MVT Contacts

[xtreme]

Been trying to register a cvrt stormer Thats within width at the manchester DVLA for the past 6 weeks . Anyway finally they are saying you can no longer register ANY tracked military vehicles . The answer I got from the manager was someone in the Manchester area has been trying to register a fv432 with no luck due to width ,they have kicked up such a fuss they have looked into it and they have made a mistake registering all tracked vehicles .

 

I am awaiting a letter from DVLA with the contact details of the person at dvla policy who has made this decision . I want to challenge this decision with the support of the MVT "which I am a member" But would like to know who is the best person to contact.

 

Although this dosent affect already registered vehicles it does affect any new vehicles to be registered and want to sort this before an internal memo is sent out to all dvla offices.

[airportable]

Width?? You should see the size and width of the agricultural tractors and kit on the roads round me. Starting to cause a bit of agro. Just a thought.

[antarmike]

Agricultural vehicles are allowed to exceed 2.55 width limit that applies to all vehicles except Locomotives and refrigerated vehicles and because they are a recognised defined class within "Special Types General Orders"

Edited September 25, 2010 by antarmike

[sirhc]

I'm sure the Stormer is wider than 2.55m, are they not around 2.7m?

[Meteor mark 4B]

I want to challenge this decision with the support of the MVT "which I am a member" But would like to know who is the best person to contact.

 

There's a list of the MVT committee in Windscreen mag, why not contact one of them?

[eddy8men]

hi dan

 

as this is something which is a major concern for all those with tracked armour throughout the country i would have thought it was something for the mvt top brass. it would probably be best to go via the local secretary/president for them to pass on as an urgent problem.

 

good luck

 

eddy

[antarmike]

I'm sure the Stormer is wider than 2.55m, are they not around 2.7m?

 

Wiki lists Stormer at 2.76m , it therefore exceeds 2.55 width limit for "any other vehicle" Neither does it fit any class of STGO vehicle.

 

If this width is correct, it does not comply with C and U regs, and then I would say that DLVA are perfectly correct to refuse to register this vehicle.

 

Personal Opinion, I know , but one that legal advice from DfT supports....(I can forward DfT's viewpoint on wide tracked vehicle to anyone who wants to see via PM's)

Edited September 25, 2010 by antarmike

[xtreme]

I'm sure the Stormer is wider than 2.55m, are they not around 2.7m?

 

 

2.50m with the side boxes removed

 

and that with dvla's tape measure I got it less with mine:cool2:

[antarmike]

Will the boxes be staying off after registration????

[xtreme]

Who are you the MP . lol made contact with Terry from the MVT awaiting a return call

[antarmike]

How comes your tape measure and DVLA's tape don't read the same??

[trustmeimamechanic]

No doubt depends on who is holding the end of the tape :cool2:

[andym]

It will be very interesting to see if this is really a DVLA/VOSA policy change or just someone's local opinion.

 

Andy

[steveo578]

andym

It will be very interesting to see if this is really a DVLA/VOSA policy change or just someone's local opinion.

The DLVA/VOSA is an outsourced department of government and some-one's local opinion cannot legally change policy. Such departments administer the law, it does not make law.

 

A change can only be effected by;-

 

a). A change of policy or law enacted by the Government/Parliament.

 

b). A review of current legislation by a Commisioner (who is an appointed judge, recorder or sometimes a senior Q.C.) who is legally qualified to interpret or re-interpret legislation but IMO it would be unlikely that such a circumstance would happen without some form of recourse to the opinion of interested parties -for example the MVT, as it is unlikely that a Commisioner would have sufficient personal knowledge of the various subjects put to him.

 

The system is not fool proof unfortunately -often commisioners rely on legal clerks- interns-recently qualified dogsbodies to sift out commonplace appeals and briefs, which can lead to a "rubberstamp" style of justice.

 

If a change in the administration of regulations was done without without recourse to a proper legal review- it could be challenged by a judical review.

