AC Owners Club Forum
AC Owners Club Forum => Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum => Topic started by: Chafford on June 18, 2012, 22:32:37
-
Having seen Steve Gray's beautiful green Cobra at Brooklands on Saturday, can someone explain to me why his car, which has the original chassis for COB 6036, is described in the ACOC register as a replica built in 2003, whereas the COB 6036 in the AC Cobra Leaf Spring Register is given the date 23 November 1964, even though it was constructed with a completely new body and chassis in 1983.
(http://i1257.photobucket.com/albums/ii504/Chafford1/BrooklandsDoubleTwelve2012026.jpg)
-
The ACOC's classifaction criteria are available to anyone who asks (rstainer@radcothouse.co.uk).
The criteria, fully described in ACtion recently, accord with International best practice, have been tested in law and are in line with DVLA regulations. I suggest that anyone keenly interested in registry practice reads, as a starting point, Martin Emmison's Car & Driver artIcle.
-
Very interesting!
http://www.gdlaw.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0002/1100/LegalFiles.pdf
-
quote:
Originally posted by rstainer
The ACOC's classifaction criteria are available to anyone who asks (rstainer@radcothouse.co.uk).
An interesting saga going back a good few years!
Having heard some of the detailed background to this case, I feel considerable sympathy for Steve Gray, whatever the law says.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Chafford
quote:
Originally posted by rstainer
The ACOC's classifaction criteria are available to anyone who asks (rstainer@radcothouse.co.uk).
An interesting saga going back a good few years!
Having heard some of the detailed background to this case, I feel considerable sympathy for Steve Gray, whatever the law says.
Why is that? Gray knew what he had(or didn't have)when it bought the pieces,right?
-
Steve Gray's comments as reported on Club Cobra:
'The car was wrecked in 79 . A new car was built in 83 finished in 85 with a new frame body and virtually every new part . The wreck was kept by the owner with its original title papers period history , undamged frame with numbers and various body sections wheels hardtop etc . We aquired it in 02 the then Saac registry 97 discribed the 6036 as a replica which is a fact . Therefore we had the Ac guy look at the frame and associated parts he verfied it was correct - The Ac factory at Frimley in surrey verfied it too . We restored it to Fia spec body style . Its registered on the original uk issued number for the frame'
So in summary, the owner of the new car finished by Autokraft in 1985, years later sold the original Thames Ditton chassis, body sections etc, plus paperwork and logbook to Brooklands knowing full well that the original title of the car remained with the 1985 built car. [V]
-
Here is the tread on Club Cobra.
http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/all-cobra-talk/99545-cob-series-vin-3.html
-
The Register entry for 6036, owned by Joachim von Buest, is:
- ‘Badly damaged by fire (83). Rebuilt with a new chassis and body, using the original engine and transmission and some suspension components (83). The original chassis (undamaged) and certain other components not used in the rebuild were discarded and passed to Ralph Goray in part settlement of a debt (85).’
The register appendix records a replica built in 2003:
- ‘Built by Steve Grey using the original chassis of 6036, which was discarded when that car was rebuilt in 85. FIA HTP.’
The ownership of 6036(Gosheron>Johnson>Thaine>Wolff>Specht>Hafner>Buest) has never been in doubt, and A-Snake’s observation that ‘Gray knew what he had (or didn't have) when it bought the pieces’ is absolutely correct.
If anyone has any information to add to 6036’s register entry or the replica appendix I’d be very glad to receive it.
-
Simon Bathhurst Brown discusses COB 6036 in July's ACtion and notes a recent case which might have implications for cars with original chassis or parts of chassis stamped with the original VIN number that are not currently deemed to be the 'original car'.
The summary is below and you can access the detailed judgement at this link.
http://wilmotslitigation.com/news/article/brewer-v-mann
-
The identity (the VIN/chassis number) of the Bentley Speed Six in Brewer vs. Mann was never in doubt or disputed.
The dispute was about Mann's description of the car as a Speed Six and what assumptions could be read into that description as part of the contract of sale.
