V5C Body type

[Solent]

It would seem that some are registered incorrectly, I don't know if they can be corrected or not but it would be sensible for owners to check their V5C and comply with what is says to ensure they do not receive a suprise letter in the post. If it's a company van I would suggest keeping to the lower limits to be on the safe side. Your licence, your decision etc.

[Raf_Garrow]

Just been to the local Citroën dealers to collect a part for the father in law's berlingo.

Asked the question, is a Citroën berlingo, the small one a cdv? Without hesitation he said no its a lgv due to the van coming out first followed by the multispace which was based on it

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Raf_Garrow]

Somehow I'm reading it differently to you, I see the 2000kg bit followed by AND based on a car such as Fiesta or Corsa. If it said or, I would totally agree with you.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Raf_Garrow]

I'm not trying to argue but a multispace is a van based mpv not a car. http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/citr...multispace

There's numerous references to it being based on a commercial vehicle. Not a commercial vehicle being based in it.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Raf_Garrow]

http://www.whatvan.co.uk/news/2012/speed...er-drivers

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[eezeedriver]

If this was my speeding ticket then I'd be on the blower to Citroen/Peugeot UK, the SMMT and DVLA to find out what the current situation is.

Hi doofer, 
                   Ive been on blower to 2 police forces, Citroen, Dept. for Transport DVLA and even contacted my MP to highlight my plight.
  Hampshire (home county) ticket office insist I have broken no law and advised to fight ticket, Dorset ,however , disagree.
  Citroen were most unhelpful because you may only speak to them through their customer care dept. The team responsible for describing the van for the V5C are not reachable so everything goes through customer care.They are adamant it is not car-derived despite me pointing out the Governments guidelines.They would not even admit that the van and car are built from the same platform which would add weight to my argument.
 Spoke to DVLA and they were incredulous that i'd  received a ticket under such circumstances.They realise the car and van are essentially the same vehicle and advised me to send V5C to them with photos and full explaination to get V5C amended. I am still awaiting their decision by post.
 DFT go by government guidelines but were aware that the van came first. However, when I mentioned my model van and the car were released together in 2008 they advised me to push on with the V5C amendment and wished me luck.
  My MP contacted Dorset police who were unmoving!! So that's why I head to court next month.
 I have never had a ticket in over a million miles of driving spanning nearly 30 years.Also I have never been in trouble with the law.I am.just a self-employed, tax paying courier who was on his way home from Weymouth after his last delivery and doing what I thought (reasonably) was the speed limit.
  The dual carriageway was completely clear in front of me and it was a sunny early evening.I saw the camera van but had no reason to slow as I was doing a steady 70 mph.
  I am extremely disappointed that under the circumstances Dorset see fit to pursue this when maybe a warning would have sufficed.There are enough mitigating circumstances/evidence to throw doubt over this ticket. Hopefully the magistrates will be understanding and believe the Governments stance outweighs that of Citroen and subsequently Dorset police.I fight on!
All the best

[eezeedriver]

I'd say that, in my non-legal opinion only, if it qualifies to be a Car-Derived Van (and I'm pretty sure it does), then you were not breaking the law by driving at 70mph.  The fact that it was registered incorrectly does not change its physical properties.  In other words - I think the fine should be cancelled, even without you needing to get DVLA to change their records.  Obviously DVLA's record does need to be corrected to prevent this happening again, but I'd hope that fines from before the change still should not be applied.

IMO whether the car or van came first is irrelevant - see the second part of the wording after "or" at the top of this page.  It can be built as a car or van, so it's a CDV.

Dorset police are probably using an automated system, where it gets the registered class from DVLA and applies the relevant limit - if you're over the limit for your particular class of vehicle you get a fine.  Perhaps Hampshire have a simpler system that only checks for anyone going over 70 regardless of its class.

Agree on all points you make. When I spoke to Hants police they implied that they are only interested in the larger type vans, i.e., transit, transporter etc. that go over 60 mph on dual carriageways.

[cancunia]

I've been following this off and on, I think that the simplest approach is best, much as Doofer has suggested.

1, Is it " built from a platform which has been designed to be built as a car or a van". That should satisfy the VED compliance. A couple of brochures and printed Internet articles should satisfy that
2, CDV under 2000KG evidence - Vehicle spec showing weights, I posted a link from Citroen earlier. Their Official document should suffice.
3, Corroboration from Hampshire Police & DLVA, names & dates.

I'm really not sure how much the V5 Description matters, it seems from what I've read to be no more than that. Getting it clarified by DVLA will help as that'll show they agree it's a CDV.
I can understand why Dorset Police issued the ticket, but not why they've not changed their mind, my guess is that they expect you to pay up & keep quiet. Easy for me to write of course.

[eezeedriver]

So it sounds like a human decides in Hampshire, but in Dorset it's automated based on the DVLA record.  That does mean that Hampshire are being over-lenient on those with smaller vans that have a GVW over 2000kg though.  Technically I suppose Dorset are doing the right thing, but presumably Hampshire know that the DVLA records are a mess so they're being more forgiving.

I'd say that if you take a brochure showing the Multispace, including its car road tax band (so proving that it's a car) and proof that your GVW is under 2000kg then this proves that yours "is built from a platform which has been designed to be built as a car or a van", which is the definition of what constitutes a CDV.

Do you have a court date yet?

I had a preliminary hearing late last year before 3 magistrates and they decided on a full hearing. The date is March 23 and the onus was placed on the prosecution to "Prove" my van isn't car-derived.

Oxford defintion of derived is as follows:
base a concept on an extension or modification of (another concept.
 
I have been advised from several sources that the 2008 beringo built using the PSA pf2 was based on the Citroen C4. The C4 is definately built using the pf2 but finding reliable evidence (not wiki as no source) of this has been a trial in itself. Today, however, I have found on the RAC website that it states that the 2008 berlingo is based on the C4. This means my van not only meets government guidelines but it als meets the Oxford defintion of derived.Hopefully the court will find the RAC a reliable source.

[Solent]

I see Eezeedriver lost his court case. I hope he will give his thoughts here in the hope of helping other members.