovers.org/brochures/lynx_d_cat.htm...

Willhire89 said:

My understanding is that Q's issued are non transferrable - but I may have that wrong.

Yes, I was just thinking of another approach the DVLA could take, since they could then sell non year plates as a money making scheme.

[davepoth]

I don't know why this is news now - I wrote an FOI request to DVLA about it in 2007.

The rules are vague and haven't been applied in the "grey" areas we're worried about - the Bugatti thing is blatant piss-taking and has quite rightly been stepped on hard.

The question is how far they want to push it. Steel bubble arches on a Mk2 Escort would cause a Q-plate if they took this to the possible extreme, but it's unlikely they'll go that far. I'd like to think they'll limit enforcement to those cases where there's an intent to deceive.

[a8hex]

davepoth said:

I'd like to think they'll limit enforcement to those cases where there's an intent to deceive.

It would be nice, but when bureaucrats get a bee in the bonnet, especially where European derived rules are concerned all common sense gets thrown out of the window. Somewhere in my filing cabinet I've got a letter signed by the minister for transport confirming a conversation I had wit the ministry that carrying my children in the back of my classic car without a seat belt is perfectly legal, whereas I could be prosecuted if they are wearing a seat belt.

[Yertis]

Willhire89 said:

You have hit the nail on the head - if you fail to meet the requirements for being aged you then have to comply with al the modern regs - next stop is an SVA test.

My understanding is that Q's issued are non transferrable - but I may have that wrong.

Do you have to display an actual Q plate, or can you put on a personal plate? In other words, while the car might be technically a Q plate, ie it will always default back to that status, can you apply a personal reg that you already own, provided all other criteria are adhered to? Or must you always show the Q plate you're given?

[Riley Blue]

You can't transfer another plate on to a Q plate.

[aeropilot]

Yertis said:

Do you have to display an actual Q plate, or can you put on a personal plate? In other words, while the car might be technically a Q plate, ie it will always default back to that status, can you apply a personal reg that you already own, provided all other criteria are adhered to? Or must you always show the Q plate you're given?

As far as I understand, a Q plate is non-tranferable as mentioned above, which means not only can it not be transferred to another vehicle, but any other plate can't be transferred onto a vehicle with a Q plate.

[droopsnoot]

aeropilot said:

Hmmmmmm.......there's a fair few fibreglass bodied hot rods/street rods on repro frame rails running new crate motors etc that will fall foul of this is if it happens......

As I recall it, this was one of the negative effects of the series "American Hotrod" - someone in the relevant department happened to notice they were taking old cars, sticking new chassis, engine, box, interior and so on, and felt they ought to be treating them as effectively new cars. I am not familiar with the US way of doing things but I recall reading of a court case and some hefty fines, though I don't think it specified the effect on the owners of those vehicles.

[aeropilot]

droopsnoot said:

aeropilot said:

Hmmmmmm.......there's a fair few fibreglass bodied hot rods/street rods on repro frame rails running new crate motors etc that will fall foul of this is if it happens......

As I recall it, this was one of the negative effects of the series "American Hotrod" - someone in the relevant department happened to notice they were taking old cars, sticking new chassis, engine, box, interior and so on, and felt they ought to be treating them as effectively new cars.

I think this might have been more to do with the shady ethics of Coddington's business rather than any generalisation with DMV regs

[richw_82]

a8hex said:

DonkeyApple said:

Willhire89 said:

Wrong - it applies also to people who had a V5 for (as an example) an old Mk2 Jag and probably some running gear and made a C Type which bears that reg using a brand new shell. Cobras would be another obvious one.

There's no confusion on components - it's a points system as I mentioned above and as you would expect focuses on the main ones except axles which are taken as a pair. If there is a mismatch age is taken on the newest.

I absolutely agree that this is not a change just a proper application of the rules

I'm being dumb, can you explain that further as I don't understand.

If a MKII has a different body on it, is it still not a MKII under the points system as everything under that new shell will exceed 8 points?

Or is it the case that people then claim it is the more valuable C Type because it's a MKII with a 2015 metal shell on it that has been made to look like something else?

The rules state

DVLA Website said:

Your vehicle must have 8 or more points from the table below if you want to keep the original registration number. 5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame.

So a Mk2 has a monocoque bodyshell and a C-Type replica based on a Mk2 doesn't have an "original or new and unmodified" monocoque bodyshell so can't be pass this rule, so the other 8 points it manages to get don't matter. The whole 8 points thing seems to be misleading, it isn't really a total of 8 points, it's a requirement to have an "the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame" plus 3 points from the list

Suspension (front and back) - original 2
Axles (both) - original 2
Transmission - original 2
Steering assembly - original 2
Engine - original 1

Correct me if I'm wrong - but a D-type or C-type built from a Mk 2 will surely come under the rules for Kit Converted vehicles so its even simpler as the points don't apply? It has to have two original major components plus the unmodified original chassis, or monocoque to keep the original registration.

Two major original parts plus a new monocoque bodyshell, chassis or frame, and its age related plate.

This doesn't help those that are trying to mask the age of their car by way of an original registration for a car that never existed back in the day... but it seems to show that the way is still clear for the moment for those who want a replica and don't mind an age related plate?

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/kitconvert...

Edited by richw_82 on Thursday 25th June 11:37

[thegreenhell]

There is no way you could build a C or D rep using an unmodified Mk2 chassis. They all utilise a brand new chassis of some sort, using Mk2, XK or XJ6 or whatever Jaguar suspension, engine and gearbox. Even under that looser definition of 'kit-converted car' they should not retain the original donor vehicle's reg. In that case they could get an age-related reg, related to the age of the single donor vehicle of the major mechanical components, but it would then still need to pass an IVA test. For multi-donor kit vehicles they could only apply for a Q-plate, also with an IVA test.

Basically anything built using a new or modified chassis or monocoque must pass an IVA and cannot retain the reg of an original vehicle, with the exception of direct replacement chassis of the original type, such as the Heritage shells for MGs where the original VIN and reg are transferred to the new replacement chassis.

[V8 Fettler]

Does the DVLA intend that this is a desk-based inspection (documents) or man with clipboard? If the latter then I doubt if the DVLA have the resource, let alone the expertise. MOT testers? VOSA?

[DonkeyApple]

Interesting. Last sentence implies selling any car in receipt of such a letter would not be possible.

Is this going to lead to certain cars being shipped overseas for sale in other jurisdictions?

Also, who has been sent these letters? What's the flag at the DVLA to trigger this?