The judgement was that the car could be described as a Speed Six as it was built up on at least part of a Speed Six chassis which retained its original chassis stamp, even though the engine was not a Speed Six unit. The judgement also noted that an eighty plus year old vehicle was unlikely to retain many of its original parts and neither originality nor continuous history could be assumed as part of the description but had to be separately negotiated.
My reading is that this case has little direct relevance to COB6036. Wilmots' summary point (3) is telling (my capitals): "The identity of a car is to be determined by reference to the custom in the classic car trade. It MAY be derived from a part of the chassis with the original chassis number attached to it." - or, in lawyerspeak, it MAY not, depending on the circumstances of the case.
The car repaired by Autokraft in 1983 has been continuously registered for decades and has a pretty clear claim to the identity. I have not heard any dispute as to the accuracy of this record. If the car ever returned to the UK, I presume its identity would be upheld by the DVLA.
It does strike me as odd for one AC licensee (Autokraft) to repair a car, return it to its owner and be paid in good faith for those repairs, only for another AC licensee to produce another car 25 years later and make a claim for the identity for its own car.
It would be interesting to hear a professional lawyer's view rather than those of journalists or interested onlookers (such as me) who are, by nature, amateurs.
-
quote:
Originally posted by administrator
The car repaired by Autokraft in 1983 has been continuously registered for decades and has a pretty clear claim to the identity. I have not heard any dispute as to the accuracy of this record. If the car ever returned to the UK, I presume its identity would be upheld by the DVLA.
But according to Simon Bathhurt Brown's ACtion article, after AC confirmed the chassis of the car in the UK was the 1964 original, it was inspected by the DVLA and police before the car was reissued with its original 1964 registration number. Doesn't this mean therefore that the DVLA sees CGY 226B as the original car?
As you say one for the legal experts to clarify!
-
Was Autokraft an AC licensee when this completely new car,except for engine and gearbox,was built? If they were not,and did not have AC's permission to build it, what then is this car?
The original stamped chassis frame, ie with its own unique number just like a bicycle frame, has never died, been scrapped nor been cannibalised and has a continuous history. In other words, the axe's handle still exists.
-
I believe the new body/chassis was built in 1983 by which time Autokraft were licenced to use the 'AC' trademark when building Mk IV Cobras.
However if you subscribe to the 'continuous history' principle that is followed by the ACOC and SAAC, Autokraft wouldn't have needed permission from AC to build the new body/chassis as the original 1964 title would be transferred to the restored car.
But as Simon Bathhurst Brown says in his ACtion article, following this principle means that the 1983 car with the new body chassis is deemed to be the 'original' car, whereas the car built (in 2005) with the original 1964 chassis and other parts is deemed to be the 'replica'.
Martin Emmison's article makes interesting reading:
http://www.gdlaw.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0002/1100/LegalFiles.pdf
-
The Register description of these two cars (the continuous history car and the 2003 replica) appears earlier in this string. The facts are not disputed.
As regards car identity (the VIN, e.g. COB 6036) the Register and most European legislative domains (including HMG, using the DVLA as its agent) operate as follows: - The use made of a discarded chassis is not relevant to (a) the identity (VIN) of the car from which it was discarded and (b) the identity of the car into which it may eventually be incorporated, if used again – see, for example, 6040, 6042, 6115/6130, 2131 etc.
- Registration authorities and registrars can only act on information received. It would appear doubtful that the DVLA was advised of 6036’s existence in Germany. Were 6036 to be repatriated, the DVLA might well act as they have when other originals, having had their identity assumed elsewhere, are then repatriated.
- Repairs to a car do not require the original manufacturer’s permission. Likewise, the construction of a replica (regardless of its maker or VIN) does not need any form of ‘permission’. Any manufacturer or licensee believing that rights have been infringed has remedy in civil law.
If anyone wants to propose a Register change or a change to registry principles (eg vehicle categorisation) I’m very happy to hear from them.
-
Redesigning the registers completely no doubt would require a considerable amount of work. However, adding further columns to the current Cobra and Replica Registers along the following lines with Yes /No /Part or ? options might be simpler but still useful when scanning the registers.
For the Cobra Registers, an extra column with heading 'Original documented AC built chassis'
For the Replica Registers an extra column with heading 'Original AC built chassis'. There's a big difference between the car sometimes described as CSX 3272 which has an original AC built '60s chassis (but whose number cannot be identified) and the version of COB 6040 built in the mid '90s which has no claim to '60s originality.
Would this be useful?
-
I think not.
All known major repairs to chassis or body are already noted in the register (as with 6036). Likewise, the Appendix notes if a replica uses a Thames Ditton chassis in whole or in part (as with its 2003 replica). Further, all Thames Ditton register cars were originally constructed with 'original documented AC built’ chassis.
The Appendix correctly notes the other replica you refer to as ‘built....(in 1979)....using some parts that were discarded when CSX 3272 was rebuilt. This car was given the chassis number CSX 3140 in 1979, but renumbered 3272 in 2005’; I don’t believe that anything needs to be added.
I don’t that anything of further use or interest can be added to this ‘6036-which is the original?’ string either, and suggest it may have run its course.
-
I understand that Brian Gilbart-Smith is the ACOC's official Club Liason Officer appointed to deal with the DVLC on such authentication issues.
-
6036 has continuous history and a continuing German ‘Fahrzeugbrief’, the V5C equivalent, from its original import into Germany until its eventual 2008 sale by Kay Hafner to Joachim von Buest. As in this country, so in Germany it is not possible to record a vehicle as being destroyed whilst keeping the ‘Fahrzeugbrief’.
The German authorities would not take kindly to the suggestion that 6036 was destroyed in the early 80’s. Neither would Wolfgang Specht, Kay Hafner or its current owner.
-
Steve,
I'm glad to see you posting on the forum. I find this thread both interesting and bizarre. I'm sure there are all kinds of reasons why a replica can have the original number, but I would have to say it is a strange string of events. Seems to me your last statement says it all...
Gus
-
CSX 2232, on the front of July's ACtion is another described as a 'replica' in the Registers - mid '80s Angliss chassis but an original '60s body from CSX 2269. But again physically more 'original' than the von Buest car.
-
That would be the one where you stated it can only be original once... But it seems you removed that.[:(]
-
Does anybody know why the - undamaged - original 1964 chassis was not used in the 1983-85 rebuilding exercise?
Jürgen
-
Wolfgang Specht, the car’s owner, had a carburettor fire whilst on holiday in France. The car was badly burnt and the aluminium largely beyond salvation. Specht asked Christian Wolff (who had acquired the car for Specht) to arrange its repair.
Wolff took the car to Angliss, who concluded that the most economical approach was to use a new body/chassis unit rather than removing the fire-damaged body, rubbing down, cleaning, repairing and repainting the substructure and chassis, wrapping a new body on it etc.
Angliss repaired the car as agreed. Christian Wolff collected the car and discarded parts, took them to Germany and returned the car to Specht. Wolff neglected to tell Specht that 6036 had a new chassis, neglected to tell him that he, Wolff, had the discarded fire-singed chassis and other parts and neglected to tell him that he, Wolff, was keeping these items.
Wolff’s economy with the facts was the least of his concerns; it is reported that he later disappeared.
The repair was almost thirty years ago, when very few people would spend extra money to save original material in a car that was worth not much money.
-
Thanks for explaining, Robin.
-
AC Heritage
“...anything can only be original once.”
TRUE: Once a vehicle ceases to be a vehicle (by scrapping it or parting it out) it cannot subsequently reincarnate as an original vehicle.
Gus Meyjes
“I'm sure there are all kinds of reasons why a replica can have the original number, but I would have to say it is a strange string of events.”
TRUE: There are various ways to obtain an original vehicle’s VIN and have it applied to a replica. However, none of these ways are lawful in most European legislative domains.
Administrator
“The car repaired by Autokraft in 1983 has been continuously registered for decades and has a pretty clear claim to the identity. I have not heard any dispute as to the accuracy of this record. If the car ever returned to the UK, I presume its identity would be upheld by the DVLA.”
CORRECT, if the DVLA act as they have in the past.
If anyone wants to propose a Register change (car level) or a lawful change to registry vehicle categorisation principles (register level-last amended eleven years ago) I’m very happy to hear from them.
-
The whole story of COB 6036 had been discussed and clearly documented over many years. The facts remain always the same and I hope that the current owner Joachim von Beust has not to justify and defend himself again and again for having the original car with a proven history.
It is not possible and legal , that someone is repairing his car (in this case at Autocraft) in good faith , the car is returned to his owner without the replaced parts (not unusual), someone else is buying/keeping illegally these parts and another one is selling these parts/frame (illegally) later to someone, who is constructing an "original" car 25 years after the repair and is now trying (illegally) to claim that this car is the right car- the line of owners (Gosheron>Johnson>Thaine>Wolff>Specht>Hafner>Beust)and continuous history is abolutely clear and with no doubt, so I would recommend that Steve Gray is enjoying his car without trying again to change the history of the car to his favour. History and facts cant be changed and there will be always cars , which have more or less original parts depending on the repairs or accidents they had during their life (and Autocraft at that time came to conclusion that the burnt chassis was not usable anymore...) I am now enthusiasted with Cobras for over 25 years and I am happy that dedicated experts like Robin or Ned Scudder are always helping us in having the right view on the history. We should always stick to facts and in this case they are very clear.And we should respect real ownership and history.
Greetings From Germany
Dr.Kay Hafner
-
Robin,
In answer to your request for any proposals regarding Club and Register policies I wonder if I might turn the clock back some three decades and rehearse an argument that became quite heated at the time. The trigger for the disagreement was the Cobra Register and how it was being used by the 'less than scrupulous' to aid the passing off of Cobras which had questionable antecedents. It quickly became clear that in fact many quite genuine cars had convoluted histories and The Registrar had to somehow adjudicate between an out and out forgery at one end of the spectrum and a car which had been damaged and repaired so often that it could be described as Paddy's Axe - three new handles and two new heads, but still Paddy's Axe - at the other end of the spectrum.
You can imagine that all of the arguments seen in this thread were aired at the time. There was, as in this case, more heat than light and, as has now occurred, a good deal of personal upset with members even withdrawing from Club activities. Given that, I suppose, we are an inclusive organisation able to welcome a very broad selection of Members it follows that this kind of exclusion is the very last thing we should be doing, or encouraging, in any way.
When this discussion took place all those years ago it resolved into two basic positions: One that The Club should be the custodian of all the facts which could be ascertained and therefrom The Registrars would make a determination on a car's provenance. Or, alternately, The Club should confine Registrars to ascertaining and recording all the facts.
I was a supporter of this latter position believing a) that The Club should never expose itself to court action and b) the value of a car historically and financially was up to every individual's judgement and c) acting as judge and jury would inevitably and repeatedly engender upset and ill feeling between members.
In this debate I found myself in the minority and ever since The Club, via The Registrars, has adopted a judgemental policy. This thread amply illustrates the disadvantages of such an approach. As in many other cases (thank you Robin for your painstaking and scholarly research) both these cars have an interesting and legitimate history - which one would you like to own? Your choice. How much would you pay? Your choice. I should be delighted to own and use either. As an A.C.O.C. member I should welcome either at any Club event.
As the years pass and prices increase we see the same potential for acrimony spreading to The Ace and The Aceca Registers and maybe as far as the 16/80 and 16/90. Time, I feel, for our Council of Management to review this issue once more. I would once again suggest that we keep to The History and let The Individual, not The Registrar, do the choosing.
