# Penalties for driving 8 ton vehicle on 7.5ton licence



## petesam

Hypothetically speaking, what would be the outcome of being caught driving a 18000 lbs GVWR (8 tons) RV with a class c licence(7.5 ton) licence. I passed my driving test in 1969. Does it matter with it being a class 4 vehicle.The unladen weight is 14800lbs(6.6tons) Any advice would be appreciated


----------



## asprn

*Re: Penalties for driveing 8 ton vehicle on 7.5ton licence*



petesam said:


> Hypothetically speaking, what would be the outcome of being caught driving a 18000 lbs GVWR (8 tons) RV with a class c licence(7.5 ton) licence. I passed my driving test in 1969. Does it matter with it being a class 4 vehicle.The unladen weight is 14800lbs(6.6tons) Any advice would be appreciated


Never mind hypothetically. If you drive it, you are driving other than in accordance with your driving licence, which apart from being an offence in itself, will undoubtedly invalidate your insurance. It goes without saying that apart from THAT being an offence, having an incident in such circumstances which gave rise to your liability would easily wipe out your entire life's finances.

The MAM (GVWR) is what counts. One legitimate workaround would be to downplate your vehicle to 7.5 tons, something which simply involves amending the V5. If you then drove it overweight - say at 8 tons - you would not be driving other than in accordance with your licence, but would still be committing a weighting offence. That however should not invalidate your insurance, although that's not for me to say, obviously.

Dougie.


----------



## sersol

Nice answer Dougie,I wonder how many "hypothetical"drivers there are :wink: .
Interesting point about being overloaded & not invalidating insurance I'm sure that will give comfort to some :wink: 
Gary


----------



## 98585

I would endorse everything that Dougie said, all sensible advice. but I would offer purely for the sake of the hypothetical argument that

No one knows what the penalty would be because no one (and we've looked hard to find someone) has been prosecuted for driving a motorhome over 7.5 on a licence that enables you a max of 7.5 I think you've got more chance finding someone who has been gassed. There are reputable insurance companies that will insure you in any weight motorhome without an LGV licence.

I would add though, that if you drive your hypothetical LGV vehicle through a a well known (on MHF at least) policemans patch then you may well get the first prosecution which I think would prove very interesting. A definite outcome would be beneficial to all. It would remove the need for the Police to interpret grey areas of law, which IMO they are not very good at, to just enforcing it, which is what they do best.


----------



## asprn

jimjam said:


> No one knows what the penalty would be because no one (and we've looked hard to find someone) has been prosecuted for driving a motorhome over 7.5 on a licence that enables you a max of 7.5


You're on dangerous ground IMO if you really believe that's true. I'm not saying it's not true - I don't know - but on the balance of probabilities, I believe it's not, and you are a long way from providing the evidence. (In fact, I would go so far as to say that it would be impossible to extrapolate the information from the judicial system in the UK).

As with most things like this where the enquirer raises such "hypothetical" questions, they are of course simply also balancing probabilities as to whether they will be caught doing something they know full well to be wrong, and if so, what would the penalty be.



jimjam said:


> There are reputable insurance companies that will insure you in any weight motorhome without an LGV licence


Here's my little challenge for you then. Provide this forum with irrefutable evidence that any insurer will knowingly provide cover to a driver who drives his/her motorhome in these circumstances other than in accordance with his/her licence, and who will unquestioningly meet a claim arising from an incident where he/she so drives whilst commititng that offence. By irrefutable, I mean replicate the email or letter here from the insurer.

If you do so, I will publicly eat my chequered hat & provide similar evidence.

And by the way, you may be suffering from monocular vision. Grey areas of law? I don't think so. Blurred interpretations by individuals who want to work around legislation? More like it - that's been happening since Noah said "No more" to the rampsman on the ark, and the monkey offered him some bananas.

Dougie.


----------



## asprn

sersol said:


> Nice answer Dougie,I wonder how many "hypothetical"drivers there are


Undoubtedly very many.



sersol said:


> Interesting point about being overloaded & not invalidating insurance I'm sure that will give comfort to some


I hope not, although I'm sure it will, if one's that way inclined.

Dougie.


----------



## asprn

*Re: Penalties for driveing 8 ton vehicle on 7.5ton licence*

petesam,

I realised I didn't really answer your question directly when I suppose I could have done. I can only be reasonably definitive for England & Wales.

A weighting offence on its own will not be dealt with by means of a Fixed Penalty Notice, and you would be reported for summons. This would involve a personal court appearance, and would most likely result in a fine and points on your licence.

A weighting offence which was aggravated by other factors - e.g. you had or caused a road traffic collision (especially one resulting in inury) whilst your vehicle was overweight - would most likely incur heavier penalties.

Bear in mind that the offence is complete even if your vehicle is only technically overweight, e.g. you downplated it to 7.5 tons to get around the licence restrictions but it was below the manufacturer's MAM of 8 tons. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Finally, if you drive your vehicle as-is with no licence authorising you to do so, as I've already pointed out, you commit multiple offences. Driving other than in accordance with a licence would incur a fine and points - usually around 6 - and you would also be prosecuted for no insurance, which is also a fine and points - usually around 6. In our neck of the woods, it's normal for drivers committing these offences to be disqualified.

And all that on top of invalidating your insurance.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Dougie.


----------



## Scotjimland

A previous thread on this topic..

http://motorhomefacts.com/ftopict-3432-hgv.html+licence+license

In particular would anyone care to comment on the forth post by GeorgeTelford ?

The thrust of his argument is that a motorhome is not a goods vehicle and therefore is not restricted in weight/licencing.


----------



## 103625

I applaud Dougie for pointing out the law on this type of thinking
its nice to have the police giving you advice before rather than after the offence.
how would feel it if someone in your family was injured or killed only to find out that the driver was not properly licenced to drive the vehicle simply because nobody had ever been done for it before
homicide would be on my mind

Tony


----------



## artona

Hi



> The thrust of his argument is that a motorhome is not a goods vehicle and therefore is not restricted in weight/licencing


I have not got my license with me at the moment but I am sure it simply states that I am licensed to drive upto 7.5 tons.

Surely if a vehicle is over this then I cannot drive it whether it is and HGV or not. Whats your view Jim

stew


----------



## asprn

ScotJimland said:


> The thrust of his argument is that a motorhome is not a goods vehicle and therefore is not restricted in weight/licencing.


Jim,

He's wrong about the goods vehicle argument. Private Heavy Goods Vehicles are (funnily enough) goods vehicles.

I am completely unconvinced that *anyone* can possibly assert as he does, that "There as only ever been one attempted prosecution for someone driving a motorhome which was over the licence holders entitlement". JimJam similarly is clear on that point, but knowing what data is and is not recorded for Road Traffic convictions, I remain convinced that it would be impossible to obtain any meaningful statistics in respect of motorhomes being involved in *any* type of Road Traffic offence, far less specific weights offences. The first port of call - if I were enquiring, which I won't be - should be HMG. The reason for not enquiring is that I don't subscribe to this line of enquiry which goes to an inordinate amount of effort and vein-throbbing to try & find even a scrap of evidence to support what is essentially an unsustainable attitude. All you have to do is sit the damn test & pass it. Then you'll be a better and wiser driver, and not have to look over your shoulder (or in your mirror) all the time.



winniebagotony said:


> how would feel it if someone in your family was injured or killed only to find out that the driver was not properly licenced to drive the vehicle simply because nobody had ever been done for it before


Oh, that doesn't apply to *me* 'cos I can guarantee you I will not have an accident, officer. I've been driving for ** years and I've *never* had an accident.

which usually develops into:-

"How dare you insinuate that I don't love my family. What's your number" etc etc.

Trouble with you Tony, is that you're far too sensible for your own good.

Dougie.


----------



## asprn

artona said:


> Surely if a vehicle is over this then I cannot drive it whether it is and HGV or not


And you, Mr Stew - far too sensible. How boringly uncontentious. And sensible.

Dougie.


----------



## 103625

Sorry Dougie
i.ve got down off my box now :wink: 

Tony


----------



## olley

hi Dougie you seem to be getting a bit up tight over this, why? we are all entitled to an opinion, even the DVLA which is what they put on their site. 

