Alfrom Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 Done. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ragtag Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 To all you contributors who think that Brexit will change anything, 'wake up and smell the coffee'. This consultation is already a year overdue from the originally planned date in the full knowledge that we will be leaving. It has got bugger all to do with the EU Directive, that was just the original excuse. The Government want to do this anyway. I'm also amazed that people are so fixated with the 'modified car' aspect that no mention has been made of the real threat contained in one of the consultation questions. 'Do you think that VHIs should be subject to annual mileage restriction and if so, how much'. So the strategy is: Link the MOT exemption to the tax free status (rolling 40 years) and then limit the use of these vehicles. Turning it around, if you don't want your use restricted, you will lose the tax free status. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ragtag Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 Do not forget the ongoing DVLA saga concerning Classic vehicles and especially "Specials" i.e.altered vehicles. A VSCC member was about to re-body his completely original 1930's Austin 7, with a replica body and the DVLA refused to renew his age related registration plate and would only issue a "Q" plate with all that entails. In that respect I feel that the DVLA seemed to have overlooked one of the worst offenders, Land Rovers. There are numerous coil sprung V8 LRS running around but registered as Series 11 and 11A's so enjoying tax free and no MOT status but bear scant resemblance to the period vehicles. Sorry but the anecdote about the VSCC member has to be more complicated than you are suggesting. By their own rules the body is irrelevant to the identity of a car with a separate chassis. Just changing the body shouldn't have required any reference to DVLA or VOSA. My brother (also VSCC member) has an A7 with a 5 year old RTC body on it. Stretching the point and proving it, I ran a tax exempt Land Rover Discovery (Discovery body on a '71 Range Rover chassis and running gear) for several years and that was VIC checked by my local DVLA office. Actually your point about coil sprung 'series' Land Rovers is well made and DVLA are well aware of the issue but don't have the resources to police historic abuse. I suspect that this new MOT regime (to include identity checks) will catch these vehicles with minimal effort. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Down Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Sorry but the anecdote about the VSCC member has to be more complicated than you are suggesting. By their own rules the body is irrelevant to the identity of a car with a separate chassis. Just changing the body shouldn't have required any reference to DVLA or VOSA. My brother (also VSCC member) has an A7 with a 5 year old RTC body on it. Stretching the point and proving it, I ran a tax exempt Land Rover Discovery (Discovery body on a '71 Range Rover chassis and running gear) for several years and that was VIC checked by my local DVLA office........... .........The VSCC member's A7 problem involving a complete new body was not anecdotal but fact. He was so upset by the whole business that he sold the car in bits. But I should have stressed that this was as result of the DVLA's ongoing deliberations into verifying the authenticity of vehicles following the rumpus that ensued when it was discovered that brand new replica cars of a very expensive marque from South America were allegedly being given age related registrations with tax free status etc. This is a separate issue to this EEC Directive, well it was a while back perhaps the two have now merged.! Edited September 30, 2016 by Paul Down Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ragtag Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 Sorry but the anecdote about the VSCC member has to be more complicated than you are suggesting. By their own rules the body is irrelevant to the identity of a car with a separate chassis. Just changing the body shouldn't have required any reference to DVLA or VOSA. My brother (also VSCC member) has an A7 with a 5 year old RTC body on it. Stretching the point and proving it, I ran a tax exempt Land Rover Discovery (Discovery body on a '71 Range Rover chassis and running gear) for several years and that was VIC checked by my local DVLA office........... .........The VSCC member's A7 problem involving a complete new body was not anecdotal but fact. He was so upset by the whole business that he sold the car in bits. But I should have stressed that this was as result of the DVLA's ongoing deliberations into verifying the authenticity of vehicles following the rumpus that ensued when it was discovered that brand new replica cars of a very expensive marque from South America were allegedly being given age related registrations with tax free status etc. This is a separate issue to this EEC Directive, well it was a while back perhaps the two have now merged.! Hi Paul, My use of the word 'anecdote' wasn't meant to imply that I didn't believe it was true, sorry if you inferred that. I'm well aware of the BOC/Pur Sang issue but that is a world away from the chap simply refurbishing an existing car. If your (I assume) friend had problems on the back of this, I can only sympathise. I do think that the DVLA will seek to roll 'car identity' issues into the new MOT proposals as it is a way of policing compliance on the cheap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TR5tar Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) It seems to me that whether a VHI has been substantially altered should be a totally separate issue to if or when the vehicle should be subject to MOT or safety testing. Either the vehicle is roadworthy or it's not, regardless of alterations. That rules out options 3, 4 and 5 for me. I also agree that all vehicles should be subject to safety testing of some kind once a year, but for older cars should it be the standard MOT? I'm torn as to whether option 1 or option 2 is better. Darren Edited October 1, 2016 by TR5tar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamish Posted October 1, 2016 Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 2 for me Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Down Posted October 1, 2016 Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 Ragtag, The VSCC austin 7 owner was very upset and probably took the brunt of an over reaction by the DVLA following the BOC fiasco. As you said other A7 owners have not had a problem and it seems to be the luck of the draw who at the DVLA deals with the application. I know the A7 refusal to give an age related registration is not an isolated example, its the lack of consistency by the DVLA which is concerning. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nowtelse2do Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) 1 or 2 for me, don't know which. I think No1, nowt wrong with an annual mot. Is new rust classed as a modification? Dave Done. Edited October 4, 2016 by nowtelse2do Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Is new rust classed as a modification? Dave :) Yes it makes the car heavier, unless flakes drop off then its a lightweight. Peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nowtelse2do Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 I know of lightweight E Types Peter, but not lightweight XJSs. Mine could be the 1st......then again, I think not. Dave Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.