How in the name of Jehova* do they get away with it?

[UltraWomble]

Following a Landy home this evening and I thought, thats clearly not a Series shorty - coil sprung, space for fog lamp (blanked off) wide arches and so on...

 

J plate (suffix), so I ran the plate and lo and behold its a 1971 according to Doovlay.

 

My question is HOW THE RUBBERY BUGGERY FUCK does no one notice this blatant ring-a-ding-a-dinging come MOT time?

 

 

*Other minor deities are available.

[brickwall]

Many aren't and getting buggered by the police. Some are getting grassed up by other LR owners who play by the rules.

[fordperv]

It's not just the landie boys who are on it, the mini lot are just as bad, I suppose it's all whether the tester/police know what he/she is looking at

[cros]

The must-have mod for series two owners seems to be series 3 door hinges....

[oldford]

Providing that it's got a visible VIN and registration plates, that's all that it needs to satisfy the MOT requirements.  In theory you can whack any old registration on a car come MOT time, the tester has to test the vehicle as it's presented and if there's no record of that VIN/registration combination then he'll just create a new record.

 

A MOT is not about vehicle identity, it's about ensuring that testable items meet a minimum standard.

[Timewaster]

It's not just the landie boys who are on it, the mini lot are just as bad, I suppose it's all whether the tester/police know what he/she is looking at

Is much easier to disguise the age of a mini as they were all basically the same but S1 Landies and defenders are chalk and cheese underneath.

[MrDuke]

 the tester has to test the vehicle as it's presented and if there's no record of that VIN/registration combination then he'll just create a new record.

 

Surely removing that option would be a good start? Swansea's incompetence aside, is there any valid reason why a genuine VIN/reg combination wouldn't be on the system?

[chaseracer]

OUCH.

 

[panhard65]

I think there will be a lot of these getting caught out sooner rather than later. The DVLA have started to clamp down on the Bugatti owners club over incorrectly registered cars so it won't take them long to start looking at a lot of the re-bodied or engineered classics. Some of them are taking the piss with bespoke chassis and modern engines just using an old bodyshell for an identity. There are some conversions for coil springs on landies which are legal but most of them are ringers

[Guest Lord Sward]

The first time I came across this was on a MAXI.  Yes, somebody went to the effort to ring a Maxi for the sake of £150 per year.

[Bren]

I expect things will get worse once production stops and scene tax really kicks in.

[New POD]

Is much easier to disguise the age of a mini as they were all basically the same but S1 Landies and defenders are chalk and cheese underneath.

the MINI Anoraks know the differences. Lots of differences in later shells, if you know where to look.

[Timewaster]

True POD. I was once one of the anoraks of which you speak but as a mk3 can be old enough to be tax exempt now the floodgates are well and truly open.

 

Do you think most mot testers actually give a shit even if they did notice?

[twosmoke300]

It's not a testers job !

[scruff]

The must-have mod for series two owners seems to be series 3 door hinges....

 

"Rebuilt with series 3 bulkhead and front end"

[Lacquer Peel]

It's a lot of effort and potential dodginess to save £230 a year.

 

Land Rovers are a weird one, how many of them have their original chassis, bulkhead, engine and drivetrain? Should a lot of them be on a 'Q' reg?

[Tamworthbay]

There's a little bit of software in each Land Rover which makes the inspectors think it's 30 years older than it actually is...

yup, it's called the driver

[John F]

The particular grey area with Land Rovers is that some conversions were apparently done before the 'new rules' came in.

 

That being said, it's well known within Landy circles that anyone with a pre-1973 Land Rover on coils is certainly running the risk of attracting the attention of VOSA.

 

This explains the matter very succinctly: http://www.glencoyne.co.uk/vosalaw.htm

[mouseflakes]

The first time I came across this was on a MAXI.  Yes, somebody went to the effort to ring a Maxi for the sake of £150 per year.

 

This is what I don't understand. Maybe these OLLI types just like to 'stick it to da man' at any cost?

[Cavcraft]

When they've finished with them, I hope they start knocking on the doors of 'genuine Mexico tags and log book' types. There must be nearly as many 1.1 Escorts with wide wheels and stickers fitted as bent Land Rovers.

[Albert Ross]

Not an MOT issue. Test what is presented to see if it's working and fitted correctly. Separate chassis vehicles: The body counts for nothing on the identity. Engines from 1956--1990 will bolt in and out without modification, relative to the vehicle type. Same with gearboxes. Not really an issue for identity., but 1948-85 units interchange with a few little mods on the early ones.  It's the coli spring issue for tax free status that's the problem. Some Range Rovers were genuinely tax free. An early conversion is entirely legal and above board. Same goes for stuff converted until the late 1990s. Look at "Arrow Services" that offered a coil sprung LR Series chassis and axles.... with engine mounts made to suit what you had in there or were planning. I know of an A plated 88" with 90 bodywork, a Toyota B engine, a later 5 speed box, and RR axles. All entirely legal as it was done years ago. As regards a VIN and reg check.. no VIN is required to be visible on a pre 1979 vehicle anyway.. that, and the 17 digit VIN wasn't required until that year or near enough. I've never built one for me, but had my hand in building many for other people, 25-30 years ago.

[outlaw118]

[hauserplenty]

...ALWAYS ONE, ISN'T THERE??

 

(You beat me to it!)

[chaseracer]

Hypothetically, how would this affect a 2CV or derivative rebuilt (pre-SVA, obvs...) using a new but non-Citroen galvanised chassis?

[Taff]

The hot rod crowd have been doing it for years, some of them get a proper shitty-on when you point out that their grp-bodied, box-sectioned chassised, pinto-engined creation with a 1965 Popular log book ISNT a ’32 Model B Ford…

[John F]

chaseracer, on 29 Sept 2015 - 2:52 PM, said:

Hypothetically, how would this affect a 2CV or derivative rebuilt (pre-SVA, obvs...) using a new but non-Citroen galvanised chassis?

 

Chassis can be replaced on a like-for-like basis, regardless of manufacturer. There are dozens of suppliers offering new galvanised chassis for LRs.

[oldcars]

OUCH.

 

Mot at Halfords anyone??

[John F]

^ WTF is going on with that yank's mouth at 2:38?? Would have been better for him if his parents hadn't been so closely related, methinks...

[purplebargeken]

Shame they had to smash it, they should have broken it for parts and made some cash perhaps. Just a thought. 

[Lacquer Peel]

It was an illegal grey import with the ID of an older model to circumvent US import restrictions, and they are obviously making an example.

 

Their rules are daft but they are just doing their job.