That's a little confusing, is a new fibreglass shell that improves safety, efficiency, preservation and environmental performance by virtue of not rusting or having seams OK?
I guess having the change on the V5 will trump anything else, but a kit car that looks like the base car could be a bit of a grey area now.
I assume its still the same as the 8 point rule for retaining a vehicle identity, the bodyshell has to be same type as the original (i.e. steel), new, and made by the original manufacturer or their successor.
I'm afraid no matter which way you look at it a fibreglass shell is a kitcar in the eyes of the regulations and needs an IVA and then presumably an MOT until its been in existence in its modified form for 40 years.
I'm not bothered about the MOT one way or the other, my concern is/was only that the rules aren't applied in a way that forces me to prove when the modifications were done as although my car is legal I would find it difficult to prove to the standard that I've seen applied in other cases.
My car passed the 8 point rule when it was registered and retained it's 1969 identity. I think you may be confusing that rule with the newer rules around radically altered vehicles, which would catch a new Minus conversion, but was obviously not applied retrospectively.
This was in the statement on Page 4 of the thread; "We are aware that many people have been confused by the potential use of existing DVLA rules, which is not now going to happen, into thinking this change relates to registration." The 8 point rule is about registration rather than VHI.
That statement was fairly clear, in so far as it could be, that I'd need an MOT because it was a kit car, but the latest statement suggests you could have made modifications in certain areas to improve the car and retained VHI status. It's not clear that that excludes improvements to the body where the overall form is largely unaltered. It's very unusual for a kit-car to retain the original shape or form as normally kits were used to build something different.
I suspect on balance the deciding factor would be that if it was re-registered then it must have been a kit car, so it's not a Mini anymore, so it needs an MOT. But I'm certainly a lot less clear about that now.
Would you be intending on getting it MOT'd annually anyway? If yes, then carry on as you are and don't apply for the VHI status. Problem solved!
With something like a minus I'd be inclined to say don't rock the boat and carry on as you are. You never know what can of worms you might open if you invite someone to make an assessment / decision on it.
Honestly, no probably not. I'd maybe have the brakes tested occasionally, but the rest is either not covered by the MOT in enough detail or obvious when there's a problem and would be fixed before an MOT.
I'm not fussed one way or the other whether the MOT is required, just interested in what the proper application of the rules is. I think the answer would be that it gets deferred to an expert who could decide either way. You're right about not rocking boats though and the clarification on road tax makes that a lot easier.
