latest dvla problem

[Runflat]

I can accept points that if a vehicle is not compliant then it shouldnt be registered... why I want it road registered is irrelevant...

 

Just because some pen pusher in the DVLA have decided they dont want to register MV's everyone has to accept that decision . Bullsh-t dvla cant just make the rules up as they go along.

 

At the risk of repeating points made by others, the DVLA are not making up the rules as they go along, they are applying the rules based on the advice they've recieved, which is quite reasonable. And it's a case specific decision, not one that applies to MVs/armour/tracked vehicles in general.

 

They would have to review the decision should further information come into their possession. Although it's disapointing they can't give you a full list of areas they may dispute, they do mention two Regulations in particular. If you can show they are wrong on those areas it may expose what other concerns they may have.

[Diana and Jackie]

If I was applying to get this vehicle road registered and they refused I would using the Freedom of Information Act ask them to confirm how many of the type of vehicle (being specific about the vehicle) were registered for use on the public highway.

 

When they gave an answer of more than one (and presuming they did) then their previous utterances become nonsense.

 

If you want to beat officialdon the best course of action is to use their crap against them.

 

Diana and Jackie

 

 

 

 

At the risk of repeating points made by others, the DVLA are not making up the rules as they go along, they are applying the rules based on the advice they've recieved, which is quite reasonable. And it's a case specific decision, not one that applies to MVs/armour/tracked vehicles in general.

 

They would have to review the decision should further information come into their possession. Although it's disapointing they can't give you a full list of areas they may dispute, they do mention two Regulations in particular. If you can show they are wrong on those areas it may expose what other concerns they may have.

[Runflat]

Of course it could just show that mistakes have been made in the past - entirely possible if the process is largely self-certified (I've no idea what the process is) or if the vehicle has features that are only marginally different to the regs.

 

At the moment no one is able to be categorical as to which side of the line the vehicle falls.

 

As an aside, how easy would it be to identify similar vehicles on their database?

[Diana and Jackie]

The DVLA being a government agency dont make mistakes...They are Purrfect.

 

Diana and Jackie

 

Of course it could just show that mistakes have been made in the past - entirely possible if the process is largely self-certified (I've no idea what the process is) or if the vehicle has features that are only marginally different to the regs.

 

At the moment no one is able to be categorical as to which side of the line the vehicle falls.

 

As an aside, how easy would it be to identify similar vehicles on their database?

[Marmite!!]

As far as I'm concerned, if the Army are allowed to drive these vehicles on the road then so should the public.

The Army also are allowed to fire missiles & drop bombs.. point is that what the army are allowed to do is totally irrelevant to road traffic laws, DVLA/VOSA/DfT regulations

a Commander and the vehicle is safe then what's the problem?

 

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the driver under civilian UK road laws in control of the vehicle? if you have an accident the liability (if any) is with the driver.. unless anyone knows different?

There are plenty of these already registered. If they are not prepared to register them then they shouldn't be selling them

 

Withams have already issued a statement (via email to a member of HMVF) that certain vehicles in their opinion are not sold or suitable for road use.. ask before you buy

 

If said member wishes to post a copy of the email then please do, it may make anyone considering buying a vehicle that they may not be able to register a certain type of vehicle think twice..

Edited October 20, 2010 by Marmite!!

[antarmike]

Withams have already issued a statement (via email to a member of HMVF) that certain vehicles in their opinion are not sold or suitable for road use.. ask before you buy

 

If said member wishes to post a copy of the email then please do, it may make anyone considering buying a vehicle that they may not be able to register a certain type of vehicle think twice..

Do you mean this e-mail.....

Quote"

Good Morning Mike,

 

Thank you for the e-mail.

 

That answers the question.

 

I would not advise a customer to use a (432-9) on the Public roads.

 

Customers who I have sold to in the past do have their own Land or ground to use the vehicle on.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further information or to make an appointment.Our opening hours are 08.30 am to 17.30 pm weekdays,Sat morning 8.30 am to 04.00 pm

 

Best Regards

Graham Hodson

Senior Sales

Tel:+44(0)1476861361

Fax:+44(0)1476861441

Mobile:+44(0)7955260102

Email: graham.hodson@mod-sales.com

Website: http://www.mod-sales.com

[antarmike]

What year did you say lights need approval markings? There are a lot of post 1986 (?) vehicles that still have the "Ruby" type light lenses and as far as I can remember these don't have approval marks on them.

 

 

if post 1986 then all lights and retro reflectors need approval mark or BS number.

[paulob1]

the DVLA is not the LAW, it may seem like it at times because they are socio politically charged without proper regulation and think they can generally do what they want, tinged with a bit of European legislation which most of Europe ignores but the UK implement with zealous abandon...

