Unladen weight, payload and change of classification.

[snowie]

Back from Sweden and Norway for a couple of weeks and still in withdrawal.

A notification of intent to prosecute landed on doormat about 4 days after we got back. As our van was a white-van in a previous incarnation I suppose it was inevitable at some point. However, I did have the vehicle classification changer to "Motorcaravan"

I pointed this out to the authorities and was asked to provide evidence of the vehicle's unladen weight, a scan of the Reg document for example.

Well my document doesn't have unladen weight on it. I was asked for proof that the van's unladen weight is less than 3050Kg, otherwise I would be liable for prosecution. (I admitted that I was travelling at 68mph on the A14 dual carriageway.) I was only able to tell them that when last weighed the van ws 2960Kg with full fuel and water, but no "weighbridge certificate. They accepted my word; for which I am very grateful.

We've had a lot of discussion about payload and weighbridges on this forum; and criticism of manufacturers for lack of information on payloads. Beware, particularly if you have a "bespoke" van with lots of bells and whistles. Make sure your van's unladen weight is below 3050Kg; or be prepared to drive a little slower!

I doubt if this situation will be a one-off, so I plan to try to have the van's reg document changed to reflect its unladen weight, but I can see problems in defining and certifying fuel and water levels; has anyone done this?

Sorry for long-winded post but I think others may be in a similar position.

Regards

alan b

p.s. Those of you with mainstream PVCs; does your reg document specify unladen weight?, (and therefore payload), or does a metallic paint-job protect against prosecution?

 

[goldi]

Afternoon folks,

 

MIne is a globe car on the heavy chassis and grossed at 3500 kg . The mass in service is 2995 kg ! which might be what you need . Taxation class plg.

 

norm

[lennyhb]

Such a grey area unless you have a weighbridge ticket.

My van 2 entries on the C of C, Mass in running order 2920 kg & Technical mass in running order 3087 kg, the second one is with the factory fitted extras.

However the mass in running order includes a full fuel tank, 20 Lt Water, 11 kg Aluminium gas cylinder & driver at 75 kg but not mentioned anywhere apart from in the sales brochure.

[colin]

I think you are confusing unladen weight and miro. Unladen weight is empty, and that includes all tanks, including fuel, so just empty it out, and weight with as little fuel as you can get away with.

[snowie]

If a "van" is registered as a "Motorcaravan", and if you adhere to car speed limits, then your van needs to be under 3050Kg unladen weight. I would expect converters to be required to provide a weighbridge certified unladen weight. This would also effectively specify the payload.

My concern would be when adding "upgrades" like cab and or habitation aircon, bulk LPG tanks, satellite dishes, inverters, multiple large capacity batteries, etc etc. Easy to get above 3050Kg and end up restricted to commercial vehicle speed limits.

Don't know what I did to end up with duplicate thread!

regards

alan b

[lennyhb]

colin - 2014-07-16 2:12 PM

 

I think you are confusing unladen weight and miro. Unladen weight is empty, and that includes all tanks, including fuel, so just empty it out, and weight with as little fuel as you can get away with.

 

No confusion, that is my point the Certificate of Conformity does not give an unladen weight only gives a mass in running order.

[Brian Kirby]

snowie - 2014-07-16 1:40 PM

 

Back from Sweden and Norway for a couple of weeks and still in withdrawal.

A notification of intent to prosecute landed on doormat about 4 days after we got back. As our van was a white-van in a previous incarnation I suppose it was inevitable at some point. However, I did have the vehicle classification changer to "Motorcaravan"

I pointed this out to the authorities and was asked to provide evidence of the vehicle's unladen weight, a scan of the Reg document for example.

Well my document doesn't have unladen weight on it. I was asked for proof that the van's unladen weight is less than 3050Kg, otherwise I would be liable for prosecution. (I admitted that I was travelling at 68mph on the A14 dual carriageway.) I was only able to tell them that when last weighed the van ws 2960Kg with full fuel and water, but no "weighbridge certificate. They accepted my word; for which I am very grateful.

We've had a lot of discussion about payload and weighbridges on this forum; and criticism of manufacturers for lack of information on payloads. Beware, particularly if you have a "bespoke" van with lots of bells and whistles. Make sure your van's unladen weight is below 3050Kg; or be prepared to drive a little slower!

I doubt if this situation will be a one-off, so I plan to try to have the van's reg document changed to reflect its unladen weight, but I can see problems in defining and certifying fuel and water levels; has anyone done this?

