'Q' reg, no free tax, and £450 for an MOT!

[PSL184]

I agree totally with the safety aspects of this legislation and fully agree that it should not effect the registration number of the vehicle - However, this has not changed. It is not new and any "mongrel" car on the road carries a Q plate - Always has.
The legislation is probably been made more forcefull due to idiots like this http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/edu ... ticle.html that managed to kill his own kids due to his mechanical incompetance. Any laws to prevent this kind of thing happening should be welcomed - it could be your kids next time !!!!

[chickenjohn]

I'm not talking deception Jonothan, and I agree with you, I'm all for safe vehicles. Not deception, just work round the rules, shrug the shoulders and carry on, then complain like mad like the French do. But we have to stand up to this nonsense or the next thing they will do IS restrict use of classics, make us beg permission to drive from the government etc etc, or they may even take all cars over 10 years old away from us and crush them as is happening in Dubai. Usage restrictions are already in force in Germany and France and you are not allowed to work on your own car in Italy. I agree with you, I don't want to drag politics into it, but the politicians are forcing their politics upon classic car owners. The EU and government definitely "have it in" for us, it is almost like they want everyone to conform and be a uniform, model citizen and buy new cars, and scrap anything over ten years old- hence the scrappage scheme. I don't like politics, as I said, I apologise for the rant but this club is about promoting the preservation and use of Morris Minors and that is what I am about.

We must stand up against this and complain or they will not stop bringing out new and more unpleasant legislation! There are more than enough, (too many rules and regs on anything you can think of ) as it is. It is beaurocratic persecution!

All we want is a little bit of freedom to enjoy our classic cars. What is wrong with that??? What is wrong with wanting to enjoy your classic car in a (supposedly) free country????

[plastic_orange]

I have 2 modified Minors. The one on the road was modded in 1991 and is still in use, the other was modded in 1971, and was used till 1987, then taken off the road to be modded again (still unfinished ).
As I see it, if a vehicle passes the current MOT standard, then what's the problem?
I realise that some folk take the 'p', but it's not exactly an epidemic, so why target the modifier other than complying with more spurious EC directives.
When my V8 minor gets tested next will the examiner tick the modified box, or as it was tested modified last year, it's not modified further, so tick 'no''?

Pete

[romfordian]

When my V8 minor gets tested next will the examiner tick the modified box, or as it was tested modified last year, it's not modified further, so tick 'no''?

How does the tester know that it was already modified when it was tested last year?

[plastic_orange]

I use the same one.

Pete

[romfordian]

I use the same one.
Pete

Ah right. But then, while he'll remember that last time he tested it your car was modded, is he gonna remember it enough that it is still the same amount of modified?

[plastic_orange]

Yes - he's tested it for years
Pete

[bmcecosse]

I wonder what 'modified' means ??? Changes to the monocoque body ? Changes to the suspension/wheels/tyres ? Changes to the brakes ? Changes to the engine - and/or exhaust system ?? This could be a whole load of trouble ahead!

[Wal]

Dear all,
Maybe I’m cynical but I find it difficult to fully believe that this type of legislation is really, as Jonathan has suggested “simply an attempt to make sure that modified cars are safe for the road.”

If that was the case then there are better ways in which it could be addressed. Such as insurance companies demanding an independent engineers certificate for modifications before insuring, extent of which would need qualification i.e. would it include brake / suspension kits or only modifications to the shell etc.

Yes, we all want to get rid of the bodgers and people whose cars are dangerously changed but recent news has indicated that the “homegrown” modifier is probably less dangerous than car companies themselves by looking at recent recalls, for safety reasons:
o Toyota – Brake and accelerator problems – rather important to safety one would think
o Honda – Brake issues – again something that would worry me on a pedestrian crossing with a Honda heading my way

And this is only due to recent news attention and is not uncommon with indications that there may well be more. With modern cars not requiring an MOT for 3 years it smacks of double standards.

It does appear more to be an attempt to reduce the numbers of classic cars, many of which have received some change however small, rather than finding a more sensible way of dealing with dangerous modifications.

Regards,
Wal

[jonathon]

One thing you seem to be missing is that these rules are meant to have been active over the last 27 years (I think)
So any political assertions to todays goverment or EU are simply nonsense, just that it seems that now is the time to apply this 'old' legislation. Old being the operative word as I'm sure the wording and intentions will ,or should be brought up to date
Insurance companies do ask for engineers reports, every one of our modded cars has one.It might be the case that this report goes some way towards the new test or indeed the need to have one as it has already been inspected.
Re taking classics off the road, I remember last year that a move was being considered to give classics an MOT every 2 years. Hardly the move of a dictatorial VOSA or UK/EU government . But in my opinion a bad move, as even the current MOT is so inept at finding the true integrity of a cars chassis.

