Can It Really Be This Easy! !

[blue]

OK so it started like this ......

there was a diesel spill ,a manhole cover and a 400yr old wall!!!!

and ended with me having a bent S7

so after speaking to GBS they say I can re shell my s7 into a zero quite legally as GBS rose from the ashes of robinhood

and the factory offer this service and have done so!

so armed with this advice I ask my insurer Flux who also say yer it's a kitcar do what you want !!

So I phone the Dvla to ask them ( that's a short time of my life I'll never get back) and the wonderful lady I speak to also confirms that yes I can do this

so in the very near future I'll be placing an order for a new race chassis

I just still can't get my head around it !!

[tractor]

Sounds like a result to me

[Longboarder]

Sounds more like a church bell to me.

Nigel

 

Edit to clarify. I sincerely believe this is ringing, wrong and illegal. You can replace the monocoque chassis of an MGB say with a new and identical mono MGB chassis and transfer all the old suspension/engine/steering/etc bits of the original car over without IVA and that is legal. Anyone who says you can replace an MGB monocoque with a new spaceframe and make visually identical bodywork and call it a rebuild is deluding themselves. That's no different to what you are suggesting and have been told is OK. It should properly have an IVA. I don't think what you have been told today is correct.

Would you get away with it? Quite possibly. Would your insurance be valid in the event of a crash? I doubt it.

Should you rebuild an S7 into a zero? Certainly but put it through IVA quoting the S7 as the donor to make it legal.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Longboarder

[jaimo]

When biksz spoke to dvla they said no but everyone different basically if you never want to sell who will question it just be a s7 on logbook not zero

[blue]

Hi Longborder

yer I can't get my head round it too

I think the ringing bit is only if you wanna deceive someone

my logbook will probably say something like re shelled on such and such a date

it is and always will be a robinhood and I have no intention of selling her

[knights_templar]

As DVLA are the people that administer everything, and they say its OK then it must be.

 

I do acknowledge concern about lack of IVA, however an IVA is nothing to do with safety, or road worthiness, just that there is compliance to various rules and regulation at the time of a test.

 

The MGB is homo-ligated, a re-shell just takes on the identity of the previous vehicle, rightly or wrongly, it is the drivers responsibility to make sure they are driving a legal, and safe, vehicle.

 

This is the same thing, one car goes to car heaven and is reincarnated as a zero, the difference is that the original car was not homo-logated, and probably built pre SVA let alone IVA with very little standard applied. It will still be the responsibility of the driver that it is legal and safe to be on the road.

 

Should it be checked? A second pair of eyes is always a good thing, a second pair of eyes checking to a standard, however floored, probably better.

 

Is this wrong? well it will depend on your point of view, here I must declare bias, I know the Zero. The mono's are an old design, made before the riggers of ministry testing and although popular, and if looked after, able to give good service, they are not a Zero, sorry, cry foul if you wish, well, not before comparing them, GBS have some track days coming up, take yours along, then try the Zero, If I am wrong, shout then.

 

But the mono is a very good donor for the zero, it uses the same bits, short of the weighty Sierra rear sub frame, and can be morphed to, some would argue, a far better car, Ok if not better, lets say more modern, tin hat on, cowering in bunker,

 

JMO

[Guest 2b cruising]

I would see if I could get lucky with dvla again and ask whoever says yes to send you dvla email backing it up.

[cb750]

I would write to the dvla and get a written reply so you can use that as evidence if anything goes wrong. When I first bought my series 3 I looked into the same thing, GBS gave the same answer as you received but I got the feeling that you shouldn't do it as its a "grey" area.

 

If your car was repairable by fitting a new non-monocoque chassis and that was legal your insurers would do it or at least give you advice if you do it yourself on a parts only basis.

[cb750]

Just had a look on the dvla site for rebuilt vehicles : https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/rebuilt-vehicles

 

Looks like if you don't use a chassis of the same specification as the original when rebuilding then you have to go down the IVA route. Either way there appears to be some form filling involved!

[Andi]

This has been done with a 2B i think.

On this very site. The chap also sold it and was very clear what had happened.

 

Letter from insurance and DVLA would be the ultimate proof I think

[ozz]

Deleted

Edited June 19, 2016 by ozz

[knights_templar]

If you follow topic posts are emailed to you, so deleted or not we still can see them,

 

SO

 

The streghth of a chassis can be calculated, a mono would need expensive computer simulation or testing to destruction, so would it not be the case that the chassis can be proven to be strong enough, not that it the more or less the same strength?

[ozz]

Answer the questions emailed then and not give a false impression that the delete post was about strength of chassis. Will you as an employee of gbs be giving evidence in court that the zero race chassis is built to the SAME specifications as the s7 chassis? Bear in mind that in law words are given their usual interpretation so stronger is not the same, better not the same different method of construction is not the same.

 

I deleted my original post to protect GBS your employer.

Edited June 19, 2016 by ozz

[knights_templar]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I have found courts work with proof, And where one side can not be proven, it is discounted. Been in a car related court case, the other side lost, because their evidence was presented by an unqualified person therefore discounted. Bit puzzeled why you think you are protecting GBS, even if I were employed, they did not make the S7, and what I understand from the above, have said nothing different to the DVLA. But I would agree it would be better to get it in writing.

Edited June 20, 2016 by knights_templar

[ozz]

Ok then I'll stand up and be counted even if Simon won't.

 

I'm a solicitor with 25 years experience in Criminal and Road Traffic law and here is my opinion on the suggestion that you can re-body a damaged S7 using a Zero Race Chassis avoid an IVA and keep the same registration number. Please read to the end and the Disclaimer at the bottom.

 

I will hopefully answer Simon’s questions too.

 

It is my understanding of the law that when a car is re-bodied or re chassis-ed it is up to the owner to prove that the chassis or body is new and of the same specification as the original, the owner needs to have a receipt to prove newness and some evidence that it is the same specification, this will either be a certificate issued by the manufacturer or live witness evidence will need to be called.

 

The object of the scheme is that the same car comes out of the repair without being radically altered. Radically Altered vehicles as we should know need an IVA and re-bodied don’t.

 

On a re-body you complete the work and put the car back on the road with the original registration number, if you in fact needed an IVA and reregistration and you did not do it your car is unregistered and unlawfully on the road, the owner is liable for a criminal offence and your insurance is void, as it is a condition of insurance that the vehicle is registered.

 

So if the vehicle was ever queried, by an MOT inspector or a VOSA spot check or police officer or police vehicle examiner after an accident or traffic offence, a statement or certificate from the manufacturer that it was built to the same specifications as the original would be required hence the question in my original post (which most won't have seen) about whether GBS would issue such a certificate.

 

If the matter proceeded to Court for the offence of using an unregistered vehicle on the road and/or no insurance then there is a reverse burden of proof on the defence to establish that the vehicle did not need IVA and re-registration.

 

A Reverse burden of proof has time and time again been held to be lawful and within the Convention of human rights where it would be a simple matter for the defence to prove something but difficult for the prosecution to do so, as it would be in this scenario.

 

So the defendant would then wish to call evidence from the manufacturer that the new chassis was of the same specification as the original in order to establish a defence. Hence my question about whether anyone from GBS would be prepared to give this evidence on oath.

 

The penalty for no insurance is a fine and points on the licence or a discretionary ban and an order for destruction of the vehicle, Unregistered vehicles are almost always crushed.

 

If someone at GBS was giving the advice that you can re-body a damaged S7 using a Zero Race Chassis and all of the above happened and the defendant/customer lost their car, (and job?) then GBS the customer may have an action against GBS for negligence and GBS may be ordered to pay damages.

 

If any evidence was came to light that suggested that GBS had been advised to the contrary then this would be powerful evidence for the claimant. Hence me deleting the original post.

 

Now turning to the facts and applying them to the law.

 

The S7 was a monocoque design the Zero a box section space frame chassis

 

The S7 used the donor cars rear suspension the zero independent wish bones with coil over dampers

 

The S7 did not have a race roll cage integral to the chassis the zero race does

 

Those three points alone mean that no one, not even a layman, would reasonably think that the two chassis shared the same specification.

 

They are not the same size, shape or made of the same materials.

 

The whole point of the scheme of re-chassising or re-bodying resulting in the same registration is that the same car is produced from the repair not a different one.

 

One look at a car after the proposed re-body and it would be obvious that it was not an S7 but a Zero Race.

 

If GBS are prepared to give you a certificate that a Zero Race Chassis is built to the same specifications as a S7 sierra monocoque and an undertaking to make a witness available for any possible legal action, then I would be very surprised, and I would urge them to take independent legal advice before doing so.

 

The DVLA and VOSA cannot give a binding opinion and if asked for one should refer an enquirer to independent legal advice.

 

Even if DVLA or VOSA gave an opinion it would not be binding upon either the prosecuting authority or the Court and you should not rely upon it.

 

The Prosecuting authority is the Crown Prosecution Service and they won't give you an opinion either.

 

If you find a manufacturer who can re-produce an S7 monocoque using original materials and methods so that they can certify that it is the same specification as the original then and only then can you apply the previous registration and do not need an IVA

 

Disclaimer

As all cases are different and are decided upon their individual facts If you wish to receive comprehensive advice on these matters as opposed to a generic opinion I would urge you to seek and pay for independent legal advice.

 

All of the above is only my opinion, you (anyone reading this) have not paid for it and you follow it at your own risk, it is given by me in my personal capacity and neither myself or the firm that I work for may be held liable for any losses resulting from following this advice.