You say its the law, and if it is ok no problem, but just because the DVLA say its PHGV doesn't make it so, the C&U people say its not, and it does fail all the accepted ideas of what a goods vehicle should be. 

While I agree that you should have to take a test, imho for what its worth is that it isn't a PHGV so therefore the law doesn't apply. 

Olley


----------



## asprn

olley said:


> hi Dougie you seem to be getting a bit up tight over this, why?


Olley,

You could not be more wrong. I am Chilled of Chill City, truly. If I've given the impression that I'm wound up, then it's my bad, and I'm glad to put the record straight.

Never confuse directness with arrogance. 

Dougie.


----------



## Scotjimland

artona said:


> I have not got my license with me at the moment but I am sure it simply states that I am licensed to drive upto 7.5 tons.
> 
> Surely if a vehicle is over this then I cannot drive it whether it is and HGV or not. Whats your view Jim


 My license which is pre '87 doesn't mention weights only classes of vehicles. I believe this is called 'grand father rights' ?

It licences me to drive any motor vehicle, except a motor cycle, HGV or Public Service vehicle and a few other odd vehicles like track and road laying vehicles.

GT's argument was founded on the lack of a specific law regarding motorhomes, not the DVLA's interpretation of them, no one has been able to produce the law that states that motorhomes are weight and license restricted.

When I insured with NFU I specifically asked about this, I informed them about my license and they were happy with it.

My RV is registered PLG .. Private/ Light Goods , the same as a car, that is 'Private or Light Goods', not Private and Light Goods, and is PHG not Private /Heavy Goods ?

This argument has been running since I first joined MHFs now almost 4 years, my guess is it will still be running in another four, much as the A frame argument will.

However, as has been said many times before, absence of proof is not proof of absence.. I would love to see the relevant legislation, not an interpretation by the DVLA. or anyone else, no more lecturing or preaching, let's have some concrete facts.


----------



## asprn

ScotJimland said:


> artona said:
> 
> 
> 
> My RV is registered PLG .. Private/ Light Goods , the same as a car, that is 'Private or Light Goods', not Private and Light Goods, and is PHG not Private /Heavy Goods?
> 
> 
> 
> Jim,
> 
> If it weighs more than 3.5 tons, it should be registered as PHGV, not PLG. Mine was so registered when I bought it last December, and this was corrected when I took it in for taxing. Having the V5 showing an incorrect classification will not affect/exempt anything (apart from you paying a little more road taxt than you need to), which I'm sure you're aware of.
> 
> Dougie.
Click to expand...


----------



## 98585

asprn said:


> [You're on dangerous ground IMO if you really believe that's true. I'm not saying it's not true - I don't know - but on the balance of probabilities, I believe it's not, and you are a long way from providing the evidence. (In fact, I would go so far as to say that it would be impossible to extrapolate the information from the judicial system in the UK).


Dougie this is a pretty small community with good communication links. You say yourself that there are a lot of drivers breaking the law (IYO). If any were going to be prosecuted we would hear about it.Just like the last one. Which resulted in no one being prosecuted, the police thought it black and white, the leagal eagles thought better.



asprn said:


> [Here's my little challenge for you then. Provide this forum with irrefutable evidence that any insurer will knowingly provide cover to a driver who drives his/her motorhome in these circumstances other than in accordance with his/her licence, and who will unquestioningly meet a claim arising from an incident where he/she so drives whilst commititng that offence. By irrefutable, I mean replicate the email or letter here from the insurer.If you do so, I will publicly eat my chequered hat & provide similar evidence..


There is no such insurance company that will "unquestioningly meet a claim" let alone put it in writing  but there are insurance companies that take the view as many do that a MH is not a goods vehicle.



asprn said:


> [And by the way, you may be suffering from monocular vision. Grey areas of law? I don't think so. Blurred interpretations by individuals who want to work around legislation? More like it Dougie.


I rest my case, you are a policeman and you can't see or won't accept the grey areas :lol: :lol:

My little challenge to you. There is a big show in your area soon, go and speak to your boss and tell him that you want to mount an operation to catch all the illegal (IYO) MH drivers that attend. Surely with the Police being so "results" orientated, he won't be able to refuse such a chance to boost the force arrest numbers, I'll be there and I've got a big hat, but I bet I'm not eating it  Mind you I will have my licence with me just in case your boss is crazy enough to think such an operation might end in a prosecution and turn up


----------



## 98585

artona said:


> I have not got my license with me at the moment..


Stew, I thought full timers always had EVERYTHING with them


----------



## artona

Hi Jimjam

You are right of course about having everything with us, just could not be asked to disturb Shona and Jessica who were sleeping in the back bedroom last night which is where my license was. 

Now I have on my license Jim of oh ya Scotland category C1 says I am authorised to drive vehicles exceeding 3.5tonnes but does not exceed 7.5 tonnes. I obtained this license in 1992 although I passed my test in 1978. Should it be reading different (I hope)


stew


----------



## 100790

> If it weighs more than 3.5 tons, it should be registered as PHGV, not PLG. Mine was so registered when I bought it last December, and this was corrected when I took it in for taxing. Having the V5 showing an incorrect classification will not affect/exempt anything (apart from you paying a little more road taxt than you need to), which I'm sure you're aware of


.

Have to say I agree with the above. This issue always raises some varying views all of which are extremely interesting but has yet to provide a definitive answer.


----------



## 98585

GEOFFs125 said:


> Have to say I agree with the above. This issue always raises some varying views all of which are extremely interesting but has yet to provide a definitive answer.


Geoff, you agree with it, but you admit there is no definitive answer. I disagree with it, but agree with you, that there is no definitive answer.

This is a grey area, even though our police friend will not admit as much, Its almost as grey an area as speeding police officers. Are they committing an offence or not? or are they blurred interpretations by individuals who want to work around legislation? More like it - that's been happening since Noah said "No more" to the rampsman on the ark, and the pig offered him a go on his sow


----------



## sallytrafic

jimjam said:


> GEOFFs125 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have to say I agree with the above. This issue always raises some varying views all of which are extremely interesting but has yet to provide a definitive answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Geoff, you agree with it, but you admit there is no definitive answer. I disagree with it, but agree with you, that there is no definitive answer.
> 
> This is a grey area, even though our police friend will not admit as much, Its almost as grey an area as speeding police officers. Are they committing an offence or not? or are they blurred interpretations by individuals who want to work around legislation? More like it - that's been happening since Noah said "No more" to the rampsman on the ark, and the pig offered him a go on his sow
Click to expand...

You heard it here first - Noah accused of beastiality by security operative 

by the way if I was religious, which I'm not, I would probably been offended JimJam


----------



## 101002

jimjam said:


> GEOFFs125 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have to say I agree with the above. This issue always raises some varying views all of which are extremely interesting but has yet to provide a definitive answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Geoff, you agree with it, but you admit there is no definitive answer. I disagree with it, but agree with you, that there is no definitive answer.
> 
> This is a grey area, even though our police friend will not admit as much, Its almost as grey an area as speeding police officers. Are they committing an offence or not? or are they blurred interpretations by individuals who want to work around legislation? More like it - that's been happening since Noah said "No more" to the rampsman on the ark, and the pig offered him a go on his sow
Click to expand...

Are you allowed to mention speeding cops

Big Frank


----------



## 98585

sallytrafic said:


> You heard it here first - Noah accused of beastiality by security operative  by the way if I was religious, which I'm not, I would probably been offended JimJam


Only if he accepted the pigs offer would he be guilty of beastiality, which of course he did not. That you infer he accepted might offend some (but not me  )

So the only offence caused would be by your sensationlist headline, which of course was wrong as most are :wink: apart from the one about Freddie Starr and the hampster which I think is true :lol:


----------



## 103625

My Winnebago (minnie winnie) has a max weight of 12000 lbs and is registered as PHGV so that must must tell you that over 3.5 tons needs a different type of licence and over 7.5 tons another one again
and i wonder who would like to set a precedence in court i would bet the first one would scream the loudest

Tony


----------



## 98742

You know all the confusion would be cleared up if the definition was changed to Heavy Vehicle and dropped the reference to goods.
When I bought my Monaco Knight a couple of insurance companies wouldn't cover me as I didn't have a Class C licence. Adrian Flux, however, said it didn't matter so I did insure through them. During my first year I felt the arguments for having the licence were becoming more and more compelling so I took the course and passed. When my policy came up for renewal I was surprised to see a small but significant change to the wording. It now said I must have an appropriate licence. To my suspicious mind looks like they're putting the onus on the driver to ensure he's legal and a great excuse to avoid paying out if I had an accident.

