28 replies to this topic

[biggav]

but then we have the chicken and the egg question... how do we know that the subframes and steering rack were the ones fitted at the factory and not ones bought from a scrap yard and fitted before we bought the shell??

[Guess-Works.com]

Sorry but I disagree, i believe this is 'your way of looking at it' it is not DVLA regulations, he is not radically altering the vehicle, he is returning to the road a vehicle that is build the way the orginal manufacturer intended, therefore not radically altered. The fact that the parts are sourced from different cars is imaterial. Forget NIBS for a minute, a friend of yours has a Mini shell on his drive, you buy the shell along with the V5C, he has sold everything else off the vehicle. You then source all used parts to get that vehicle back on the road from variety of places, some you already have, some from eBay, some from shows & some from TMF members. When the vehicle is completed it is an exact a copy of the car when it was first registered & put on the road orginally. You then believe you have to take that car for an SVA?

I agree that you shouldn't have to, but as DVLA states, you strictly do (sorry about the wrong link, that hasn't helped!!). Although I agree with you and fully understand where your coming from, I like you, think that if your not deceiving anyone about the identity of the vehicle, and it has not been 'radically altered' from how it left the factory then an MOT should suffice, with possibly a VIC check to ensure that the age and model on the V5 conforms to the vehicle and its parts. However, this is not what the DLVA rules state.

I agree totally, that if it's not harming anyone, then why prohibit the reshelling of cars... just some way of identifying those which have been reshelled to a prospective buyer somewhere down the line...

Oh... wait a mo... Dont they already do that.... you CAN reshel a car with an USED shell.... it then goes through an SVA test to make sure its road safe, and get a "Q" plate which signifies that it's a heinz 57

GET IN THE REAL WORLD GUYS !!!

[Phaeton]

Sorry but I disagree, i believe this is 'your way of looking at it' it is not DVLA regulations, he is not radically altering the vehicle, he is returning to the road a vehicle that is build the way the orginal manufacturer intended, therefore not radically altered. The fact that the parts are sourced from different cars is imaterial. Forget NIBS for a minute, a friend of yours has a Mini shell on his drive, you buy the shell along with the V5C, he has sold everything else off the vehicle. You then source all used parts to get that vehicle back on the road from variety of places, some you already have, some from eBay, some from shows & some from TMF members. When the vehicle is completed it is an exact a copy of the car when it was first registered & put on the road orginally. You then believe you have to take that car for an SVA?

I agree that you shouldn't have to, but as DVLA states, you strictly do (sorry about the wrong link, that hasn't helped!!). Although I agree with you and fully understand where your coming from, I like you, think that if your not deceiving anyone about the identity of the vehicle, and it has not been 'radically altered' from how it left the factory then an MOT should suffice, with possibly a VIC check to ensure that the age and model on the V5 conforms to the vehicle and its parts. However, this is not what the DLVA rules state.

I agree totally, that if it's not harming anyone, then why prohibit the reshelling of cars... just some way of identifying those which have been reshelled to a prospective buyer somewhere down the line...

Oh... wait a mo... Dont they already do that.... you CAN reshel a car with an USED shell.... it then goes through an SVA test to make sure its road safe, and get a "Q" plate which signifies that it's a heinz 57

GET IN THE REAL WORLD GUYS !!!

Last post on this subject because you guys have dissapointed me, normally you both can be relied on to give good true answers, however you're both not prepared to listen to reason on this one.

In real life if you get a used shell with it's own identification including a V5C, put all the components from another vehicle (read same model) onto it it can then be taken down for an MOT to get it back on the road. Neither VOSA or DVLA will care where the parts come from. Again with the caveat that the V5C details are updated.

