Vehicle registration

[chrishewett]

I have a +2 being completed at the moment.
The vin number, which looks original, is five years younger than the reg number. This doesn't seem to be allowed.
Any thoughts?

[Elanintheforest]

At one time, up until the late '70s I believe, if a car had been exported and then brought back into the UK a few years later, it would get a 'current' registration rather than an age-related registration. I think that also applied if a private registration number was taken off a car.

[chrishewett]

Thanks. That could apply to this car. It is number 17 with a 1972 reg plate.
I guess there would be little chance of obtaining the original plate?

[Mazzini]

With supporting letters from Club Lotus and Andy Graham from Lotus archives you could approach the DVLA.

[RichC]

I have a +2 being completed at the moment.
The vin number, which looks original, is five years younger than the reg number. This doesn't seem to be allowed.
Any thoughts?

you mean 5 years older ! i.e its 5 years BEFORE the reg number , presuming number 17 is from 1967 and your reg is 1972.
The question would be does the vin plate go with the car i.e from the excellent spreadsheet all about +2 production history , can you recognize your car as an early 1967 +2 or a 1972 +2S/130 ??
Is it a genuine early car ( easiest question to ask is whether your exhaust silencer is tranverse with tail pipe on RHS )
if its an inline central silencer then the VIN you have is off another earlier(presumed scrapped) car .
Reasons for this could be many fold.....
If it's a 1972 type car with a 1967 vin plate and DVLA become suspicious the advice from other posts in this forum i think is that the VIN plate corresponds to the fibreglass shell (and yours was switched in distant past , common enough when you consider its fragility in collisions ) There would have been loads of scrapped +2 cars from '67-8 by the 1970s which would have had perfectly serviceable shells for swapping ....
RichC

[chrishewett]

You are correct. The car is older.
In my opinion the car is 1967 although over the years it has been messed around with. The plate most certainly is coterminous with the shell. However it does have a spyder chassis.
We want to make it a car that is fairly correct to the year but without being anal about it.
A nicely finished car that looks right overall.

[Craven]

I think it?s the policy of the DVLA, under no circumstance will a Reg No be issued that will indicate the vehicle be newer than it is.
DVLA use various strategies, even when issuing age related plates, one I know is to issue a number in a sequence that was never actually used. Those in the know! can easily spot an out of sequence number. You may have gained an age related plate BUT.

[RichC]

OK , so lets go back to the murky world of the mid 70's ......
imagine youre a bloke with a 1972 plus 2 130/4 which is off the road for some reason ( it's hot , or badly crashed, fire damaged etc) you wanna get it back on the road & maybe sell it on . You have a donor car with VIN 50/0017 , which , being twice as old as yours is worth very little .... so you decide to keep the J reg rather than the F reg ... and who's to know? right?
RichC

[chrishewett]

Not sure that I would like to go back to the murky world of the 70s, though I seem to remember having a good time then! Probably best forgotten.
Getting back to today, though I don't really care, it would be nice to have the plate matching the year. The car is clearly not, and has never been other than a very early +2. I will speak to the dvla and see what they say.
Many thanks for all the input.

[Donels]

I think DVLA will have no problem with a car having an older reg no. than the car but not the other way round. You should therefore be able to buy an older reg number off their web site or one of the dealers. Experience has taught me to be wary of discussing ?problem registrations? with them.

Dave

[elanman999]

Back in the 70's if the chassis was replaced "officially" (say, accident or rust) then the car would have been re-registered as new. So you can end up with a 68 car with a 75 reg. But the log book and chassis plate should have a LR chassis number to indicate a repalcement chassis. The chassis should also have that number but obviously that could have been changed yet again.
If this is the case then you can apply for, and obtain, an age related plate.
Or, as others have suggested it could all be the result of a mix and match rebuild. Lets hope it is the former.
Cheers
John

[SGO 2F]

I found the answer in my collection: It's a 1967 +2 (050/0017) that wasn't registered until 1972. To confirm the early date, I would expect that the outer door handles and locks are one-piece as is the boot cover handle.

Back in February 2010, an individual named Mark, living dear Daventry, advertised the body shell and all the necessary items needed to complete the restoration. He was ready to sell it as parts until he discovered that it was such an early car.

I will be PMing a copy of the ad to chrishewet, for his information.

Cheers,

Richard

[661]

I found the answer in my collection: It's a 1967 +2 (050/0017) that wasn't registered until 1972. To confirm the early date, I would expect that the outer door handles and locks are one-piece as is the boot cover handle.

Back in February 2010, an individual named Mark, living dear Daventry, advertised the body shell and all the necessary items needed to complete the restoration. He was ready to sell it as parts until he discovered that it was such an early car.

I will be PMing a copy of the ad to chrishewet, for his information.

Cheers,

Richard

Excellent research.
But what to do now!!?? Surely if that is the case the '72 plate forms part of the history of the car, and it's a good story.

[trw99]

Chris, in addition to the 2010 information, I have a note in my records that a lister on here, towerofstrength, based in Northants (so may be the Mark in Daventry referred to), reported in 2007 that he had acquired the body shell and v5 for chassis number 50/0017

As a matter of interest, that car was invoiced by the factory in September 1967, approximately three weeks after production of the +2 started to get underway in earnest.

Tim