Doug


----------



## 98585

falken said:


> To my suspicious mind looks like they're putting the onus on the driver to ensure he's legal and a great excuse to avoid paying out if I had an accident. Doug


Your'e right of course, some insurance companies will use this grey area, a, to take premiums and b, to use it as an excuse to renage in the event of a claim. Presently there seems to be more companies that insist on the C licence but plenty that don't, and that leaves a lot of drivers in grey and murky waters.

With regard to claims, either they are not claiming, or their claims are being paid, If the insurance companies are refusing to pay Its my opinion that there is a very good chance that we would hear about it esp in the RV commnuity on forums like this one or ARVE.


----------



## sallytrafic

jimjam said:


> sallytrafic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard it here first - Noah accused of beastiality by security operative  by the way if I was religious, which I'm not, I would probably been offended JimJam
> 
> 
> 
> Only if he accepted the pigs offer would he be guilty of beastiality, which of course he did not. That you infer he accepted might offend some (but not me  )
> 
> So the only offence caused would be by your sensationlist headline, which of course was wrong as most are :wink: apart from the one about Freddie Starr and the hampster which I think is true :lol:
Click to expand...

Right so no pigs on the ark then

...you might as well talk about this because everyone has made up their own minds about this topic and it is either illegal not illegal or a grey area


----------



## sersol

Hi Jim,just out of interest which licence do you have.
I don't own an arv but am just interested in this topic.
Gary


----------



## 88927

Hi sersol
Jammy Jim :lol: :lol: :lol: "discovered" that he had a class C license when he looked at his license (for the first time in years :lol: :lol: )........
So he bought a heavy weight :lol: 

Keith


----------



## 98585

kands said:


> Hi sersol
> Jammy Jim :lol: :lol: :lol: "discovered" that he had a class C license when he looked at his license (for the first time in years :lol: :lol: )........
> So he bought a heavy weight :lol:
> 
> Keith


Not quite true keith, I didnt "discover" it someone else saw it and enlightened me, and Not just C but CE as well :lol: :lol:

20 years HGV experience me.. so anything you need to know Keith, dont be afraid to ask away.


----------



## artona

Hi Jim

Tell the whole story. Did that someone not save you a wallet load of dosh :lol: :lol: 


stew


----------



## UncleNorm

*Licence debate*

Hi to all debatees!

Just peeled my licence out of its plastic wallet. I passed my test in 1969 and am licensed to drive groups A & E only.

Group A states: ANY VEHICLE (except moped, motorbike, road roller, track layer, invalid ...)
Group E is moped.

I cannot find reference to weights. I always understood that my licence allowed me to drive coaches, to gain experience, without L plates, provided there were no fare-paying passengers on board.

Best wishes from UncleNorm.


----------



## sallytrafic

If for any reason you are still holding an antique piece of paper I have to tell you that the designations have changed so quoting what it says has NO legal validity whatsover.


----------



## 104705

*Re: Penalties for driveing 8 ton vehicle on 7.5ton licence*



asprn said:


> A weighting offence on its own will not be dealt with by means of a Fixed Penalty Notice, and you would be reported for summons. This would involve a personal court appearance, and would most likely result in a fine and points on your licence.
> 
> Dougie.


This is not strictly true. A FPT can be issued for this offence and in the senerio could be used. It is unusual because weight offences are normally work related and offences are committed by driver, employer and owner, hence the need for all offenders to be dealt with equally in court. How the matter is dealt with, is in accordance with the proceedures agreed by DOT, Trading Standards and ACPO. Again IIRC this was caution up to 5% on either axle or gross, and anything over prosecution.

3 to 6 points are awarded for licencing offences, but IIRC weight offences are not endorseable.

I remember from my old days a similar situation coming about by someone using a converted coach as a roadside cafe. All constructed seats were removed, so the driver didn't fall foul in that area, an allegation was made that the produce and furniture being carried were goods but the court decided that it was in furtherance of being a cafe and not goods, but they convicted on the over 7.5 tonne rule. I believe the basis was that 7.5 tonnes was the line drawn in all circumstances. I think the case was going to be appealed, but I didn't hear the outcome.

If anyone decides to chance the downplating/over loading route, remember, any vehicle more than 5% over weight on axle or gross will be given a prohibition. The weight will have to be reduced before any further movement, and then a re-weigh. The prohibitions are then recorded against a vehicle. Once this has happened, you can expect regular attention from traffic officers if they happen to check the registration number.


----------



## 104471

*H.G.V./P.S.V.*

The correct answer can be found out at your local bus Depot. When you see a bus, and in the window you see "OUT OF SERVICE" The vehicle is not a "passenger careaing vehicle" and in that case you don't need a P.C.V. LICENSE to drive it.

CHECK IT OUT (I may be wrong) ??


----------



## 104705

*Re: H.G.V./P.S.V.*

Comment removed as not relevant!


----------



## sersol

Hi Kands,that being the case I'm not sure what his issues are with Dougie's comments he is after all only trying to inform the original poster of the law as he understands it.
I may be wrong but I think that Dougie has a better understanding than most on here,do you agree ?.
Gary


----------



## 98585

sersol said:


> Hi Kands,that being the case I'm not sure what his issues are with Dougie's comments he is after all only trying to inform the original poster of the law as he understands it.


aren't we all



sersol said:


> I may be wrong but I think that Dougie has a better understanding than most on here,do you agree ?.
> Gary


Like you say you _may_ be wrong.


----------



## sersol

Hi Jim,you have valid points here.
I have no interest in ARV's at the moment.
BUT for my part IF I were interested as to what the law is,then I think that I would probably take into account what the Police say,(after all they are there to uphold the law) rather that rely on the fact that no-one has YET been convicted for driving a heavy ARV on their current licence.
As I see it all this thread has done has made it even more confusing for anyone considering driving an ARV heavier that 7.5t.
If in fact you are correct (and you_* may*_ be) then why have a number of members recently paid large sums of money to upgrade their licence. 
Their input would be interesting,do you agree ?. Please do not take my comments as a knock at you ,far from it,but this issue is similar to the "A frame" saga its ok to do it because no-one has yet been "nicked" yet.
Can you imagine what the outcome would be if no-had been caught drinking & driving-should people say "its ok to do it because no-one has been caught yet"
Gary


----------



## Zuma

This text is copied and pasted from the driving licence regulations, vehicle classes are defined by their authorised maximum permissible weights.

Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2824 
The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996 - continued

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

back to previous page

SCHEDULE 2
Regulations 4 to 6 and 40

CATEGORIES AND SUB-CATEGORIES OF VEHICLE FOR LICENSING PURPOSES

PART 1
(1) Category or sub-category (2) Classes of vehicle included (3) Additional categories and sub-categories 
A Motor bicycles but excluding any motor vehicle in category K. B1, K and P. 
A1 A sub-category of category A comprising learner motor bicycles but excluding any motor vehicle in category P. P.

B Any motor vehicle, other than a vehicle included in category A, F or P, having a maximum authorised mass not exceeding 3.5 tonnes and not more than 8 seats in addition to the driver's seat, including-

(i) a combination of such a vehicle and a trailer where the trailer has a maximum authorised mass not exceeding 750 kg, and

(ii) a combination of such a vehicle and a trailer where the maximum authorised mass of the combination does not exceed 3.5 tonnes and the maximum authorised mass of the trailer does not exceed the unladen weight of the tractor vehicle.