Sorry for long-winded post but I think others may be in a similar position.

Regards

alan b

p.s. Those of you with mainstream PVCs; does your reg document specify unladen weight?, (and therefore payload), or does a metallic paint-job protect against prosecution?

It might be wise to take your van to a weighbridge empty, and get a ticket for it. As you say, it has happened once, so it is liable to happen again. I suggest you weigh it with a full tank of fuel, because even in that condition it will still come in under 3050kg, and as the fuel tank capacity is known, the weight of the fuel can be deducted from the total to give a true unladen weight.

 

Before weighing remove any spare wheel, all tools, gas cylinders (plus ideally the habitation battery), the whole of the contents, the toilet cassette, all waste and fresh water, any loose carpets etc: in short everything that is not a fixture, and is above and beyond a completely empty vehicle. The only fluids that are included within unladen weight are engine oil and coolant. The starter battery is included in the ULW definition.

 

However, if weighed in any condition that results in a weight below 3050kg you will have the evidence you need. Unladen weights are not recorded on vehicle documentation and the notification of intent to prosecute is based merely on assumption. AFAIK, you are entitled to respond to such notifications by stating that your vehicle is under 3050kg unladen, and agreeing to let them take it to any weighbridge to verify this.

 

It would be worth saying where this "ticket" was issued since, if it was along the A14, I seem to remember this stretch of road coming up before in a similar context.

 

All they can have had to go on is a recorded speed, and a vehicle registration number. Someone's database seems to be out of date, since your van description is now Motorcaravan, which is subject to normal car speed limits unless over 3050kg ULW.

 

My guess is that they at first thought they had recorded a commercial vehicle exceeding 60MPH, and when you pointed out the change in classification thought they might get you on weight. This seems to me no more than aggressive fine chasing, and reallyought to be challenged. It is also time wasting for them and you.

 

The salient question seems to be how they came to be under the impression that a motorcaravan was a commercial vehicle. I assume something they were looking at still says it is a light goods vehicle, which may mean that although the DVLA have changed the V5C entry, they haven't changed the record on their database. If that is true, you are quite liable to be wrongly "nabbed" anywhere you exceed 60 on a dual carriageway.

[colin]

lennyhb - 2014-07-16 6:04 PM

 

colin - 2014-07-16 2:12 PM

 

I think you are confusing unladen weight and miro. Unladen weight is empty, and that includes all tanks, including fuel, so just empty it out, and weight with as little fuel as you can get away with.

 

No confusion, that is my point the Certificate of Conformity does not give an unladen weight only gives a mass in running order.

 

My reply was to Snowie, and in particlar to this part

but I can see problems in defining and certifying fuel and water levels; has anyone done this?

[snowie]

colin - 2014-07-16 10:00 PM

 

lennyhb - 2014-07-16 6:04 PM

 

colin - 2014-07-16 2:12 PM

 

I think you are confusing unladen weight and miro. Unladen weight is empty, and that includes all tanks, including fuel, so just empty it out, and weight with as little fuel as you can get away with.

 

No confusion, that is my point the Certificate of Conformity does not give an unladen weight only gives a mass in running order.

 

My reply was to Snowie, and in particlar to this part

but I can see problems in defining and certifying fuel and water levels; has anyone done this?

 

Thanks Colin; I shall record the contents of the van when weighed; as far as I can, and find as accurate a weighbridge as possible. Then it will be a self-certified weight.

I shall probably weigh with the spare wheel and cradle in position, and the jack and Fiat toolkit in place.

I shall empty the freshwater tank and the grey water tank.

Lpg will be filled, and diesel fuel level will be recorded. I shall get out of the cab and stand to one side.

There's a DoT weighbridge facility on the A17, not far from us, which I would like to use, but as I understand it these sites are not "Public Weighbridges" I'll make enquiries.

I don't fancy going through this on a regular basis so I'll have to give it some time. I'll keep the forum posted,

regards

alan b

[snowie]

Brian Kirby - 2014-07-16 7:09 PM

aint-job protect against prosecution?

It might be wise to take your van to a weighbridge empty, and get a ticket for it. As you say, it has happened once, so it is liable to happen again. I suggest you weigh it with a full tank of fuel, because even in that condition it will still come in under 3050kg, and as the fuel tank capacity is known, the weight of the fuel can be deducted from the total to give a true unladen weight.