[Wal]

Appreciating that these rules have been there for 27 years, either they were right to start with and should have been applied or they were wrong initially and should actually be replaced with something more sensible not now amended to suit a current mood. Taking 27 years to either clarify properly or apply a ruling is ridiculous.

With regard to insurance companies. I got an independent engineers report for my car but in recent years having changed insurance companies and declared all the modifications I have not been asked for an engineers report which I believe is really bad.

I have no objection to my car being tested but I don’t wish to lose my car registration and I would be concerned about applying the rules of a modern car to a Morris, however modified, would prevent any of them passing.

Regards,
Wal

[plastic_orange]

I needed an engineers report in 1973 when I first put my modded lowlight on the streets. My insurance company insisted on this, and I had to pay to get one written by an engineer (family friend who was an insurance assessor and engineer).
Fast forward to 2004 when I purchased the blue minor in my sig (Muj), and once I'd sorted it for the road again (long story), all I had to do was provide some build details, and some pictures to an insurance company, and it was insured.
The insurance was very reasonable, with agreed value - a total contrast to over 30 years ago.
I think that there should be a happy medium with this matter, and do feel that a newly built car really should require some form of validation of roadworthiness, but that inspectors should be sourced from within the hobby itself, and not as a blinkered money making enterprise that it currently is.
I'll look forward to this years MOT with interest. I do however have all the receipts from it's conversion to V8 in the early 1990's by a well known company (Autofantasia), so this may be handy in the future to prove it's been around for a while. My lowlight from the 70's has been a work in progress over the years culminating in it's current full chassis with modern V8, but again I have pics of me with it (aged 17) to prove it's modded heritage.
Can of worms and all that - springs to mind. The NSRA has loads of info on all aspects of modification if you care to look:

http://www.nsra.org.uk/

Pete

[jonathon]

Wal, I'm not defending or proposing acceptance of these rules as they are. They can seem a bit ambiguous and out dated, and I agree with you and others on here that some form of inspection of modified cars is needed , as PO say hopefully by someone who is sympathetic to what we do.
What P's me off more is the crazy assertion that its a conspiracy of UK and EU governent, it simply is not, but it can be seen as a new profiteering exercise by DVLA ,VOSA, but we really should seek full clarification as ACE are trying to do ,before getting too depressed.

[aceadvice]

Hi guys, Andy ( twincamman ) asked if a rep from ACE could pop over and give some clarification. You'll have to forgive me I haven't read all 4 pages as I've been at this solid ( along with the rest of the ACE team ) for the best part of 14 days and around 10 hours straight today .

First off could I ask you to check out our site

http://www.the-ace.org.uk/

so you know who we are and what we are about and also the ACTUAL press releses that CCW are talking about:-

http://www.the-ace.org.uk/Chassis-and-M ... ation.html

Below I reproduced a post from another forum, not by a member of our team but someone who has listened to what we've said and put togethera synopsis of the reasons all this exists. The only point he missed is that back in 1976 ALL modifying was due to be banned ( due to impending Type Approval regs ).

A campaign by the custon scene and the fledgling kit car industry managedt o get a scheme for testing ths avoiding the ban , this scheme was the SVA, now replaced by BIVA .

Sorry it's all so wordy but I hope it will help a lot of the questions that have gone before. I'll pop back later to answer any questions ,or cgive latification needed (where i can ) , of all the stuff I've put up.




"The way I see the background of it (and why we aren't likely to see the back of this legislation before the fall of the EU) goes like this:

Type Approval was introduced Europe-wide (it's EU legislation) in the 70s to protect car buyer's safety. Over the years new regulations have been added as technology and the car-buying-public's expectations with regard to safety grew.

The Type Approval regulations mean that if - for example - you have a 1985 Cavalier, then from looking at the identity of the car, you know it compied with the safety regulations in force at the time it was manufactured. As long as it's in good condition (which is where the MOT comes in), it can be considered safe. Not as safe as a modern car, but by buying a 25-year-old car you make that choice and you know what sort of safety standards you're buying into.

The trouble is, that if you change the car from the manufacturer's specifications, Type Approval can no longer guarantee that the car is safe. After all, if the hero of our hypothetical story happens to have cut a structurally crucial part of the bodyshell of the Cavalier in order to fit that Jag V12, the car might be in good condition (it could pass an MOT, since the MOT isn't looking at the engineering of the modifications) but it is no longer safe.