-
The Club’s Register Policy was approved by the Council on 31 January 2002. Under the heading ‘The Role of A Registrar’ the Policy includes:
• Not to pass judgement, and to include adverse as well positive information
I would not have become a registrar had this policy not been in place. My role as registrar is solely to record relevant public-domain facts and categorise them according to public-domain principles agreed by the Council; there is not one iota of judgement in this process.
August’s Action contains further detail. Meanwhile, if anyone would like a copy of the Club’s Register Policy or AC & Shelby Thames Ditton Vehicle Categorisation principles, please email me.
-
quote:
Originally posted by B.P.Bird
I would once again suggest that we keep to The History and let The Individual, not The Registrar, do the choosing.
One approach might be to keep the existing coil spring and leaf spring registers for cars with continuous ownership history but add supplementary leaf spring and coil spring registers for cars which the ACOC has agreed have complete or part original AC chassis and/or bodies. So Steve Gray's COB 6036 would be included in this supplementary register. The replica registers would be restricted to cars with AC chassis numbers but no proven AC history, cars with Paramount chassis and converted 428s and Aces.
The Club could then add a statement simply saying that cars with 'continuous history' are recorded in the main registers but that where there is more than one car with claim to an original '60s Cobra chassis number, these are recorded in either the supplementary or replica registers.
-
I reiterate that the Club’s registers are non-judgemental. The above proposal would put the Club at grave litigation risk because its operation involves arbitrary judgement.
The Club’s Register Policy was approved by the Council on 31 January 2002. Under the heading ‘The Role of A Registrar’ the Policy includes:
- Not to pass judgement, and to include adverse as well positive information
I would not have become a registrar had this policy not been in place. My role as registrar is solely to record relevant public-domain facts and categorise them according to public-domain principles agreed by the Council; there is not one iota of judgement in this process.
August’s Action contains further detail. Meanwhile, if anyone would like a copy of the Club’s Register Policy or AC & Shelby Thames Ditton Cobra Categorisation principles, please email me.
Any thought-through suggestions for amendments to this Policy (31 January 2002) or categorisation principles (5 December 2001) should be put in writing to the Council. They should include an illustration of their effects on vehicle categorisation and an an assessment of their effect on the Club's legal exposure.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Chafford: One approach might be to keep the existing coil spring and leaf spring registers for cars with continuous ownership history but add supplementary leaf spring and coil spring registers for cars which the ACOC has agreed have complete or part original AC chassis and/or bodies. So Steve Gray's COB 6036 would be included in this supplementary register. The replica registers would be restricted to cars with AC chassis numbers but no proven AC history, cars with Paramount chassis and converted 428s and Aces.
Mark. There are and it does. see Appendix - Replica Leaf Spring Cars.
1. Register Introduction
2. Leaf Spring AC Register
3. Leaf Spring Shelby Register
4. Coil Spring AC Register
5. Coil Spring Shelby Register
6. Appendix - Other Period Cobras
7. Appendix - Replica Leaf Spring Cars
8. Appendix - Replica Coil Spring Cars
Am I the only one who thinks this dead horse has been fully flogged?
We have had valuable input from those most closely involved on all sides of this issue, more facts regarding both of the cars than have been in the public domain before, and probably the most succinct summing up courtesy of Barrie; Anything further (particularly from those with no direct involvement in a particular vehicle) can only generate the heat that Barrie so eloquently described, so maybe it`s time to draw this thread to a close?
-
Nil.
Perfectly put - full stop.
-
.
.
END of THREAD !!!
[;)]..[:)]
-
In view of some of the above comments, it is suggested that those who are not interested, or who have not read the Judgement, should read no further. Barry Bird’s comments, however, are spot on and registrars should only record facts and not categorise.
Some contributors to this debate continue to cling to past beliefs and home-made rules and pretend that the Appeal Court’s judgement has not occurred as reported and as I quote from it below.
