I'm nearing the end of a lengthy rebuild of a vintage car that has been SORNed.
Unfortunatly the original exhausts do not fit, so I will need to get new ones made. I will need to push it a short distance on the highway in order to load and unload it from the trailer, pre getting a MOT.
Car will not be a mechanically propelled vehicle, as I will leave the drive chains off. I'm rather assuming it would be a good idea to leave the number plates off as well - since I do not think there a requirement to have plates on non powered vehicle.
Historically I've found DVLC are fairly good if there is no intent to defraud, and in this case, as I really mean vintage by the proper definition (ie pre 1 Jan 1931) the car is tax exempt, the recent excitements on this subject perhaps indicate a change of tack.
What think the legal eagles?
SlidingPillar
PS I am insured by the way
|
As you intend to push the vehicle "a short distance" to a trailer, you would be most unlucky to be spotted and reported for using the car without VED.
Your defence of not being a mechanically-propelled vehicle seems to me to be sound.
|
Mmmm. Stated case on mechanical propulsion would suggest that it is ok to do it but case law is there to be overturned !
In practice it would be in order to do what you're doing. Not legal advice of course.
|
|
|
|
Intriguing!
"I will leave the drive chains off" suggests GN or Frazer-Nash, or even Veteran or Edwardian.
Sliding Pillar, on the other hand, reminds one of Morgan or Lancia. Exhausts, plural, could perhaps have to do with the narrow angle V on the latter.
If there is no compelling reason for discretion, may we know what this is, please?
As to the question, I have in the fitter past pushed a motor bike quite a long way under similar circumstances (no tax or insurance) without being questioned; and you did meet policemen in those days.
|
On absolute legality I would say that once the wheels touched the highway then it needs Licence, Insurance and Test certificate. (Ignoring the exemption re booked MOT.)
The test to be followed by a Court in deciding if a MPV is that can it be said "There is no reasonable prospect of the vehicle ever being made mobile again" Binks v D of E 1975. This implies that a temporary state of immobility does not make the vehicle a non MPV.
Smart v Allan 1962 vehicle without gearbox or engine in such a state that no prospect of ever being made mobile then not a MPV.
Law v Thomas 1964 - a broken down vehicle capable of repair in a matter of minutes held to be a MPV.
Newbury v Simmons 1961 - engine removed - vehicle did not stop being a MPV if there was evidence engine was to be replaced and vehicle made mobile again.
But at the end of the day it would be for a Court to decide on an argument from Defence that vehicle was not an MPV.
However, from the circumstances described I would not expect any Police action but in these days of Performance Indicators etc I could not give a cast iron assurance.
DVD
|
Supposing you rolled it off the trailer onto wooden planks, would it still be 'on the highway'?
There must be some level of structure, in between plain road and a trailer, at which the road stops.
|
Doubt it Cliff.
Why?
Holiday v Henry 1974 - a vehicle was held to be on a road when, because a roller skate was interposed between each wheel and the surface of the road, it could be said to be in actual physical contact with the road.
DVD
|
Hmm, what I thought really. Not really legal, but unlikely to cause a nicking. I guess there being no possible back duty is a point in my favour.
Car is a Morgan Super Sports Aero (you try and get that sort of name past insurance co's these days). A two speeder, so it either drives via a high or low gear chain, engaged via dogs. Assuming I was prepared to rev it, 45mph in first, and 80mph in second.
An "interesting" vehicle to drive (I drove it before starting restoration). Gear lever right hand side, hand throttle, main (front) brakes lever on the left hand side (also functions as handbrake). But, capable of following a supermarket lorry on a motorway, and thus not a mobile roadblock.
|
Should have worked that out!
Congratulations; JAP?
|
SlidingPillar - My only advice - first law of these sort of things where no dishonest intent / negligible danger ...
look both ways and don't get caught !
|
|
|
|
