Does anyone run currently a range rover, land rover, or discovery that is factory standard in every respect other than it has been shortened to remove the rear overhang.
So c pillar moved forward and the dip down part of the chassis that collects water and rots out (yes I know that most of the chassis)
Does this constitute radical alteration?
Does it mean that said vehicle will no longer qualify on a an age basis for road tax and mot exemption where a completely standard vehicle of equivalent age would.
Are the dvla entitled or likely to reevoke or refuse to issue a v5c for road use
Or demand an SVA/IVA
Are they a nightmare to insure full stop, and or on a classic policy?
Pic of example
http://www.adrianstomcat.co.uk/Bobtail/Bobtail01-06.JPG
Yes, making this type of modification these days would be considered radical alteration.
It was ok back in the day, but no longer
So the vehicle is 1984 and the alteration was done sometime in the 1990's but do not have an exact date or any proof.
But it is not a recent mutilation.
The vehicle is standard in every other respect, engine, gearbox, axle just bobbed.
If the chassis has been altered in any way then yes
Peter (your friendly VRO)
as said, unless it can be proven that it was done 30+ years ago, it's substantially modified
Where does that leave a detachable gearbox crossmember on a 109 civvy vehicle?
So the vehicle is 1984 and the alteration was done sometime in the 1990's but do not have an exact date or any proof.
Hi,
There IS a list of acceptable/not acceptable criteria. You can probably find it by Googling POINTS SYSTEM FOR REBUILT OR RADICALLY ALTERED VEHICLES.
There is an apparent loophole, in that if new parts are no longer available from the factory, then alternatives may be fitted ... but who's factory?
Alterations are acceptable, provided they were introduced/ common/ whatever, more that a specified number of years ago. I suspect that detachable cross-members were a factory option, but perhaps only offered to the military, Google the above.
Alterations are acceptable IF they improve efficiency and or safety.
From memory (but assume my memory is flawed) you need either 12 or 13 points, 8 of which must come from the chassis/shell/frame (you can't achieve the required number of points without the chassis). I think both axles are required to earn 2 points, but the engine is worth only 1 point. I can't remember what the suspension and steering are worth. I have a vague memory of listing the various points earnable, on this forum, within the last few months.
From time to time, I ponder if the wheels are considered part of the axles, or suspension. But then I remember reading (somewhere and/or
somewhen else) that alterations that can be quickly reversed may be disregarded. Visions of Series Land Rovers fitted with splined hubs, and "winged" centre-lock wire wheels (and a copper-headed club- hammer in the tool box).
OT. I read (a long time ago) of a rally with included the competitors having to remove a wheel, roll it around the car, and refit it, before continuing. The competitors in a vintage Bentley decided that "a wheel" could include the "spare" wheel, which in their case, was strapped to a front mudguard. :flasher.
602
OT. Even more OT, probably late 1920s or early 1930s ... a driver finished FIRST in the Targa Floria (sp?), riding a bicycle borrowed from a spectating peasant.
The rules were quickly changed, to require BOTH the driver AND his car to pass the finishing line.
Hi,
Sorry, I think I have misquoted the number of "points" required to avoid your project requiring an SVA.
Could it be 8 points, 5 of which come from the original or new chassis?
Anybody?
602
PS. I think I read somewhere that replacement chassis must be bought direct from the manufacture. Define "manufacturer".
May I suggest that for the avoidance of doubt, anything relating to a substantially modified vehicle should be treated with caution. Therefore the comments made in this post are largely speculative and should not be taken as a definitive statement of the facts and the rules.
Our Vehicle Registration Officer, Peter Holden, is best placed to guide people through this minefield along with Alex Bywaters who also has experience in what constitutes modification or acceptable change.
Quote from: AlexB on Oct 25, 2023, 03:14 PMas said, unless it can be proven that it was done 30+ years ago, it's substantially modified
Is the inverse applicable that the vosa or dvla or dvsa would have to prove it was done more recently than 30+
On points system, axles, engine, gearbox, wheelbase all standard.
What is not standard overall chassis length, overall bodyshell length both having been shortened by at a guess 12inches or 300m.
My long term aim would be to reinstate to stock, but fear that due to its current state whenever it was done it may be refused a logbook at change of keeper.
With reinstatement in mind are rear chassis sections available for range rover as per land rover, from whom and are they sit down and take a breath expensive.
2286
If you are a club member we are better off continuing this discussion in private
Peter
QuoteIs the inverse applicable that the vosa or dvla or dvsa would have to prove it was done more recently than 30+
Not a chance - the onus is on the owner to provide the evidence and it will have to be pretty convincing.
:RHD
Quote from: Wittsend on Oct 26, 2023, 01:30 PMQuoteIs the inverse applicable that the vosa or dvla or dvsa would have to prove it was done more recently than 30+
Not a chance - the onus is on the owner to provide the evidence and it will have to be pretty convincing.
:RHD
That is what I suspected, I have heard that vehicles that have been refused logbooks when they change hands, some however manage to evade the authorities.
There was a purge of highly publicised cases and it seems to have gone quiet of late.
I do not wish to find out the hard way by buying something that could not be road used.
Is there not a Range Rover forum or Facebook group who might have 1st hand knowledge ???
Personally I think the best advice would be to walk away - keep your money for something else.
:RHD
That is the conclusion I had reluctantly reached.
The vehicle I had interest in was very solid and well sorted hence my lingering over it but the chop has proved problematic.
Another option is to buy it, and buy a brand new (complete) chassis. Then rebuild it onto the new chassis as it was originally (a restoration project). Cut up the old chassis but keep the bit with the number on it, and job done.
Chris.
Quote from: Wittsend on Oct 27, 2023, 01:51 PMIs there not a Range Rover forum or Facebook group who might have 1st hand knowledge ???
Personally I think the best advice would be to walk away - keep your money for something else.
:RHD
I have nothing to do with facebook, the RRR or range rover register forum ceased a good few years ago.
Hi,
This discussion seems to have ended a few weeks ago, so with Alan's permission ...
I frequently visit a cul-de-sac that ends in a hammer-head. I used to be able to do a U-turn in that hammer-head, but now either or both ends of the "head" are frequently filled with parked cars.
OK, I sympathise with the residents. I mean, they only room to park two, possibly three cars in their front gardens, with dropped kerbs running the full width of their property.
However, there is a gentleman who doesn't live on, but very close to, the hammer-head. He parks his car, at 45*, on the corner.
Going slightly ON topic. He has a modern euro-hatch that has been customised (nicely done), sitting on low profile tyres. The suspension has obviously been lowered, and the tops of the tyres are only just visible below the edges of the wheel arches. I guestimate that his sills are about three inches above tarmac.
Question. Can this sort of car be lowered that far, without altering the body shell?
Question. If the shell has been altered, I assume that would mean an IVA (or whatever)? Would that in turn lead to a Q-plate? Or a seize and crush?
My understanding is that such alterations would not void his Third Party insurance. I think only driving without, or never having held, a licence, or driving while disqualified, will VOID your insurance.
According to the RTAs, the insurers are entitled to sue the Policy Holder to recover their losses, if the Polic holder has been pushing his luck.
602 (I feel better now).
I think only driving without, or never having held, a licence, or driving while disqualified, will VOID your insurance.
Hi,
It's what is (was) specified on your CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE that counts.
Sometimes I ponder if holding/have held a PROVISIONAL licence is sufficient to cover your back. ???
There is something in my mind about there being a 14 day "period of grace" following the expiry of your insurance provided you DO renew within those 14 days. Check that before pushing your luck.
602
602 Do you happen to know the make and model of the hatchback in your question as there are multiple companies that produce items to lower without altering the shell.
Coilovers, adjustable bottom arms, even airride. Rephasing the the torsion bar and trailing arms, lower springs the list goes on.
ALL modifications must be declared to the insurer or the policy becomes invalid.
I know of police officers that have used this route to cease vehicles as alterations undisclosed result in no insurance and it get lifted on the spot. It relies on the dvla MIB and so on being accessible and up to date.
I did think that how your tale began you knew of an owner who had bobtailed a range rover simply to turn around in the congested cul-de-sac.
My very scant range rover exposure revealed that double parked terraced streets and so on are not the environment to be driving them, that said the turning circle knocks spots off even the most sorted series land rover.