1. Amongst the laws in this country, there is Statute Law which is created by an Act of Parliament and also Case Law which is decided in the High Court by a judge. If an issue is to be tested in the High Court for which there is no know antecedent, then it is known as a Test Case. Once a judgement has been made it passes into Case Law. That judgement is taken as a precedent for settling subsequent cases involving the same question of law. Should a judge’s decision be challenged, the matter can be referred to the Court of Appeal which is presided over by three judges. They may overturn, uphold or even embellish the original decision. Costs, as in the case of Brewer v Mann are often considerable and may be awarded against the losing party. A ruling by the Court of Appeal can be overturned by the Supreme Court. This recently replaced the House of Lords as this country’s highest court.
2. In the case of Brewer v Mann, the Court of Appeal sat in March 2012. The full Judgement Approved by the Court for handing down can be seen at www.wilmotslitigation.com. In 43. It quotes an expert witness as saying “the definitive test of a car being a Bentley Speed Six is that it contains some part of its original chassis number stamped upon it. In all other respects the car may have been entirely rebuilt. It is only in this respect that the car need be or can perhaps be said to be original or authentic. This is a definition which he says is accepted and acknowledged by the prestigious Bentley Drivers’ Club and by the DVLA authorities and is recognised in the market generally and internationally. He says he is supported in that approach by the evidence of both expert witnesses at trial”.
Note the DVLA’s policy on this matter as is stated above and again later in 52. of the Judgement in 6. below.
Also, see 113. “6.14” ...... I am quite satisfied that this car is a rebuilt Speed Six Bentley and not a reconstruction. It is difficult, in any event, to be exact about these terms, but the fact is that this car has an original chassis with original parts on it, ...... 6.15 in the Vintage and Classic Car world generally the chassis is regarded as the identity of the car in any event. This is partly historical because Bentleys and other major manufactures of quality cars generally sold their cars in chassis form together with the bulkhead, engine, gearbox and running gear, and it was up to the owner to decide what body, interior fittings, lights etc he would install on that chassis. Chassis might undergo a number of body styles in their life. Provided, however, the chassis remains intact, it is accepted that the car’s identity remains as it was when it was manufactured”. Different bodies have often been fitted to Cobra chassis as the Register shows.
3. Robin Stainer quotes in the Cobra Register that COB 6036 was “re-built with a new chassis and body (by Autokraft) using the original engine (NB this was not the car’s first engine) and transmission and some suspension components in 1985. The original chassis (undamaged) and certain other components not used in the rebuild were discarded and passed to Ralph Goray in part settlement of a debt in 1985”. The original chassis was therefore not discarded, i.e. thrown out. To say that is very misleading. It was considered of monetary worth to part settle a debt and the Thames Ditton built chassis frame continued to exist as a uniquely serial numbered physical entity as stamped by its original manufacturer, AC Cars. Serial numbers were also stamped on radiators, cylinder heads, engine blocks, gear boxes, rear axles etc. When COB 6036 had an engine change, its serial number would not have been “transferred”.
4. Robin Stainer has stated the original chassis was undamaged but “fire singed”. How long does it take to strip, shot blast and repaint an undamaged chassis, more time than it takes to build a new one? The fact that the chassis has been reused proves that it could have been used as the frame for the new car built by Angliss and by so doing would have preserved its provenance and Thames Ditton origin.
At the very heart of this matter is that the original Thames Ditton built chassis has survived along with its stamped serial number and documentation and was returned to Germany in 1985 and passed to Ralph Goray. The new Angliss Autokraft built car also went back to Germany to be later sold on.
5. In the 1980s the Driver Vehicle Licensing Centre (later the DVLA) was created with a national computerised database. It assumed control of this from the British County Councils. All original car green/buff logbooks had to be returned to be exchanged for a computerised Vehicle Registration Document. Failure to do this by a certain date meant that an original registration number might be lost, reallocated or sold. A large number of cars in storage, restoration etc failed to do this and some are still fighting to get their original numbers back. Not all are successful after all this time. COB 6036 being in Germany, repaired or not, was not in the record and could well have had the same problem with its number CGY 226. However, see the DVLA’s policy confirmed in the Judgement below in paragraph, 6.
