Jump to content
piddy

Oh No!

Recommended Posts

Hi Paul can see you are on line!

 

Read your post and have been digging my 'filing' system and have found the photocopy of the SVA approval document -I didn't trust DVLA at the time in case it got lost before I got my V5!?!?

 

Anyway many apologies I was obviously wrong when I said I'd given it to you with the rest of the paperwork. I'll post a copy on to you tomorrow.

 

Interestingly / usefully(?) it states

"having been examined under Section 58 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is hereby certified that on the date of the examination this vehicle complied witrh the relevant requirements prescribed under Section 54 of the Road Traffic Act 1988."

 

Cheers, M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Paul can see you are on line!

 

Read your post and have been digging my 'filing' system and have found the photocopy of the SVA approval document -I didn't trust DVLA at the time in case it got lost before I got my V5!?!?

 

Anyway many apologies I was obviously wrong when I said I'd given it to you with the rest of the paperwork. I'll post a copy on to you tomorrow.

 

Interestingly / usefully(?) it states

"having been examined under Section 58 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is hereby certified that on the date of the examination this vehicle complied witrh the relevant requirements prescribed under Section 54 of the Road Traffic Act 1988."

 

Cheers, M.

Hi Mat.....Wow ! at last theres a bit of good news....Thanks for searching.......I think that,considering the amount of time,trouble,and stress that it would take me to explain all this in a letter to people who dont really know,or want to know,my easiest way out (stress and time wise)will be to let them either drop the crap,or to eat it in a court if thats what it will take to sort it out.......Still thats enough of that Paul Day......Now its time to have a little smile,because the copy of the SVAs been found.....Phew !....Once again Mat......Thanks.....Mogzee...(or is it that bloke out of Back to the Future ??? )

Edited by mogzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, don't take the advice. By the way Magistrates Courts do not award compensation to people who are found not guilty. Personally I would make the effort to avoid the summons in the first place. Courts are funny places ... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, don't take the advice. By the way Magistrates Courts do not award compensation to people who are found not guilty. Personally I would make the effort to avoid the summons in the first place. Courts are funny places ... :huh:

Hi enforcer,Ta for the advise maybe your right.....Im just not sure exactly what i should write....ive already given them a written explanation that i wrote when i was under the impression that all i needed to do was try to prove the motor had passed its SVA and didnt need an MOT.....This didnt really explain how i wasnt driving, the car that i wasnt driving or why that car needed an MOT even though it now appears to have been scrapped.So i suppose ive either got to explain that,even though "They"should know that anyway...and thats what im having trouble with at the mo........Without wishing to appear unpleasant to you or sarcastic in anyway, i would like to say that i would have thought that a disabled person does have the right to be treated in an understanding and helpfull way by people whos job it is to sort out facts,and look for possible errors,and this was not so in my case......If it had been, then the police would have spotted the mistake and i would have been spared the inconvenience that this has caused.......Like i say Mate .....Nothing personal Honest.....Mogzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

;)

Paul, to be fair there's no "maybe" about it, enforcer's advise is spot on, i'd certainly be taking it :good:

 

is there not a family member/friend or neighbour that works in a clerical/admin/p.a role that could assist with formulating any letter?

it's often quite difficult explaining things to people when so many facts are involved

but, it's also amazing how quickly the penny drops when things are laid out bullet point style in baby steps ;)

best of luck, remember, innocent until "proven" guilty

 

i would imagine the original officer was checking the mot as a formality and would rather it had come back as ok,

after all he doesn't need this can of worms either, he's most definitely got more important things to do, it's shocking when you find out how officers "hands are tied" over what would appear trivial/minor matters, at times, a job i wouldn't thank you for :wacko: :blush:

 

cheers

ek B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need a hand writing a letter the local Citizens Advice bureau may be able to help.

Give them a call & outline what's happened & your own personal situation.

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you need a hand writing a letter the local Citizens Advice bureau may be able to help.

