Lightweight Sva

[Mitch]

This happend a few years ago with a 2b at Liverpool,

The tester was far to over zealous, and wanted strengthning between thetop rail and floor before he would allow a pass. and said it would never pass without.even though 100s had before

A call to Richard Stewart (then owner of RHE) who said appeal and he would foot the bill,

the car in question was taken back when the original tester was off and it passed without problems.

 

This problem should be taken up with RHSC and VOSA, or the lightwieght will come to a early retirement.

How Nottingham can pass them and Southampton cant is beyond comprehension, they all work to the same guidlines and standards

 

Mitch

[Guest john]

To Chairman Tim....

 

Hi Tim,

 

I think you'll agree this tale is bizarre, Trevor lives close by and I can vouch for the enormous energy he has put into this car, as proven by the low number of normal fail items. He is serious when he says he is at rock bottom.

 

As a club, is there anything we can do to make a powerful representation to RHSC for them to take the lead on this issue. It would be in the interests of all our members who are current lightweight builders, and those contemplating buying the kit. Presumably all those reading this news will put their purchase plans on hold for now, = bad business for RHSC.

 

Maybe a letter from the club execs to RHSC demanding they spend time urgently getting it resolved.

 

This is not one where they can sit on the fence.

[Guest stevec]

How will this affect other builders?

[Guest Battery Bill]

John

Whilst I sympathise with Trevors plight I do not think it is an issue for Tim to take on board, he has enough trouble trying to get RHSC to even phone him back let alone pay the club the money they owe!

And he has his own life to live outside The Owners Club,

 

At times like this I think the previous owner "Richard" would be a Bl00dy good person to help Trevor out

But I will reserve judgement on whether the new lot will be much help or not.

 

Trevor

 

How about some pictures of the problem area?

And I don't mean the "Vents" as they are NOT a problem area, you were just unlucky to get this tester.

I seem to remember Jon Bradbury had the opposite problem, his tester did not want trim on the vents

Good luck

[Guest Tim Norman]

I shall be having a word with RHSC on Saturday about some other matters on Sturday so I'll get their views on this as well.

 

I will try and remain calm while I extrat the required from them

[Guest john]

Morning Bill.

Yes, I agree Tim is not having it easy with RHSC. I think though, that on an accasion like this the club

will have more clout than any one individual, and there will be other members building lightweights now, watching this problem. we will be helping them too.

 

I can see unpleasant similarities with the old issue of top seat belt mountings on the 2b. Sure, some got passed the sva to begin with, until the inspectorate decided it was a fail point, and after that they were not for backing down. RHE changed the design after that.

 

VOSA have now told Trevor they support the inspector who failed him, and presumably will be passing this info around all their test centres to ensure consistency. I can't see them backing down easily.

 

RHSC have bought the company and are now liable for what they sell, and I believe they have two options.. To convince VOSA that the design is a pass at SVA, or rectify free of charge those they have sold already. Not a nice choice I agree, but to allow them to duck a design issue not good either, that is why I feel the club clout has to be used on this one.

 

I'm willing to assist Tim in drafting club letters to RHSC if needed.

[enforcer]

I can understand , to a certain degree, how you are feeling Trev. One of my fail points was the fact that the RH supplied fuel tubes were pronounced by my tester as 'not fit for purpose' unless I could prove that they were. I had a torrid time getting RHSC (new owners) to help me with this. They did not seem to comprehend the urgency of the enquiry ( a matter of days to the Re-test) and it was a nightmare getting hold of them on the phone. That's another story, but I eventually managed to get the details of the supplier from them, then did the leg work myself to trace the manufacturers and obtain spec sheets.

 

In comparison to your woes this was a minor issue, but I was very disappointed with RHSC's support. I only hope that the prospect of the Lightweight being pronounced a non-SVA complaint design spurs them into action.

[eddieH]

Hi Trev,

 

I'm sorry to hear of all the trouble that you're having. I looked at your website the other day and it looks like you've done a really good job with the Lightweight. Would it be possible to apply for a new chassis number in a different locality, change the VIN plate and apply for an SVA somewhere else (it now being 'another' car)? I know it's quite a drive for you to Nottingham but if they've passed one then surely precedent has been set and they would have to pass others? Also the Nottingham DVLA guys are really helpful - I spoke to Dave Richards when I applied for my chassis number and he seemed really interested in how I was getting on with the build. I think that the Robin Hood service has improved recently - they sorted out a problem I had with some incorrect parts being supplied with my kit 18 months after I had bought it, all free of charge. Hopefully they will give you (and all the other LW builders) the support you need. Best of luck getting it all sorted.

