Discussion
Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 and repealing Directive 2007/46/EC (Text with EEA relevance.)
Article 45
National individual vehicle approvals
1. Member States may decide to exempt a particular vehicle, whether unique or not, from the obligation to comply with one or more of the requirements of this Regulation or with one or more of the requirements laid down in the regulatory acts listed in Annex II, provided that those Member States have imposed relevant alternative requirements.
www .gov.uk/government/collections/individual-vehicle-approval-iva-forms-and-guidance
You must apply for vehicle approval if you’ve:
built a vehicle (from all new parts) - not applicable
rebuilt a vehicle (seems mad, but if a vehicle is rebuilt apparently it needs an IVA) - not applicable
radically altered a vehicle (meaning of radically discussed above) - not applicable
reconstructed a classic vehicle - not applicable
imported a vehicle - not applicable
You can use the IVA scheme if you make or import a single vehicle or a very small number of vehicle of the same type.
(Use of the word can implies an option to do so or not to do so)
Article 45
National individual vehicle approvals
1. Member States may decide to exempt a particular vehicle, whether unique or not, from the obligation to comply with one or more of the requirements of this Regulation or with one or more of the requirements laid down in the regulatory acts listed in Annex II, provided that those Member States have imposed relevant alternative requirements.
www .gov.uk/government/collections/individual-vehicle-approval-iva-forms-and-guidance
You must apply for vehicle approval if you’ve:
built a vehicle (from all new parts) - not applicable
rebuilt a vehicle (seems mad, but if a vehicle is rebuilt apparently it needs an IVA) - not applicable
radically altered a vehicle (meaning of radically discussed above) - not applicable
reconstructed a classic vehicle - not applicable
imported a vehicle - not applicable
You can use the IVA scheme if you make or import a single vehicle or a very small number of vehicle of the same type.
(Use of the word can implies an option to do so or not to do so)
Gemaeden said:
....You can use the IVA scheme if you make or import a single vehicle or a very small number of vehicle of the same type.
(Use of the word can implies an option to do so or not to do so)
If we're now extrapolating finer shades of inference instead of taking your earlier advice to actually read the legislation (now that you've discovered that to do so doesn't work in favour of your increasingly bizarre and illogical arguments...), it also implies that to do so is the easier and more favourable option.(Use of the word can implies an option to do so or not to do so)
If you make or import a single vehicle or a very small number of vehicles of the same type, you certainly do have the option not to take advantage of the IVA scheme if you wish: you can instead use the LVTA or full type approval routes to compliance.
You'd have to be a blithering idiot to do so, of course, but there's nothing to actually stop you, provided you have the £tens of thousands necessary for the former, or the £several million required for the latter.
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 22 September 22:23
So if I get gemaeden right, he's saying you don't have to IVA your vehicle, the wording shows you have a choice (let's set aside the moderate inconvenience that the other available choices are low volume type approval or full type approval).
He's saying that you can retain the ID from the donor vehicle because unless there's nothing on the kit car that comes from the donor, it's therefore not radically altered enough to qualify for the dictionary definition of 'radical'. The dictionary definition apparently being that another word for 'radical' is 'completely', so unless everything is different or modified from the donor car, it's not radically altered.
Again, let's set aside that DVLA (or whatever they call themselves now) do specify what they mean by radically altered, and suppose that in a courtroom it would be accepted that a dictionary definition (which dictionary? is there one approved by the UK's legal system? or all dictionaries? or one I wrote myself in the manner of Baldrick for the express purpose of avoiding an IVA test?) trumps the DVLA's stated definition.
So you have your donor ID, which has donated one or more parts to the car you want to drive on the road. It says "Ford Fiesta" on the logbook but you have a Quantum 2+2 kit car in front of you, with a Fiesta rack and knuckles bolted on. And all the wheelnuts are from the donor too. That's fine (apparently). DVLA won't change the make and model without an IVA pass, but that's cool because you've chosen not to put yourself under their authority.
So how would you go about obtaining an MoT for the vehicle, which you surely need in order to drive it? MoT man says "this isn't a Ford Fiesta mate" and refuses to test.
And on the way home from the test, plod pulls you over and says "this isn't a Ford Fiesta, sir" and refuses to allow you to continue your journey.
Do you need to choose not to put yourself under their authority either?
How does that work?
He's saying that you can retain the ID from the donor vehicle because unless there's nothing on the kit car that comes from the donor, it's therefore not radically altered enough to qualify for the dictionary definition of 'radical'. The dictionary definition apparently being that another word for 'radical' is 'completely', so unless everything is different or modified from the donor car, it's not radically altered.
