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.