As to taking a car through SVA to make sure it's road safe is totally incorrect, you can take a car to SVA with bald tyres as long as they are of the correct rating, you can also take a car through SVA with knackered ball joints. The SVA does not test for road worthiness, they test that it complies with road vehicle legislation. You also both seem to have an obession with Q plates, vehicles are only put on Q plates when there is no other alternative, in this instance you have a V5C therefore no Q plate. Last vehicle I SVA'd, the only part I could identify to the DVLA i.e got a serial number on, was an engine, it was a 1985 engine which had been fitted into a 1987 Mini, the V5C reflected this. The 'new' car was put on a 'new' 1987 plate.

Please don't take the comments personally, but you are both interupting the law the way you are reading the web pages, you're puttig your own spin on them, you're also looking at theory & not practise. The webpages, which by the way are out of date as the DVLA no longer use the points system. I 'have' done these things, reshelled a vehicle, SVA'd a vehicle, all have been done with the help & sometimes hinderance of both the DVLA & VOSA who by the way are two totally different departments, they do not take each others word for anything. Which means just because VOSA say it will be okay DVLA may not take the same view.

Which brings me to my final point & back to Phil's (?) question. Yes you can get another shell, put NIBS's bits on it, take it for an MOT only & get it back on the road. Neither DVLA or VOSA will care as long as you do not try to pass off replacement shell as NIBS. If replacement shell is same age or newer than NIBS then you can have the plates transfered over as long as both cars are still taxed & tested, however if replacement shell is older you cannot.

In the words of Forrest Gump, that is all I have to say aboout that.

Alan..

[Guess-Works.com]

Phaeton, I don't think we're disagreeing...

If the donor has a v5c then I see no reason why the mechanics of NIBS could not be transferred across... you are basically rebuilding the donor, not NIBS.

The issue is, when the donor does not have a v5c, therefore is of undetermined source... at this point the car must go through an SVA... and I would expect ( as you say I have no experience of this, but reading the literature available to me ) this to be given a Q plate, if you have documentary evidence of the vehicles source then I assume that can be used... I'd like to understand, in your example, how you knew the shell was an '87.. you must have had some evidence for this ??

Here's an alternative

I have a vehicle, say a 2003 mondeo, which is involved in an accident... the insurance peeps are not informed as it would incur me more financial loss than the vehicles worth ( eg excess, and bumped insurance premiums for the next year ) and potentially would be written off by the insurance companies anyway... It is decided that instead of repairing this shell, it's easier and cheaper to buy a damaged repairable shell of the same vintage, but the vehicle is an insurance write off and DVLA notified that the car is scrapped ( so the identity of the vehicle is not available ). The 2003 mondeo is then rebuilt using the repaired shell and the contents of the original vehicle...

I can't use the identity of the original vehicle as the most defintely would be illegal...

As I'm not using the identity of the second vehicle, then there is no need for a VIC, or maybe there is but what do you check on ?

So I expect that vehicle to go through an SVA, but I would also expect the vehicle to be given a 'non dating' Q plate... if it were to be given an 03 plate, my question is, how would any prospective buyer of that vehicle know that it's been rebuilt from two accident damaged vehicles ?

Sorry Phil, but we've completely bolloxed up your post....

[Jammy]

I'm not going to add my 'interuptations' to this, save adding this quote from the aforementioned link:

Vehicles that have been rebuilt using a mix of new or used parts

In order to retain the original registration mark:

* cars and car-derived vans must use:

The original unmodified chassis or unaltered bodyshell (i.e. body and chassis as one unit - monocoque); or a new chassis or monocoque bodyshell of the same specification as the original supported by evidence from the dealer or manufacturer (e.g. receipt).

And two other major components from the original vehicle - ie suspension (front & back); steering assembly; axles (both); transmission or engine.

If a second-hand chassis or monocoque bodyshell is used, the vehicle must pass a an enhanced single vehicle approval (ESVA) or single vehicle approval (SVA) test after which a "Q" prefix registration number will be allocated.

* motorcycles must use:

Unmodified frame (original or new) and two other major components from the original vehicle; forks, wheels and engine or gear box.

If a second-hand frame is used the vehicle must pass a motorcycle single vehicle approval (MSVA) test after which a 'Q' prefix registration number will be allocated.