F, K and P. 
B1 A sub-category of category B comprising motor vehicles having three or four wheels, an unladen weight not exceeding 550 kilograms, a maximum design speed exceeding 50 km per hour and, if powered by an internal combustion engine, a cubic capacity exceeding 50 cubic centimetres. K and P. 
B1 (invalid carriages) A sub-category of category B comprising motor vehicles which are invalid carriages. 
B + E Combination of a motor vehicle and trailer where the tractor vehicle is in category B but the combination does not fall within that category. 
*C Any motor vehicle having a maximum authorised mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes, other than a vehicle falling within category D, F, G or H, including such a vehicle drawing a trailer having a maximum authorised mass not exceeding 750 kilograms. *C1 A sub-category of category C comprising motor vehicles having a maximum authorised mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes but not exceeding 7.5 tonnes, including such a vehicle drawing a trailer having a maximum authorised mass not exceeding 750 kilograms. 
D Any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers having more than 8 seats in addition to the driver's seat, including such a vehicle drawing a trailer having a maximum authorised mass not exceeding 750 kilograms. 
D1 A sub-category of category D comprising motor vehicles having more than 8 but not more than 16 seats in addition to the driver's seat and including such a vehicle drawing a trailer with a maximum authorised mass not exceeding 750 kilograms. 
C + E Combination of a motor vehicle and trailer where the tractor vehicle is in category C but the combination does not fall within that category. B + E. 
C1 + E

A sub-category of category C + E comprising any combination of a motor vehicle and trailer where-

(a) the tractor vehicle is in sub-category C1,

(b) the maximum authorised mass of the trailer exceeds 750 kilograms but not the unladen weight of the tractor vehicle, and

(c) the maximum authorised mass of the combination does not exceed 12 tonnes.

B + E. 
D + E Combination of a motor vehicle and trailer where the tractor vehicle is in category D but the combination does not fall within that category. B + E. 
D1 + E

A sub-category of category D + E comprising any combination of a motor vehicle and trailer where-

(a) the tractor vehicle is in sub-category D1,

(b) the maximum authorised mass of the trailer exceeds 750 kilograms but not the unladen weight of the tractor vehicle,

(c) the maximum authorised mass of the combination does not exceed 12 tonnes, and

(d) the trailer is not used for the carriage of passengers.

B + E 
F Agricultural or forestry tractor, but excluding any motor vehicle included in category H. K. 
G Road roller. 
H Track-laying vehicle steered by its tracks. 
K Mowing machine or vehicle controlled by a pedestrian excluding any motor vehicle included in category B. 
P Moped.

PART 2
C1 + E (8.25 tonnes) A sub-category of category C + E comprising any combination of a motor vehicle and trailer in sub-category C1 + E the maximum authorised mass of which does not exceed 8.25 tonnes. 
D1 (not for hire or reward) A sub-category of category D comprising motor vehicles in sub-category D1 driven otherwise than for hire or reward. 
D1 + E (not for hire or reward) A sub-category of category D + E comprising motor vehicles in sub-category D1 + E driven otherwise than for hire or reward. 
L Motor vehicle propelled by electrical power.


----------



## 104705

Leaving to one side all the comments on what is or is not permitted, if a court appearence occurs for exceeding 7.5 tonnes, then I feel sure that the court will follow the intention of the regulations to provide clear bands. The figures of 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes are the limits set and I would be very surprised if they were not followed.


----------



## 98585

sersol said:


> Hi Jim,you have valid points here.
> I have no interest in ARV's at the moment.
> BUT for my part IF I were interested as to what the law is,then I think that I would probably take into account what the Police say,(after all they are there to uphold the law) rather that rely on the fact that no-one has YET been convicted for driving a heavy ARV on their current licence.
> As I see it all this thread has done has made it even more confusing for anyone considering driving an ARV heavier that 7.5t.
> If in fact you are correct (and you_* may*_ be) then why have a number of members recently paid large sums of money to upgrade their licence.
> Their input would be interesting,do you agree ?. Please do not take my comments as a knock at you ,far from it,but this issue is similar to the "A frame" saga its ok to do it because no-one has yet been "nicked" yet.
> Can you imagine what the outcome would be if no-had been caught drinking & driving-should people say "its ok to do it because no-one has been caught yet"
> Gary


Gary, you miss my point. I am not saying Dougie is wrong. I have only pointed out that this is a grey area and not as clear cut as some might have us believe. That is all. There is a large number of otherwise law abiding people out there that drive a 7.5+ motorhome on a car licence because they always have, and because they feel they are not breaking the law, given that there are so many it is IMO right to assume that there is a grey area here that needs addressing. I do not believe that they are all crooks just working the system as Dougie might.

I acknowledge that you are not having a knock at me for which I am very gratefull


----------



## sallytrafic

What is amazing to me is that faced with Zuma's quote from the SI ie the law, not someone's interpretation of it, we immediately carry on with our various opinions as if it were a grey area. 

The reasons behind GT's argument collapse when (and if  ) the penny drops that there doesn't need to be a specific mention of a Motorhome/Motorcaravan/RV etc because they all are subsets of 'Any Motor Vehicle'

What is also amazing is the number of people who have obviously not changed their licence to the new type haven't they changed address or had an endorsement removed or entered?


----------



## LC1962

sallytrafic said:


> What is also amazing is the number of people who have obviously not changed their licence to the new type haven't they changed address or had an endorsement removed or entered?


Very possibly not Frank  I know of many older members of my family who have never had an endorsement and have never moved from the same address in donkeys years so have had no reason to send their licence in - some have even expressed their desire to keep their old tatty folding piece of paper because they don't want to carry a "mug shot" around.

There will always be the gullible souls who will believe the "it can be driven on a car licence" line, and there will continue to be as long as unscrupulous sellers of large MHs continue to state as much.

I have to say, I haven't seen such an active debate on here since our old pal Dazzer first uttered the words..."Buy an RV"... :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## sersol

Hi Linda,why did you have to mention "that name" Dazzer :lol: :lol: .
He's my George Telford.
I thought he was shut-up (so to speak) under a rock. Any chance you could get him shipped to the States & work for you as an agent ???. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .
The yanks would love him,you know how they love the sound of their own voices. :wink: .
Gary


----------



## billym

Re the antique piece of paper...surely when you apply for the new photo licence you have to keep the old one. It is a two part licence. Or am I missing something ?


----------



## lindyloot

A goods vehicle licence is for driving goods vehicles, a motor home is classed as a car and can be driven on a car licence no matter how much it weighs. A horse box can be driven on a car licence because it dos'nt carry goods. You can drive an articulated lorry on a car licence provided it is taxed as PLG and is not used for carry goods


----------



## artona

Hi Lindyloot

How does your license read in relations to driving a car??

stew


----------



## sallytrafic

lindyloot said:


> A goods vehicle licence is for driving goods vehicles, a motor home is classed as a car and can be driven on a car licence no matter how much it weighs. A horse box can be driven on a car licence because it dos'nt carry goods. You can drive an articulated lorry on a car licence provided it is taxed as PLG and is not used for carry goods


So why does the SI say different - I'll answer that because you are totally wrong in your assertion - what part of 'Any motor vehicle' didn't you understand


----------



## LC1962

billym said:


> Re the antique piece of paper...surely when you apply for the new photo licence you have to keep the old one. It is a two part licence. Or am I missing something ?


Hi John

When I sent in my old paper licence to change address they sent me the mug-shot card with a new paper section....I didn't get the old one back.

Gary....don't be fooled by Dazzer's absence, he is sunning himself on top of his rock as we speak.......he'll be back to haunt you soon enough.....you didn't think you'd get rid of him that easily did you? :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## lindyloot

Stew I only have B and B1 on mine only been driving just over two years. Rich has the whole lot HGV class 1. 

Sally traffic I stand corrected, Rich was under the impression he was right because this was the case . He had no knowledge that the entitlements had changed .Did the DVLA send out this info? when the laws were changed or were they hoping to "catch " people out? We only found out after I had passed my test that any one who passed after 1997 couldn't tow a trailer unless they passed a test for that.


----------



## lindyloot

Just been on DVLA web site and found this 
Car licences held before 1 January 1997

All drivers who passed a car test before 1 January 1997 retain their existing entitlement to tow trailers until their licence expires. This means they are generally entitled to drive a vehicle and trailer combination up to 8.25 tonnes MAM. They also have entitlement to drive a minibus with a trailer over 750kgs MAM.

Drivers who hold subcategory C1+E - limited to 8.25 tonnes MAM, may apply for provisional entitlement to the new subcategory C1+E, in order to take and pass the test which will increase their combined vehicle and trailer entitlement to 12 tonnes MAM. It is not necessary to gain subcategory C1 entitlement first but drivers have to meet higher medical standards, and pass both the category C theory test and the subcategory C1+E practical test.


