Galvanised Disco 2 Chassis

[Chicken Drumstick]

32 minutes ago, reb78 said:

I am not sure I care that much, but in Bowie's link above next to the new chassis bit it does say 'original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer)' next to the five points - a secondhand chassis isn't direct from the manufacturer and the use of the clarification around new suggests original means the one it left the factory with in this instance?

 

The debate is really around the definition of the word "original"

On the radically altered regs page it uses the word "original" 7 times. On the Rebuilt vehicle regs page it uses the word "original" 5 times. In each of the 12 instances I would say the context and intent of the word is the same for each.

Therefore what does original mean for these 12 times it is used?

 

I declare that it is my opinion that in this context original means "type", not the actual physical instance of the item.

 

If it does not mean this, then my 5 month old Suzuki Jimny, that has just had the transfer box replaced by the dealership, is now 2 points down and 2 points closer to needing an IVA -- which frankly would be ludicrous!

 

However, what is happening with some posters above. They are wanting to use the word "original" in a completely different way only when referencing the chassis and ignoring how the word is used elsewhere on the proceeding lines.

 There is simply nothing to support this reasoning on the .gov pages that the definition of the word "original" changes across the page(s):

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/radically-altered-vehicles

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/rebuilt-vehicles

 

 

Therefore using logic and deductive reasoning, if the word "original" in this context means "type". Then it is perfectly acceptable to replace a ladder chassis with another or the same type, that isn't new and isn't modified. And while it does not mention it on these pages. It is clear from other legislation that the vehicle ID's should tally.

I do not see how in any rational conversation that this can be considered as one person said "a cut & shut". Nothing has been cut or welded, and nobody is trying to pass off a stolen car as another.

 

In regards to this thread, it means the the op is perfectly and legally entitled to sell the chassis they have and that someone is legally entitled to buy it and use it, so long as they aren't trying to duplicate a vehicles ID. The ID can only legally be associated with a single vehicle.

[Bowie69]

DVSA have a helpline email address, I've used them before, very helpful and knowledgeable.

So, yes, you can get a legal perspective from DVSA.

[Snagger]

3 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

lol, clearly you have a reading problem in regard to this 😛

It most evidently does not say what you have in speech marks above.... as already posted, but posted again just for you

To paraphrase, the devil is in the detail

 

It clearly does say that - look at the second bullet point of the image I took from the DVLA site, posted at 1211 on Thursday 16 and reposted by you.  You are advocating ringing, Drumstick, plain and simple.

[Simon_CSK]

19 hours ago, reb78 said:

I am not sure I care that much, but in Bowie's link above next to the new chassis bit it does say 'original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer)' next to the five points - a secondhand chassis isn't direct from the manufacturer and the use of the clarification around new suggests original means the one it left the factory with in this instance?

 

But a Richard's Chassis is also not "direct from the original manufacturer" it is new from a chassis manufacturer.

[Snagger]

1 minute ago, Simon_CSK said:

But a Richard's Chassis is also not "direct from the original manufacturer" it is new from a chassis manufacturer.

There is no problem with direct from the chassis manufacturer, or from the vehicle manufacturer, or even from an intermediary retailer.  The point is simply that it must not have been previously used or registered, and the sales documentation is your proof of that.  I haven’t heard of anyone having trouble with a replacement chassis that was bought for a project and then sold on second hand before being fitted - though that isn’t then direct from manufacturer, but it is unused, so as long as you had the receipts too, I’d guess the DVLA wouldn’t have a problem as it’s within the spirit of the law, if not the letter.  But it’s something I’d ask from them in writing before buying.  They generally seem reasonable, just slow at getting back to enquirers.

[Anderzander]

Just to pose a question ..... Should we separate out the legal conversion from CSK’s questions? In essence - give him his thread back 😂

[reb78]

4 hours ago, Simon_CSK said:

But a Richard's Chassis is also not "direct from the original manufacturer" it is new from a chassis manufacturer.

This demonstrates why noone has a clear answer I think. I read it differently to you but no idea who is right. To me that says original chassis (i.e. the now crusty one that it left the factory with) or a new one direct from the manufacturer (I dont read it as the manufacturer being LR). Who knows....

[Chicken Drumstick]

22 hours ago, Bowie69 said:

DVSA have a helpline email address, I've used them before, very helpful and knowledgeable.

So, yes, you can get a legal perspective from DVSA.

Yes I have used it also. They are helpful to an extent, but it is not legal advice they offer. Just an opinion of their interpretation. Which can vary depending on who you speak to or who replies to your query. And in most cases they will often just site the info as represented on the .gov site.

 

Here are some replies from them in the past:

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Chicken Drumstick

[Chicken Drumstick]

21 hours ago, Snagger said:

It clearly does say that - look at the second bullet point of the image I took from the DVLA site, posted at 1211 on Thursday 16 and reposted by you.  You are advocating ringing, Drumstick, plain and simple.

That 2nd bullet is referring very clearly to a 'new' chassis or bodyshell. In saying it must be of the same specification, aka you can't replace a 109" chassis with an 88" one. Or a box section chassis with a tubular one. Or a convertible unibody instead of a saloon. And logically it is saying this, as it doesn't want you cutting up the existing chassis from say 109" to 88" either. So this is to close the loop hole of people buying a new replacement to altered the spec of the vehicle.

As for ringing, I have already provided you with a DVLA definition on this term. Which is clearly something completely different to what is being discussed here. As we are not talking about stolen cars and trying to pass them off as something else. Please try to be reasonable, rather than throwing out unfounded allocations.

[Chicken Drumstick]

4 hours ago, Snagger said:

The point is simply that it must not have been previously used or registered, and the sales documentation is your proof of that.

Yet this is the crux of it Snagger. It simply does not in anyway shape or form say this on the .gov pages. I know you want it too (really want it too). But it does not. It just says original.

But as it uses the word 'original' 11 other times in the same context. Which can be clearly demonstrated to not mean the physical instance of the item it left the factory with. Just the same type, be it new or used. So long as it is the same specification and unmodified. Else half the Land Rover's in the UK and most classic cars would all be rolling about on Q plates. Which clearly they are not.

 

It is also worth noting that a vehicles ID is not solely based on the chassis number stamping. Most modern'ish vehicles will have multiple stampings in different places. Indeed in the case of most Land Rovers with a ladder chassis. They will have a separate VIN plate affixed to the bodywork that forms the basis of the vehicle ID.

e.g.

[Simon_CSK]

5 hours ago, Anderzander said:

Just to pose a question ..... Should we separate out the legal conversion from CSK’s questions? In essence - give him his thread back 😂

Argue on. I am very interested in this can of worms that I have opened up.

[ThreePointFive]

4 minutes ago, Simon_CSK said:

Argue on. I am very interested in this can of worms that I have opened up.

[Simon_CSK]

Just now, ThreePointFive said:

Not at all it is a very interesting discussion/argument about things that are very important to us but the great unwashed simply ring the car and be damned.

[ThreePointFive]

Sorry Simon, that was said firmly tongue in cheek. Some of the potential interpretations of the legislation directly impact on my vehicle so I am watching with interest.

[Anderzander]

Can we break the words down a bit - I’m lost ....

So, I read it as:

to keep the reg it has to be:

The original unmodified chassis. Original as in the one it came with.

or

A new one (of the original type) direct from the manufacturer. New as in not 2nd hand, direct - as in not privately owned and resold, from the manufacturer being a bit grey between OEM and another provider.

Is that wrong ? 

 

[Simon_CSK]

5 minutes ago, ThreePointFive said:

Sorry Simon, that was said firmly tongue in cheek. Some of the potential interpretations of the legislation directly impact on my vehicle so I am watching with interest.

It's okay i saw the funny side.

But am very interested in the consensus

[Anderzander]

There is none ! 

[Simon_CSK]

1 minute ago, Anderzander said:

There is none ! 

I didn't say there was but I am interested in seeing if they can get one. 

[reb78]

30 minutes ago, Anderzander said:

Can we break the words down a bit - I’m lost ....

So, I read it as:

to keep the reg it has to be:

The original unmodified chassis. Original as in the one it came with.

or

A new one (of the original type) direct from the manufacturer. New as in not 2nd hand, direct - as in not privately owned and resold, from the manufacturer being a bit grey between OEM and another provider.

Is that wrong ? 

 

Thats always been my understanding and what i was badly trying to say above. 

[Sheffield]

What you appear to be saying is that the idea of making one good vehicle out of two with problems is no longer permitted. Regardless of the unclear legal situation it seems to me that provided the seller sells the chassis without identity, and tells the DVLA the vehicle is scrapped, and the buyer uses the chassis to rebuild an otherwise good D2, keeping that D2's identity, nothing has been done that is morally wrong. I doubt if officialdom would be interested, even if they realised what had been done.

So, back to the origianl question, I think the chassis does have value under the above circumstances. 

[geoffbeaumont]

It strikes me that DVLA/DVSA* could make this all perfectly clear and unambiguous simply by providing a small number of worked examples applying the rules. 

Of course, that assumes that they are able to arrive at a consistent interpretation of the rules themselves. 

 

* Neither of them seem to want to take ownership of actually deciding which vehicles need a new identity, which is probably part of the problem... 

[western]

By New it means either a brand new chassis from Land Rover or from one of the aftermarket chassis manufacturers such as Richards/Marsland/Shielder. it's that simple,

 

[muddy]

Its only illegal on paper to stop dishonest people utilising stolen parts or concocting badly made death traps and if you posses the correct documentation I belive it would have to be an unreasonable judge to call you out on it.

 

having been in the position of needing a galvanised chassis for a D2 I would value it at £1000 for the rolling chassis with steering box, if the box was recent and the axles displayed extremely new ball joints and or callipers and it had decent wheels and tyres that I actually wanted then I would go up to £1500 much more and you may aswell buy a brand new one.

 

Everyone is losing their **** over a legitimate (one of the first Richards IIRC) chassis yet if I owned a mint ex mod 90 and bought an Lreg 200 defender and swapped the engine and box, back axle, fitted a recon power steering box to upgrade to PAS  and built up new 24 spline front hubs people would remark at what a lovely vehicle it was🙄

 

Will.

[mmgemini]

Two things here.

I have always understood that the registration number on the V5 belongs to the chassis. So as long as the chassis is sold with the V5 for that chassis no  problem

the second one, What happened to Gresh over the chassis change of his yellow 110 ?

[sean f]

On 7/24/2020 at 10:10 AM, mmgemini said:

Two things here.

I have always understood that the registration number on the V5 belongs to the chassis. So as long as the chassis is sold with the V5 for that chassis no  problem

the second one, What happened to Gresh over the chassis change of his yellow 110 ?

That was pretty much my understanding, if the chassis has never been registered on another vehicle and is the same type then all is good if it has it remains the first vehicle and you would be building a vehicle onto it.

From a slightly more pragmatic view in this case as most new chassis don't have chassis numbers stamped into them if this has never been done then no one is actually going to know it has been on another vehicle, if it does have a number stamped on it then you would need to change the V5 to reflect this new number which is likely to cause problems with the DVLA as above. Running a vehicle where the chassis number doesn't match the V5 or has been ground out and modified will open up a whole lot of problems about what the true identity of the vehicle actually is potentially resulting in all the paperwork being declared invalid as they don't actually refer the that vehicle. I have seen this happen to a guy from university he changed the number plates and slam panel plate along with the engine and gearbox from his broken down but taxed, MOT'ed and insured car to another the same year, make, model and colour, he was stopped and the police checked the stamped in chassis number, he was charged with no insurance and pleaded guilty on the threat of multiple other charges. The check was probable the result of complaints from and information supplied from a neighbour.

As far as other components scoring points for originality I have always read it as original type, so new leaf springs can be fitted to a series but fitting coils looses the points (parabolic's are questionable?), 2.25 petrol with recon engine of the same type and capacity, is good 300tdi is not etc.

The most blatant breaking of the rules is when there is a "series 2 diesel" tax exempt but rebuilt with a new chassis from a 90 along with new axles, engine, gearbox steering etc etc from a 90, so basically it is a 90 on false plates!.