I came across this yesterday on a UK government website.
I think it’s important for all of us to respond if we can. There are some very interesting points raised especially regarding future proofing classics and conversion to electric.
The current regulations go back to the 1980’s and are well overdue an overhaul.
Don’t tell them pike 
Hi
I am sure there are very few “classics” over 40 years old that have not had any modifications to either chassis or bodies. They say:
A vehicle can only retain its registration number where there have been no alterations made to the original chassis or monocoque bodyshell. Any modifications made to the chassis or monocoque bodyshell currently requires the vehicle to be re-registered with a Q registration number.
To my mind this means any rust repair or a single (non original) hole drilled and its a “Q” plate essentially. If you tell the DVLA that is. I wonder if this applies to modern cars? So if you drill a hole to route an accessory wire for instance?
Does not make a lot of sense, so its good that there is a consultation process underway.
Berni
does a Q plate give you less expensive insurance, and still agreed value?
Hi
I cannot answer that but my uninformed opinion would be more expensive to insure as the car would no longer be a historic vehicle (although give it 40 years from the date of the q plate and it will be), and worth less for the same reason.
Berni
Here, in Canuckleland BC. You could pull the less expensive insurance from the ‘Road tax’ governing body. Then get aftermarket agreed. So a win win.
Mike,
I think you are missing the point. The DVLA are asking for input regarding the current regulations and how best to alter them going forwards with a view to future proofing classic vehicles. Electric conversions are not covered at present and there is the age old “is it or isn’t it a chassis” debate (don’t tell em!). Replacement engines, gearboxes, brakes, we would like to choose wouldn’t we?
Go on… tell em what you think!
To be honest Alan I had not studied it at all. Just thinking of the debate, as you say.
I got weary of the originality police.
Would be nice to have input to people who would intelligently use it.
Genuine question.
Hypothetically speaking .
I run an Elan with a modified / none standard chassis , tall block TC , Ford 5 speed gearbox, TTR modifications etc , etc .
I inform my insurance of the changes to my Elan for insurance purposes.
I’m involved in a serious accident whilst driving the Elan that results in an enquiry ie someone’s died.
The police are involved in scrutinising my Elan and note that its none standard and question the validity of my classic vehicle status.
Question .
Could this happen or am I over egging my concerns ?
It has nothing to do with the classic status of your vehicle and everything to do with the safety of your vehicle. It is your responsibility to ensure that your vehicle is in a safe roadworthy condition. A police investigation would look for failure of safety items such as brakes and lights.
Removing the need for an MOT for 40+ year old vehicles is a questionable item. Get your car MOTd cover yourself that you have done due diligence.
If that is the case, I would expect the consultation to be conducted by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA).
(A note to overseas readers - DVSA is the UK government department that oversees the annual roadworthiness test required for any car over three years in the UK. The test is called an MOT.)
Thanks Alan as this can be a real tentative subject on this site and possibly on a number of other club sites
I’m in total agreement with you regards not having to MOT classic cars any more ie , outside the Lotus fraternity I’m personally aware of classic car owners ( private owners not dealers ) who are putting classic cars back on the road after many years sat in a garage, then selling them on the basis that the cars don’t require an MOT .
Regards the safety issue you mention.
Again hypothetically speaking .
My Elan is safe ie , all work completed by a qualified mechanic , bills to prove etc.
I’m running bigger brakes to cope with the increased power of my Cosworth turbo charged Elan etc.
I’m involved in the same accident where someone is killed and theres an investigation .
Surely theres a point when ‘a department’ steps in and questions the classic status of my vehicle.
Its okay to keep saying ‘Don’t inform DVLA of modification’ ( I’m definitely NOT including informing DVLA of a chassis change as this point has been cleared up legally by Graham Arnold / Lotus them selves some years ago) , but there must come a legal point when the owner of a classic car crosses a line of no return and in a court of law the owner of that classic car becomes legally responsible for not disclosing the status of their vehicle ,
Apologies Alan for laying these questions at your door, but this being a very tentative subject and not wishing to open up old hot debates. 99% of Lotus owners are looking for guidance without upsetting anyone.