----------



## sallytrafic

lindyloot said:


> Stew I only have B and B1 on mine only been driving just over two years. Rich has the whole lot HGV class 1.
> 
> Sally traffic I stand corrected, Rich was under the impression he was right because this was the case . He had no knowledge that the entitlements had changed .Did the DVLA send out this info? when the laws were changed or were they hoping to "catch " people out? We only found out after I had passed my test that any one who passed after 1997 couldn't tow a trailer unless they passed a test for that.


Hey lindyloot I read what I wrote again and was I being sarcastic or what?Sorry never should have phrased it quite like I did


----------



## 104705

lindyloot said:


> A horse box can be driven on a car licence because it dos'nt carry goods.


This is not strictly true. A horse box does carry goods, but can be taxed at PLG if it is not used for hire or reward. This of course still requires the vehicle to be a plated at 7.5 tonnes or less.



lindyloot said:


> You can drive an articulated lorry on a car licence provided it is taxed as PLG and is not used for carry goods


You can only do this if it is less than 7.5 tonnes and the fifth wheel has been removed. If the fifth wheel is present then the GTW is the weight that is used. VED is not the governing factor.


----------



## 101193

Freetochat said:


> If the fifth wheel is present then the GTW is the weight that is used.


Do you have any more info (links, etc.) on this? I agree with you, but would like to find an authoritative source.

Thanks


----------



## Zuma

Could somebody please tell me where, in the driver licence regulations it refers to the carriage of goods?

The SI refers only to the maximum authorised mass (MAM), so if a vehicle has a permitted MAM of 18000kg, but has an unladen weight of 6000kg a category 'C' licence is still required even when driven unladen.

A tractor unit with the fifth wheel removed will still have to comply with the MAM as specified on either the manufacturers plate or the Ministry plate; a two axle tractor unit will have a gross MAM of 18000kg max and a tri-axle tractor unit will have, if I remember correctly, a MAM of 24000kg max, incidentally the Ministry plate takes precedence over the manufacturers plate.

The harmonisation of EU driver licence regulations has simplified matters because it focuses only on the MAM


----------



## 104705

Zuma said:


> Could somebody please tell me where, in the driver licence regulations it refers to the carriage of goods?


It doesn't, the carriage of goods is a matter of road taxation, operator licensing and use. A few years ago, it was a common practice amongst hauliers doing European work to tax their artics as PLG. Although it was an illegal practice enforcement wasn't possible because part of the evidence required was for the truck to be carrying goods in the uk. IIRC the difference in taxation was about £3,000 a year for each truck.



Zuma said:
 

> The SI refers only to the maximum authorised mass (MAM), so if a vehicle has a permitted MAM of 18000kg, but has an unladen weight of 6000kg a category 'C' licence is still required even when driven unladen.
> 
> A tractor unit with the fifth wheel removed will still have to comply with the MAM as specified on either the manufacturers plate or the Ministry plate; a two axle tractor unit will have a gross MAM of 18000kg max and a tri-axle tractor unit will have, if I remember correctly, a MAM of 24000kg max, incidentally the Ministry plate takes precedence over the manufacturers plate.
> 
> The harmonisation of EU driver licence regulations has simplified matters because it focuses only on the MAM


You are correct to a degree. By removing the fifth wheel, you are removing the load carrying capacity and therefore unladen weights become usable. However, with modern artic units many exceed 7.5 tonnes anyway so the proposal becomes mute.


----------



## Zuma

Unladen weights never become usable, the regulations only refer to MAM. The only way round it is to have the vehicle downplated, if this is possible.


----------



## sprokit

Zuma you have a pm.
K


----------



## smithies

Hiya ...We have just bought a Rexhall Aerbus.....We both drive(husband more often than me) & both passed our tests in 1969 also.Are you saying our rig is over -weight as well...Help !!


----------



## artona

Hi Smithies

do you know the weight of your rexhall


stew


----------



## 88927

smithies said:


> Hiya ...We have just bought a Rexhall Aerbus.....We both drive(husband more often than me) & both passed our tests in 1969 also.Are you saying our rig is over -weight as well...Help !!


Hi smithies
If the rating plate in your RV reads more than 16,500 lbs (7500 Kgs) then yes. You will need to take a calss C driving test in order to drive it legally I'm afraid.

Keith


----------



## artona

Hi

A few posts have been moved to the members bar. You can see it here But remember no smoking now :lol: :lol: :lol:

stew


----------



## 98585

kands said:


> If the rating plate in your RV reads more than 16,500 lbs (7500 Kgs) then yes. You will need to take a calss C driving test in order to drive it legally I'm afraid. Keith


That's a matter of opinion :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## 95633

The RVDA (RV Dealers Association) have, this morning, confirmed they are in talks with the DVLA to sort out the driving licence issue.

They claim to have finally sorted the width/length issue and state that "....there will be no over size RVs. So there will be no concerns as to illegal motorhomes....."

Now they are dealing with DLs and then, hopefully, we can encourage them to sort out the a-frame debate.

God, it will certainly get boring around here if they do all that won't it 
 

Paul


----------



## 98585

UK-RV said:


> God, it will certainly get boring around here if they do all that won't it  Paul


Certainly will Paul, blue food grade hose and SOGS are just not as exciting as LGV & A-frame threads.


----------



## 101002

Will i be able to drive my Damon Ultrasport 35ft Double Slide then legally for some. Oh-----Oh------Oh.

Its going to be no fun anymore

Gertie


----------



## klubnomad

artona said:


> Hi
> 
> A few posts have been moved to the members bar. You can see it here But remember no smoking now :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> stew


I hope there is a smokers shelter outside, I spend a bloody fortune in the bar - always seems to be my shout :lol:


----------



## 88927

jimjam said:


> That's a matter of opinion :lol: :lol: :lol:


Not according to my license I'm afraid Jim, it quite clearly states that I have an entitlement to drive "Any Vehicle with a MAM of up to 7500 Kgs" with certain exceptions such as tanks, bull dozers and motorcycles :lol: :lol: 
My insurance also states that I have insurance for the detailed vehicle but this is only applicable provided that I have the appropriate driving license.
I'm afraid that I read those peices of information to say that if my (any) vehicle weighs more than 7500 Kgs then I am not entitled by law to drive it on a public road and furthermore I will not be insured to do so.
This is only my interpretation of the information :lol: :lol: .

Keith


----------



## 98585

kands said:


> Not according to my license I'm afraid Jim, Keith


Bummer that mate innit? You could always take your test Keith.. Like I did ,


----------



## 88927

I once "drove" an 8500 tonne submarine, whilst dived, in order to be awarded my "Dolphins", but appaprently that don't count :lol: :lol: :lol: Also fired a SLICBM over 2500 miles and got a really good set of results, but that don't count either :lol: :lol: :lol: , nothing else for it then eh :wink: 

Keith


----------



## 103625

UK-RV said:


> The RVDA (RV Dealers Association) have, this morning, confirmed they are in talks with the DVLA to sort out the driving licence issue.
> 
> They claim to have finally sorted the width/length issue and state that "....there will be no over size RVs. So there will be no concerns as to illegal motorhomes....."
> 
> Now they are dealing with DLs and then, hopefully, we can encourage them to sort out the a-frame debate.
> 
> God, it will certainly get boring around here if they do all that won't it
> 
> 
> Paul


 Oh god that could open up a can of worms 8O

Tony


----------



## 100790

WOW this sure has stirred up a hornets nest since I the last time I looked at it.

I was sat here thinking well the problem does not really effect me as my Class C RV is under 7500 kg and back in the good old days I passed my HGV 2, now Class C on your licence.

Then I thought if I manage to convince my two sons to give up motocross racing I might just invest in an A Class. So I dusted of my rather tatty looking licence just to check, only to find my Class C licence had expired in 2004 as I forgot to renew when I needed a medical.  

A grovelling email has been swiftly dispatched to the DVLA, hoping a medical rather than a re-test is all that is required. One can only cross one's fingers and hope.


----------



## 101002

GEOFFs125 said:


> WOW this sure has stirred up a hornets nest since I the last time I looked at it.
> 
> I was sat here thinking well the problem does not really effect me as my Class C RV is under 7500 kg and back in the good old days I passed my HGV 2, now Class C on your licence.
> 
> Then I thought if I manage to convince my two sons to give up motocross racing I might just invest in an A Class. So I dusted of my rather tatty looking licence just to check, only to find my Class C licence had expired in 2004 as I forgot to renew when I needed a medical.
> 
> A grovelling email has been swiftly dispatched to the DVLA, hoping a medical rather than a re-test is all that is required. One can only cross one's fingers and hope.