As long as you adhere to the above Phil, you can do whatever you like!

[minidan]

ok, lets say someone has a mini, strips it back to bare shell.

fits a flip front.
fits a Zcars tubular front subframe (but retains the a series engine)
fits a rear beam axle
fits coils over shocks.

SVA or MOT?

[Jammy]

Personally I'd say your radically altering the vehicle at this point and therefore would need an SVA.

[minidan]

exactly thats personal opinion. the thing is its so vauge as to wether cars need SVA tests.

im sure theres a hell of a lot of minis out there that 'should' be SVA'd but arnt.

if a rear engined Zcars mini can simply go for an MOT im sure the list of mods i mentioned above are not as radical as that...


"The original unmodified chassis or unaltered bodyshell (i.e. body and chassis as one unit - monocoque)"
if you take this statment litterally then any mini with a flipfront should be SVA'd

[Guess-Works.com]

An interpretation would be altering the silhouette of the vehicle.

[koss]

An interpretation would be altering the silhouette of the vehicle.

Exactly.

Or making it a 3 wheeler.

Just read the whole topic and the words sva are being used instead of VIC.

[Phaeton]

Phaeton, I don't think we're disagreeing...

If the donor has a v5c then I see no reason why the mechanics of NIBS could not be transferred across... you are basically rebuilding the donor, not NIBS.

Totally Agree

The issue is, when the donor does not have a v5c, therefore is of undetermined source... at this point the car must go through an SVA... and I would expect ( as you say I have no experience of this, but reading the literature available to me ) this to be given a Q plate, if you have documentary evidence of the vehicles source then I assume that can be used... I'd like to understand, in your example, how you knew the shell was an '87.. you must have had some evidence for this ??

There has to be some form of documentary eveidence of this, a V5C, a letter from a recognised body, owners club, manufacturer or the like

Here's an alternative

I have a vehicle, say a 2003 mondeo, which is involved in an accident... the insurance peeps are not informed as it would incur me more financial loss than the vehicles worth ( eg excess, and bumped insurance premiums for the next year ) and potentially would be written off by the insurance companies anyway... It is decided that instead of repairing this shell, it's easier and cheaper to buy a damaged repairable shell of the same vintage, but the vehicle is an insurance write off and DVLA notified that the car is scrapped ( so the identity of the vehicle is not available ). The 2003 mondeo is then rebuilt using the repaired shell and the contents of the original vehicle...

In this instance the the identity is still available as all vehicles after a certain date (I don't know this date) had to have vin numbers on the car in several places, normally under drivers seat, in slam? panel. So if you wanted to have this vehicle back on the road it would depend on what category it was written off as, Cat A you cannot use any of the parts, the shell should not be available as it should have been cushed as an entire unit. Cat B you cannot use the shell, you can only use parts from the vehicle, Cat C can go back on the road but must be inspected by VOSA via VIC and finally Cat D which can go back on the road after having a normal MOT. So in answer to the question depending on the write off category depends on what needs to happen to get it back on the road. It should adopt the registration of the replacement vehicle unless it has been reissued which is very rare. You will have to declare to your insurance company that it is a rebuilt Cat C/D but strangely enough if you are a consumer you do not have to reveal that to any prospective buyer if you decide to sell. You do however have to reveal this information if you are a trader.

I can't use the identity of the original vehicle as the most defintely would be illegal...

Agreed

As I'm not using the identity of the second vehicle, then there is no need for a VIC, or maybe there is but what do you check on ?

But you are or would have to, see above

So I expect that vehicle to go through an SVA, but I would also expect the vehicle to be given a 'non dating' Q plate... if it were to be given an 03 plate, my question is, how would any prospective buyer of that vehicle know that it's been rebuilt from two accident damaged vehicles ?

No SVA, possibly a VIC & at least an MOT, these will also stand even if the vehicle is under 3 years old. As to a prospective buyer see above & Caveat emptor

Sorry Phil, but we've completely bolloxed up your post....