 

Steve

[croc]

The law regarding overwidth tracked stuff has been the way it is for years. When not owned and opperated by the crown there does not seem to be a legal way of using ex military kit that fails to comply with construction and use regulations.

The fuss that has been made has probably helped raise awareness amongst the civil servants that process V5 applications that there are issues with wide ex military vehicles.

If something complies with the C+U regs there should be no problem with registering and using it, if it doesn't fit the regs then they are quite correct in refusing to register it. If something that is outside the rules does manage to get registered, the law is still being broken if it is used on the road.

[steveo578]

croc

The law regarding overwidth tracked stuff has been the way it is for years.

I don't actually think the point of this thread is the width question it is whether the Manchester office is correct in its interperation that "they made a mistake in registering all tracked vehicles" as xtreme wrote in Post #1

xtreme

The answer I got from the manager was someone in the Manchester area has been trying to register a fv432 with no luck due to width ,they have kicked up such a fuss they have looked into it and they have made a mistake registering all tracked vehicles .......Although this dosent affect already registered vehicles it does affect any new vehicles to be registered and want to sort this before an internal memo is sent out to all dvla offices.

and you are correct that if vehicles have been registered improperly then they are actually illegal for road use, the law doesn't allow any form of "phew I got away with that one".

 

Steve

[antarmike]

I don't actually think the point of this thread is the width question it is whether the Manchester office is correct in its interperation that "they made a mistake in registering all tracked vehicles" as xtreme wrote in Post #1

and you are correct that if vehicles have been registered improperly then they are actually illegal for road use, the law doesn't allow any form of "phew I got away with that one".

 

Steve

Been trying to register a cvrt stormer Thats "within width".....someone in the Manchester area has been trying to register a fv432 with no luck due to width ,

 

Clearly the original poster alludes to width. And width is the reason the FV432 owner had been refused registration at the same office just before this instance of a refusal...

 

I am struggling to think of much Tracked Armour that is under 2.55m Wide.

 

There are Bren Carriers/ universal carriers, but what else?

 

BV202 etc, Snow-Cat, are probably under the 2.55 width but they certainly aren't "armour"

 

Honey (Light tank M3) yes...Panzer I and Panzer II, Soviet T70, Hotchkiss H-39 Renault R-35, Vickers light Tank, SdKfz 265, Scorpion, Scimitar, Samson, AMX-13 are likely contenders for registration that should be allowed since under 2.55M wide

 

 

All too wide to comply with C and U and therefore should not be allowed to be registered includes Panzer III and Panzer IV Panther, Tigers, M24 Chaffee M3 Grant/ Lee M4 Sherman, T34, Crusader, Cromwell, Matalida, Valentine, Churchill, M48, Conqueror, Centurion, Chieftain, T54, T55, S tank, AMX-30, Cheiftain, M60, Sheridan, Sexton, Priest, Bishop, Abbott, Fv432 series, Stormer.

 

So yes there may be a problem about to happen for Scimitars, Samsons and Scorpions, and any carriers not already registered. I am not saying this is not a problem, but if this is a genuine change in policy relatively few will be affected. There cannot be many Scimitar, Sampson, Scorpion owners with unregistered vehicles, who plans to register them, and anyone who has not yet bought one really ought to get confirmation that it will be possible to register it before they buy.

 

But in reality most of the vehicles that should not be on the road because of their width are not affect by any change of policy because these never have complied with C and U and never should have been eligible for road registration.

 

And as others have said, the fact that some of these types have been road registered in the past does not nulify the fact that all vehicles used on the road must comply with C and U and or STGO rules. These don't. Being road registered does not allow their use on the road. DfT confirm this view.

Edited September 26, 2010 by antarmike

[Sean N]

When not owned and opperated by the crown there does not seem to be a legal way of using ex military kit that fails to comply with construction and use regulations.

 

There is - we used an M2 bridging rig - but only if it's legal to use it under some classification that's exempt C&U.