ALL modifications must be declared to the insurer or the policy becomes invalid.
Hi 2286,
I beg to disagree. The reasons for voiding insurance, are, or were, specified on insurance certificates, ie,
Racing and Speed Testing, or the Driver NEVER having held a licence, or being DISQUALIFIED. Imagine the public outcry if insurers started to refuse injury claims.
I read some years ago that DISQUALIFIED means "Disqualified by a Court of Law". A MEDICAL DEBARMENT by DVLC is'nt a disqualification.
OT. Many years ago Stirling Moss was disqualified (I wonder why?). He needed to have a valid licence to continue racing. Luckily, his full American licence allowed him to race in UK, but not drive on the road.
OT. A motor vehicle, on a PUBLIC Right of Way requires registration plates and insurance, but not an MOT. Again, many years ago, I read of an inebriated farmer, who drove home from the pub on ROWs, to find a police car waiting for him. If the generable public have access, even if they have to pay, you need insurance. I suppose that means you are vunerable in a pub car park?
602
PS. I have vague memories from when Continuous Licencing was introduced, that the police could seize a unlicenced motor vehicle, even if it was in your locked garage. Presumably somebody saw sense? I suspect that a vehicle becomes unlicenced if it's insurance expires, unless it's keeper declares SORN.
When was continuous licensing introduced? I remember it being proposed in the early 1980's but it was never introduced. At that time I wrote to Lord Montague of Beaulieu on the subject and received a hand written letter from him. He was opposed to it.
As for declaring modifications etc to your insurance company you must do so otherwise the policy will be invalid and the insurance company can sue for breach of contract to recover amy expenses
I suppose we do now have continuous licencing in that a vehicle must be declared either under a SORN or as taxed. Its only vehicles which were not on the road pre the 1990s which escape that until such time as a new V5C is issued.
The 1980's proposal would have resulted in a payment having to be made for any vehicle whether it was on the road or not. At least SORN is free for any vehicle.
Quote from: w3526602 on Nov 01, 2023, 05:40 AMALL modifications must be declared to the insurer or the policy becomes invalid.
Hi 2286,
I beg to disagree. The reasons for voiding insurance, are, or were, specified on insurance certificates, ie,
Racing and Speed Testing, or the Driver NEVER having held a licence, or being DISQUALIFIED. Imagine the public outcry if insurers started to refuse injury claims.
I read some years ago that DISQUALIFIED means "Disqualified by a Court of Law". A MEDICAL DEBARMENT by DVLC is'nt a disqualification.
OT. Many years ago Stirling Moss was disqualified (I wonder why?). He needed to have a valid licence to continue racing. Luckily, his full American licence allowed him to race in UK, but not drive on the road.
OT. A motor vehicle, on a PUBLIC Right of Way requires registration plates and insurance, but not an MOT. Again, many years ago, I read of an inebriated farmer, who drove home from the pub on ROWs, to find a police car waiting for him. If the generable public have access, even if they have to pay, you need insurance. I suppose that means you are vunerable in a pub car park?
602
PS. I have vague memories from when Continuous Licencing was introduced, that the police could seize a unlicenced motor vehicle, even if it was in your locked garage. Presumably somebody saw sense? I suspect that a vehicle becomes unlicenced if it's insurance expires, unless it's keeper declares SORN.
I was simply referencing to an officer who had a vehicle removed from the the road on the spot.
The vehicle deviated from as built factory, whilst modifications are allowed by insurers if detailed in full. This individual has realised that it may adversely affect his premium or through being lazy or complacent it will result in policy being invalid, and the police therefore can take it off the road on those grounds as an uninsured vehicle.
I am not making any reference to drivers qualification or road fund licence.
Vehicles require current rfl
current mot unless exempt and declared
current certificate of motor insurance which was voided due to undeclared mods.
Driver held current correct licence.
The mods had been made were considered to have effected the way the vehicle would have driven.
With regard to my original post, the range rover in question was totally standard other than it had approximately 12" cut from the body and and chassis presumably done to minimise overhang with a view to off roading.
No note of mot failing rot or vehicle damaged by rearend collision was noted, it was the owner at that times own personal choice.