All you need is the medical you wont need a retest i didnt and left mine 5yrs Gertie


----------



## 100790

> All you need is the medical you wont need a retest i didnt and left mine 5yrs Gertie


.

 Thanks for that............feeling better already.
Just love medicals. Eat less, take more exercise, drink less etc. etc.


----------



## 103625

kands said:


> I once "drove" an 8500 tonne submarine, whilst dived, in order to be awarded my "Dolphins", but appaprently that don't count :lol: :lol: :lol: Also fired a SLICBM over 2500 miles and got a really good set of results, but that don't count either :lol: :lol: :lol: , nothing else for it then eh :wink:
> 
> Keith


 I,ve got a TV licence..........No?


----------



## 88927

That might be a "grey" area Tony...... It'll depend upon what size the TV is mate :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Keith


----------



## 98585

kands said:


> That might be a "grey" area Tony...... It'll depend upon what size the TV is mate :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Keith


Unless its Black and White


----------



## 99412

*Licensing your biggun*

I'm sat here in Limousin looking out at the pi*****ng rain which is coming down like stair-rods. I'm so bored that I'm going to enter in to this thread which I have been watching from afar.

I believe that the legal niceties are a bit of a red herring, in that when you spend many thousands of pounds on a toy which has the potential to kill, you owe it to yourself to learn how to use it.

No doubt this has got all the "I've been driving for 400 years and never had an accident" brigade bristling as they KNOW how to drive already, and 8000Kg of unwieldy metal is no big deal.

Maybe some do, but certainly some don't. Speaking personally I have been driving since 1974, and never had an accident. However taking my LGV training improved my driving immeasurably, and my 'brilliant' driving was so good it took me 3 goes to pass. Perhaps I have always been a poor driver, but more likely I was an average driver with lots of bad habits built up over the years. I am sure I am not alone in that.

So my advice is spend the money on the big bus of your dreams, but spend an extra 1% on the appropriate training and you will be rewarded with greater safety and a feeling of pride in your efforts.

I will now don my tin helmet and await incoming. :bazooka:


----------



## damondunc

I totally agree with Damann


Duncan

Ps what are you doing in a limousin has the Rambler broken down :lol: :lol:


----------



## 101002

HMMMMM ---- Just wondering how many test passers could drive and reverse a six ton Farm Tractor with a Ten ton six wheel, two wheel steer 30ft trailer loaded with bales.

On a car License of course.

Driving Damon is like driving a mini

Gertie

x to Dunk


----------



## gromett

DMann,

Couldn't agree with you more. I did my HGV course and test and it was well worth it. The number of times I hear questions about reversing cameras, peoples back end swing catching them out etc etc. I have also seen 3.5T vehicles driving in a manner that would not only fail them the test but is actually dangerous for other road users.

My new vehicle is only 1Mtr longer and 1T heavier but had to take my test due to a post 97 license. My training for cars is up to date and I take a refresher course/test every 2 years so know my driving is up to par for the test. However the way I was driving my last MH was wrong in so many ways that I didn't even realise. An MH is not a car and there are different things you need to know. 

Due to the HGV course I can now reverse my vehicle into a slot that has 2 feet Max on each side and stop 6" (+/- 2) from the wall behind me all without the help of a passenger or reversing camera.
My new style of mirror usage has I am sure prevented many a car driver from having to take avoidance manouvers. Prior to this I wasn't even aware of some of the situations and was relying on them being awake and not on their mobile phone at the time. A lot of the things you learn are small things that may seem insignificant but I realise now that it is not the case.

I am not saying the course has made me a perfect driver far from it. But it has trained me to do things better that will help avoid me causing or being in accidents and therefore protect my investment.

My personal view is that if you are driving up to 3.5T then you are probably going to be ok on your car license. Up to 7.5T You should take training for C1 even if you don't need the test (just take the training for 2 days). Over 7.5T you really should take the full C test not only for legal reasons but to ensure you are fully equiped and trained to handle a vehicle of that size.

Just my opinion but then I am a cautious so and so.

Karl


----------



## 95792

Hi 
I don't think it has already been mentioned in this tread but correct me if I am wrong. 
The first problem you will have is that if stopped "driving otherwise than in accordance with your licence" is that you will face a large bill to get your RV back. Under the new SOCAP laws the vehicle will be seized at the roadside and towed away. This will then cost you a minimum of £105 for the removal and £12 a day including the day it gets towed for storage. 
To get it back you will have to get some one to produce insurance, an mot if required and a licence for them to drive your RV at a police station selected by the officer seizing. 
If this is not done within 7 days (14 really) then it will be sold or crushed. 
Not very good when you are on the way to catch a ferry. 
Plus on top of this you will still face your court summons. 
James


----------



## 101002

HymerJim said:


> Hi
> I don't think it has already been mentioned in this tread but correct me if I am wrong.
> The first problem you will have is that if stopped "driving otherwise than in accordance with your licence" is that you will face a large bill to get your RV back. Under the new SOCAP laws the vehicle will be seized at the roadside and towed away. This will then cost you a minimum of £105 for the removal and £12 a day including the day it gets towed for storage.
> To get it back you will have to get some one to produce insurance, an mot if required and a licence for them to drive your RV at a police station selected by the officer seizing.
> If this is not done within 7 days (14 really) then it will be sold or crushed.
> Not very good when you are on the way to catch a ferry.
> Plus on top of this you will still face your court summons.
> James


 eh eh

GERTIE


----------



## petesam

Well , thank you everybody . I cannot believe the response from this forum. I now need to take my class c driving test(& pass it) or down plate my RV to 7.5 ton.I thank you all for your input .I am not sure i agree with all the comments but a new driving test is the order of th day. p.s How do i go about down plateing from 8.0 ton to 7.5 ton.


----------



## grizzlyj

Hello people!!

Searching of the vast amount of info here produced this thread which seemed most pertainant to me, having a C1 licence and a 7.5ton GVW private HGV camper that weighs just under. I need to carry more than I am, to perhaps 8.5 tons and am looking at transfering the camper body onto a heavier duty chassis, in itself weighing a good half ton more but loads of spare payload. 
So as stated by UK-RV a few posts ago (but not answered so my resucitation of thread);

" The RVDA (RV Dealers Association) have, this morning, confirmed they are in talks with the DVLA to sort out the driving licence issue.

They claim to have finally sorted the width/length issue and state that "....there will be no over size RVs. So there will be no concerns as to illegal motorhomes....."

Now they are dealing with DLs and then, hopefully, we can encourage them to sort out the a-frame debate. "

Have they cleared this all up?!? 




BTW I totally agree that going through the test process again gives you a very helpful experience, having passed my full bike test, hazard perception et al some 15 years after my car test. It was worth doing just to open my eyes to how bad the majority of vehicle drivers are! I don't want to take a Cat C test if I don't have to, and driving an identically sized machine thats 1.5 tons heavier is not too drastically different, but I think I'll have to! :roll:


----------



## mondo33

Why...if your all so bothered about this licencing debate,either put your hand in your pocket and take your LGV (HGV III) test or get em downplated so they are under the weight. 

SIMPLES!!!!!


----------



## asprn

You appear to be reading into things what you'd like to hear.

Don't confuse "oversize" with "weight". The simple fact is that if you drive a vehicle which has a max plated weight of 7.5T on a C1 licence, you drive according to your licence. If you load it so it weighs 8.5 tons, you commit a weight offence, and points mean prizes. It is then likely that if this offence was disclosed because of a collision, whilst 3rd-party costs would be met, any insurance claim for your own vehicle would be rejected. Finally, if your vehicle was plated at 8.5T and you drive it with a C1 licence, you are driving other than in accordance with your licence, which is a greater offence.

Can I recommend that you make yourself a safer driver by obtaining your Cat C licence, and also comply with the legislation? It's a nice feeling all round.

Dougie.


----------



## Annsman

I'd love to be there when after being pulled over by VOSA at a roadside check the many "Philidephia Lawyers" on here start arguing with the examiners some of the points put. It would beat any T.V soap for entertainment value!

