Category B. Good news!!

Rolandtheroadie

My own closing thoughts are it's neither good news or money saving. I suspect you could have bought the same car at the time and on the road for less than you've now spent.
The defensive attitude when anyone tries to gain clarification through the smoke screen you put up seems to confirm this.
I look forward to your post in a couple of days saying everythings worked out fine.

Good luck

vaio

Imp wrote: »

..... Can anybody point me in the direction of the relevant legislation.

Still no response other than links to pages HPI companies and dvlc that say "should not" rather than "must not".

The fact that cat A, B & C need VIC before being brought back into use inclines me toward the OP’s point of view, if the intention was to stop A & B coming back into use why include them in the VIC regs?

Any law covering it that wanted to stop A & B coming back into use would be easy to frame, remove the licence plate entitlement or require the insurance companies destroy & issue a certificate like on the scrapage scheme

Imp

philip43 wrote: »

If a 'Certificate of Destruction' has been issued for the vehicle, then it may well be impossible to return the car to road use. If the car you refer to has been on the road for 4 years, then it is highly likely that it has had a VIC. Check the V5, on the front it should say 'Vehicle extensively repaired and/ or identity checked. There is a link in a post above, to the relevant government website. Go to it and search for VIC. Look for the sign post that says 'vehicle enquiry', input your details and see if there is a 'VIC@ marker on the database for your car.


http://www.taxdisc.direct.gov.uk/EvlPortalApp/application?origin=vehicleDetails_en.jsp&event=bea.portal.framework.internal.refresh&pageid=Home

This is the site you need to go to. Enter the reg, and the make.

Everything looks okay with the car we are looking at. It has the "vehicle extensively repaired and/ or identity checked" on the front page of the V5. All we need now is insurance. We've tried Footman James, thinking they would be good with restored cars, but they don't do Cat B. I've tried Performance Direct. There normal cover won't do, but they have a specialist department we are trying. You couldn't let me know who you got your insurance through, could you?

Cheers,

Imp

Imp

vaio wrote: »

Still no response other than links to pages HPI companies and dvlc that say "should not" rather than "must not".

The fact that cat A, B & C need VIC before being brought back into use inclines me toward the OP’s point of view, if the intention was to stop A & B coming back into use why include them in the VIC regs?

Any law covering it that wanted to stop A & B coming back into use would be easy to frame, remove the licence plate entitlement or require the insurance companies destroy & issue a certificate like on the scrapage scheme

Those were my thoughts. Normally if something is illegal, it is straight forward to find the legislation. I haven't found it and nobody has pointed me in the right direction, so I suspect it doesn't exist.

MrRedundant

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/AdviceOnBuyingAndSellingAVehicle/DG_4022107

I would say this is very clear. The VIC is only to allow issue of a V5 saying the OP owns the car; it will still remain a category B write off. Category B write offs as agreed by the insurance and motor industry should not be returned to the road. A VIC doesnt mean the car should be returned to the road it simply confirms its identity and that the write off isnt being used for illegal purposes.

Now it isnt illegal to return a Cat B to the road however I remain to see how you plan to insure it and thus legally tax it and drive it. Could you name the insurer who has insured this Cat B for full use and confirm they are fully aware of it being a Cat B and being used on the road?

It is also the case that you will never be able to sell the car and will probably find everytime you try and insure it, tax it, MOT it and so on you get the same old problems.

You also say it passed the VIC. This can categorically not be true based on what you have told us as any defacement to VIN's etc is an automatic fail. When a car fails checks will be carried out to confirm the reason and correct any discrepancy. This doesnt mean the discrepancy is wrong or a VIC pass is going to happen. Its exactly what it says. Further checks. If the car has defacement to parts then you could be in serious problems. Its also worth noting that once its failed and been appealed if its not upheld thats it and the car will never be issued a new V5, taxable etc.

I also can't see how the car can be MOT'd if the identity plates are damaged as this is an MOT check item.

The more I read the more I think you are clutching at straws and technicalities and the more surprised I will be if you are ever legally able to drive this card on the road for any period of time.

A few questions;

Who is the car insured with? On what basis? Do they know it is a Cat B
What is the MOT status? Who Mot'd it? Why when it must have failed?
Has the car at current failed the VIC?

vaio

Lots of waffle & repetition but still no link to any legislation.

VIC is identity only, nothing to do with legality or road use. Once VIC is passed then V5 (registered keeper, nothing to do with ownership) is issued and car can be taxed. Seems silly to the point of ridiculous if they issue a log book & allow you to tax it and but not use it on the road.

MOT only requires VIN to be in place and legible, nothing about damaged or tampered with as long as it is still readable. VIC is more stringent in that they check the VIN hasn’t been tampered with as you’d expect on an identity check.

Selling it might be a problem as lots of people (rightly or wrongly) run away from write offs but doesn’t matter as the OP plans on keeping it

Insurance companies must ask “clear and unambiguous” questions about anything they consider to be a material fact. I don’t remember ever being asked about the write off status of a car at proposal time although I do remember seeing details of one insurance company that does ask and declines to insure write offs but that is exceptional rather than normal. In any event, I assume it’s insured as the OP has taken it for an MOT & VIC.

philip43

vaio wrote: »

Lots of waffle & repetition but still no link to any legislation.

VIC is identity only, nothing to do with legality or road use. Once VIC is passed then V5 (registered keeper, nothing to do with ownership) is issued and car can be taxed. Seems silly to the point of ridiculous if they issue a log book & allow you to tax it and but not use it on the road.

MOT only requires VIN to be in place and legible, nothing about damaged or tampered with as long as it is still readable. VIC is more stringent in that they check the VIN hasn’t been tampered with as you’d expect on an identity check.

Selling it might be a problem as lots of people (rightly or wrongly) run away from write offs but doesn’t matter as the OP plans on keeping it

Insurance companies must ask “clear and unambiguous” questions about anything they consider to be a material fact. I don’t remember ever being asked about the write off status of a car at proposal time although I do remember seeing details of one insurance company that does ask and declines to insure write offs but that is exceptional rather than normal. In any event, I assume it’s insured as the OP has taken it for an MOT & VIC.

VIC stands for 'Vehicle Identity Check' This involves examination of the car to ensure that the car is the car it is purporting to be. It is not a check for roadworthiness.

As the car was a category 'B', the insurance company defaced the VIN plates, as well as the stamped in chassis number. This is to prevent the cars identity being used on a stolen one. I also believe, although I have no proof, that this is the insurance companies way of preventing someone from gaining a benefit, from something on which they have made a loss.

A police forensics officer examines the car, and determines from the information the car gives him, wether or not the car is genuine. There are other ways and means by which the cars identity can be ascertained. And no, I don't know how, because they obviously don't tell you.

I am now at liberty to stamp the VIN on another part of the car, in the engine compartment, where it is clearly visible. In fact, the examining officer told me where exactly to place the VIN.

Thank you for your reply to my post. If other posters take the time to read them, I really don't think there would be so much confusion.

BTW, I got a phone call today to say that the engine number relates to a short motor that was fitted to the car, sometime in the past. I have no information on exactly when, or why, but that does not concern me. Now for the MOT!!!

philip43

vaio wrote: »

Still no response other than links to pages HPI companies and dvlc that say "should not" rather than "must not".

The fact that cat A, B & C need VIC before being brought back into use inclines me toward the OP’s point of view, if the intention was to stop A & B coming back into use why include them in the VIC regs?

Any law covering it that wanted to stop A & B coming back into use would be easy to frame, remove the licence plate entitlement or require the insurance companies destroy & issue a certificate like on the scrapage scheme

Exactly!!!

MrRedundant

How did you get a VIC without an MOT?
VIC's are also VOSA not the police?

Could you confirm who the car is insured with and the fact they know about the write off status?

philip43

Imp wrote: »

Everything looks okay with the car we are looking at. It has the "vehicle extensively repaired and/ or identity checked" on the front page of the V5. All we need now is insurance. We've tried Footman James, thinking they would be good with restored cars, but they don't do Cat B. I've tried Performance Direct. There normal cover won't do, but they have a specialist department we are trying. You couldn't let me know who you got your insurance through, could you?

Cheers,

Imp

In as much as I would like to inform you of the insurance company I am with, I fear that they would be besieged with phone calls in relation to this matter. I hope you understand.