 

anyone who thinks that it is meant to be milimetrically exact falls into the exact same trap..nuts to believe that is how it is meant o be implemented.

 

2.55m is the maximum width...why, because if all vehicles were wider it cost billions to operate a wider road system especially when in road works etc etc, it would be impossible to manage the road system as is, okay I agree this is good sense to have a guide line, if the few hundred military vehicles that are on the road constitute any proportion of the 22 million car users and over 40 million registered vehicles that it is worth considering banning them off the road is ludicrous. We demand no more consideration other than the fact that they are vehicles they will be used for pleasure mostly and bring pleasure to many people in the UK,...that should be enough to relax the rules..full stop...no more need for justification. nothing to do with historic or the fact the army used them at all.

 

DVLA are not the LAW....and should not be trusted as they have no sense or perception or balance...they are not to be trusted with our roads...

[Jack]

the DVLA is not the LAW, it may seem like it at times because they are socio politically charged without proper regulation and think they can generally do what they want, tinged with a bit of European legislation which most of Europe ignores but the UK implement with zealous abandon...

 

anyone who thinks that it is meant to be milimetrically exact falls into the exact same trap..nuts to believe that is how it is meant o be implemented.

 

2.55m is the maximum width...why, because if all vehicles were wider it cost billions to operate a wider road system especially when in road works etc etc, it would be impossible to manage the road system as is, okay I agree this is good sense to have a guide line, if the few hundred military vehicles that are on the road constitute any proportion of the 22 million car users and over 40 million registered vehicles that it is worth considering banning them off the road is ludicrous. We demand no more consideration other than the fact that they are vehicles they will be used for pleasure mostly and bring pleasure to many people in the UK,...that should be enough to relax the rules..full stop...no more need for justification. nothing to do with historic or the fact the army used them at all.

 

DVLA are not the LAW....and should not be trusted as they have no sense or perception or balance...they are not to be trusted with our roads...

 

That is a great post and really underlines the fact that all we do in our culture is roll over all so quick without any thought at all. Our civil liberties have been slowly rapidly taken away from us all in the name of red tape. Not going anywhere near politics but we have to draw a line somewhere and 'fight'.

 

Conversations I have had in the past I have stated that we have no strong representation in this hobby at all to fight our corner.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Jack
added a fullstop

[ruxy]

Regulation is not the law. Regulation is made under an all embracing enabling act and signed off by a minister.

 

As it is not law - Regulation needs a test case in a court of law. Within regulations you will find definitions of certain words and yet other important words that should be defined are not so. Regulation is written by greek language students that are trained in law and how to write regulations such that the government agencies concerned , the police and members of the public do not understand the regulations. This iw the whole intention despite protestations of the Plain English Campaighn

 

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

 

There is a simple reason , they don't understand and they don't wish anybody to understand - that is until there is "Case Law" - the judge decides how the regulation should be interpreted such that it is read and understood how Parliament (the minister who signed it off) intended it to be read and understood - this is given in the summing up. Until then , no government body has a interpretation of a regulation that can be argued superior to that of a member of the public.

[Jack]

Regulation is not the law. Regulation is made under an all embracing enabling act and signed off by a minister.

 

As it is not law - Regulation needs a test case in a court of law. Within regulations you will find definitions of certain words and yet other important words that should be defined are not so. Regulation is written by greek language students that are trained in law and how to write regulations such that the government agencies concerned , the police and members of the public do not understand the regulations. This iw the whole intention despite protestations of the Plain English Campaighn

 

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

 

There is a simple reason , they don't understand and they don't wish anybody to understand - that is until there is "Case Law" - the judge decides how the regulation should be interpreted such that it is read and understood how Parliament (the minister who signed it off) intended it to be read and understood - this is given in the summing up. Until then , no government body has a interpretation of a regulation that can be argued superior to that of a member of the public.

 

Another great post and also the word to add here is Legalese * Legalese is an English term first used in 1914 for legal writing that is designed to be difficult for laymen to read and understand...

 

Anyone who follows John Harris will know what I am talking about

[TooTallMike]

Obviously driving a Challenger II would be out of the question, but a CVRT???

Why is it 'obvious' that a Challenger should not be registered? Most of the posts here seem to suggest there should be an exemption from C&U for overwidth hobby vehicles so why stop at permitting only the larger CVRTs?

 

People are straying from the two important points here:

 

1) Xtreme believes his vehicle is compliant with C&U. DVLA/VOSA have taken advice and disagree. The only way solution is to have it inspected by the relevant authorities. Their decision will be based on the freely available rules and regulations. If the owner disagrees with their findings he has the right to appeal.