 

Edward

[Guest elwe]

If Robin Hood don't seem to want to make progress with this I would ask them nicely to issue a new invoice number. Then I would flatten the area you stamped the chassis number into as much as possible (should be easy, it seems quite soft). Now rivet a plate on and get a build up inspection at a different centre, you may have to trailer it there and use someone else in the clubs address to stop them from passing it to Reading. Now stamp the new chassis number in and take a test any where but Southampton!

 

You may not need the new invoice number, but better safe than sorry.

 

Try to make the plate you put over the old chassis number a decorative feature so nobody has any reason to question why its there and investigate further. Somehting like a decorative design and one on each side of the engine bay should do. Put Ford Motorsport on it and add some red under bonnet lighting to have the inspection thinking you are a Chav and feeling sorry for you.

[will]

That's exactly what I was going to suggest, you beat me to it.

[Guest Guy]

There's a strong possibility that VOSA have sent a note to all the SVA centres alerting them to the issues. I would get RHSC to sort this one out, if they don't then their going to get lynched!!! .

[enforcer]

If Robin Hood don't seem to want to make progress with this I would ask them nicely to issue a new invoice number. Then I would flatten the area you stamped the chassis number into as much as possible (should be easy, it seems quite soft). Now rivet a plate on and get a build up inspection at a different centre, you may have to trailer it there and use someone else in the clubs address to stop them from passing it to Reading. Now stamp the new chassis number in and take a test any where but Southampton!

 

You may not need the new invoice number, but better safe than sorry.

 

Try to make the plate you put over the old chassis number a decorative feature so nobody has any reason to question why its there and investigate further. Somehting like a decorative design and one on each side of the engine bay should do. Put Ford Motorsport on it and add some red under bonnet lighting to have the inspection thinking you are a Chav and feeling sorry for you.

 

Not being funny but I am pretty sure what you are suggesting here would be illegal. You have presented the vehicle to VOSA and DVLA as well with that unique identification number and to deliberately give the vehicle a new identification sounds fraudulent to me.

 

Be very careful with this. I very much doubt that VOSA will be had over like this and as we know, are known to frequent our forums from time to time.

[Guest ReadingTrev]

THURSDAY EVENING UPDATE

 

 

Hi again,

 

In my opinion putting another chassis number on the car would be illegal - I'm not even going to entertain the idea. The penalty for ringing a car is massive, possibly even a short spell inside - seem to remember from a TV program recently.

Don't forget I've already had a built up inspection report with the DVLA - they are well aware what car I have! Like I said - non starter unfortunately.

 

RHSC seem to want to help with using Nottingham , however all their tactics are avoidance of Southampton, not really the answer is it? Surely its in their best interest to prove its up to spec?

 

 

At the moment I think I will leave the car is the garage for the 6 months, then start a completely new application to NOTTINGHAM.

 

 

All of this hinges on VOSA not alerting all centers to the Lightweight, if that’s the case, we're all stuffed unfortunately.

 

 

 

 

Lightweightless Trev

[Guest Petemate]

Trevor - I'm gutted for you. Though I didn't get to the Home visit, I have no doubt that from what others have said, you appear to have made a good job of the build. I am always wary of the intentions of any tester the likes of who requests trim on the bonnet vents. What a lot of twaddle. On my 2b, I carefully blunted the sharpness of the edges of them with coarse wet 'n dry, and my tester, while running his fingers over them, commented "these are OK". I admit before my fettling they were a bit sharp and I cut a finger or two during the build. (maybe I should have blunted them at the beginning...)

I cannot understand the discrepancies between test centres over something so basic and important. As others have said, there are guidelines, though all the testers are human. However, when my lad's Dax was going through the first time, I was chatting to the tester and asked him what level of discretion they have when compared with, say, MOT tests. His reply was "if there is doubt it's a fail" Well, there should have been a lot more fails then. It appears to me as a layman and not at all legally-gifted that RHSC have a BIG responsibility here, not the least under the Sale of Goods act. Give 'em what for mate, and the best of luck with it, but as Enforcer says, be careful and stay completely within the law - you may need it.

Pete

[Guest elwe]

Not being funny but I am pretty sure what you are suggesting here would be illegal. You have presented the vehicle to VOSA and DVLA as well with that unique identification number and to deliberately give the vehicle a new identification sounds fraudulent to me.

 

I don't believe this would be illegal because the vehicle is not registered. Ringing a car is illegal because it has one registered identity and then you try and pass it off as being another existing identity. In this case you are still trying to get a first identity for the car.