Brutal decision from the DVLA

[Rusty Pelican]

https://www.hagerty.co.uk/articles/maintenance-and-gear/dvlas-dos-and-donts-the-risks-of-modifying-your-classic-car/?fbclid=IwAR1hC7RlY1TFb3F0QOAlVEke-PTyt0k4AgVSJftVxYzgHQIA3MIyqcd-HKQ#comment-40544

[bunglebus]

What a load of crap. Lots of cars have had resto work up to and including VIN plate rebuilds where's there's virtually none of the original vehicle left - yet drill a hole and it's game over and you can't even weld it up again, but if it had been rusted and welded there it would be ok?

Total, complete nonsense. No wonder people don't declare modifications 

[Bear]

This is one case where you could almost understand replacing the drilled panel, changing the colour, and buying a rusted out shell and logbook, purely because the source vehicle isn't being stolen to order and indeed, buying that solution keeps someone else from doing so. Then repeat process and say "I bought another car to reuse all my electrical bits".

[HMC]

I wonder if the decision could be appealed. It seems to be a bit of a miss application of the rules to my eyes. Still if you dogmatically apply them and the points add up far enough then technically it infringes them.

Bizarre as taking that strict definition  any car that has had welding to the monocoque however skilfully/ faithfully done is a modified car. Which to my eyes is a misinterpretation.
 

The DVLA and the insurance industry have differing views of this, or so it appears.

[Matty]

Why was he having the car inspected? I take it it was because he had made a significant change which requires updating the log book? So we aren't talking wheels, disc brake conversions, 5 speed box updates and so on.

I agree though that the hole, properly repaired would have no impact on the structural rigidity of the shell. And how the fuck do they square this with the MOT exemption? I would imagine there's 40 plus year old cars out there now in use which are structurally bolloxed but it's fine mate, MOT exempt innit. Utterly bonkers not to allow him to repair the hole!

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

Quote

Nick Mason of Eco Classics explains that the hole in question goes through the original 12-volt battery box in the Mini’s boot floor: “We came through the side of that with two cables, just to get just to get in the easy way. This is not structural, but we lost out anyway.”

The DVLA confirmed that reverting the chassis back to its original state would still be considered a modification from the original manufacturer’s specification, requiring the car to be re-registered.

The hole is drilled into the the battery box, a part of the monocoque available as an off the shelf replacement part because they are rust prone. I would be surprised if you found a Mini with its original. 

Something here is not fit for purpose, and it's not the car. 

#defundtheDVLA

[sierraman]

And replace it with what?

[Zelandeth]

What utter and complete nonsense.  How many of them even still have the original battery box at this age?!?

So every car that's had a welded repair to the monocoque is now radically altered?  Is that the angle they're trying to take?

[Tommyboy12]

The DVLA is a pain in the arse when it comes to modified cars. They refused to accept the engine swap in one of my minis because I couldn't provide an engineering letter that it was fitted properly.

I've basically completely reshelled the other from all the panel repairs it's had and they don't seem to care about that

[DirtyDaily]

This is one case where you could almost understand replacing the drilled panel, changing the colour, and buying a rusted out shell and logbook, purely because the source vehicle isn't being stolen to order and indeed, buying that solution keeps someone else from doing so. Then repeat process and say "I bought another car to reuse all my electrical bits".

I fear this is the only reasonable option.

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

2 hours ago, sierraman said:

And replace it with what?

A substantially smaller organisation that doesn't have the power to pull shit like this.  

[wuvvum]

Can't he just get @LightBulbFun to hack into the DVLA computer and issue it with a reg?

[Dave_Q]

Seems bizarre this and sounds like not quite the full story? 

Why has it had to go in for inspection? Has he pulled a scrapper from a field, which was off the database, and spent all that money on rebuilding and converting it before confirming it's possible to get a logbook?

Not blaming the guy at all but I would have thought getting a logbook was step one then once you've got the pointless yet all important thing in your hands go nuts with the leccy conversion etc and keep schtum.

[SiC]

The owner left a comment at the end that I suspect many have missed. Gives more context on how and why it happened.

Ed Keane

January 6, 2023 at 9:51 pm

That mini from your report was originally a 1960 mini. When the engine was changed to a motor the DVLA did not have an appropriate box to tick because they could not accept that a motor did not have recognisable cubic capacity. Thus they declared it a kit car!

Because it was a kit car they could apply kit car rules. They gleefully ‘discovered’ a drilled hole in the boot and so declared the chassis radically modified and so gave it zero out of 5 points. Thus justifying their deletion of the registration. Incredibly they refused to allow the hole to be welded up because the welding would have been subsequent to the drilling (no one knows how to weld up a hole before it exists but that is not their concern).

They ignored 3 letters from my MP, why? Because they can.

I am now forced to scrap a beautifully restored classic electric car because of a drilled hole.

You could not make this stuff up!

Keane

[Talbot]

I'm smelling some severe horseshit with this one.  I do wonder if there's something else amiss here and the DOOVLAY were using whatever rule they could find to prohibit the vehicle from the road.  An Engineer's report would have been able to confirm that a hole drilled in a battery box would not affect the monocoque structure.  Clearly they wanted to ban it from the road and were using whatever they could.

[LightBulbFun]

31 minutes ago, Dave_Q said:

Seems bizarre this and sounds like not quite the full story? 

Why has it had to go in for inspection? Has he pulled a scrapper from a field, which was off the database, and spent all that money on rebuilding and converting it before confirming it's possible to get a logbook?

Not blaming the guy at all but I would have thought getting a logbook was step one then once you've got the pointless yet all important thing in your hands go nuts with the leccy conversion etc and keep schtum.

I agree on this I definitely think theres more to it then what we are reading

at the same time I have a feeling this might be a classic case of happening to get the DVLA clerk that does not their head from their arse and it just so happens this time its gotten some publicity and has blown up! 

 

normally I would just suggest spinning the wheel again until you get someone sensible, but clearly it just blew up instead! 

but also again I would want to know the full story of whats actually going on, what was the starting point of the Mini's existing record etc

14 minutes ago, SiC said:

When the engine was changed to a motor the DVLA did not have an appropriate box to tick because they could not accept that a motor did not have recognisable cubic capacity. Thus they declared it a kit car!

this line has annoys me because thats just making a mountain out of a mole hill, an electric motor change is the same as any other  engine change

you Just put 0 cc and write the motor number in to the engine number field, change fuel type to electric, Job jobbed, 

its just like the same other electric vehicle out there! be it Tesla, Milk Float, or AC Model 64! 

I mean if you want to get proper about it, Not Available, is an applicable data entry for the cubic capacity field 

 

I have to ask why it even got to a DVLA inspection in the first place, a simple engine change would not normally trigger that they only do that if they think something funny is going on! so again gotta wonder what the guy actually said the DVLA when trying to register the engine change!

either he fucked something up and have spooked the DVLA (or again someone at the DVLA who does not know better has gotten spooked over nothing), or the DVLA rightfully have spotted shenanigans going on, and the guy's plan having been foiled is now bleating to the press about it!

 

TL;DR: *beep* More data required! *beep*

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

2 hours ago, Conrad D. Conelrad said:

A substantially smaller organisation that doesn't have the power to pull shit like this.  

I mean this too - my manifesto pledge would be to scrap VED (instead load it entirely onto the price of a new car), drastically simplify the driving licence entitlements and scrap the photo card too. Reduce the DVLA to a website where you update keeper details. 
 

[SiC]

They can request an inspection on anytime a modification is done and V5 changed. 

Probably a jobsworth DVLA officer and agency inspector. 

[Mally]

This is what they will have used in assessment.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/327425/response/797620/attach/2/INF26.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Personally I'd say it was radically altered. But the hole is neither here nor there.

[warch]

I suspect this is a case of classic car rules not tallying with developments in the retro mod car industry, especially those relating to electric conversions.  Electric car conversions weren’t really a thing when these rules were originally drawn up.
 

What is or isn’t a classic car is codified in the points system used. You can change the engine and transmission and still have enough points to retain a car’s classic status. Quibbling over fairly minor associated non structural changes to the shell seems heavy handed or not in the spirit of the regulations (important legal principle). 

[Dave_Q]

56 minutes ago, Mally said:

This is what they will have used in assessment.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/327425/response/797620/attach/2/INF26.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Personally I'd say it was radically altered. But the hole is neither here nor there.

So what has probably happened is:

• Man buys mini.
• Spends $$$$$ on a full resto and electric conversion
• Sends off to tell them its now electric
• DVLA want to inspect
• Refuse to give him his 5 points for the shell reportedly on the basis of this hole
• Must be Q plated and go through IVA
• Man kicks off claiming he will scrap it as it as it will cost £20,000* to get it through an IVA

It's a harsh deal to be denied the original reg on the basis of this hole but I also don't buy that its not feasible to get it an IVA and a Q plate, if you have spent that much on the original resto you're not going to scrap it, this is just an exercise in causing a fuss to try to get them to change their decision.

Nobody wins here, anyone reading this is less likely to try and do anything the "right" way, they are going to hit up ebay for a spears or reapres memorobilia logbook kit. 

Seems like they need to clarify the "second hand or altered monocoque" bit because I'd assume that drilling a hole in an original should be OK, as should any MOT standard seam welded repairs or replacement panels, but for a totally random example hacking out loads of the inner wings of a 60s Peugeot to accommodate a Golf engine and subframe should not.

[UltraWomble]

How it started...

How its going...

[sheffcortinacentre]

I always refer these things to the ford motor company escort  H1 FEV.

The MK1 escort!!!!!

You try to do that!

[Talbot]

12 minutes ago, Dave_Q said:

So what has probably happened is:

• Man buys mini.
• Spends $$$$$ on a full resto and electric conversion
• Sends off to tell them its now electric
• DVLA want to inspect
• Refuse to give him his 5 points for the shell reportedly on the basis of this hole
• Must be Q plated and go through IVA
• Man kicks off claiming he will scrap it as it as it will cost £20,000* to get it through an IV

Or:

• Man buys two or three minis.  Maybe has one with an identity.
• Man builds up a car from various parts, tries to use the identity of one of the vehicles.  Which hasn't been road registered in many years.
• DVLA asks to inspect the car to ensure it is what he says it is, given how long it's been.
• Man knows that the age of the V5 he has and the Mini he has built bear no resemblance to each other
• Man kicks off being a complete arsehole.
• DVLA thinks "fuck you" and finds a way to be as difficult as possible.  And succeeds.
• Man takes to the internet to have a big winge.

Possibly.

[Dave_Q]

Yeah mine is the most generous explanation and takes everything stated in the article at face value. 

I agree that the stated basis for the shell to be denied the 5 points for the original ID doesn't seem to be in line with most people's understanding of the rules so either DVLA have gone nuts on this one or the man / his electric converter is being selective with what is released to the media.

The place (eco.classics) does have an instagram and a website but there are no pictures or specifics about this car on there that I can find.

[Kiltox]

A guy on Pistonheads was warning about this not so long ago. Might even be the same car?

[Matty]

Just now, Talbot said:

I'm smelling some severe horseshit with this one.  I do wonder if there's something else amiss here and the DOOVLAY were using whatever rule they could find to prohibit the vehicle from the road.  An Engineer's report would have been able to confirm that a hole drilled in a battery box would not affect the monocoque structure.  Clearly they wanted to ban it from the road and were using whatever they could.

That's exactly what I was on about. Something smells fishy that they would throw the full job out for something that any engineer would dismiss. And if its such a problem, a proper structurally sound repair to remove the hole that was cut would restore any supposed structural rigidity. I would hazard a guess that the full tale isn't being told

[GrumpiusMaximus]

38 minutes ago, Talbot said:

Or:

• Man buys two or three minis.  Maybe has one with an identity.
• Man builds up a car from various parts, tries to use the identity of one of the vehicles.  Which hasn't been road registered in many years.
• DVLA asks to inspect the car to ensure it is what he says it is, given how long it's been.
• Man knows that the age of the V5 he has and the Mini he has built bear no resemblance to each other
• Man kicks off being a complete arsehole.
• DVLA thinks "fuck you" and finds a way to be as difficult as possible.  And succeeds.
• Man takes to the internet to have a big winge.

Possibly.

I'm going with this...

[mk2_craig]

2 hours ago, Talbot said:

I'm smelling some severe horseshit with this one. 

Word. Bloke has a 1960 Mini, it’s tax and MOT exempt. Why the fuck is he poking the hornets nest at all? Keep quiet and DVLA would have never got involved. 

[New POD]

5 hours ago, mk2_craig said:

Word. Bloke has a 1960 Mini, it’s tax and MOT exempt. Why the fuck is he poking the hornets nest at all? Keep quiet and DVLA would have never got involved. 

You need to declare all mods to his insurance company.  Maybe they suggested that he needed to update the c.c. On the V5. 😂