lomax 223

[stevegrimes]

Finally back on the road been a long rebuild due to working outside.

Just need to find a nice white faced 80mm rev counter suitable for 2 cv.

Found a closer m.o.t station Hilderstone garage nr stone.

Does a lomax not qualify for tax exemption?
I don't want to try as its on original age related plates.
It looks like you have to prove cars age.

[llanigraham]

Await the arguements, but from my reading of all the DVSA papers, as far as I can see a 223 can never be exempt from the MOT as it has had the chassis "radically modified".

[billp]

Hi Graham,
That's wrong - it's the body that is modified and even with a remade ladder chassis a Lomax will still qualify for no MOT - provided that it was built up at least 30 years ago and the chassis is for a car first registered 40 years ago. The problem is proving when the car was modified and built up as a Lomax. My car, for instance, was originally a Dyane, registered in 1982. It was built up as a Lomax in 1998(I have the original works body kit receipt). So, my Lomax should be MOT free in 2022, but I will have to wait until 2028(30 years after the Lomax build) for it to be properly MOT free. Hope that makes sense.

Tax exemption works on the original registration date - 40 years old and you can apply to change the taxation class to Historic Vehicle.

[cmwbob]

Hi Bill and Graham,
Just to throw my hat in the ring on this and add more confusion.

Officially and as Graham states a 223 can never be MOT exempt, although under the 40 year rule from conversion date (if provable and most cannot) it may just be possible. But then again why would anyone want that, it is your safety after all.
Now, Tax exemption is far more desirable, and yet again there can be problems with the 223 and a lesser extent the 224.

Regardless of whether the chassis is original or a replacement it has been modified. I do not remember seeing many out there with chassis tails protruding through the rear body. However with sensible discretion DVLA (and VOSA) inspectors have in the past accepted that removal of the the rear tails from the chassis does not detract from its structural integrity, therefore is no reason to reject or treat the chassis as being radically modified. But and its a big BUT, the chassis is not original or even "as original" and therefore will (or at least should) fail a Historical Vehicle Classification. Apparently there is also grave concerns within the true historic vehicle community that many repairs, replacements and renovations will be deemed "not original" and therefore discredit the whole vehicle.

So, back to the 223, apart from the potentially acceptable chassis chop problem, there is the glaringly obvious non compliance of "not as original" in that the suspension rear arm is radically modified and the spring canisters no longer act as originally designed.
Thus to summarise, the only way 223's (and 224's) have been able to keep the original reg number is due to the fact that with replacement rear arms and a body etc. (and a new chassis extension subframe for the rear bumper) the vehicle could quite simply be reverted back to the original Citroen 2cv or derivative.
The DVLA rules are ultra dynamic and before we reach the theoretical 40 years on top of the first Lomax builds date it will mall have changed again to make it yet less likely.

[cmwbob]

ignore the "mall" in my last sentence, PC has mind of its own I swear.

[cmwbob]

One rider onto all the above is that any 223 that has been through MSVA and received an age related plate will qualify come the appropriate age / date..