TooTallMike

Hi all, For your information I submitted a request for clarification to DfT regarding the term "reasonably available" and eventually received the following in reply: "[MG question] 1. Can you please define what “reasonably available” means in relation to the following context “changes that are made to preserve a vehicle, which in all cases must be when original type parts are no longer reasonably available” [DfT response] In respect to your first question, some thought was given at the time the guidance was drafted as to whether “reasonably available” should be defined. It was decided that as what “reasonably available” meant would vary in relation to every part for every vehicle model type, that a strict definition of the term would not be helpful. Individual vehicle owners are best placed in each instance to determine what “reasonably available” means in relation to their particular circumstances." Make of that what you will! I do not propose to poke this particular anthill any further. - MG

There's already a huge thread on this subject: MG -

Hi, I don't know where in the world you are but if you're in the UK any engine change other than a like-for-like replacement may mean the truck will require an annual test from May 2018. Regards - MG

You'd be better off fitting halogens. You can buy a replacement lens which then takes a modern bulb. The beam pattern is correct and there is no legality issue. As and when the bulb blows you can get a new one from your local motor factors. All our WW2 trucks have them and it is a standard conversion for my customers' trucks. - MG

Yes. It is part of the process for all 'first registrations' regardless of their geographical origin. Call HMRC and explain the history. They will issue you with a NOVA number but there will be no requirement to pay any duty. It will go on their system against the chassis number. To speed up the process you should quote it to DVLA in your covering letter with the V55/5 but DVLA can look it up for themselves. - MG

In that case you should be fine. There ought to be enough supporting documentation for a Mat that the inspection would be unnecessary anyway. Try to get hold of build cards etc. to use as supporting evidence. I don't know what is available for these particular vehicles but others on here will be able to guide you. Regards - MG

Hi, Just as an FYI, silicone hoses are available in every colour you could possibly want. We use them as standard on all our older vehicles for reliability and longevity. Black silicone hose can be made to look very similar to rubber by rubbing with dust, mud, talc etc. to take away the shine. (I fully understand your desire for authenticity but someone else reading this may be interested). This is my preferred UK supplier but there are others: http://www.autosiliconehoses.com/ Please note that silicone is not recommended for oil/fuel applications as they will delaminate. Regards - MG

Yes, it's now part of DVLA's procedure. He just needs to call HMRC, explain the back story and they will issue a zero-rate NOVA number which will reference the vehicle's chassis number. DVLA will then cross-reference this to allow the new registration application to proceed. Personally I would not tell them it was a previously registered vehicle as it will just confuse matters. Just proceed as though it is a newly-found vehicle with no known history. Mike - do not try to rush the process. It will take time and it will be frustrating. One application we did last year took 6 months and 4 rejections. Another took 3 weeks and 1 rejection. The previous year one took 1 week total! You need to get all the paperwork in order before you start including NOVA, V55/5 (only fill in the relevant bits), IMPS/MVT verification letter and supporting documentation. If DVLA are unhappy with any element of your application they may decide to have the vehicle inspected. This is done at their expense by a third party company called SGS. We had one of these inspections on a stale-mated application last year after which the registration was completed within 2 weeks. The important thing is they cannot inspect a pile of parts. It has to be a recognisable and more or less complete vehicle. The missing engine/gearbox shouldn't be an issue although if you can have your replacements sitting on the floor alongside it would probably help! Feel free to PM me if you want any assistance with the application. Regards - Mike

Sorry, but you are very unlikely to be able to recover the old number if it has been declared scrapped. It can't hurt to call and ask though. However there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to register it with a new number. You will have to go through the normal registration process which can be dispiriting but you just have to persevere. Remember you will need a NOVA number and dating letter from IMPS or MVT before making your application. Regards - MG

I hadn't read it that way so no problem :-) - MG

Hi, For vehicles over 3500kg it is on the back of the V112G form. This is the form used to self-declare exemption from plating and testing. "33. Motor vehicles first used before 1 January 1960, used unladen and not drawing a laden trailer, and trailers manufactured before 1 January 1960 and used unladen." Search the forum as there has been lots of discussion on this subject over the years including a lot of speculation as to how far one could stretch an interpretation of the term 'laden'. The rules are intended to prevent test-exempt vehicles being used for commercial purposes so a certain amount of common sense can be applied. The consensus has generally been that 'on-vehicle materiel' such as tools, recovery equipment, permanently fitted equipment etc. are ok, as is personal kit such as camping gear, clothing, food etc. As Degsy says, this has not to anyone's knowledge ever been tested in court. - MG

If you're in the UK be aware that although it is currently MoT exempt, as of March next year it will require an MoT due to the non-original engine. - MG

Indeed. In ticking the box we will be making a legally binding statutory declaration. Therefore the guidance as to whether it is correct to tick the box or otherwise should be watertight. - MG

It is not clear what any of it refers to. The whole thing is badly written, deliberately vague and contradictory. And of course the first part of the document is only 'guidance', while the second half is 'draft advice (not part of the draft guidance)' whatever those may mean in legal speak? I expect it means the authors accept no responsibility for any decisions taken based on the contents of the document. Note that the document has no title page, no proper heading, no date, no indication of its authorship or origin, etc etc. Hardly what we should expect from an official document. - MG

This is the point I tried get across in my reply to the consultation. It is easy for any car to go to any MoT station. Some places will be more 'sympathetic' than others but it should be possible to find one reasonably locally that will accommodate even the most unusual hotrod etc. However commercial testing stations are almost exclusively set up for commercial operators of standard vehicles. They don't even like things like horse boxes because they get in the way of the more routine work. I used my WLF to take a trailer for test about 8 years ago and casually asked what it would take the get the truck tested. They said 'not a chance'. The other problem may be in convincing them that we want full plating and testing and not just a voluntary test. I have no particular objection to testing my trucks, and it may even have some advantages such as being able to run laden, but I am concerned about the feasibility. The big concern about incorrectly self-declaring, whether intentionally or otherwise is what happens when you find yourself up in court and have to defend the self-declaration. If the court decides a vehicle should have been tested when it wasn't it is likely your insurance will be invalid with all the misery that could entail. I hate the fact that it always returns to that worst-case scenario but... - MG

Quote: "The following are considered acceptable (not substantial) changes if they fall into these specific categories:  changes that are made to preserve a vehicle, which in all cases must be when original type parts are no longer reasonably available;" - this clause needs to be clarified but may result in some older trucks with modern engines remaining exempt from testing if the engines are no longer available. I wonder if this ought to be registered with DVSA in some way so they have it on record? - MG

Well that outcome was announced in a fanfare of silence then! I think a lot of people will self-declare their vehicles as being un-modified even when they are. On the bright side a tested vehicle can legally carry a load and tow a laden trailer. Might need to be taxed as PHGV though? - MG

Mark, Have a read of the last few pages of this thread: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?16828-MOT-Testing-Exemptions-Consultation-VERY-IMPORTANT/page55 It is very ambiguous as to how it relates to vehicles over 3.5t. - MG

As the title says. Looking for a complete banjo axle CCKW chassis as a parts donor. Anything considered. Bodywork unimportant. Anywhere in UK or Europe. pm, Faceache message or call me on 07747 772838 Thanks - Mike

I have not been able to find any factual mention of it anywhere until this guidance doc. I don't recall any mention of it in the original proposal. The 8-point system has been used by the DVLA since 1988(?) to determine whether a vehicle is merely modified or whether it has been radically altered. Tens of thousands of people across the country have used these guidelines as a basis for changes to their vehicles which were entirely within the law, and yet suddenly the goalposts may be moved and applied retrospectively. This is about modifications to existing engines as well as conversions. Anyone with so much as a weber carb on a L-R 2.25l should be concerned as this will affect you! - MG

I'm sorry, I had read one of your and one of Neil's earlier messages as suggesting that the 15% increase guff was already used by DVLA to assess the status of radically altered vehicles for the purpose of determining whether they should have q plates. I also read this on several other forums but all un-substantiated. Where has this element of the DfT/VOSA proposal come from then? - MG

I've been trawling the net for 3 hours now trying to find any factual reference to the 15% power/weight ratio increase voiding the 8-point registration system but I can only find anecdotal evidence. Could someone please direct me to the primary legislation or guidance notes that covers this? - MG

I am in the process of composing my email response to the proposals and would urge others to do the same. I do not see how the 15% increase in power/weight ratio can be enforced as it is almost impossible to calculate. There is no way of knowing the true hp output of any engine without a dyno test. Even from the factory an engine is unlikely to equal the manufacturer’s stated power output. Once it has been used/rebuilt/modified the output is anyone’s guess. To take an example, the Cummins ‘B’ series range of 6-cylinder 12-valve diesel engines built from 1984-1998 has versions starting at 110hp going up to 1000+hp in custom applications. There are literally thousands of combinations of injection pumps, injectors, turbos and other internal and external components that all have a different effect on the power output. It would take an astoundingly skilled expert to accurately calculate this output on paper, and even then this would likely have to be confirmed by a dyno test. Therefore it is not reasonable or practicable to expect every owner to be able to correctly declare whether their vehicle falls above or below the +15% threshold. The 8-point system seems more than adequate to cover the extent of vehicle modifications given the small numbers of vehicles likely to be affected. - MG

Looks like breakdown vehicle is to cease being a test exempt class as of May 2018. Not found any mention of heavy locomotives. - MG