 

Before weighing remove any spare wheel, all tools, gas cylinders (plus ideally the habitation battery), the whole of the contents, the toilet cassette, all waste and fresh water, any loose carpets etc: in short everything that is not a fixture, and is above and beyond a completely empty vehicle. The only fluids that are included within unladen weight are engine oil and coolant. The starter battery is included in the ULW definition.

 

However, if weighed in any condition that results in a weight below 3050kg you will have the evidence you need. Unladen weights are not recorded on vehicle documentation and the notification of intent to prosecute is based merely on assumption. AFAIK, you are entitled to respond to such notifications by stating that your vehicle is under 3050kg unladen, and agreeing to let them take it to any weighbridge to verify this.

 

It would be worth saying where this "ticket" was issued since, if it was along the A14, I seem to remember this stretch of road coming up before in a similar context.

 

All they can have had to go on is a recorded speed, and a vehicle registration number. Someone's database seems to be out of date, since your van description is now Motorcaravan, which is subject to normal car speed limits unless over 3050kg ULW.

 

My guess is that they at first thought they had recorded a commercial vehicle exceeding 60MPH, and when you pointed out the change in classification thought they might get you on weight. This seems to me no more than aggressive fine chasing, and reallyought to be challenged. It is also time wasting for them and you.

 

The salient question seems to be how they came to be under the impression that a motorcaravan was a commercial vehicle. I assume something they were looking at still says it is a light goods vehicle, which may mean that although the DVLA have changed the V5C entry, they haven't changed the record on their database. If that is true, you are quite liable to be wrongly "nabbed" anywhere you exceed 60 on a dual carriageway.

 

Hi Brian;

I have responded to the notice of intent to prosecute, and my unladen weight has been accepted.

 

I shall have the van weighed, and schedule the contents.

 

I shall leave the leisure batteries installed, the LPG tank, Fiamma Awning, spare wheel and cradle, and the jack and tools. The resultant weight will then be useful as a starting point for a regular payload calculation.

 

To be fair, and I always try to be, a head-on view differs little since the van was converted. I could tell that there's an awning, but I know the van intimately.

I shall contact DVLA and make them aware of the problem, and I shall seek their advice on how to avoid future problems,

regards

alan b

[Robinhood]

Brian Kirby - 2014-07-16 7:09 PM

 

 

It would be worth saying where this "ticket" was issued since, if it was along the A14, I seem to remember this stretch of road coming up before in a similar context.

 

All they can have had to go on is a recorded speed, and a vehicle registration number. Someone's database seems to be out of date, since your van description is now Motorcaravan, which is subject to normal car speed limits unless over 3050kg ULW.

 

My guess is that they at first thought they had recorded a commercial vehicle exceeding 60MPH, and when you pointed out the change in classification thought they might get you on weight. This seems to me no more than aggressive fine chasing, and reallyought to be challenged. It is also time wasting for them and you.

 

The salient question seems to be how they came to be under the impression that a motorcaravan was a commercial vehicle. I assume something they were looking at still says it is a light goods vehicle, which may mean that although the DVLA have changed the V5C entry, they haven't changed the record on their database. If that is true, you are quite liable to be wrongly "nabbed" anywhere you exceed 60 on a dual carriageway.

 

....having now switched to this duplicate.....

 

I must admit that, given the process that went on in the other occurrence we know of (highlighted in the duplicate thread), I find this process somewhat curious (and slightly disturbing).

 

I'm making an assumption here, but if it was the A14, it is likely that Snowie was caught in a section using the Specs system (average speed calculation). These do not take a picture of the "offending" vehicle, and it is thus unlikely that the physical appearance of Snowie's 'van had anything to do with the NIP. (The previous occurrence involved a Hymer that should have obviously appeared to be a motorcaravan).

 

Since the Specs system relies on tracking a number plate through the network, and calculating average speeds, one could conjecture that there is a DVLA fed link in the system somewhere that introduces vehicle data into the process, and this generates vehicle specific outcomes.

 

Also, since weight data is rather hit and miss in DVLA data (check your V5C), I can only conjecture that some such data as (for example) Taxation Class (in Snowie's case it would be PLG) is being used as a discriminator (though even that would require elimination of car-derived vans from any differential process).

 

So, for example, a combination of "PLG" and Ducato would be an automatic hit for discriminatory (lower) speed limits, except in the case of certain body types (as recorded on the V5C), Motorcaravan being one.

 

Given we have seen two cases (at least) on this forum, then there is patently some flaw in the system they are using (even if it is human error somewhere, the data should be available for them to avoid it).

