This may have been covered before, if so please excuse me.
I'm a little confused (doesn't take much these days) by how "old" my kit cars are. Both were bought, not built by me (so I can't have the sticker!).

My GTM was built in 2003 and SVA'd/registered in 2004. The donor was a 1994 Metro. It came to me with "M" registration. I was told that it had worn a personalised plate previously (with a "K" reg) and when the original owner/builder sold the car they kept the reg and it was assigned a random available "M" plate consistent with the age related registration given at the time of registration. As such it would appear DVLA believe it's age comes from the 1994 donor and thus is 1994. However the V5 says the date of first registration is 2004. It is registered as GTM Spyder (Not a Rover Metro!)

Conversely, my Locost was built in the early 2000's and SVA'd/registered in (AFAIK) 2003. The V5, however, says the date of first registration is 1988. There was a Sierra donor involved but I don't know all the details. I'm guessing it was a 1988 "F" reg as the number plate is an "F". It is registered as a "Racing Design Works" as I guess Locost builders could choose the make. Not a Ford Sierra.

So, why the inconsistency? If the date of first registration on the V5 reflects the donor on an age related plate the GTM should say 1994. If the date of first registration reflects the actual date the kit was registered then the Locost should say 2003?

Does this mean my GTM could have an 04 plate? If so why was it assigned a "M" when the personalised plate came off? Where is the "age related" age recorded?

Can anyone reflect some light on what should be recorded on a V5 in these cases?

I can’t give rhym or reason but having had the discussion this afternoon with the new owner of my Indy that he couldn’t stick his R reg private plate on an E reg kit tested 2004 he showed me the dvla letter to say he could .
So why the hell put it on an E reg in the first place.

Both vehicles have age related plates, which is correct on the assumption that they had new chassis (5 points) & had sufficient bits from whatever the donor was to achieve a further 3 points.

The DVLA is run by children fresh out of uni, presumably with a degree in history, or theology or something similarly engineering based! I doubt many of them would be able to name any kitcars let alone identify them correctly, hence it is very, very, common for dates to be recorded incorrectly as they have little understanding of what is required

The actual correct "age" is the date it was built/registered rather than the age of the donor on which the age related plate is based

With regard to Bigwasa's comment, it certainly shouldn't be possible to have a personal reg plate newer than the age related plate on the car, but again, mistakes are frequently made

I personally know of a vehicle that's been given a 2021 brand new reg despite have an engine & gearbox from different vehicles both over 15 - 20 years old - no falsification of receipts etc wqas involved they have simply cocked up - the owner has very swiftly put a personal plate on with a 21 reg, just to confirm that they "see" it as being a new vehicle! Like I said, to repeat myself, mistakes are frequently made .....

[Edited on 1/9/21 by russbost]

My old car was given a new reg despite no major parts where new and no two donor parts from one vehicle.

^^ basically the DVLA are usless - there are loads that werrn't / arn't correctly regestered - even when all the correct info is supplied to them
never mind all the applications made incorrectly by accident or deliberately falsified....



Your GTM sounds like it was done right the V5 showing the date of reg as 2004, but with an effective date of 1994 (the 1994 date is only used for allowable number plates / emissions)

You should also have a special note on the V5 explaning that its built from parts 'all of which may not be new' - this is the reason your not allowed a number plate newer than 1994 on a otherwise 2004 car. [this is the only bit that tells you its age related on the v5]

It should also have another special note listing the emissions limits (as tested at the SVA/IVA) to help avoid issues come MOT time

something like this:




The locost on the other hand just sounds like the usial DVLA cockup

If it was regestered as an age related 1988, then it should have been given an 88 plate, but should have been listed as 'first registered 2003'

I know some people managed to get these details corrected on the V5 years later (even if they didn't build the car) - but I'm not sure if you really need that kind of hassle (you'd be dealing with the same idiots that cocked it up in the first place for one thing)



To be 100% correct the only way to get a 'new' reg on any of these should be to provide sufficent proof that all major components (ie chassis, axles, steering, engine, trans...) where brand new except for 1 which needs proof that it was reconditioned to 'as new'

quote:

---

Originally posted by russbost
Both vehicles have age related plates, which is correct on the assumption that they had new chassis (5 points) & had sufficient bits from whatever the donor was to achieve a further 3 points.

---

Thanks mcerd1. You've confirmed what I was thinking. The GTM does have the note about being built from a kit/parts not all of which were new but doesn't have the second note re date of SVA or emissions figures. That had caused confusion at MOT's until I put a "H" reg private plate on it and since then every MOT tester has just assumed it is pre-1992 age related so pre-cat emissions. The V5 doesn't say anywhere about the 1994 date so I guess it is only when you ask for a plate that you find out.

The Locost doesn't have that note but says "declared new at first registration". Well, the Sierra was new in 1988 I suppose!