Again, let's set aside that DVLA (or whatever they call themselves now) do specify what they mean by radically altered, and suppose that in a courtroom it would be accepted that a dictionary definition (which dictionary? is there one approved by the UK's legal system? or all dictionaries? or one I wrote myself in the manner of Baldrick for the express purpose of avoiding an IVA test?) trumps the DVLA's stated definition.
So you have your donor ID, which has donated one or more parts to the car you want to drive on the road. It says "Ford Fiesta" on the logbook but you have a Quantum 2+2 kit car in front of you, with a Fiesta rack and knuckles bolted on. And all the wheelnuts are from the donor too. That's fine (apparently). DVLA won't change the make and model without an IVA pass, but that's cool because you've chosen not to put yourself under their authority.
So how would you go about obtaining an MoT for the vehicle, which you surely need in order to drive it? MoT man says "this isn't a Ford Fiesta mate" and refuses to test.
And on the way home from the test, plod pulls you over and says "this isn't a Ford Fiesta, sir" and refuses to allow you to continue your journey.
Do you need to choose not to put yourself under their authority either?
How does that work?
Gemaeden said:
Radically altered means completely or fundamentally. If a vehicle still has four wheels, tyres, a steering wheel, seats, a motor and transmission and some parts of the original vehicle it is still fundamentally the same.
By that logic I could call my car a Ferrari if it's fitted with Ferrari wheel nuts.If you take a donor vehicle with steel monocoque construction and remove its mechanical parts, then bolt them into a new chassis of different construction, with a body of different construction, that's a fundamental change to the vehicle. Not least to its engineering integrity, robustness, crashworthiness, handling properties, safety etc, which should reasonably be tested in some way.
If you take a donor vehicle with a steel ladder chassis and separate body construction and remove the body and replace it with another, that seems to me not to be fundamental. Same chassis and mechanical layout but with a different body, they were always distinct entities. Hence rebodies of Triumph Herald chassis and Beetle floorpans are still a thing, and reskins of MR2s and Z3s is now also a thing.
Some will have seen that my post explaining this in Speed, Plod, Law has been deleted, but not for inaccuracy.
I'm glad to see someone reads what I write on here and is interested enough in it to remember what I have to say. Thank you FNG.
When I posted that I was close to finding the answer, but hadn't uncovered the final piece, as I have now, which is why I rightly got flak.
Some will be angrier at me being right than they are with the governments who have shafted us all down the centuries.
FFS you are now all free to drive and modify your cars to kingdom come and drive at whatever speed you like (as long as you cause no harm), go on holiday, go to the pub, open your'non-essential' business, stop wearing masks, stop paying taxes and compulsory insurance, avoid an experimental treatment 'vaccine' and a thousand and one other things.
Thanks are appreciated, but I know I come over as a smart arse to some people.
Psychology is a strange thing
Once again https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tQE4yrUDoB17uf...
I'm glad to see someone reads what I write on here and is interested enough in it to remember what I have to say. Thank you FNG.
When I posted that I was close to finding the answer, but hadn't uncovered the final piece, as I have now, which is why I rightly got flak.
Some will be angrier at me being right than they are with the governments who have shafted us all down the centuries.
FFS you are now all free to drive and modify your cars to kingdom come and drive at whatever speed you like (as long as you cause no harm), go on holiday, go to the pub, open your'non-essential' business, stop wearing masks, stop paying taxes and compulsory insurance, avoid an experimental treatment 'vaccine' and a thousand and one other things.
Thanks are appreciated, but I know I come over as a smart arse to some people.
Psychology is a strange thing
Once again https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tQE4yrUDoB17uf...
Edited by Gemaeden on Wednesday 10th March 09:18
I posted this on Speed Plod and the Law:
For those of you who doubt the existence of common law and the right to travel without hindrance, while paying no regard to legislation, I give you the following research by David Surrey (Facebook group Food for Thought):
You have the RIGHT to free Travel cases etc:
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.
( Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. bait and switch). 16th Andrews prudent second section 97 says that it shall be interpreted in my favor because I am the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary for the protection of my rights and property.
“A State [or the United States] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution.” Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at 113 (1943) .
The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."
"the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.
Shapiro V. Thompson 394 U.S. 618 says the right to travel is so basic that it shouldn’t even be questioned.