 

So, let's look at this a bit further -

 

If you have a motorcaravan (as defined on your V5C) with an unladen weight no greater than 3050kg then you are subject to the same speed limits as a car. If you are (correctly) registered in Taxation Class PLG you have a maximum GVW of 3500kg. Given that the unladen weight involves the removal of all "non-permanent" fittings, no fluids, no gas, no driver, etc. (representing, at a decent fuel tank size, close to a 300kg reduction from any manufacturer's quoted MIRO) I would postulate that no (correctly registered) motorcaravan in the PLG taxation class should be subject to discriminatory speed limits. (certainly no commercially available conversion, as the vehicle would be leaving the factory with virtually no payload).

 

I appreciate that aftermarket fitments could change this position, but if the authorities are prepared to waive any NIP on the basis of a verbal assurance, rather than a weighbridge visit, then this is simply a diversion. I also appreciate that a vehicle can be wrongly registered (we have seen examples) but again, it is unlikely that an offence for "speeding" is likely to uncover that without further physical follow-up.

 

Accordingly, I would propose that it is a waste of time to issue a (discriminatory) NIP to a motorcaravan in taxation class PLG, as the vast majority of these with only the odd exception will be liable to standard speed limits (and it appears that any such exceptions can escape any physical check). Anything in taxation class PHG is a more likely target, but there will be a good few in this class that can make an argument that they are below the 3050kg threshold.

 

Whatever.....there is a flaw in the current process. Snowie was at least advised enough to "kick back", unlike David in the other (referenced) occurrence who had to be robustly persuaded that he could avoid multiple offences and a god few points on the basis that the NIP was flawed.

 

It does make you wonder how many "innocent" offenders have simply rolled over.

 

I'd be interested which constabulary (and/or safety camera partnership) is involved, as I feel an enquiry as to how Motorcaravans are processed, or even an FOI request on how many have had a NIP issued, might be in order.

 

I wonder if Snowie could confirm? (Cambridgeshire?)

[snowie]

Robinhood - 2014-07-17 10:25 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2014-07-16 7:09 PM

 

 

It would be worth saying where this "ticket" was issued since, if it was along the A14, I seem to remember this stretch of road coming up before in a similar context.

 

My "transgression" was in the Suffolk area, around Newmarket. by "Manned Equipment" I spotted the little Transit van as we passed, and checked the sat-nav to confirm my speed as under 70mph.

 

It does make you wonder how many "innocent" offenders have simply rolled over.

 

I think it's too expensive to "roll over", particularly when you are convinced that you were behaving responsibly. I have a clean licence and "know my rights", so I challenged.

 

It was irritating, and the possibility of being prosecuted was not nice, but I was polite, provided information as requested, and the response was as I had hoped. A bit of a nuisance, but we got the result we wanted, and at no cost.

As I've said, I shall be attempting to ensure that a similar situation doesn't occur again.

regards

alan b

 

[Robinhood]

Thanks for the response.

 

If a camera van and not Specs, then it looks considerably more like a manual, rather than automated process error.

 

Nonetheless, if this is the case, then most of what I posted still applies. There should be a "duty of care" on the issuing authority to check the status of the offending vehicle (since Motorcaravan is not the only exemption). Someone needs educating ;-)

 

Given what has subsequently ensued in your case (and my postulation on Motorcaravans in the PLG taxation class) it would seem an absolute waste of time to issue a NIP against any PLG vehicle that has Motorcaravan as its body type.

 

It certainly would have been very expensive for David1949 (in the other referenced case) to roll over, but that example and the number of queries that arise on speed limits for Motorcaravans lead me to believe that a number of people will have done so over the years.

 

(Interesting that there appears to be an accusation of 68mph, since at 67mph (if ACPO guidelines - which are not legally binding - had been applied, and assuming, given your reference to 70mph that it was a dual cariageway) it is likely that any offence would have been ignored)

 

Edit to add

 

Having looked at your profile, Alan, I'll add that the lack of any opportunity to see JJ Cale play live is one of my (somewhat many) disappointments in life. :-(

[snowie]

Robinhood - 2014-07-17 1:21 PM

 

Thanks for the response.

 

 

Having looked at your profile, Alan, I'll add that the lack of any opportunity to see JJ Cale play live is one of my (somewhat many) disappointments in life. :-(

 

Made up for slightly by the fact that Hull uni union was a great place to hear Blues, back in 66-69. Big Boy Arthur Cruddup? was pretty impressive!

[Robinhood]

snowie - 2014-07-17 1:33 PM

 

Robinhood - 2014-07-17 1:21 PM

 

Thanks for the response.

 

 

Having looked at your profile, Alan, I'll add that the lack of any opportunity to see JJ Cale play live is one of my (somewhat many) disappointments in life. :-(

 

Made up for slightly by the fact that Hull uni union was a great place to hear Blues, back in 66-69. Big Boy Arthur Cruddup? was pretty impressive!

 

Warning, thread drift ;-)

 

I've seen a few good acts over the years, though less than I would have liked - I'm going through a bit of "last chance to see" at the moment.

 

Without a doubt, however, the most impressive solo player I've ever seen live was this guy:

 

 

....also sadly no longer with us.

 

(Saw him twice in a small folk club in Oxfordshire, and you would have sworn there were several people playing; I still can't see how he manages the sound for the second track on here - from 3 minutes in).

 

Ever such an engaging guy to talk to as well.

 

[Brian Kirby]

Robinhood - 2014-07-17 1:21 PM

 

Thanks for the response.

 

If a camera van and not Specs, then it looks considerably more like a manual, rather than automated process error.

 

Nonetheless, if this is the case, then most of what I posted still applies. There should be a "duty of care" on the issuing authority to check the status of the offending vehicle (since Motorcaravan is not the only exemption). Someone needs educating ;-)

 

Given what has subsequently ensued in your case (and my postulation on Motorcaravans in the PLG taxation class) it would seem an absolute waste of time to issue a NIP against any PLG vehicle that has Motorcaravan as its body type.................

It sounds a bit as though it was deemed quicker and cheaper to send out the NIP and see what resulted, than to check what the DVLA database showed. Difficult to see why the NIP was sent out otherwise. Then, only when Alan challenged did they check the record, and switch to trying the 3050kg ULW "hook".

 

The cynical side of me takes that to mean that fine collecting, and not road safety (which is the claimed reason for speed traps), is what the cameras are all about. However, unless the van was un-manned, and just left to pot what it could, the officer responsible should have been able to get the DVLA records and conclude that no offence had been committed.

 

So, if Alan has the time and the inclination to ask, I'd be interested in their answer as to how they failed to realise that no offence had been committed, and consequently sent out what amounted to little more than a "frightener". It is just possible that in the process we may learn something useful.

[Robinhood]

Brian Kirby - 2014-07-18 12:39 AM

 

However, unless the van was un-manned, and just left to pot what it could, the officer responsible should have been able to get the DVLA records and conclude that no offence had been committed.

 

 

.....unless the rules have changed, I believe this in itself is illegal.

 

Most of these 'vans are equipped with non-camera, laser-type detectors.

 

AFAIK, for manned, (non-camera) mobile speed detectors it was always the case that the person manning the device had to judge that a vehicle was exceeding the speed limit before using any such equipment to corroborate.

 

I've always thought that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove that it was being used in this way - but it would certainly be very easy if the 'van had been left unmanned. ;-)

 

--

 

The following extract is from ACPO guidelines:

 

In respect of non photographic devices, it must be remembered that the evidence of the equipment is only CORROBORATION of the operator's prior opinion that the target vehicle was travelling in excess of the permitted speed limit for the road or class of vehicle. (Corroboration is not required for photographic devices.)

[snowie]

Brian Kirby - 2014-07-18 12:39 AM

 

So, if Alan has the time and the inclination to ask, I'd be interested in their answer as to how they failed to realise that no offence had been committed, and consequently sent out what amounted to little more than a "frightener". It is just possible that in the process we may learn something useful.

 

I'm afraid I won't be pressing them for an explanation Brian.

40+ years ago I was walking home from a night out in Lincoln, back from college in Hull. I say night, it was about 2am. I was a long haired student in an air raid warden's overcoat. Two of the local constabulary's finest stopped me and quizzed me about my reasons for being where I was at such an hour.

This was ok; I'm a law abidingperson after all.

As it happened, I was in Lincoln the next weekend, and travelling the same route at approx same time.

The same couple stopped me again; realised it was me, and waved me on. I think they thought it was funny (Stop and Search?)

They didn't take kindly to being "persued" down the street by an irate hippy wanting to know why they were picking on him.

I'll leave the Suffolk constabulary alone. I got the response I wanted.

regards

alan b