There is absolutely no chance you would be continuing with your journey if you were driving a vehicle you weren't licenced to drive, no matter how long you'd been driving. And they have the legal power to inspect your licence, insurance and vehicle tax.

If your vehivle is over weight the law states they have the power to make you re arrange your vehicles load to ensure neither the vehicle, nor axles are overweight and if it still excceds the limit it is removed from the vehicle and it is your responsibility, (and cost), to remove it from their weighbridge area. If you can't remove it then as stated above they can inpound your vehicle there and then.

As to the A frame argument, if you have an A frame then the car being towed has to have operable brakes, if it hasn't then the A frame isn't legal and can't be used in the UK. Ask VOSA if you don't believe me!


----------



## asprn

Annsman,

What you say is quite true. Whilst motorhomes are outside VOSA's normal remit due (e.g.) to exemption from tachos/class of MoT, they do sometimes carry out stop checks. The main issue to me however is the "penalty" you'd pay in the event of a collision, when your insurance refuses to pay for the damage to your vehicle. I for one cannot afford a loss of tens of thousands of pounds, quite apart from knowingly and wilfully committing traffic offences.

Dougie.


----------



## Suenliam

I know it can hit hard in the pocket if you are "pulled over", "caught" etc. being overweight by the powers that be. That is between you and the authorities and your own financial situation.

My big concern is the person that is injured in an accident before you are caught. No insurance is, in my opinion a much bigger concern as it potentially involves other people. I suspect also that someone driving a vehicle bigger than their licence allows will not be trained to handle such vehicles and therefore more likely to get into an accident.

With the wrong licence, your pride and joy may be at stake, but it is the accident victims life and livelihood you should really think about.

Sue


----------



## phil4francoise

asprn said:


> ScotJimland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> artona said:
> 
> 
> 
> My RV is registered PLG .. Private/ Light Goods , the same as a car, that is 'Private or Light Goods', not Private and Light Goods, and is PHG not Private /Heavy Goods?
> 
> 
> 
> Jim,
> 
> If it weighs more than 3.5 tons, it should be registered as PHGV, not PLG. Mine was so registered when I bought it last December, and this was corrected when I took it in for taxing. Having the V5 showing an incorrect classification will not affect/exempt anything (apart from you paying a little more road taxt than you need to), which I'm sure you're aware of.
> 
> Dougie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back to this quote please .So my motorhome was registered from new by the dealer as PLG but it is 3.8 tons .are you saying that it should have been registered as PHGV. If so who is at fault when it was registered with DVLA and who is responsable to correct it ?
Click to expand...


----------



## sallytrafic

as always the responsibility rests with the owner or driver depending on the actual offence.


----------



## asprn

phil4francoise said:


> So my motorhome was registered from new by the dealer as PLG but it is 3.8 tons .are you saying that it should have been registered as PHGV


That's what I said, so yes - that's what I'm saying. 



phil4francoise said:


> If so who is at fault when it was registered with DVLA


The dealer



phil4francoise said:


> and who is responsable to correct it ?


You.

It's not usually an offence to have it registered in the wrong taxation class, especially if you pay more than necessary (it can become one when for example, you continue to use a Disabled tax disc when you buy it from a registered-disabled person, and you're not entitled to disability exemption).

Dougie.


----------



## rongob

Has anybody tried taking a hgv test in a rv,i think your find that the authorities will not allow you too.There answer is it's not a hgv.


----------



## erneboy

What an interesting thread. I must say, coming as I do from a back ground of having owned and run a fleet of small lorries, I agree entirely with Dougie.

I have been trying to get people on other threads to consider whether they hold a licence which allows the to tow a car on an A frame. I believe they do not, which I think this thread confirms, Alan.


----------



## Zozzer

petesam said:


> Hypothetically speaking, what would be the outcome of being caught driving a 18000 lbs GVWR (8 tons) RV with a class c licence(7.5 ton) licence. I passed my driving test in 1969. Does it matter with it being a class 4 vehicle.The unladen weight is 14800lbs(6.6tons) Any advice would be appreciated


The weight of the vehicle is not the issue, it is the fact that should you drive the vehicle, you so will be doing so without a license and a nullified insurance policy.

From the numerous Police programs on TV, I suggest you risk having the vehicle confiscated and crushed, and I my opinion quiet rightly so. Remember it's highly likely you would be caught on the Police automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR).

Do yourself and everyone else a favour, stop ducking and diving and stay legal.


----------



## GEMMY

Would it be nice to have one single driver be prosecuted, and for the law to be clarified.

tony


----------



## sallytrafic

GEMMY said:


> Would it be nice to have one single driver be prosecuted, and for the law to be clarified.
> 
> tony


For a long time the law might have been in doubt but the argument that a motorhome or RV was in someway different and different rules apply does not stand up to looking at the Statutory Instrument of 1996 ie the law.

Zuma gives a quote here >click< and as I pointed out at the time



sallytrafic said:


> What is amazing to me is that faced with Zuma's quote from the SI ie the law, not someone's interpretation of it, we immediately carry on with our various opinions as if it were a grey area. The reasons behind GT's argument collapse when (and if  ) the penny drops that there doesn't need to be a specific mention of a Motorhome/Motorcaravan/RV etc because they all are subsets of 'Any Motor Vehicle'. What is also amazing is the number of people who have obviously not changed their licence to the new type haven't they changed address or had an endorsement removed or entered?


IMO the law is clear and anyway how do we know that nobody has been prosecuted the word of a dodgy RV seller perhaps


----------



## rongob

So why can't you take your hgv test in a rv?


----------



## erneboy

What you can or cannot take a test in is not the issue.

The issue is simply what our driving licences allow us to drive or to tow. This all seems quite clear from the information on this thread and confirms what I believed to be correct.

I was cautioned years ago just after this change came in for having a small lorry on the road towing an empty 3 ton trailer. The max weight covered by the drivers licence was a 7.5 ton vehicle towing a trailer plated at not more than 750kg.

To me the important point in all this is that if you are driving a vehicle for which you are not licenced then your insurance will almost certainly also be void. This is because a common condition in insurance policies is that you should hold or not be disqualified from holding a licence for what ever you are driving, Alan.


----------



## asprn

rongob said:


> Has anybody tried taking a hgv test in a rv,i think your find that the authorities will not allow you too.There answer is it's not a hgv.


Is this speculation on your part, or have you researched something?

Dougie.


----------



## rongob

Iwas under the impression you took a driving test for a particular class of vehicle to show you were competent with that particular vehicle.
ie motorcycle test on a motorcycle etc.

If a rv is not classed as a heavy goods vehicle for testing purposes why should i pay out up to £1000 for a heavy goods test when i have no intention of driving a heavy goods vehicle.


----------



## erneboy

Because if it is over 7.5 tons your car licence does not cover you, consequently you are not insured, Alan.


----------



## asprn

rongob said:


> Iwas under the impression you took a driving test for a particular class of vehicle to show you were competent with that particular vehicle. ie motorcycle test on a motorcycle etc.


It's always advisable not to rely on impressions, but rather research the subject, which in fact isn't complicated. 



rongob said:


> If a rv is not classed as a heavy goods vehicle for testing purposes why should i pay out up to £1000 for a heavy goods test when i have no intention of driving a heavy goods vehicle.


With respect, that's pub talk. There is no such thing as a "heavy goods test". It's a Category C qualification, which entitles you to drive a rigid vehicle whose weight is excess of 7.5t. The taxation class has nothing to do with it whatsoever, nor has the use to which you put it when driving.

So - to answer your question - you don't have to pay up to £1,000 for the test - it only costs around £150. It's the training which you pay for (or not, if you think you don't need it).

There are of course other conditions on the issue of a Cat C for towing, but these are easily available on the appropriate website.

Dougie.


----------



## grizzlyj

Category C test vehicle

A rigid goods vehicle with a MAM of at least 12 tonnes, at least eight metres in length and least 2.4 metres in width, capable of 80 km/h (50 mph). The vehicle should have at least eight forward ratios, a closed box cargo compartment at least as wide and as high as the cab.