As the car no longer complies to the type approval for the Cavalier, it can no longer be regarded as being an Cavalier (since all Cavaliers comply to the TA, if this one doesn't comply to the TA, it's no longer a Cavalier). As the vehicle type is in question, the identity of the car is called into question - it's registered as a 1985 Cavalier, but can no longer be regarded as such - thus removing the right to the 1985 Cavalier logbook.

The other side to the loss of identity - which applies to cars not type-approved originally as well as those that were - is the issue of buyer protection. If you buy a 1985 Cavalier (or a 1960 Austin A40) then the average man in the street* would expect it to be as safe as a 1985 Cavalier (or a '60 A40). However, that can no longer be proven by it's identity since it's been modified since. In order to prevent a foolish person from expecting the car to be as safe as a 1985 Cavalier the original 1985 identity needs to be removed.

Since the car no longer has an identity, it can be regarded as a new, un-registered car. Under the TA legislation, in order to register that new, un-registered car, it needs to comply to Type Approval.

Type Approval is a horrendously complex and expensive procedure that the manufacturer of a car has to pay for. The cost and requirements of TA are way out of range of a man-in-a-shed, leaving our hero's 'Cavalier' langushing on a trailer on it's way to the RR gathering.

TA legislation allows countried to introduce their own method of bypassing the legislation in certain cases - imports, radically altered, amateur-built etc. This is where the SVA, and latterly the IVA, come into play. Passing an SVA or an IVA gives the car a Minister's Approval Certificate - consider it to be Type Approval LiteTM. An MAC allows the new, un-registered 'Cavalier' to be registered, either with an age-related plate or a Q plate, depending on the circumstances - in this case it's most likely to be a Q plate.

The SVA/bIVA covers the major points of the Type Approval reqirements, but at a significantly lower level, and with a much lower requirement for documentary proof. For example, Type Approval probably requires independant testing done to ensure that the petrol tank on a car won't dissolve in petrol, while the bIVA merely requires that the tank be made of metal.

The bIVA also inspects the structure of a car in order to asses it's strength and crash-worthiness, highlighting the weakness where the 'Cav' was chopped to fit the V12. The inspection avoids the need to crash-test our hero's Pride and Joy, which would otherwise be a Type Approval requirement.

The central questions that the above labyrinth revolves around are the following:


Yesterday at 1:47pm, aceadvice wrote:

Recommendations
• To consider when a vehicle ceases to be the original vehicle.
• To consider whether vehicles which have been radically altered from their original specification, require type approval. This may involve changes to legislation.


This is where it gets messy - the UK has had to develop it's own system within the TA legislation to identify those cars required to take an IVA. The result is the unholy mess that is the points system, which left grey areas regarding what constituted a modified monocoque.

The DVLA statement clarifying the law regarding modified monocoques (and modified chassis) means that we now understand that it's altering the structure of a car that is the issue, rather than modification per se. This means that our hero now knows what he can and can't legally do to his car, and what the requirements are if he steps over that line.

Seriously chopping about a bulkhead in order to fit a bigger engine will significantly affect the strength of the car - thus removing it's Type Approval, etc., etc. WRT to the tunnel issue, if you follow the letter of the (un-clarified) ponits system then your car will be eligible for a bIVA. The 'per-car' basis was purely due to the lack of clear guidance - you would have had a postcode lottery whereby one DVLA office would pass your car while another would shred your V5C. I'd rather know what the test had in store for me without having to find out beforehand whether Reg at DVLA Neasden is off on holiday tomorrow or whether he's just been made bankrupt and had a divorce.

While I agree that IVA-ing every car with an engine and 'box swap that requires some relieving seems excessive, that is the fault of the legislation, not ACE or the DVLA's interpretation of it. I also agree that it's madness that you can fit a V8 to a completley standard Morris Minor legally**, while a sensibly-modified version might not be legal seems insane. However, the legislators only considered the identity of the vehicle, and if you only change the engine it's still the same car.

The fact that people have been getting away with it for years is - as has been commented - due to the difficulty of tracking every car's details throughout the years. Despite this, AFAIK there were a few blatant cases that were caught - like tax-exempt-registered Land Rover Defenders. However, the advance of computer technology, and the computerised MOT in particular, means that tracking details of every car is now much easier.

I don't wish to scaremonger, but it seems possible that DVLA/VOSA might start craking down. If that is the case, I'd rather know I'm on the right side of the law rather than either being ignorant of the law or deliberately breaking the law. I do agree, however, that there could be major issue were they to crack down - there are huge numbers of modified cars out there that probably should be put through an IVA. Maybe the amnesty - or issue of a Z-plate after a shortened test that just covers the main structure and brake balance etc. - might be sensible for those already in existance.