We have, but Jammy's a good lad & sorted it.

Alan...

[Phaeton]

ok, lets say someone has a mini, strips it back to bare shell.

fits a flip front.
fits a Zcars tubular front subframe (but retains the a series engine)
fits a rear beam axle
fits coils over shocks.

SVA or MOT?

In my opinion it should be a SVA, however in reality all that is needed is a MOT, take this instance

ok, lets say someone has a mini, (V5C in there name) strips it back to bare shell.

fits a flip front.
fits a Zcars tubular front subframe removes engine & has radiator & petrol tank fitted
fits a rear tubular rear subframe housing a twin turbo charged R1/Busa/Blade engine
fits coils over shocks.

No one could say that was not radically changing the vehicel but it could get away with just having MOT to get it on the road.

The rules are a total farce written by people who have no idea of real life situations

Alan...
p.s. Not picking on Z Cars here, just using them as examples

[pete]

ok, lets say someone has a mini, strips it back to bare shell.

fits a flip front.
fits a Zcars tubular front subframe (but retains the a series engine)
fits a rear beam axle
fits coils over shocks.

SVA or MOT?

In my opinion it should be a SVA, however in reality all that is needed is a MOT, take this instance

ok, lets say someone has a mini, (V5C in there name) strips it back to bare shell.

fits a flip front.
fits a Zcars tubular front subframe removes engine & has radiator & petrol tank fitted
fits a rear tubular rear subframe housing a twin turbo charged R1/Busa/Blade engine
fits coils over shocks.

No one could say that was not radically changing the vehicel but it could get away with just having MOT to get it on the road.

The rules are a total farce written by people who have no idea of real life situations

Alan...
p.s. Not picking on Z Cars here, just using them as examples

Just to point out what a farce the rules are, I can take the minus i'm building for an SVA test without a horn and it will pass(there is nothing in the SVA inspection manual saying that a horn has to be fitted).I can then take it to the DVLA for an inspection and get it registered on a new '07' plate and wouldn't need an MOT for 3 years. The problem is that the first time I drive the car it would be deemed illegal as it has no horn and is therefore not roadworthy .

As for z-cars conversions I too started to feel that by the letter they should have an SVA test but when I spoke to my local SVA station about getting the minus tested I enquired about my old pickup. I showed them pictures and explained the conversion only to be told that whilst it was modified they would only recommend a normal MOT if the initial car was already registered and it's identity had not been changed.

It seems that the rules are interpreted differently from testing station to testing station and I wouldn't really worry about SVA's and VIC's unless you are altering the identity of a vehicle(ie. using a second hand shell) or building a kit car.

[biggav]

Its a balls up.

The building trade has gone the same way, regulating bodies for Gas/Electric/Oil/plumbing and heating installations make their own rules which contradict everyone elses and change the rules regularly to necessitate regular retraining and re-qualification.. these "rules" are worded so losely that they can be interpreted/misinterpreted however the individual sees fit and even if you follow guidlenes to the word, you can bet that it goes against what a different person would interpret or is the opposite of what a different governing body is saying.

When i built a house last year, A condition of planning permission was that 3 parking spaces were provided on the property and in place before occupation of the building began... no problem, until building control (located not only in the same council nor only in the same building, but in the same room as each other) insisted i build a permanant disabled access ramp built infront of the front door which meant loosing a parking space.. I had already had to install ridiculously large doors throuout the house even though there was no possible way that anyone could ever put a stairlift in because they also insisted on a soundproof ressiliant wall being built between the two houses, which was sound insulated and basically plasterboard floating 4 inches away from the solid wall behind!!!!

When the time came for our completion certificate, we had a letter from the planning office saying they would not allow it until the breach in planning conditions had been lifted (get rid of the ramp) and building control wouldn't sign off without the ramp.

It took 6 weeks for the 2 people who shared an office to sort it out.