Lotus owners have invested time and money in their cars and want to stay the right side of the law especially in the event of an accident and when we live in an environment of where theres a blame theres a claim .
Thanks for you input Alan
Totally agree with everyone thinking the removal of MoT requirement for classics is a retrograde step. Although I service my car regularly it us good to get and independent eye over it. But isn’t it also true that you loose your exemption if you swap your engine to a non-standard type post some date cutoff. I put a k series into my 1970 midget and had to have it MoTd. In someway its a bit of a moot point for cars that are bought with a different engine and bot evidence of when the conversion was done. For examples it was common in the era to swap rover V8s into stags.
Just a lot of cans of worms.
Tim
Greg,
At the moment the best advice that I would give is to have a yearly MOT check, this will demonstrate that due diligence is being taken as regards roadworthiness.
I’m not qualified to answer the question on what’s acceptable as far as maintaining a classic vehicle with regards to using non original specification parts whilst retaining original identity and registration status.
The consultation is designed to highlight these concerns and hopefully will go some way towards addressing them.
Just going through the questions, it is clearly more than just historic vehicles. There are questions about radically altered, rebuilt, restored, restomodded, electric and kit cars in there. Very few questions pertain to additional safety and / or specific test regimes for these vehicles (although there are questions like that, they seem to be in the minority).
Some of them require careful thought … example :
3.21. At what point should a chassis or monocoque bodyshell modification (or frame for motorcycles) affect the identity of a vehicle that has been restored? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.
Now, that would result in quite a debate… anyway, I answered what I could and submitted. My view is I’d like to see things continue as they are, but with a specific exemption from the 40 year rule for cars that can be proven to be innovative in some way; for example, the Lotus Elise S1 was the first production car to use a bonded extruded aluminium chassis, and it had novel MMC brakes as well. None of these are over 40 years old, but I’d argue they qualify as “historic vehicles” because of the innovation. To prevent new cars taking advantage of this, I proposed that the vehicle in question should also be out of production.
My view is as posted on the Tr register website some days ago
Personal I think the FBHVC should issue guidance on how to answer this. It’s a strange document with most answers in Freeform. How on earth is this going to be accurately summarised? Very much dependant upon the individual reading and making a judgement. In my opinion it’s has the potential to be used in any way the government of the time sees fit.
I believe the FBHVC met to discuss today.
Iain
As an aside, I thought I’d tax my car today, despite it being in pieces in the middle of a restoration. I confirmed it wasn’t substantially altered (easy to forget that the definition of this term is pretty clear on the MOT exemption form) and expected it (the DVLA web site) to offer me a zero rated tx band. Not so! It tried to charge me £350 for a year’s tax, despite it flagging the car is over 40 years old and may be MOT exempt. So it seems to me, I will have to go through the motions of declaring it an Historic Vehicle by taking the V5 and other forms down to a Post Office.
Thing is, last time I did this (for the Plus 2, which didn’t say Historic Vehicle on its V5) it went through with no problems - £0 tax for a year…
Curious to hear why if the car is still off the road in a state of restoration why are you now bothering now trying to tax it? Why not just declare it SORN it until it is roadworthy.
If it road taxed your insurance company will charge you as if it is roadworthy wheras if declared SORN your insurance, if you decide to insure it all all, will be appreciably less.
Alan
Well Alan, I thought to get Historic status on the car before the rules change (if they change following the consultation). However, the DVLA website seems to have changed since I last taxed a classic car, and so it appears you only get zero tax banded if it says HISTORIC VEHICLE on the V5 (that is, if it is marked so in the DVLA database), which mine doesn’t. I have to visit the Post Office to get that now. Wasn’t required previously.
I also remembered that, as the car’s not insured, a tax application would be declined anyway.