From here http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/CaravansTrailersCommercialVehicles/DG_4022527

Many test centres offer Cat C + E lessons and test with the same vehicle you, a week or two earlier, passed Cat C with but with a drawbar trailer attached. So assuming your (Private?) HGV camper/motorhome fitted the weight/length/ 8speed etc requirements, you could probably do C + E with big trailer on that.

Who's RV would it be though, since obviously if yours you couldn't legally drive it without accompaniment, so insurance etc???

Do US RV's have 8sp? Also, one test centre I looked at had rigids with auto boxes. You could drive it manually if you wanted, but theres nothing to say the lorry has to be manual for the test. So you need never drive a manual at all, one less thing to worry about during the test? Can't remember which cos I've looked at loads!
My first test is next wek so I'll ask!

Category C + E

There are two types of test vehicle in the C + E category.

•A drawbar outfit made from a combination of a category C vehicle and trailer with a MAM of 20 tonnes and a length of at least 7.5 metres from coupling eye to extreme rear and a combined length of at least 14 metres with a trailer at least 2.4 metres in width. The vehicle combination should be capable of 80 km/h (50 mph), with at least 8 forward ratios and a closed box cargo compartment at least as wide and as high as the cab.
•An articulated lorry with a MAM of at least 20 tonnes, with a minimum length of 14 metres and and minimum width of at least 2.4 metres. The maximum length of the vehicle is 16.5 metres (54 feet) or for a low-loader trailer manafactured on or after 1 April 1981 the maximum length is 18 metres (59 feet). The vehicle should be capable of 80 km/h (50 mph) and have with at least 8 forward ratios and a closed box cargo compartment at least as wide and as high as the cab


----------



## grizzlyj

*Orange/red rear reflectors on trucks*

The Highway code says ALL vehicles over 7.5 tons maximum gross weight must display these red/yellow diagonally striped rear reflectors, but why do no busses, coaches or RV's seem to have them?

Page 117 of 2007 edition Highway Code


----------



## rayc

As Dougie has said it's all quite clear.
Basically Group B up to 3500kg, Group C1 up to 7,500kg, Group C over 7,500kg.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/WhatCanYouDriveAndYourObligations/DG_10037875


----------



## raynipper

*Re: Orange/red rear reflectors on trucks*



grizzlyj said:


> The Highway code says ALL vehicles over 7.5 tons maximum gross weight must display these red/yellow diagonally striped rear reflectors, but why do no busses, coaches or RV's seem to have them? Page 117 of 2007 edition Highway Code


Had to have em for my recent MOT in France. Maybe this is only just being slowly introduced G.

Also had to have those horrible great round max speed decals but just propped them up inside rear window for the test.

Ray.


----------



## rayc

*Re: Orange/red rear reflectors on trucks*



grizzlyj said:


> The Highway code says ALL vehicles over 7.5 tons maximum gross weight must display these red/yellow diagonally striped rear reflectors, but why do no busses, coaches or RV's seem to have them?
> 
> Page 117 of 2007 edition Highway Code


It says on page 107 of Reprinted version 2008:
"vehicle markings
Large goods vehicle rear markings
Motor vehicles over 7500 kilograms maximum gross weight and trailers over 3500 kilograms maximum gross weight"

A Motorhome registered as a Motor Caravan is not a Large Good Vehicle.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

Not read all the replies, but can it not be down rated fairly easily, or is that too complicated.

Kev.


----------



## rongob

I have no intention of driving a vehicle over 7.5t but the law still seems a bit murky to me.I still also think the cat c or heavy goods test or whatever you want to call it and the vehicle requirements for that test are not compatible with driving a RV.Tacking a coach test would seem to be more in line with driving a RV.


----------



## asprn

rongob said:


> I have no intention of driving a vehicle over 7.5t but the law still seems a bit murky to me


So does anything until you research it, and find out the facts instead of projecting what you or I think ought to be the case.



rongob said:


> I still also think the cat c or heavy goods test or whatever you want to call it....


Again, why not call it what it is? It generally aids knowledge,



rongob said:


> ....and the vehicle requirements for that test are not compatible with driving a RV


Speaking as someone who's just arrived after a 5-day, 1,600-mile drive to the south of Spain in an RV, I constantly was grateful for what I gained from the requirements of the test. Why have a test? Because it provides you with skills, ability and knowledge which you don't have beforehand. And I speak as a 30-year member of the IAM, not to mention my occupation (not to mention it, because I'm on the beach and not there :lol: ).



rongob said:


> Tacking a coach test would seem to be more in line with driving a RV.


Well, that's a good point for debate. Let us know when you've done both. 

Dougie.


----------



## rongob

I am not against the tests per se and agree with you 100% that the instruction and tests will probably make you a better driver but i still think the C test is not the best for judging whether you are competent to drive an RV.it's only an opinion but it's mine :wink:


----------



## asprn

rongob said:


> I am not against the tests per se and agree with you 100% that the instruction and tests will probably make you a better driver but i still think the C test is not the best for judging whether you are competent to drive an RV.it's only an opinion but it's mine :wink:


Can't odds that then. 

Dougie.


----------



## grizzlyj

As someone who has just passed both bits of the Cat C rigid LGV test so I can drive a camper of about 9 tons, I would agree that being tested on which trailer airline is the auxilliary, which knot to tie down my load with, the speed limit for a 4.5m wide load on a dual carraigeway, what to be aware of when standing on top of my tanker trailer etc etc etc are slightly infuriating since they will never apply to me in my camper. It is a waste of mine and the testing authorities time. I didn't think things relating to trailers would pop up since they know I'm only doing Cat C, ie no trailers, but those questions came too. I think thats because there is no further theory test if I wanted Cat C + E in the near future.

Expecting a test fully geared to your specific type of vehicle is a little short sighted though. Noone seems to complain about the car test enabling you to drive a Range Rover auto or a Caterham 7! Even big campers are IMHO easier to drive than a lot of lorries. How many courses would be required to cover each type of vehicle? Would a 24ton 4 axle tipper truck need to be tested the same as an 8m concrete lorry that when you reverse the barrel to empty it the weight redistribution could roll it over?? Where would the categories stop? What makes a big camper so different that it should have its own? A test covering everything from a short rigid of 7.55 tons MAM to an 8 axle mobile crane (in theory!)

http://www.ainscough.co.uk/crane-hire-specs/HC47-56.pdf

probably saves everyone a lot of money in the long run. If RV's had their own test would it be considerably shorter? What would you want to be left out, and what to be left in? What in reality would be acheived? A few different questions? But so few people would take it compared to the current LGV it could cost more?!

Surely the point is to enable you with a broad skill set to drive bigger things safely. What you do or don't do with it is personal choice!

And assuming you don't get banned, and pass your 5 yearly medicals you do only have to do it once in your whole life! The time some people have spent moaning about it they could have fully studied for the theory!


----------



## grizzlyj

FWIW the theory book for lgv's and pcv's (buses) is the same, and I've just flicked through the pcv questions that I didn't need to learn for my lgv. I would have to have learnt that I should use gloves to empty any waste tanks, that any TV musn't be visible by the driver, but pretty much everything else relates to how to look after the passengers (75 of them is 5tons so it says!) 

So apart from mostly only having two axles and a fair few windows, why would looking after fare paying people of all shapes and sizes and when to use buslanes be a more relevant test vehicle than a lorry? (A quick google of test, vehicle hire and lesson costs appear similar)

Having said all that, 

1 Can a 9 ton RV ignore the warning roadsign thats says nothing over 7.5 tons ahead with a picture of a lorry? Buses and coaches can ignore it, but is there a special let out for them, or is it only vehicles carrying goods that can't?
2 As a private HGV my camper has an MOT (class 4?) same as a car, so requires 1.6mm of tread depth on 3/4 of th tread width. An HGV only needs 1mm. So for the test I need 1.6mm, but if I got pulled sometime later in the year with 1mm is that an illegal tyre???


----------



## asprn

grizzlyj said:


> 1 Can a 9 ton RV ignore the warning roadsign thats says nothing over 7.5 tons ahead with a picture of a lorry?


No



grizzlyj said:


> 2 As a private HGV my camper has an MOT (class 4?) same as a car, so requires 1.6mm of tread depth on 3/4 of th tread width. An HGV only needs 1mm. So for the test I need 1.6mm, but if I got pulled sometime later in the year with 1mm is that an illegal tyre???


Yes.

Dougie.


----------