Give them a call & outline what's happened & your own personal situation.

 

Bob

Hi Bob.......Ive decided that i will try to get an appointment to see an inspector,sometime next week,when ive recieved the SVA certificate copy from Mat T,the cars builder,who id like to add has gone out of his way to help........I hope that this time,they will be a little more helpfull than the last time i attempted to explain,and that someone will take the time to read the several postings by Rohcar members which certainly seem to support my "claims"

I will point out that the error seems to have been caused by the DVLAs failure to totaly dispose/scrap the vehicle that the number plate came form in the first place.

I will also show the officer the SVA copy that Mats sending me,and i will point out that it states the following......."having been examined under Section 58 of the Road Traffic Act 1988,it is hereby certified that on the date of the examination this vehicle complied with the relevant requirements prescribed under Section 54 of the Road Traffic Act 1988."..........Im hoping that and the undeniable fact that, if the motor had needed an Mot before it was "Road Legal",the DVLA would not or should not have Taxed it in the first place, and if i had thought for one minute,that my motor wasnt legal,i wouldnt have been using it.I will also state that i do not believe that i have done anything wrong,and that i would/will plead Not Guilty,should they choose to take me to court,as a result of an error,that i didnt cause.

I really do hope that this brings an end the problem,and that i can at last,get back to, THE FUTURE ! ! !

Once again Thanks Everyone.......Mogzee

Edited by mogzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a correction to what I've posted earlier. Mr Ben has PM'd me and pointed me to an update that the DVLA have done to the registration proceedure, this is;..........(from the DVLA website HERE!

 

62. DVLA assigns the registration number based on the age of the donor vehicle. However, the vehicle is regarded as being first registered in its new identity and, depending on the vehicle type, ESVA/SVA/MSVA will be required to register. The applicant must also submit the registration certificate for the donor vehicle, receipts from the manufacturer and a pre-inspection report.

63. As the vehicle is regarded as newly built, the original date of manufacture is no longer relevant to the kit-converted vehicle and the date of manufacture will change to the date the vehicle build was completed. For consistency this is regarded as the date of the ESVA/SVA/MSVA test. Therefore, if the donor vehicle had been eligible for Historic Vehicle tax exemption the exemption will not apply to the new vehicle.

 

This doesn't alter one bit that they've made a monumental cock up with your paperwork, but it does explain a couple of things.

It explains why people are only needing to get it MOT'd after 3 years. (Personally, I think that's a backward step, and don't believe the DVLA know what they've done! As basically, a kitcar has been built using parts from an old Sierra that's probably done 130,000 miles or more, and although it's passed the SVA, it's most certainly NOT new.

What they've done it for, is to stop people building a kitcar, and then claiming "historic tax rights"

 

Like I said, it makes not one jot of difference to your case, your car has gone through the correct proceedure, all stpes followed, because the DVLA have screwed up, it's NOT YOUR fault.

 

Go stuff it to them Paul!!!! They don't like it up em!! Mr Manwareing!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a correction to what I've posted earlier. Mr Ben has PM'd me and pointed me to an update that the DVLA have done to the registration proceedure, this is;..........(from the DVLA website HERE!

 

62. DVLA assigns the registration number based on the age of the donor vehicle. However, the vehicle is regarded as being first registered in its new identity and, depending on the vehicle type, ESVA/SVA/MSVA will be required to register. The applicant must also submit the registration certificate for the donor vehicle, receipts from the manufacturer and a pre-inspection report.

63. As the vehicle is regarded as newly built, the original date of manufacture is no longer relevant to the kit-converted vehicle and the date of manufacture will change to the date the vehicle build was completed. For consistency this is regarded as the date of the ESVA/SVA/MSVA test. Therefore, if the donor vehicle had been eligible for Historic Vehicle tax exemption the exemption will not apply to the new vehicle.

 

This doesn't alter one bit that they've made a monumental cock up with your paperwork, but it does explain a couple of things.