If we accept that the EU legislation is here to stay , then we need to know what it means for us. ACE is doing fantastic work to make sure that we know where we stand with regard to this legislation. Don't shoot the messenger! "

[jonathon]

Many thanks for taking the time to present us with some hard facts on our own forum. I can only applaud the work of ACE in representing the modifiers interests.
Whilst most on here are keen to see a clearly defined test regime for modded cars in the persuit of safety, the proposed legislation does require some serious thought in how to apply it self to old and current modified cars, and seem to be fair in the process.
I look forward to further input from ACE on here, and personally as a specialist Minor modifier, the legislation is worrying and any way this can be minimised will be very welcome
Thankyou for your good efforts in this matter, I'm sure you have our full support

[aceadvice]

The problem is that it is NOT proposed legislation. The DVLA rules have existed , in this form for 27 years ( when the Q plate was created) . All we have done is clarify the guidelines shown on Directgov into something bearing more resemblance to actual rules. We have more work to do on clarifying the other points awarded in the 8 points system before we can get into specifics but we do small technical clarifications with VOSA as we go along.

We did, along with other organisations, have input into the changes to BIVA which have resulted in a less onerous test than proposed, not perfect but better than it could have been ( iecompulsory ABS / airbags/ E marked lights/ no external exhausts etc etc )

We are working on other stuff in the background but really do not see major changes to the existing system.

Currently it is best to be aware of the sytems in place and build accordingly to where you wantt to be in that system. If 'you' don't want to be 'lumbered with BIVA then don't modify that far .

I have attended 4 SVAtests ( including one of my own motor ) and 2 BIVA tests , one on a modified production car and one on a ground up hot rod. The test really sin't as scary as many would have you think providing you build TO pass then it should . If you get caught running illegally then I agree it's apain to go back and modify to pass.

Over at ACE we do not tell anyone how to build, only offering up the truth of the systems so everyone can make an informed choice..and accept the consequences of those choices

[aceadvice]

As little more clarification

Standard vehicle = entitled to reg
Modified within 8 points system = entitled to reg
Modified outside 8 points system= identity withdrawn if/when caught ..though you are supposed to notift DVLA on chnges to the Monococque.

shown here :-
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Ow ... DG_4022054

For the purposes of DVLA the Morris Thousand is a monococque, as is the van. Althought it has seperate rails in places the main cab is welded to the 'chassis and so is a monococque. Chassied vehicles have unboltable bodies .

[Wal]

Hi,
Yes, thanks for the information and work that ACE are doing it’s very useful to have a summary of the background and clarifications.

Although these rules have existed for 27 years there is some suspicion over “clarification” and “application” after 27 years! Why? If it’s fit for purpose use it if it’s wrong replace it. Could it be a drive to reduce classic cars on the road or so the DVLA can make some bucks claiming back old registration plates and resell them?

I also feel that there is some double standard as I can buy a new car (OK actually I can’t afford it), but if I could (a nice 1.1) stick a big turbo on it and a nice new engine management chip and push out oodles of power without upgrading anything else and no MOT test for 3 years – yippee crash city. Or alternatively buy a Toyota and mash that throttle arrgghh it’s stuck!!!!!!

Reading the Chassis and Monocoque Modification section it would be useful to know more about the status of removable panels e.g. the clarification from DVLA mentions transmission tunnels in relation to a monocoque structure but on the Morris the gearbox cover is removable and therefore not structural so presumably not included.

Regards,
Wal

[Wal]

Hi,
what about cars like the Triumph Spitfire. It has a separate chassis but the sills of the body are structural?

Regards,
Wal

[aceadvice]

Hi,
Yes, thanks for the information and work that ACE are doing it’s very useful to have a summary of the background and clarifications.

Although these rules have existed for 27 years there is some suspicion over “clarification” and “application” after 27 years! Why? If it’s fit for purpose use it if it’s wrong replace it. Could it be a drive to reduce classic cars on the road or so the DVLA can make some bucks claiming back old registration plates and resell them?

I also feel that there is some double standard as I can buy a new car (OK actually I can’t afford it), but if I could (a nice 1.1) stick a big turbo on it and a nice new engine management chip and push out oodles of power without upgrading anything else and no MOT test for 3 years – yippee crash city. Or alternatively buy a Toyota and mash that throttle arrgghh it’s stuck!!!!!!

Reading the Chassis and Monocoque Modification section it would be useful to know more about the status of removable panels e.g. the clarification from DVLA mentions transmission tunnels in relation to a monocoque structure but on the Morris the gearbox cover is removable and therefore not structural so presumably not included.

Regards,
Wal

Apologies I'm struggling with your forum at the mo , I'll tryto answer this again shortly.