[antarmike]

There is - we used an M2 bridging rig - but only if it's legal to use it under some classification that's exempt C&U.

 

Steve (Croc) is keeping things simple. What he meant to say (I expect) is kit must comply with either C&U or STGO, but Steve probably didn't see the point in mentioning STGO since he is specifically talking about tracked armour, none of which (except maybe , just maybe the CET) fits an STGO category. No tracked armour can be used on the road via the STGO route, so STGO is irrelevant to this thread.

 

But seeing as you hint at STGO operation, I must point out that STGO rules not only describe the construction of abnormal width vehicles, but also lay down stringent conditions to the use of these vehicles.

 

For example if M2 bridging unit is classed as engineering plant, then it can only be used on the road to travel to or from a site where it actually carries out an engineering operation, or to carry out an engineering operation on the road itself, when that operation could not have been carried out by a vehicle that completely complies with C and U.

 

I cannot think of another STGO category into which M2 would happily fit. If M2 is "engineering Plant" then it cannot be driven to the pub, to a show, to a fund raising poppy event, it can only travel on the road to carry out an engineering operation.

 

For most practical purposes, the definitions of STGO categories, and the limitations placed on their use, means virtually no vehicle that was once military operated, but did not comply with C&U, can actually now be used within the STGO categories by the average Ex Military vehicle collector, in the sort of way they want to use them.

Edited September 26, 2010 by antarmike

[eddy8men]

just out of interest i measured a mk2 432 at withams to see if it would be within regs if the nbc pack and exhaust were moved, but the hull was still outside the regs at 2.57m. so 20mm still over width

 

sorry guys, i tried

 

eddy

[steveo578]

Hi eddy

 

The Abbot which had different NCB kit and exhaust pipe layout was always an over at 2.64m. Historically the CVRT series just grew fat it started off at 2.1metres to simplify air portabilty and alegedly to allow the afv to travel between rubber trees on plantations:nut: obviously the fat ar**d bu**ers at the MOD must have caused it to get wider.

 

Steve

[timbo]

I thought we weren't supposed to be talking about this ?!

[antarmike]

I thought we weren't supposed to be talking about this ?!

 

Thread relates to a possible change of policy by DVLA to the registration of all tracked military vehicles, irrespective of width issues. Surely that is a valid reason for talking round this subject, to try and work out the possible implications of such a change of policy.

[timbo]

Thread relates to a possible change of policy by DVLA to the registration of all tracked military vehicles, irrespective of width issues. Surely that is a valid reason for talking round this subject, to try and work out the possible implications of such a change of policy.

 

OK I see the point - when will we know the truth of this matter then ? This surely means then that it will be illegal for ALL ex mil tracked vehicles to be driven on the road, registered or not, since they will have been registered in error ?

[antarmike]

OK I see the point - when will we know the truth of this matter then ? This surely means then that it will be illegal for ALL ex mil tracked vehicles to be driven on the road, registered or not, since they will have been registered in error ?

 

If a vehicle does not comply with C and U it's use on the road, has always been, is now and ever will be, illegal.

 

Logic says tracked military vehicles, already registered, below 2.55m width that comply with C and U should remain legal, whether or not future policy forbids the registration of similar unregistered examples. (read the disclaimer in my signature!!)

 

Whether they do comply with C and U , lighting regs etc, would need lookinhg at on an individual basis.

 

Theoretically a Stuart (Honey) tank (to pick just one) may comply with C and U in terms of width but might not comply with regs in some other way, eg position of lamps, ( height, width in from edge of vehicle, and the like, wipers, required mirrors, etc. If it does not comply in any one aspect with C and U or lighting regs its use would be illegal.

 

(in the same way that use of a Ford Ka on the road with a blown stop lamp bulb is illegal)

 

(or the use of any vehicle that shows silly blue twat lamps to the front of a vehicle, is illegal because it does not comply with lighting regs)