It explains why people are only needing to get it MOT'd after 3 years. (Personally, I think that's a backward step, and don't believe the DVLA know what they've done! As basically, a kitcar has been built using parts from an old Sierra that's probably done 130,000 miles or more, and although it's passed the SVA, it's most certainly NOT new.

What they've done it for, is to stop people building a kitcar, and then claiming "historic tax rights"

 

Like I said, it makes not one jot of difference to your case, your car has gone through the correct proceedure, all stpes followed, because the DVLA have screwed up, it's NOT YOUR fault.

 

 

Go stuff it to them Paul!!!! They don't like it up em!! Mr Manwareing!!

Good on ya mate.......Many thanks for your help/comments.....im off to 3003 in the Delorian later, for a pint....Mogzee......

Edited by Big Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Jim's found makes your case stronger as it indicates that the car (as it is treated as new at SVA) doesn't require an MOT for 3 years. I don't know if your car is between 1 and 3 years old, but if it was this might otherwise have been a bone of contention, but this seems to tidy up even that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Jim's found makes your case stronger as it indicates that the car (as it is treated as new at SVA) doesn't require an MOT for 3 years. I don't know if your car is between 1 and 3 years old, but if it was this might otherwise have been a bone of contention, but this seems to tidy up even that.

Hi timswait,....After hours and hours spent looking into this subject,the way that i now see it is that,at the time of the SVA test,the vehicle is ONLY classed as New........IF,the vehicle is fitted with either a Brand New Engine..Or one that has been "Totally" Reconditioned By an engineering company with the bills to prove it,and then the date of registration will be the same as the Sva, which in my case would have been 2007.BUT if the car is built from a doner vehicle,as mine is,the DVLA then Swop the registration of the doner,for that of another vehicle, Which in my case seems to be that of another 86 sierra........Also this then leads to the car Not being registered as NEW, but registered as the same year as either the doner or possibly the motor that the Dvla got the plate from,that now replaces that of the doner cars registration, and the date in the logbook will show, "first registered" in 1986 which is what mine says.

Now for the MOT......

IF the vehicle is taken for an MOT prior to the SVA, it will then require another MOT when that one expires a year later.Regardless of its status as either NEW eg...New engine,or if its "doner built" eg 1986.

BUT if the vehicle was not MOTd before the SVA,it seems that if its a NEW Engine build and therefore NEW CAR (2007 in log book), it will not require an MOT for three years,just like any NEW car.

However if the date of first registration is connected to either the doner or the "replacement" number that the DVLA have replaced "your"Doner plate with....The Vehicle is not classed as NEW and as far as i can make out,requires an MOT after 12 months from the SVA date.

Although i have not found anything in black and white that simply states THE FACTS CLEARLY......

On the SVA test certificate it says....."having been examined under Section 58 of the Road Traffic Act 1988,it is hereby certified that on the date of the examination complied with the relevant requirements prescribed under Section 54 of the Road Traffic Act 1988"

I presume that this, (and the fact that the DVLA issued the 12 month tax disc for the car),must mean that it was LEGAL and in keeping with "regulations"

The one thing im sticking to is that My Robin Hood is not a 1986 sierra,and at the end of the day i cannot be held responsible for a car That Doesnt Exist, and thats what the police have reported me for failing to produce an MOT for a vehicle that i dont own........It does seem that the DVLA didnt tell their computer that the 1986 sierra that my number plate was taken from (by the Dvla) had in fact been Permanently Scrapped, And thats why my registration says its not a Robin Hood and that its actually a 1986 sierra.....Even though there isnt a single nut and bolt on my car thats come from the car the DVLA got my plate from,and then failed to "list" as Scrapped and "no longer with us".........Unfortunately its GHOST still is....Thanks to all....Mogzee

Ps i forgot to mention my car was not MOTd before the SVA........and something thats worth thinking about is.......If, the police were so convinced that i was driving a 1986 Ford SIerra without an MOT (which i wasnt)...Why was i not reported to the CPS for failing to produce,not just an MOT,but also failing to produce an insurance certificate as well.Because the insurance certificate thati presented at the station that, they seemed to find "valid"?Wasnt for a Bloody Ford sierra....It was for my ROBIN HOOD....!!!