6. Following Mann’s Court of Appeal victory adjudicated by Lords Justice Rix, Sullivan and Lewison, Solicitors Wilmot & Co published the main points of the Court Judgement which has been described as “a landmark decision for the classic car world”. In their summary of the main points, Item 3, as Administrator, quoted on 18th July, states “the identity of a car is to be determined by reference to the custom in the classic car trade. It MAY (his capitals) be derived from a part of the chassis with the original chassis number attached to it”. This is perfectly clear because if there is no part of the original chassis remaining, then it follows that the identity of a car CANNOT be deprived from it, prima facie. If a car has a continuous history like Paddy’s axe with new chassis and bodies over the years, all old parts having been destroyed, then that is another matter entirely if there are no remains of the original chassis to act as competition. Michael Grenfell, a solicitor at Wilmots, in his statement to the Press, said that as a result of the Court of Appeal ruling “The identity of a car is to be derived from the chassis even if only a part of it remains if it retains the chassis number”. See also threads on Wilmots site, ie Mail on line “car cannot be a fake despite only original part being its chassis”.
This ruling has now passed into Case Law and exists as a precedent against which any future issues may be judged. The original undamaged chassis of COB 6036 survived and has been repatriated to England. It has been
(a) Authenticated by AC Cars Ltd
(b) Inspected by Brian Gilbart-Smith, the ACOC’s official delegate for the DVLC
(c) Inspected by the DVLA and Police along with its file of papers recording its continuous history from new.
The Judge found, see 52. of the Judgement;
“to ensure that an apparently moribund previously issued registration number was not re-issued to a different car, the DVLC had always adopted the policy of only re-issuing such a number to a car which had within it the original chassis number irrespective of what other changes had occurred to the car”.
Consequently, and belatedly, COB 6036 has been issued with a DVLA Registration Document showing the Chassis Number which the original frame has always had stamped on it along with its registration number CGY 226B which fortunately had not been re-allocated as stated above in paragraph 5. This also tallies with what the expert witnesses have stated, as quoted in paragraph 2 above, as always having been the policy of the DVLA. As a result of the Court of Appeal ruling, the DVLA’s previous policy is now enshrined in law.
The article in July’s Action on Identity and Law was not reproduced as submitted. Some was edited out. It contained some useful free and potentially relevant advice for any club. Omitted was this.
“I ran this past a friend of mine who is a High Court Judge asking what, if any, were the implications for a car club if any of its publications in the public domain now contained statements which do not comply with this Judgement. He said that firstly, an aggrieved party would need to take issue with a club, if they wished, over any published inaccuracy which is now contrary to law according to this latest ruling. Secondly, he said that if any aggrieved party could prove financial loss had been incurred because of any such statements or information published under the auspices of a car club which were found to be legally untrue as a result of this judgement and that club had knowingly ignored it, then that person could have a case for seeking damages from that club. His advice that any such club registers which may contain categorical statements should be amended in view of the Appeal Court ruling”.
Mention has been made of the German version of the British V5C document where it is known as the Fahrzengbrief document. This has no meaning on which rules apply in the UK any more than our laws apply to Germany. The German car has one such document. The British car has got the V5C one to which it would have been entitled had it remained in the UK.
The DVLA has rules for a rebuilt or radically altered car to retain its numbers. These are based on a points system; original numbered chassis 5, suspension 2, axles 2, transmission 2, steering 2, engine 1. At least 8 must be scored. The DVLA rules state that if a replacement chassis is to retain the original’s number, the ORIGINAL MUST BE DESTROYED AND RENDERED UNUSABLE AGAIN. That did NOT happen.
This thread all began with a question “COB 6036 which is the original?” According to the DVLA and this Judgement and Wilmots’ Michael Grenfell’s statement to the Press as reported in Classic & Sports Car, Steve Gray’s car is the original. If this original undamaged chassis does not meet the criteria, then what exactly was the “Landmark decision” for the classic car trade?
-
In spite of calls for this thread to be ended, which I'm not sure what the reason for that may have been, I think this was an excellent explanation and it certainly makes a lot more sense for the Original chassis to be bestowed with it's original Chassis number. I also agreed with Barrie Bird's comment and was confounded by the idea that another car could somehow obtain the original chassis number. But I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box and my knowledge on these matters is limited. Thank you for the extensive explanation.
Frankly, I also think, in light of this clarification, ACOC registrar of AC 2.6 Aces should reconsider RS 5038 for entry into the 2.6 registry, rather than the "recent AC's", as the argument that the car should have "driven" out of the AC factory (which it did not, as any or most of the CSX cars)is by these standards not proper.
The chassis and body were manufactured at AC at Frimley. The originality as RS5038 being a true AC product has been certified by Lubinsky and was verified by AC Heritage.
-
SBB
A very interesting and succinct argument to support the UK car's claim to 'original status'.
Gus
I certainly agree that RS5037 and RS5038 should be formally recorded in an AC Registry as AC produced cars. However, I suspect the fact that your car was built 'out of period' and in Frimley rather than Thames Ditton will prevent inclusion in the 2.6 Register.
-
I have been following this thread and would like to confirm that the ACOC has applied the principles of the Register Policy which was approved and published in January 2002, in order to ensure Members were made aware of the history of cars manufactured by AC. As this policy is now being questioned so publicly by various contributors to this Forum, the Club is currently taking expert legal advice. Until such advice has been received it would not be appropriate to reply to the above posts. Rest assured that a full reply will follow in due course. Andy.
-
For whatever reason, it appears that Steve Gray has deleted all his posts from this thread, should anyone be looking for the source of his quotes which appear on subsequent posts.
-
quote:
Originally posted by shep
I have been following this thread and would like to confirm that the ACOC has applied the principles of the Register Policy which was approved and published in January 2002, in order to ensure Members were made aware of the history of cars manufactured by AC. As this policy is now being questioned so publicly by various contributors to this Forum, the Club is currently taking expert legal advice. Until such advice has been received it would not be appropriate to reply to the above posts. Rest assured that a full reply will follow in due course. Andy.
It appears that this legal question is relevant not only to the ACOC but to other UK vintage car clubs as well. Perhaps it could make sense to team up with them for seeking clarification of this issue. Alternatively, if there is an umbrella organisation of the UK vintage car clubs (which I do not know) one could try to go through such organisation.
Jürgen
-
The 'other' COB 6036 is now for sale in Germany:
(http://www.classicdriver.com/upload/cars/11793/1859408/bigd.jpg)
http://www.classicdriver.com/uk/find/4100_results.asp?bsubmit=true&lmodelflag=10003&lmanufacturer=10001&whatbutton.x=0&page=0&lCarID=1859408
-
Hard to see, but there actually is. Barely visible. On the driver's side engine photo the rivet is just visible.
-
It should be there. Fairly sure it was when I went for a ride in it recently.... ;)
-
Seems like this thread will not die! Trevor - don't worry - old age is not clouding your vision and memory[:)] Looks to me as if the plate is hidden behind the air cleaner on the drivers side foot box in the wider shot that shows the engine compartment.
-
If ever a thread deserved to die - quite how this issue concerns 'other people' aside from those directly effected, is beyond me. There are 'issues' concerning these cars that can benefit from discussion and other peoples input, and there are others that do not. (my opinion only) Nice car though....
-
quote:
Originally posted by shep
I have been following this thread and would like to confirm that the ACOC has applied the principles of the Register Policy which was approved and published in January 2002, in order to ensure Members were made aware of the history of cars manufactured by AC. As this policy is now being questioned so publicly by various contributors to this Forum, the Club is currently taking expert legal advice. Until such advice has been received it would not be appropriate to reply to the above posts. Rest assured that a full reply will follow in due course. Andy.
For those who haven't read it, Andy Shepherd posted an update on the General Forum to this thread:
http://www.acownersclub.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2503