COB 6036 - which is the original?

[Chafford]

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.
   
   

[rstainer]

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.

[Chafford]

Very interesting!
   
   http://www.gdlaw.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0002/1100/LegalFiles.pdf

[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.

[A-Snake]

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?

[Chafford]

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]

[A-Snake]

Here is the tread on Club Cobra.
   
   http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/all-cobra-talk/99545-cob-series-vin-3.html

[rstainer]

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.

[Chafford]

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

[administrator]

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.

[Chafford]

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!

[SBB]

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.

[Chafford]

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

[rstainer]

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.

[Chafford]

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?