Edited by mogzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi timswait,....After hours and hours spent looking into this subject,the way that i now see it is that,at the time of the SVA test,the vehicle is ONLY classed as New........IF,the vehicle is fitted with either a Brand New Engine..Or one that has been "Totally" Reconditioned By an engineering company with the bills to prove it,and then the date of registration will be the same as the Sva, which in my case would have been 2007.BUT if the car is built from a doner vehicle,as mine is,the DVLA then Swop the registration of the doner,for that of another vehicle, Which in my case seems to be that of another 86 sierra........Also this then leads to the car Not being registered as NEW, but registered as the same year as either the doner or possibly the motor that the Dvla got the plate from,that now replaces that of the doner cars registration, and the date in the logbook will show, "first registered" in 1986 which is what mine says.

 

Hi mogzee,

Interesting that you've pointed this aspect out. Like yours, my car was built using donor parts. None of which could have been considered new. However, on my V5 the date of first registration is May 2007 (same month as SVA) despite having an age related plate. I'll add also that my registration number is not the same as my donor vehicle (just the prefix). It also clearly states it's a Robin Hood. This just goes to prove that there's inconsistencies with the registration process. It seems to me that whoever did the BUI, could have put the wrong info down on his form.

I hope this all gets sorted for you and the sooner the better eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you mind if i popped your reg into my mot computer in the morning to see what it comes up as? bearing in mind our vosa systems are linked to dvla information, and trust me the amount of input errors we came across in the first year of mot computerisation was unbelievable. If you don't mind, would you pm me your reg and last six of your chassis number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi mogzee,

Interesting that you've pointed this aspect out. Like yours, my car was built using donor parts. None of which could have been considered new. However, on my V5 the date of first registration is May 2007 (same month as SVA) despite having an age related plate. I'll add also that my registration number is not the same as my donor vehicle (just the prefix). It also clearly states it's a Robin Hood. This just goes to prove that there's inconsistencies with the registration process. It seems to me that whoever did the BUI, could have put the wrong info down on his form.

I hope this all gets sorted for you and the sooner the better eh?

Thanks Grizzlly...........IM LOST FOR WORDS...Mogzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IF the vehicle is taken for an MOT prior to the SVA, it will then require another MOT when that one expires a year later.Regardless of its status as either NEW eg...New engine,or if its "doner built" eg 1986.

BUT if the vehicle was not MOTd before the SVA,it seems that if its a NEW Engine build and therefore NEW CAR (2007 in log book), it will not require an MOT for three years,just like any NEW car.

However if the date of first registration is connected to either the doner or the "replacement" number that the DVLA have replaced "your"Doner plate with....The Vehicle is not classed as NEW and as far as i can make out,requires an MOT after 12 months from the SVA date.

That may be how the DVLA intend the system to work, but according to Jim's post:

63. As the vehicle is regarded as newly built, the original date of manufacture is no longer relevant to the kit-converted vehicle and the date of manufacture will change to the date the vehicle build was completed. For consistency this is regarded as the date of the ESVA/SVA/MSVA test. Therefore, if the donor vehicle had been eligible for Historic Vehicle tax exemption the exemption will not apply to the new vehicle.

Surely this is saying that the vehicle is regarded as newly built at date of SVA, "the orginal date of manufacture is no longer relevant", so in your case 1986 is "no longer relevant" and the date of manufacture is now 2007, so you shouldn't need an MOT til 2010. Like Jim, I reckon the DVLA didn't know what they'd done when they introduced that new rule, but that is the rules, and you seem to be in compliance with them.

I'd also take up Mark B's kind offer, would be interesting to know what the central MOT computer thinks about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...