 

2) DVLA have suggested that ex-military tracked vehicles should no longer be registered. This is the important point which must be addressed. As far as I know there is no legal standing for this point of view. Provided a vehicle can be registered within the existing legal framework they have no grounds for refusal. Please do not speculate about possible terrorist threats being the motivating factor - it is not for DVLA to decide Home Office policy. (Of course if this were found to have come from the Home Office that would be a different matter but there is no suggestion this is the case.) Remember once a civilian purchases an ex-military vehicle it becomes a civilian vehicle. Ok, so in the case of a CVRT it's a fairly big, heavy, civilian vehicle but nowhere on the logbook or any of the associated paperwork is it described as military or ex-military. There is no distinction in law between a civilian-owned CVRT and a road-going tracked dozer of similar dimensions.

 

- MG

[Adrian Barrell]

I'd like to think that if you had filled in your V55/5 correctly having stated the actual, over 2.55M wide dimensions and the DVLA took your money and registered the vehicle, then they would be liable for the charge of causing and permitting in the event of you being prosecuted for illegal use.......:nut:

[Runflat]

Well said Mike.

 

Regulation is not the law. Regulation is made under an all embracing enabling act and signed off by a minister.

 

As it is not law - Regulation needs a test case in a court of law. Within regulations you will find definitions of certain words and yet other important words that should be defined are not so. Regulation is written by greek language students that are trained in law and how to write regulations such that the government agencies concerned , the police and members of the public do not understand the regulations. This iw the whole intention despite protestations of the Plain English Campaighn

 

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

 

There is a simple reason , they don't understand and they don't wish anybody to understand - that is until there is "Case Law" - the judge decides how the regulation should be interpreted such that it is read and understood how Parliament (the minister who signed it off) intended it to be read and understood - this is given in the summing up. Until then , no government body has a interpretation of a regulation that can be argued superior to that of a member of the public.

 

Almost right. Statutory Instruments, otherwise known as secondary legislation, does form part of the law. SIs include 'orders' as well as 'regulations', and as you say are made under enabling provisions in the governing Act. They are normally made by the relevant Minister but sometimes they are devolved to the Permanent Secretary of the relevant department, such as the Treasury. C&U regs are made by the relevant Secretary of State (the Minister).

 

Acts set the broad framework of the law. SIs set out the detail.

 

SIs are subject to alternative scrutiny procedures by Parliament. In short, they either must be subject to debate and scrutiny, alternatively they are only examined if a member 'prays' against them. The procedure is set out in the governing Act.

 

All law - Acts and SIs - are open to interpretation. It is for Courts to state what the law is. The ruling of a lower Court can be overturned by a higher one. In short, nobody can be certain what the law is until the Supreme Court (previously the House of Lords) has delivered a judgment. But things rarely get that far and the judgment of a lower court is normally accepted. Indeed in some cases the law may be so plain that leave to appeal to a higher court is refused.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Runflat

[TooTallMike]

I'd like to think that if you had filled in your V55/5 correctly having stated the actual, over 2.55M wide dimensions and the DVLA took your money and registered the vehicle, then they would be liable for the charge of causing and permitting in the event of you being prosecuted for illegal use.......:nut:

Absolutely agreed. Provided the correct information has been submitted there should be a case to answer.

 

- MG

[andym]

People are straying from the two important points here:

 

1) Xtreme believes his vehicle is compliant with C&U. DVLA/VOSA have taken advice and disagree. The only way solution is to have it inspected by the relevant authorities. Their decision will be based on the freely available rules and regulations. If the owner disagrees with their findings he has the right to appeal.

 

2) DVLA have suggested that ex-military tracked vehicles should no longer be registered. This is the important point which must be addressed. As far as I know there is no legal standing for this point of view. Provided a vehicle can be registered within the existing legal framework they have no grounds for refusal. Please do not speculate about possible terrorist threats being the motivating factor - it is not for DVLA to decide Home Office policy. (Of course if this were found to have come from the Home Office that would be a different matter but there is no suggestion this is the case.) Remember once a civilian purchases an ex-military vehicle it becomes a civilian vehicle. Ok, so in the case of a CVRT it's a fairly big, heavy, civilian vehicle but nowhere on the logbook or any of the associated paperwork is it described as military or ex-military. There is no distinction in law between a civilian-owned CVRT and a road-going tracked dozer of similar dimensions.

 

- MG

 

I couldn't have said it better - The latter point is a particularly important issue. Can we please keep this discussion on-topic?

 

Andy

[paulob1]

time to fight back I think...

[Marmite!!]

I couldn't have said it better - The latter point is a particularly important issue. Can we please keep this discussion on-topic?

 

Andy

Has it gone off topic then??

[Marmite!!]

time to fight back I think...

May I suggest that anyone that is a member of MVT/IMPS write to their clubs with their concerns & get their clubs involved.

[antarmike]

What's the 6 way switch got to do with anything? They are perfectly legal without modification. You can't have the front lights on their own. It's tail, side and tail, headlight side and tail. Being able to have the tail lights on only comes in handy if you need to pull over in the dark.

 

The six way lighting switch has aproblem that is not found in cars and the like.

 

In a car if you turn on the sidelights, then the headlamps, the sidelights remain continuously illuminated. On the Six way military switch, when you change from front side lights to front and rear sidelights or from this position to headlights/ sidelights, the sidelights are switched off when the switch is in an intermediate position.

 

Maybe it is only a technicality, but unmodified I cannot park legally beside the road at night, since I will have my headlights on. By law I have to turn off my headlights when I park, but I have to keep my sidelights on. I cannot do this with the six way switch, since going from headlights and sidelights to sidelights only turns off the sidelights then turns them back on. That is not legal, and needs a switch change or a modification. The sidelights should be continuously illuminated when I switch of headlights.

[antarmike]

1) Xtreme believes his vehicle is compliant with C&U. DVLA/VOSA have taken advice and disagree. The only way solution is to have it inspected by the relevant authorities. Their decision will be based on the freely available rules and regulations. If the owner disagrees with their findings he has the right to appeal.

 

- MG

 

Xtreme may believe his vehicle complies with C and U, but does he believe it is compliant with Lighting regs. Would he like to go away and measure the distance from the outside of a headlight, to the extreme of bodywork on that side of the vehicle, and come back and tell us whether it is greater than 400mm or not.

 

Can he also look at all his other lights and reflectors and confirm all have an approval mark or a British Standards mark.

 

Then we will have a basis for deciding whether DVLA decision to refuse to register because it does not comply with lighting regs (one of two reasons stated) is a right decision or not.

Edited October 21, 2010 by antarmike

[Adrian Barrell]

but I have to keep my sidelights on. I cannot do this with the six way switch, since going from headlights and sidelights to sidelights only turns off the sidelights then turns them back on. That is not legal, and needs a switch change or a modification. The sidelights should be continuously illuminated when I switch of headlights.

 

What pedantic twaddle. The law requires that you park with sidelights on. Anybody who feels that sidelights going off for a fraction of a second before coming back on is illegal should perhaps stay indoors and leave the roads to those who are more pragmatic. :-)

[LoggyDriver]

The six way lighting switch has aproblem that is not found in cars and the like.

 

In a car if you turn on the sidelights, then the headlamps, the sidelights remain continuously illuminated. On the Six way military switch, when you change from front side lights to front and rear sidelights or from this position to headlights/ sidelights, the sidelights are switched off when the switch is in an intermediate position.

 

Maybe it is only a technicality, but unmodified I cannot park legally beside the road at night, since I will have my headlights on. By law I have to turn off my headlights when I park, but I have to keep my sidelights on. I cannot do this with the six way switch, since going from headlights and sidelights to sidelights only turns off the sidelights then turns them back on. That is not legal, and needs a switch change or a modification. The sidelights should be continuously illuminated when I switch of headlights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So are you saying that all vehicles fitted with a standard 6 way switch are on the roads illegaly? That's a hell of a lot of vehicles. When you operate the switch the lights go out for a split second. Unless you hold the switch between positions you can't notice this. I think hairs are being split here. Such zealous interpritation of the rules is exactly why this country has been flushed down the toilet.

[antarmike]

So are you saying that all vehicles fitted with a standard 6 way switch are on the roads illegaly? That's a hell of a lot of vehicles. When you operate the switch the lights go out for a split second. Unless you hold the switch between positions you can't notice this. I think hairs are being split here. Such zealous interpritation of the rules is exactly why this country has been flushed down the toilet.

 

Yes probably they are. I am not saying it is a problem, or anybody will ever care to do anything about it, but technically it does not agree with the regs. If a vehicle, whose compliance with C and U regs, and Lighting regs is questioned is put in for a voluntary inspection by VOSA ( as recommended elsewhere in this thread) , and it has one of these switches they may or may not choose to ignore it. You can expect in a voluntary test, VOSA, who will know that their decision will be taken as applicable to all similar vehicles ( in effect a test case for type approval) may choose to look at microscopic level. I am only pointing out what they could pick on , should they choose to.

 

The problem is real however since I have, in the past, had a vehicle fail an MOT. The fail sheet listed this as one of the fail items.

Edited October 21, 2010 by antarmike

[N.O.S.]

....The problem is real however since I have in the past had a vehicle failing a MOT. The fail sheet listied this as one of the fail items.

 

I didn't know Fred Dibnah ran an MOT test station :coffee: