DVLA CfE Response

Summary of the HCVA position

The Historic and Classic Vehicles Alliance (HCVA) is dedicated to the preservation of our Historic automotive heritage, and represents the industry that maintains and supports it.

The DVLA administers the United Kingdom’s vehicle registration system, introduced in 1903, which is the envy of automotive enthusiasts and historians worldwide. The application of a permanent registration number to a vehicle makes the history of that vehicle more tangible, and forms an important part of British Historic vehicles’ history files. DVLA has sole responsibility for the curation of vehicle records.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) oversees (among other things) the technical suitability of vehicles for their intended use. For Historic vehicles, interaction with DVSA normally occurs only if a vehicle has been substantially modified, with day-to-day responsibility for determining roadworthiness delegated to the vehicle owner. DVSA has sole responsibility for the determination of roadworthiness standards.

We are keen to preserve Historic vehicles, but also recognise that over a one hundred-plus year life, vehicles will be repaired, modified, and improved. As part of a continuous vehicle history, such modifications should be assumed to form part of that vehicle’s historic identity rather than erasing it, and should be accommodated within the Historic vehicle registration regime. This viewpoint is consistent with those applied to Historic Buildings, oil paintings or even Stradivarius violins: modifications such as internal plumbing do not mean an Elizabethan building suddenly becomes something else, and a larger fingerboard on a Stradivarius to accommodate modern hands does not make it a replica. The same approach should be applied to Historic Vehicles: the presumption should be that the identity remains intact, with the modifications recorded appropriately on the vehicle registration records. The United Kingdom has a long and important history of improving cars, which stretches back to the dawn of motoring in this country, and upon which today’s thriving Historic vehicle industry is built.

Of course, it is also possible for a vehicle to have a claim to Historic status without having a current DVLA record: It might be imported, or built up from historical parts from different sources, or simply have been in storage for many years. We are proposing that, where appropriate, these vehicles should be physically assessed by experts appointed by a stakeholder group based on the existing Historic Vehicle User Group (HVUG) membership, which includes DVLA and DVSA, with adjudication of its identity made by the stakeholder group in light of supporting evidence and a physical inspection. The same stakeholder group should adjudicate cases where a pre-existing Historic vehicle status is in question, or when two or more vehicles claim the same Historic identity.

Our detailed response calls for simplification of Historic vehicle categories and a realignment of DVLA’s activities so that they more closely align with its statutory duties.

The increased use of external expertise, together with the simplification and clarification of rules that we propose in our detailed response to the Call for Evidence, will reduce DVLA workload, help to avoid counterproductive and expensive legal actions and remove uncertainty around vehicle restoration that currently hinders UK specialist industry.

Introduction and explanatory notes

The Historic and Classic Vehicles Alliance (HCVA) represents the industry behind the hobby of Historic Vehicle preservation and use, 98% of whose members are based in the United Kingdom, representing OEMs, parts manufacturers, restorers, maintainers and service providers. Collectively the sector employs over 110,000 people, mostly in skilled roles, and contributes about £18 Billion to British GDP annually. The HCVA is a founding member of the Historic Vehicle User Group (HVUG), a stakeholder group convened by the DVLA to address and resolve issues encountered in the sector. We welcome the Call for Evidence (CfE), and support the DfT’s initiative to improve the curation of the identity records of Historic vehicles. We hope this document represents the beginning of a new period of trust and collaboration with the Historic Vehicle sector which will in turn enable the United Kingdom to retain its place at the heart of the world’s historic vehicle industry.

The questions asked in the Call for Evidence are highly relevant to the future of the sector, but there are some important omissions and clarifications which should be addressed at the same time as the responses to the CfE itself, as follows:

Anonymity

In providing answers to specific questions asked in the CfE, specific cases have been anonymised (Car 1, Car 2, etc) in order to protect the identity of owners and their vehicles which otherwise would be published in our response. Cross-references to the specific identity of the vehicles is provided in a separate confidential document to the DVLA so that they can validate their veracity.

DVLA collaborations

In our experience as consumers of DVLA services and as a member of the HVUG, it is apparent that the DVLA does not make sufficient use of external expertise when making resolution decisions on specific cases. Our sincere belief is that the decision process would be enhanced by much closer involvement with the following groups:

DVSA. Many decisions around changes made and enhancements within the purview of the DVSA appear to be made unilaterally by the DVLA. In the case of Car 1, a small hole drilled into the boot floor of the monocoque was found by the DVLA to void the Historic identity of the vehicle. The owner was forbidden by the DVLA from even repairing the hole by welding and retaining the identity of the car. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the hole itself, these are DVSA decisions, and the two agencies should be working closely together in order to leverage the skills within each Agency, and recognise the structural integrity of certain repairs. Communications made by one Agency are sometimes not even copied to the other, which in turn leads to greater confusion (see VOSA letter at Appendix 2)

Industry. There is another significant pool of expertise within the Historic vehicle industry, represented by the HCVA, which is also keen to be involved in identity decisions.

Owners’ Clubs. The owners’ clubs represent a significant pool of marque knowledge. There are hundreds of active clubs in the UK, and their expertise should be called upon to validate identities more frequently so that the employment of non-expert consultants can be minimised.

The above list closely resembles the format of the HVUG, and our belief is that the HVUG should be reconstituted with a formal identity adjudication role so that difficult cases can be analysed by all stakeholders in a transparent and fair manner. By involving all stakeholders in a round-table format, the chances of any one group being able to ‘game’ the process would be greatly reduced.

DVLA Structure

There is no dedicated Historic vehicle expertise within DVLA, and as a result the Kits and Rebuilds department operates in an inconsistent manner. DVLA should establish a dedicated Historic vehicles section which would work closely with the HVUG and its stakeholder working groups as necessary to deal with policy and implementation fairly and transparently.

DVLA internal processes

DVLA processes are highly variable in quality and timescale. At present, the quality and speed of the DVLA response is largely determined by the individual assigned to the case. In the absence of a DVLA policy, too much latitude is introduced for DVLA staff’s individual interpretation of the application of rules. These variations on decision responses themselves and the timescale of those responses have serious ramifications for the Historic vehicle industry.  

Cars awaiting conclusion of DVLA processes – often taking several months or even years – mean that a business cannot conclude their commercial commitment to their customer, and as a result cashflow is severely impacted. This is an existential threat to the industry employing over 110,000 people, and needs to be addressed as a matter of National economic importance. Car 2 was presented with an instruction to be inspected, and VED application was blocked in the meantime.

Despite a completely supportive inspection, and another letter from a marque expert fully validating the genuine identity of the car, it has taken two years at the time of writing for DVLA to acknowledge the validity of the car’s identity, during which time the owner has been unable to use their car. Demoralised, they are now looking to sell the car, but that is also impossible without confirmation of the vehicle’s identity.

DVLA Vehicle Inspection processes

The standards applied to the recruitment of personnel appointed to be vehicle inspectors by DVLA via their appointed contractor is undefined, and unsurprisingly leads to inconsistent and incorrect decisions, which have a massive impact on the status and ongoing usability of a Historic vehicle. The standards for such personnel need to be defined and applied, probably with involvement of the Historic vehicle industry we represent. Where necessary, inspectors need to be allowed and encouraged to use external marque expertise to provide specialist input beyond the expectations of their basic technical competence.

DVLA Appeals processes

In the absence of published and transparent policies, the DVLA is prone to act without apparent justification and remove established identities without any means of question or appeal by the owner/keeper. The suggested means of appeal within the DVLA are illusory with scant if any evidence of the DVLA providing reasoned justifications of its decisions or changing its decisions. Recourse to the DfT’s complaints procedure sees appeals upheld by the DfT’s independent assessor, only to have those findings ignored by the DVLA. Further recourse to the Parliamentary Ombudsman sees appeals upheld, but in circumstances where the DVLA is in a position to ignore those findings. And experience shows that for those wealthy, speedy and well advised enough to do so, an ultimate challenge to the courts and judicial review has the prospect of the DVLA conceding at the 11th hour at considerable cost to the applicant and the taxpayer. Car 3 is one example of every aspect of the failed appeals system.

An independent, arms-length body should be established to conduct a transparent and professional appeals process by reference to published policies within the context of the DVLA’s statutory functions.

Legal Recourse

The dysfunctionality of existing processes forces some owners to seek redress through the courts. The owner of Car 4 and Car 5 followed this course of action, and was finally successful in retaining the original registrations, but at enormous cost to the owner and the state.

Definitions

Several terms routinely used by DVLA are interpreted by the Agency in a different way to common usage, and lead to incorrect treatment of vehicles and their registrations. Many are addressed in the body of our response.

Historic and Classic vehicles

3.1. What do you consider to be a historic or classic vehicle? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

The HCVA considers a vehicle classic when it is considered sufficiently important to justify the formation of groups or clubs to help each other restore, preserve and enjoy it. Specialist businesses may also form to support its continued use. It is not an attribute simply of age.

The Historic Vehicle categorisation used by DVLA of 40 years old is useful, but is out of line with most other countries which follow a 30 year rule. Since in our opinion there is no fixed age cut-off for ‘Classic’ vehicles, for the purposes of this review it can be ignored for registration purposes.

3.2. If you think there should be a separate registration process for historic and classic vehicles, what would be the right process for these vehicles? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

The Historic Vehicle category is vital to reflect the historic interest of vehicles which are preserved for future generations to see and enjoy as mobile examples of our industrial and cultural heritage. The application process using a standard V55/5 should be improved for the specific use of Historic category applications.

3.3. If you think there should be a series of registration numbers specifically for historic and classic vehicles, how do you imagine this would work? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

There already is, via the issuance of age-related registration numbers. The UK’s vehicle registration system dating back to 1903 is the envy of the world and already features registration numbers specifically for historic and classic vehicles, relating to the age of the vehicle. The enduring nature of UK Vehicle Registration Numbers is especially suitable for the cataloguing and tracing of Historic vehicles, which makes the current system preferable to others around the world. To introduce a new system is unnecessary.

3.4. Should there be a new type of safety check in place which takes into account the age of a historic or classic vehicle? If so, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

This is a DVSA issue, upon which HCVA are in discussions with that Agency. The current system works insofar that Historic vehicles are not clogging up MoT centres unfamiliar with, say, the braking system of a 1935 Rolls-Royce. From the statistics available, it seems that the trust placed in owners to maintain their vehicles to a roadworthy standard is not being abused, as there is no statistical evidence that Historic vehicles are more prone to be involved in accidents, but it is an area which needs to be kept under review.

HCVA’s preference would be for an optional, industry-led, roadworthiness test for Historic MoT-exempt vehicles and incentivised by insurance companies. HCVA is in the process of developing a system which could act as a model for such a scheme.

Continuation Vehicles are new cars but carry the vehicle identity methods used when originally available for sale. This should be recognised by the DVSA/DVLA.

3.5. Should there be a distinction made between restoration, where an existing registered vehicle with an established history is being refurbished, potentially with some new parts, and vehicles constructed as a replica not based on a registered vehicle, but constructed from a collection of old parts? If so, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Yes. Restoration of a historic vehicle, with new replacement parts where necessary, is a positive action that enhances the safety and historical importance of that vehicle. It should not trigger changes at DVLA. Construction of a vehicle from old parts, not based on a registered vehicle, is a different matter requiring different registration treatment at DVLA, already catered for by DVLA.

Vehicles constructed as replicas from entirely new parts should be registered as new vehicles.

Reconstructed classic vehicles

3.6. If you think that the current guidance is still relevant, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Your guidance is incorrect and refers to two very different cases – reconstructed classic vehicles and replica classic vehicles. Vehicles ‘reconstructed’ from all-genuine period components, none of which have ever carried a valid vehicle registration, are almost non-existent. Replica vehicles however do exist: some, but not all, come under the heading of kit-built or kit-converted. Neither have anything to do with the restoration of classic vehicles as suggested by the first line of your guidance.

The category Reconstructed Classic should be replaced by a new category Built-up Classic Vehicles, purely for vehicles constructed from all genuine, period parts as validated by an independent stakeholder panel to ensure transparency and fairness.

3.7. What do you think should be the definition of a reconstructed classic vehicle? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

The term ‘reconstructed’ as used here, is understood differently by DVLA and vehicle enthusiasts. A new category of BUILT-UP classic vehicles should replace the category, defined as vehicles built from original and/or newly-manufactured parts that do not have a valid claim to an existing registration. Potentially there would be sub-categories that recognise and differentiate between vehicles reconstructed from original parts from various vehicles, and those examples built-up using recently remanufactured parts. Where the vehicle is made from new components, for example continuation cars, it should be registered as a new vehicle. 

3.8. If you think it's appropriate to ensure the components used to build a vehicle must be more than 25 years old and within the period the model of vehicle was originally manufactured, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

It is not appropriate. Parts should be assessed on the basis of their design rather than their individual date of manufacture, and whether that design is appropriate for that vehicle. A useful example is the ‘Buff Form’ system used by the Vintage Sports Car Club to categorise its members cars, which differentiates between the number of original parts retained, and the appropriateness of others. Some parts that might be incorporated could be more recently manufactured, which should not in itself carry a penalty if they are made to period-correct specification. This subject requres further consideration by an expert panel drawn from HVUG members, working alongside the DVSA and DVLA as appropriate.

3.9. Do you think the reconstructed classic scheme should be specific to vehicles not previously registered, or should the scheme also apply to already registered vehicles that have been rebuilt or restored?

Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

The term ‘reconstructed’ as used here, is understood differently by DVLA and vehicle enthusiasts. A new category of BUILT-UP classic vehicles should be introduced, defined as vehicles built from original and/or newly-manufactured period-correct parts that do not have a valid claim to an existing registration. The BUILT-UP classic vehicle scheme should therefore only apply to vehicles not previously registered. The term Restoration applies to existing vehicles, and is in any case irrelevant for DVLA records purposes. See paragroph 5.2

3.10. What do you consider to be a replica vehicle as opposed to a reconstructed classic or historic vehicle? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

For the sake of this response, a replica vehicle is considered to be newly constructed from new or used/reconditioned components to closely resemble a Historic vehicle, other than vehicles made by the original OEM. Some fall in the Kit-built or kit converted scheme and some are fully-built new vehicles with entitlement to a new registration.

Vehicles built by their original vehicle manufacturer are not Replicas, and should fall into a new category called Continuation Vehicles, to reflect the fact that they are made to pre-approved and period correct standards by the original manufacturer. These vehicles should be issued with new vehicle registration numbers, with appropriate safety standards and testing applied by the DVSA.

Rebuilt vehicles

3.11. What do you think should be the definition of a rebuilt vehicle? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

The term ‘rebuilt’ as used here is understood differently by DVLA and vehicle enthusiasts, and there is easy confusion between the expressions ‘rebuilt’ and ‘built-up', for example. As a result, this category is misleading and should be scrapped. Where a registered vehicle is rebuilt (ie restored) and components are replaced due to lack of structural integrity (eg rust or damage) or to enhance safety, the restorer should not be penalised by DVLA removing the vehicle’s continuous registration history and Historic identity.

3.12. Do you think the current guidance is still relevant? For example, does it take into account emerging technologies and innovation? If so, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

The HCVA’s opinion is that the guidance is incorrect, and the category is unhelpful. The is no ‘fine line’ as suggested, and a vehicle’s identity is not brought into question by rebuilding or altering it, or indeed drilling, cutting or welding (ie repairing) a chassis or monocoque bodyshell, as DVLA are currently suggesting. In addition, the term ‘rebuilt’ as used here is understood differently by DVLA and vehicle enthusiasts, and there is easy confusion between the expressions ‘rebuilt’ and ‘built-up', for example. The use of the term Rebuilt should therefore be discontinued by DVLA.

The court cases and other available precedents show that there are many ways in which authenticity and identity of historic vehicles may be established in the particular circumstances. Often, the applicable test will be one of continuous history, with the importance in this assessment of original components being comparatively limited. The DVLA’s insistence on the dominance of a single component as providing definitive evidence of identity above all other evidence is contrary to judicial and expert precedent, and irrational and unjustified.

3.13. If you think there should be separate rebuilt policies for different vehicle types (motorcycles, cars, vans, etc), please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

No. This would be extremely complex, confusing and impossible to regulate or police fairly.

3.14. To what extent should a vehicle be rebuilt before DVLA needs to be informed? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

The term ‘rebuilt’ as used here, is understood differently by DVLA and vehicle enthusiasts, and its use should be discontinued by DVLA. A car ‘rebuilt’ (ie restored) to its original specification, or incorporating period modifications, or approved safety enhancements, should only require informing the DVLA if those changes affect the vehicle record, eg change of engine number, engine size, fuel type, body configuration, colour.

3.15. Is putting the main emphasis for assessing a rebuilt vehicle on modifications to the chassis or monocoque bodyshell (or frame for motorcycles) still appropriate?

If not, what else should be considered? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

No, the emphasis on modifications to the chassis/frame/monocoque is not appropriate to vehicle registration, only to vehicle safety which is policed by DVSA not DVLA. The HCVA is proposing that by simplifying the categories there is no need for the rebuilt category and that it should be encompassed, when applicable, within the proposed new ‘Built-up Classic Vehicle’ category. See 3.11 and 3.12.

3.16. At what point should a chassis or monocoque bodyshell modification (or frame for motorcycles) affect the identity of a vehicle that has been rebuilt? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

The identity of a vehicle should not be affected by modifications made to the chassis/monocoque or motorcycle frame as part of the rebuilding of an existing UK or Overseas registered vehicle. This should be considered as a continuation of its existing history.

3.17. If you consider it important for a consumer purchasing a vehicle to know if it's had major rebuild or restoration work done to it, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

It is important, but there is no role for government agencies in this information flow. Sales of vehicles following upgrade or restoration always detail such work, as it is an important and positive part of the vehicle’s history. Consumers rightly look for this information from vendors, not from DVLA. This has historically been the DVLA’s position in court when their role in consumer protection has been questioned. In the Seddon case in 2019, the three Law Lords in the Court of Appeal were very firm in denying that the DVLA has any role in consumer matters. The court found that there was no duty of care on the part of the DVLA (as argued at the time by the DVLA themselves), and to find otherwise would open the DVLA to wide-ranging and extensive liabilities, and that the protection of consumer interests forms no part of the DVLA’s statutory functions.

Subsequent contradictory statements made in regard to DVLA’s obligation to consumers to the Transport Select Committee on XX/XX/XX are therefore incorrect (See Appendix 3).

Restored vehicles

3.18. Do you think restored vehicles should continue to be assessed according to the current policy for rebuilt vehicles or should there be a specific process for assessing restored vehicles?

Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

None of the choices given accurately describe the HCVA’s position. As previously stated, the term ‘rebuilt’ is unhelpful in this context, and there is no published policy defining its use. The category should be discontinued. There is no need for DVLA to assess restored vehicles with an established identity. Restoration enhances the historical importance of a vehicle as well as its safety, and consumers do not expect DVLA to police it. The decision by the Court of Appeal in the Seddon case of 2019 illustrates the established precedent for this position.

3.19. What do you think should be the definition of a restored vehicle? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

A restored vehicle is a complete vehicle which has had corrosion, wear and damage from decades of use and neglect rectified by a process of repair, replacement and renewal of components and structure. Restoration may take place multiple times in the lifetime of a registered vehicle and is a necessary and positive part of that history.

3.20. If you think there should be separate policies for different vehicle types (motorcycles, cars, vans, etc), please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

No. There is no reason to adopt different procedures for different Historic vehicle types.

3.21. At what point should a chassis or monocoque bodyshell modification (or frame for motorcycles) affect the identity of a vehicle that has been restored? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Modifications made to the existing chassis/monocoque or motorcycle frame should not affect the registration entitlement, as long as it forms part of an established vehicle history.

3.22. If you consider it important for a consumer purchasing a vehicle to know if it's had major restoration work done to it, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

There is no role for government in this information flow. Sales of vehicles following upgrade or restoration customarily detail such work, as it is an important and positive part of the vehicle’s history. Consumers rightly look for this information from vendors, not from DVLA.

Kit-built and kit converted vehicles

3.23. If you think the current guidance is still relevant, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Current guidance is still relevant.

3.24. If you think reconditioned or remanufactured components should be considered the same as brand new components, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Reconditioned or remanufactured components can be considered the same as brand new components if supplied by a reputable specialist supplier.

3.25. Should reconditioned or remanufactured components be assessed to ensure they meet the specifications to be used on a different vehicle from the one they were designed for? If so, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

This is a matter for DVSA not DVLA and dependent on the type of component.

3.26. If you think kit-built vehicles should be registered as new vehicles if they have more than one reconditioned or remanufactured component, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Although the HCVA does not currently represent any Kit Car manufacturers, the current system seems to be accepted and to work satisfactorily.

3.27. If you think that the V5C should indicate the vehicle has been built using reconditioned or remanufactured components, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

It is not necessary for the V5C to indicate this. A kit car can be assumed always to contain some reconditioned or remanufactured parts.

3.28. If you think that it is important for evidence to be provided to show where reconditioned or remanufactured parts are sourced from, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

It is not necessary for sources to be shown on V5C. A responsible builder will keep a file of all details with the vehicle as this will enhance its value when sold on. The IVA and MoT test will assess the safety of all components used, so this need not be a concern for DVLA.

Radically altered vehicles

3.29. What do you think should be the definition of a radically altered vehicle and why? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

The term Radically Altered should only apply to vehicles so drastically altered that the original Historic vehicle has ceased to be. The subject is complex, and the exact point that that line is crossed should be decided and then published by a cross-functional stakeholder group of established industry and associated experts alongside DVSA and DVLA. The Working Group should also consider the drawbacks of the current points system, which is potentially confusing and open to different interpretations, and should be replaced with a more workable scheme. It may well result from the findings of that group that the category Radically Altered is indistinguishable from Built-up, and could be dispensed with altogether.

The reasoning behind this stance is that the proper care (including modification) of a vehicle’s automotive heritage should not easily mean the loss of its very identity.

In addition, the current situation where a radical alteration has been deemed to have been made (eg Car 1), DVLA has forbidden its reversal by replacement or repair. This is not only illogical, but also outside the responsibility of the registration authority.

Where there are structural or safety concerns with an individual radically altered vehicle, the DVSA should adjudicate.

3.30. If you think the current guidance is still relevant, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Current guidance is not relevant because continuous history should always be the primary consideration when assessing radical alterations and their impact on a vehicle’s identity.

The reasoning behind this stance is that the proper care (including modification) of a vehicle’s automotive heritage should not result in the loss of its identity.

3.31. To what extent should a vehicle be radically altered before DVLA needs to be informed? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

DVLA needs to be informed where details recorded on the V5C become incorrect, so that the configuration of the vehicle can be accurately recorded, in accordance with their statutory duties.

3.32. Should the main emphasis for assessing a radically altered vehicle be around modifications to the chassis or monocoque bodyshell (or frame for motorcycles) or should other components also be considered? If so, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

The main emphasis should be the continuation of a vehicle’s Historic identity.

The term Radically Altered should only apply to vehicles so drastically altered that the original Historic vehicle has ceased to be. The point that that line is crossed should be decided by a cross-functional stakeholder group of established industry and associated experts alongside DVSA and DVLA. See 3.29 and 3.30.

Radical alteration should not on its own impact retention of an original registration number.

Vehicles converted to electric propulsion

3.33. If you think there should be a separate, specific policy for assessing vehicles that have been converted to electric, what would that policy or process look like? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

As far a registration is concerned, existing rules for change of propulsion suffice. The vehicle taxation class should be changed appropriately, and all changes marked on the V5C.

3.34. If you think there should be specific safety tests for vehicles which have been converted to electric, what should these tests involve? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Safety is critical and existing DVSA systems should be fully utilised for Historic vehicle conversions, including r100.01 approval. The HCVA, acting in conjunction with our professional electrification members, has introduced a code of practice document for electrification (attached at Appendix 1) which includes r100.01 and many other safety considerations including the implications of added weight on the braking and suspension systems, and the need for the converted vehicle to pass an MoT. We propose that the HCVA document should be adopted by the DVSA as part of the safety assessment, which would be applicable to private and commercial conversions.

It is extremely important that the fact a Historic vehicle is electrically powered is reflected accurately on a vehicle’s registration record, to enable First Responders to be aware and take appropriate precautions.

3.35. At what point should a chassis or monocoque bodyshell modification (or frame for motorcycles) affect the identity of the vehicle that has been converted to electric? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Conversion to electric propulsion will require changes to V5C detail and taxation class, but should not require change of registration of a pre-existing registered, Historic vehicle. Modifications to the original chassis/monocoque should not automatically trigger a change of VIN or registration number.

Q and QNI registration numbers

3.36. If you consider that a Q registration number should only be assigned to vehicles where the identity is unknown or cannot be determined, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

We agree that a Q registration number should only be assigned to vehicles where the identity is unknown or cannot be determined. There is no reason to withdraw or change a vehicle’s registration number unless there is clear evidence that another vehicle has, or might have, a valid claim to the same registration number. DVLA’s priority should be to keep vehicles registered, NOT change/withdraw registrations at will. A Q registration should only be issued where there is no valid claim to an original or age-related registration, with difficult cases adjudicated by an expert independent stakeholder panel made up of HVUG members. See 3.29 and 3.30.

3.37. Currently any modification to the chassis or monocoque (or frame for motorcycles) will result in a Q registration number being assigned to the vehicle. Do you agree with this policy?

If not, to what extent do you consider it acceptable for a vehicle to be modified before it's assigned a Q registration number? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Modifications to chassis, monocoque or frame of an existing Historic vehicle should not result in the withdrawal of the vehicle’s identity. Such modifications have been performed since the dawn of motoring, and many such modifications are themselves historic and of importance in their own right, eg independent front suspension conversions on prewar Fords performed in the 1950s. See 3.29 and 3.30.

3.38. If you consider it important for a consumer purchasing a vehicle to know if it's been modified, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

It is not the DVLA’s responsibility or remit to inform consumers that a vehicle has been modified. It is the responsibility of the vehicle owner to disclose modifications, and the buyer to verify the description matches what they are buying. It is worth noting that DVLA does not even keep a register of vehicle owners, only of keepers, so a vehicle can change ownership without even making reference to the V5C.

3.39. Should historic and classic vehicles that have been rebuilt or restored be assigned an alternative age-related registration number instead of a Q registration number? If so, please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Historic and classic vehicles that have been rebuilt or restored should retain their original VIN/chassis/frame number and registration number as a default position. The only justification for rescinding a registration mark is if another vehicle has, or could have, a more valid claim to that registration number.

An age-related registration should only be issued to a rebuilt or restored vehicle in the absence of a verifiable pre-existing history, or at first registration in the case of imported vehicles.

Q-registrations are not appropriate for rebuilt or restored Historic or Classic vehicles.

VIN allocated by DVLA

3.40. In what circumstances do you think DVLA should allocate a VIN? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

A DVLA-generated VIN should be allocated to Built-up vehicles without a valid claim to a supporting identity.

DVLA should never issue a new VIN to a historic vehicle unless it has no claim to an original registration number, and there is no chassis/body/frame number displayed on the vehicle or identifiable as being correct from archival sources. Pre-1981 vehicles should not be required to comply with post-1981 unique VIN requirements. Pre-1981 there may be multiple vehicles from different manufacturers with the same chassis or frame number. DVLA is not the arbiter of these, and should simply record the numbers present on the vehicles.

Where multiple vehicles from the same manufacturer claim the same chassis/frame number AND registration number, DVLA should take expert opinion from Industry stakeholders and from detailed expert inspection to establish which (if either) has the valid claim, and issue a DVLA VIN only if appropriate and as a last resort.

 3.41. A VIN is a unique identifier for a vehicle and is used by DVLA when assessing a vehicle's originality and identity. This is done by checking archives and obtaining information from experts in the field. Where the original VIN is no longer present, how could DVLA authenticate a vehicle's identity and originality instead of allocating a DVLA VIN? Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Pre-1981 vehicles do not have a unique VIN, and their identification number was not always stamped on a solid part of the vehicle, sometimes merely on a removable chassis plate or even not displayed on the vehicle at all, only on paperwork. This should NOT be a reason for removing a vehicle’s identity. Continuous history kept with the vehicle and by Industry, manufacturers, archives and owners’ clubs is often adequate to confirm identity in these cases. Where doubt remains, an independent stakeholder panel consisting of industry and marque experts along with DVLA colleagues should be convened to arbitrate. An original registration number should not be removed unless another vehicle has a more valid claim to it.

3.42. If you are a vehicle manufacturer, would you have concerns about the original VIN being retained or restamped on the vehicle, where the manufacturer has not approved the changes to the vehicle?

Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

Parts changes allowed by the original manufacturer’s (OEM) documentation should be invisible to the DVLA for the purposes of registration, even if they are of serialised components. The recent decision of the DVLA to follow this principle with regard to Jaguar E-Type front frame (“Picture Frame”) replacements is the right course of action, and should be applied more widely to other components on other vehicle types.

Where a vehicle has a continuous history, our OEM members confirm that they have no concerns with original VINs and chassis numbers being retained or restamped, as long as the original component or plate bearing that number is verifiably destroyed or certified as missing.

This policy should also apply to replacement like-for-like chassis data plates, which although containing information identical to the original, have recently been used by DVLA as a reason to remove a vehicle’s historic identity retrospecively. See Car 5 and Car 6 for examples.

3.43. We currently allocate a DVLA VIN where a chassis or monocoque bodyshell (or frame for motorcycles) has been replaced or modified. Modern vehicles have the VIN hard-coded into electronic control units and potentially stamped or engraved on other components. In these instances, do you think a DVLA VIN is still relevant?

Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

With regard to Historic vehicles, a DVLA VIN should not be issued where an original chassis or monocoque bodyshell with registration history has been modified or replaced. The replacement chassis should be clearly stamped with the vehicle’s original identification number (if any), and any unused original chassis remnants should be permanently retained with the vehicle or destroyed.

What other countries do

4.1. Do you think there is any best practice from other countries that could be implemented here?

Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views.

The British registration system recording vehicles with the same identification and registration numbers for well over a century is the envy of the world, and makes identification and tracing of vehicles and their keepers much simpler than any other system. It is a system ideal for cataloguing Historic Motor Vehicles and their histories, unlike many other countries.

It is worth noting that the German registration authority when awarding Historic vehicle status does not consider the conversion from coupe to convertible to affect its original identity.

Many countries follow the recommendation of FIVA, the international body representing historic vehicle owners, that Historic status be awarded from 30 years old, not 40 as in UK. The HCVA would support this approach.

Establishing independent advisory groups

5.1. Do you think that DVLA should explore the option of setting up independent advisory working groups to support the registration process for historic vehicles?

Please provide evidence and reasons to support your views

Yes, DVLA should implement this option, using stakeholders represented in the HVUG as its basis. DVLA cannot hope to attain the expertise on individual vehicle details that exists among specific vehicle restoration specialists and historical experts, as illustrated by the finding regarding Cars 3, 4 and 5.

Using the expertise that already exists is vital to avoid painful and expensive conflicts resulting from lack of understanding of the intricacies of vehicle history and construction. HCVA has long advocated the formal introduction of stakeholder working groups, based on HVUG membership, to assist with the definition of Boundaries applicable to vehicles’ identity retention, and the adjudication of the inevitable ‘corner cases’ which will arise from time-to-time and require detailed consultation and transparent adjudication.

5.2. If you wish to put forward any evidence, suggestions or ideas not already mentioned around the registration processes, please provide your thoughts around how these might work.

5.2.1 There is NO REASON to withdraw or change a vehicle’s registration number unless there is clear evidence that another vehicle has, or might have, a valid claim to the same registration number. DVLA’s priority should be to keep vehicles registered, NOT change or withdraw registrations at will.

5.2.2 Restoration or modification of a vehicle with continuous history should not result in a change of registration or VIN.

5.2.3 DVLA is not qualified to make safety assessments of vehicles, which is the remit of DVSA. DVLA should restrict itself to registration issues.

5.2.4 DVLA is not required to “protect future purchasers”, as successfully argued by DVLA and upheld by the Court of Appeal re Seddon vs DVLA in 2019. In summing up the case, the judges said:

“The DVLA has no particular skill or knowledge. It performs a statutory function of collecting tax and raising revenue for the government and ensuring vehicles operating on the roads in the UK are registered. In so doing it relies on declarations made and information provided by applicants for a vehicle licence or registration mark.”

“There is nothing in the legislative regime to suggest that accuracy is for the purpose of enabling prospective third-party purchasers to rely on the registration to value a car they are intending to purchase.”

Subsequent contradictory statements made in regard to DVLA’s obligation to consumers to the Transport Select Committee on XX/XX/XX are therefore incorrect, and would in any case impose an impossible burden on DVLA as highlighted by the unanimous judgment of the three Lord Justices.

The V5C Registration system is not even a register of vehicle owners, merely of ‘keepers’, as stated prominently on the V5C.

5.2.5 Originality of Historic vehicles is a highly complex field and there is no sense in DVLA attempting to be an arbiter of it. Court cases and other available precedents show that there are many ways in which authenticity and identity of historic vehicles may be established in the particular circumstances. Often, the applicable test will be one of continuous history, with the importance in this assessment of original components being comparatively limited. The DVLA’s insistence on the dominance of a single component as providing definitive evidence of identity above all other evidence is contrary to judicial and expert precedent.

5.2.6 DVLA’s current categorisation of Historic vehicles as:

Historic & Classic Vehicles

Reconstructed Classic Vehicles

Rebuilt Vehicles

Restored Vehicles

Kit-built & Kit Converted Vehicles

Radically Altered Vehicles

Vehicles converted to electric propulsion

Is confusing and leads to incorrect allocation of cases. It is our recommendation that DVLA in future uses the following categories only:

Historic Vehicles

Built-Up Classic Vehicles

Kit-built & Kit Converted Vehicles

We also propose the introduction of a new category of ‘Continuation Vehicles’ for the recent innovation of continued-production historic-type vehicles built by the original manufacturer.

5.2.7 DVLA’s insistence on replacement chassis/monocoque “from the original manufacturer” is misguided: accurate replacements made by marque specialist companies should be accepted.

5.2.8 When assessing a claim to an original, currently lapsed, registration, DVLA should not insist solely on provision of a historic RF60 log book or old MoT certificate. A vehicle whose correct original registration is clearly identifiable by historical records such as old photographs, original registration plates, manufacturer, specialist and club archives, historic Press reports etc should be issued with its original registration on a non-transferable basis. DVLA should make full use of the assistance of experts already available via HVUG in assessing such cases.

5.2.9 When assessing imported classics, DVLA should accept vehicle manufacturer records when issuing an age-related registration number. An example is DVLA’s interpretation of US title documents: when presented with a Jaguar Heritage Certificate showing a date of manufacture of May 1966 and a US title document showing “YEAR 1967” DVLA issues an ‘E’ suffix and date of first registration 1st January 1967. This fails to recognise the fact that the US title year refers to model year, which begins on 1st August 1966, and results in DVLA breaking its own rules by issuing a registration ‘younger’ than the true age of the vehicle in question.

5.2.10 When assessing imported classics, DVLA should be sensitive to the different usage of terminology by foreign registration authorities. For example, it is well established that the South African registration authority routinely uses the term ‘Built Up’ when re-registering older vehicles which have been off the road for some years in storage or during restoration. This simply reflects that the South African registration system does not have the ability to describe such cases accurately – it does NOT automatically mean that the vehicle has been assembled from parts of different vehicles, as DVLA currently assumes as their default position. This has been confirmed in numerous cases by careful assessment and inspection by highly regarded experts. Examples are Car 7 and Motorcycle 8

5.2.11 DVLA should reintroduce the scheme allowing owners to obtain copies of past registration records for Historic vehicles. GDPR only applies to registration records since 2016 at the earliest – previously, registered keepers supplied their names and addresses on the explicit understanding that this information would be made available to future owners of the vehicle. The UK registration system dating back to 1903 is the envy of the world and DVLA’s archives hold hugely important historic information that should be available to subsequent owners of historic vehicles, just as past property ownership is available from the Land Registry.

5.2.12 V894, V672/1 and vehicle inspections. Currently there are numerous examples of completion of a V894 being requested as a result of changing address or applying for vehicle excise duty. for reasons withheld by DVLA. When the V894 responses satisfy that the registration details are correct, DVLA choose to ignore the information provided and insist upon a V672/1 form also being completed along with a set of supporting current photographs of the vehicle. Despite this categorically confirming that no issues are present, DVLA then insists on an entirely unnecessary independent inspection by their appointed agents before finally either issuing a V5C or in some cases rescinding a vehicle’s authentic original identity. This process can often take 6 months or longer, which is not acceptable from a customer service perspective. The process needs complete reassessment, along with the involvement of external expertise and other improvements to expedite decision timescales.

5.2.13 It is known that hidden markers indicating suspicion are applied to individual Historic vehicle records by DVLA, often with questionable justification and no ability to appeal. The application of vehicle markers, their purpose and effectiveness needs to assessed at the HVUG and their future use properly considered.