Murdoch V. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 106 says no state may convert a secure liberty into a privilege and then issue a license and a fee for it.
Shuttlesworth V. Birmingham Alabama 373 U.S. 262 says I can ignore the license and engage in the right with impunity, that means you can’t punish me for it.
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure... - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
“… speeding & running a red light are NOT a breach of the peace, the actions did not violate any natural rights of the people, hinder/alter any of the peoples movements to free locomotion, nor cause a threat to the safety of others, therefore not posing a threat to the public safety, health, or welfare and not following in the guidelines of an emergency. - Perkins v. Texas, 812 S.W. 2D 326, 329.
This means no judge decides what the facts the jury should hear as they are to decide the law and the facts (The common law right of the jury to determine the law, as well as the facts remain unimpaired. State v Croteau 23 Vt 14, 54 AM DEC 90 (1849).
While these cases are all from America, that is because the common law in the UK was perverted by Kings Equity Law in the 1760's and the Judiacture Acts of 1873 and 1875.
Rather than allowing my post to remain on the Speed, Plod, Law forum I was banned and given this message:
'Please go and stand in the corner until you've learned to play nicely with the other children.
You will not be allowed back into this forum until the teacher calls you'
No doubt many on here will be in agreement with the mods, but some might see a infringement of free speech and curtailment of the access to pertinent information.
For those of you who doubt the existence of common law and the right to travel without hindrance, while paying no regard to legislation, I give you the following research by David Surrey (Facebook group Food for Thought):
You have the RIGHT to free Travel cases etc:
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.
( Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. bait and switch). 16th Andrews prudent second section 97 says that it shall be interpreted in my favor because I am the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary for the protection of my rights and property.
“A State [or the United States] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution.” Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at 113 (1943) .
The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."
"the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.
Shapiro V. Thompson 394 U.S. 618 says the right to travel is so basic that it shouldn’t even be questioned.
Murdoch V. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 106 says no state may convert a secure liberty into a privilege and then issue a license and a fee for it.
Shuttlesworth V. Birmingham Alabama 373 U.S. 262 says I can ignore the license and engage in the right with impunity, that means you can’t punish me for it.
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure... - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
“… speeding & running a red light are NOT a breach of the peace, the actions did not violate any natural rights of the people, hinder/alter any of the peoples movements to free locomotion, nor cause a threat to the safety of others, therefore not posing a threat to the public safety, health, or welfare and not following in the guidelines of an emergency. - Perkins v. Texas, 812 S.W. 2D 326, 329.
This means no judge decides what the facts the jury should hear as they are to decide the law and the facts (The common law right of the jury to determine the law, as well as the facts remain unimpaired. State v Croteau 23 Vt 14, 54 AM DEC 90 (1849).
While these cases are all from America, that is because the common law in the UK was perverted by Kings Equity Law in the 1760's and the Judiacture Acts of 1873 and 1875.
Rather than allowing my post to remain on the Speed, Plod, Law forum I was banned and given this message:
'Please go and stand in the corner until you've learned to play nicely with the other children.
You will not be allowed back into this forum until the teacher calls you'
No doubt many on here will be in agreement with the mods, but some might see a infringement of free speech and curtailment of the access to pertinent information.
Hi Equus and FNG ..... can I ask you to keep your cool with Gemaeden. As someone who has been involved with the SVA and IVA requirements for more years than I care to remember, I am very interested to see how this thread pans out. Although for any readers who are new to this game, I wouldn't recommend that you follow Gemaeden's stance. Unless of course you are a multi billionaire who wants to trigger a test case. If you tried your luck and won a court case, then the regulations would be tightened up at the speed of light!
Thank you for being the voice of reason Steve Dean, even if you don't support me.
I would never go to court, as that is out of the jurisdiction of common law and within the realms of Queen's Equity Law, which unlawfully usurped Common law in the 1760's.
Equity law was brought in to take any money that might be ordered to be paid to a wronged party in common law and divert it to the Crown instead.
The common man lost out, the Crown profited.
But common law still has supremacy over governmental legislation. We have the right to travel from point to point however we please if we do no harm.
I would never go to court, as that is out of the jurisdiction of common law and within the realms of Queen's Equity Law, which unlawfully usurped Common law in the 1760's.
Equity law was brought in to take any money that might be ordered to be paid to a wronged party in common law and divert it to the Crown instead.
The common man lost out, the Crown profited.
But common law still has supremacy over governmental legislation. We have the right to travel from point to point however we please if we do no harm.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff