The Peerless & Warwick Discussion Forum

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: DVLA Crackdown


Status: Offline
Posts: 699
Date:
DVLA Crackdown


I thought I might re-post this post from the Reliant Scimitar website, Scimweb, of which I am also a member.

 

The DVLA is investigating owners of classic cars with Historic Vehicle status and demanding they send evidence to prove that their cars qualify for it - but won't reveal the scale of its activities.

The agency has been sending letters to owners asking them to send information to prove their cars qualify for the tax-free category for pre-1974 vehicles. In one of the letters, the agency warns that it may issue the owner of a 1936 Bugatti with a 'Q' regiatration plate, depending on the quality of information it receives.

John Vale, Vehicle Registration Policy team leader, said in the letter: 'Initial investigations have confirmed that some historic vehicles have been built using replica or replacement parts, or a mixture of period and new components, and have therefore been incorrectly registered.' He added: 'A period manufacturer date has been recorded in error and a registration number allocated based on this date. The DVLA requires information about the provenance, construction and origin of your vehicle - you should provide it.

'Once our investigations are complete, we will write to you again explaining our conclusions. If any amendments are needed, these will be made and a new vehicle registration certificate issued. This could involve the issue of a new vehicle regiatration number - and in some cases Individual Vehicle Approval may be required or a Q registration number may be appropriate.'

Classic Car Weekly understands that so far around 100 letters have been sent out - primarily to owners of Bugattis and other pre-WW2 cars - and that the DVLA is not planning a blanket initiative covering all Historic Vehicle owners.

The DVLA has confirmed to CCW that it is sending letters to Historic Vehicle owners in order to investigate if their vehicles are eligible for the status, but did not respond to requests for information on the scale of the initiative.

An agency spokesman said: 'DVLA has been made aware that some vehicles recorded in the Historic tax class may have been incorrectly registered. WE have a legal responsibility to ensure that the records we hold are accurate. Where doubt is cast over the accuracy of the records held, thorough and proportionate investigations are necessary. We have started to contact the vehicle heepers inonvolved. Where investiagtions establish that the original registration was incorrect, these vehicles will require re-registration under an alternative number appropriate to the age of the vehicle.'

The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs confirmed its representatives met with the DVLA on 9 July to discuss the issue.

It said in a statement: 'As the represenative body for many of the historic vehicle clubs in the UK we see it as a prime responsibility to ensure that clubs and their members are not unfairly or without grounds required to engage in such an exercise. On the casis of the meeting we are clear that there is no current intention to send a letter to all historic vehicle owners.

'Rest assured that the Federation will stay very close to this situation and will vigorously defend the interests of bona fide historic vehicle owners.'

The Bugatti Owners Club declined to comment on the latest letters but shared a copy of a letter it sent out to its memebers warning them of the DVLA's initiative. In the letter, chairman Charles Trevlyan said the club was 'deeply concerned' about the notification the DVLA received.

He wrote: 'The club has been concerned as to the potential impact on our members and indeed the wider historic vehicle movement, of the DVLA's review of the registration of Bugatti cars in the UK.

'In view of this we have been in discussion over the past two years with the DVLA, as the vehicle licensing authority in the UK, in order to resolve some of the issues that have arisen.'

Other clubs are also aware of the issue, and the MG Car Club and the Vintage Sports-Car Club have said they are monitoring the situation.

Whilst I appreciate that the level of restoration that goes into some Historic vehicles like Bugatti's effectivly means thay are essentially 'new' cars, it concerns me that someting like new chassis, which are advertised on this site, might attract the unwanted attention of the DVLA. For thos unaware, putting a new chassis into a Peerless would, under the DVLA points system require the car to be re-registered, posibly as a Q plate and potentially go through an IVA, something that a Peerless might have difficulty passing.

Whilst most of our re-manufactured spares (screens, bodies, grills etc.) can be regarded as replacement parts, unless someone knows different, I suspect new chassis might be regarded as a step too far for the DVLA.

Any thoughts?



__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 855
Date:

sadly this has raised its ugly head thanks, as you say to the Bugatti brigade. As they say out of all the five hundred Bugatti's' ever made, all six hundred are on the road!

I think we just keep a very low profile...... and I'm sure this is also driven by the insurance companies as I have heard some very alarming stories lately.

and I cannot believe that a constantly patched up chassis is acceptable and new one isn't...


__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 699
Date:

I completly agree, Nigel and I also feel keeping a low profile is a good idea but i'm not convinced advertising new chassis on the website is keeping a low enough profile. I'm aware that there have been problems with some modified cars being pulled up for things like widened transmission tunnels to accommomodate different gearboxes so God knows what the DVLA would make of a new chassis.

I think it's a good idea for British owners to make sure that their V5 is correct in respect of engine, gearbox etc. numbers to avoid any retrospective action on the part of the DVLA.

I know I probably sound paranoid but I, for one, would hate to see our cars being devalued by the likes of a Q plate or being compelled to sit an IVA.

The fact that many historic cars no longer require MOT's seems to be at odds with this crackdown on originality.

__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 368
Date:

We did have some inconclusive discussion on this subject amongst owners at the Malvern show.

I contend that the gambit that DVLA is concerned with the integrity of data is disingenuous; this is
the organisation that has destroyed historic keepers records that would be so useful to current
owners wishing to establish the provenance of their vehicles. The underlying objective is obviously
financial, historic vehicles do not pay tax, and therefore misrepresenting a vehicle as historic is evading tax.
The increasing value of classics also has an impact, inventing a classic vehicle from an assembly of spurious,
replica and unrelated parts can be a lucrative industry. However, this is not "restoration" as we understand it.

This issue seems to have been circulating for some time, the Bugatti source mentions two years. Reading
between the lines, it seems that someone may have been playing games with chassis serial numbers.
However, Im not surprised that many classic owners feel uneasy, there seems to be no definitive
statement of how we can avoid being a target. With the absence of Peerless factory records, how can we know
whether the vehicle we own already is compromised, and exactly how much restoration and replacement
of components would render it unacceptable? What information do I now need to collect and provide for
inspection? It seems that period correct is no longer sufficient, some nebulous concept of provenance
now matters.

I also find it disturbing that the DVLA seeks to retrospectively apply a new and unpublished set of rules. Vehicles
were not subject to this sort of scrutiny in the past and "in period" vehicle chassis, components, and even
registration plates were interchanged with impunity, and in many cases, records were not kept. Triumph
competition cars were particular offenders in this respect, does this make them any less historic? The only link
between a Peerless and it's V5 identity is a little hand stamped aluminium plate.

The knock-on effect of this rumour mill is inevitable. Nobody will now invest substantial amounts of time and
money in a vehicle restoration unless they can be certain that the result will be acceptable to DVLA.
Nobody will buy a classic that at some future time might be required to attempt an unachievable SVA test.
With no practical and usable guidance forthcoming from DVLA, uncertainty rules.

Finally I would highlight that if all vehicles were treated identically for tax purposes, there could be no financial
advantage to be gained, no avoidance of tax, and this issue would just disappear.

Frank


__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard