August 2026

by Robin Astle.

From HISTORIC, the FBHVC magazine Issue 10

DVLA by Ian Edmunds

Policy Review

For this edition, the big news from DVLA is that there is no big news! The next HVUG meeting had been scheduled for March but DVLA contacted us in February, actually while we were at the Race Retro exhibition at Stoneleigh, to apologise and explain that although they were still making progress on the next tranche of registration policy revisions, they were not going to be ready to announce them in March and had thus cancelled the HVUG. From the information we have we remain very positive regarding the likely outcome and DVLA have since assured us that they are confident of being able to share details at the HVUG scheduled for June.

Whilst this delay is obviously unfortunate, I do not think it portends any negative conclusion. DVLA have been the victim of several circumstances which have, of necessity, diverted their efforts. Significant amongst these is the proposed charge-per-mile for electric vehicles which will require significant new administrative infrastructure to enable it to work.

As always, we will bring you news of any developments as early as possible.

Gov.uk Website

The Government uses the gov.uk website to communicate and share information and support across all Government activities. The website is run by a dedicated office, I believe in London, and they are tasked with designing the appearance and operation of the site to be as consistent as possible across all subjects, and also to conform with the Plain English requirements. Thus, a Government Department, or an Executive Agency as appropriate, does not directly write the content of gov.uk, rather it tells gov.uk what it wants said and the gov.uk teams write the text and design the web page layout.

The thinking behind this method of operation is clear and in many ways it works very well, but it does carry a risk. The gov.uk teams are inevitably not subject matter experts and unfortunately sometimes in their efforts to make the format consistent and the information easy to understand, they actually get it wrong! There have been two examples of this in our sphere recently.

On the 10th of March, gov.uk published revised guidance concerning MoT exemption. I am not sure what their intention was, but in practice the new guidance removed all references to ‘substantial changes’ made more than 30 years ago and to a Q-registered vehicle gaining exemption if it had been so registered for 40 years, and also registered in the ‘historic’ tax class. Although the underlying regulations had not changed, this revised guidance caused some concern for owners of vehicles directly affected. When the problem was pointed out to DVSA they fairly quickly initiated some changes through gov.uk – unfortunately in resolving one set of problems they introduced another and that version of the guidance was never published.

At the time of writing no further correction has been published on gov.uk but we are assured a new version is imminent.

The second example is rather less clear cut because unfortunately I neither know precisely when the change took place nor do I have a copy of the previous version. However, what is quite clear is that the details of the procedure for registering a historic vehicle with an age-related registration, typically either because it is an import or a ‘found’ vehicle with no paperwork, have virtually disappeared from Vehicle registration: Overview - GOV.UK. We have raised this with DVLA who have recognised the problem and undertaken to resolve it.

Legislation by Lindsay Irvine

Martyn’s Law

In the last edition I reflected the increasing public and club awareness of the provisions of The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025. I have provided a fairly extensive commentary on the development of the Act in many editions of this journal during the last and current government periods and have provided a fairly extensive suite of explanatory documents on the Federation website (https://www.fbhvc.co.uk/martyns-law).

That suite has just been updated and expanded with the addition of the Home Office statutory guidance released on 15 April 2026 which describes the requirements for qualifying premises and events, sets out information on the responsible person’s responsibilities, and makes reference to the regulatory approach ahead of further guidance from the Regulator. That Regulator, the Security Industry Authority (SIA) has also launched draft section 12 guidance for consultation. This guidance explains how the SIA plans to operate and use its powers, consistent with “a supportive, proportionate and risk based approach”. It sets out how the regulator will carry out its functions, including monitoring compliance, how it will take enforcement action and how it will use its powers and exercise discretion. The s.27 Guidance is not out for consultation while the s.12 is. By the time you read this we will have considered and formulated any appropriate response on the latter guidance bearing in mind we want the regulator to be helpful and sympathetic and not unnecessarily heavy handed which might deter our largely volunteer membership from organising events.

For those reading this that are charged with organising club events, I have set out some immediate “takeaways” from the 129-page statutory guidance below. However, that guidance document and the non-statutory additional annexes are on our website at the link above and are mandatory reading.

First, I make the usual disclaimer. I am not and cannot provide specialist legal advice but only intend to provide a summary and pointers to what we consider are useful and relevant to clubs. Your decisions must be based on the law and official statutory guidance and advice from specialists who hold themselves out as experts in the field.

References to the appropriate chapters in the Guidance are highlighted in bold.

1. The new statutory guidance marks a mid-point in the implementation of the Act. The inspection and enforcement provisions are not yet in force which will be some time around April next year.
2. For clubs using or hiring premises where no more than 200 persons can reasonably be expected to be present (i.e. halls and pavilions with a small capacity) thanks to our interventions amongst others, these do not come within the scope of the Act.
3. Above 200 persons, for “qualifying premises” or “qualifying events” there are 2 tiers, a Standard Tier where no more than 800 persons can reasonably be expected to be present and an Enhanced Tier of more than 800. The full definitions of what are “qualifying premises” and “qualifying events” and how to calculate the numbers expected are set out in the Act. Some types of premises are excluded by law and there are formulae on how to calculate the numbers of persons who “can reasonably be expected” in Annex A of the Statutory Guidance. However, if one thinks of “qualifying premises” as being a building or building plus land and “qualifying event” as being something held on a bare site or a restricted cordoned off area of a park, then you are getting the idea. See Chapters 4 and 5.
4. As I have advised before, the 2 tiers are marked by the extent of the duties on the “responsible” person who is either the person or persons in control of the premises or organising the qualifying events. Under the Standard Tier, the responsible person’s public protection duties are largely discharged by measures centred around post incident processes including evacuation, invacuation, lockdown and communication. However, under the Enhanced Tier, in addition to those processes, preventative actions are required, including monitoring, movement control, physical security and safeguarding of information about security measures. Chapters 7 and 8.
5. All measures taken by the responsible persons (and some are “musts” as opposed to “shoulds”) are subject to the “reasonably practicable” test which will be familiar to those used to Health and Safety at Work Act duties. To quote the guidance:
   “Reasonably practicable means proportionate. In considering what is reasonably practicable, the responsible person should weigh what can be done to achieve the objectives of procedures and/or measures, balanced against the cost, time and difficulty of implementation.
6. Chapter 6 assists with who a “responsible person” is as the duties outlined above (which include also registering and supplying information to the Regulator) fall to them. As will be seen from the Guidance, there may be more than one responsible person given the size of the premises and its normal use.
7. Compliance and Enforcement is dealt with in Chapter 9.

As I have written previously, where clubs are using venues which are either in the business of hosting events or are used to it, the responsible person will generally be the controller or owner of the venue. Compliance will fall on them and increased charges may be the only indicator of the effect of the Act. Where premises are hosting events where greater than normal numbers are expected (e.g. a pub allowing large events in their garden) or bare fields are used, only then will the organiser potentially become a joint or sole responsible person. Helpfully, the Guidance and Annexes have several useful examples demonstrating different scenarios including bare sites and some indication of how to go about fulfilment of duties.

Automated Vehicles Call for Evidence and Road Safety Strategy

Another Principle of British Army Doctrine worth adhering to is “economy of effort”. Use just the right amount of effort at the right time and in the right place. This is especially true of a volunteer organisation like the FBHVC. The Legislation Committee looked carefully at both these official consultations and decided that responses were not required on this occasion. In the case of the Road Safety Strategy, none of the proposed measures could be identified as affecting the HV community any more than the wider public. Whilst, our survey indicates that our community has a larger proportion of “older drivers”, you would no doubt agree that this is not a robust basis to resist proposed eyesight tests on licence renewal at 70 and subsequently. I was supported in this view when I read how many club magazine editors promote responsible attitudes towards fitness to drive.

In relation to the Automated Vehicles Regulations Call for Evidence, we were not deterred by the 79 pages and 125 questions but we had already made our case in relation to HVs in our detailed response to the earlier consultation on the Statement of Safety Principles which the Secretary of State for transport is required to promulgate under the Automated Vehicles Act. This statutory Statement should set the standard for the regulations to follow albeit we have not yet seen the departmental response. So, by not expending time and effort on unnecessary responses to these consultations, hopefully we have more time to devote to what is essential.

Association of British Insurers (ABI) Code

In the last edition I described changes to the ABI Code of Practice on Vehicle Salvage which removed the clause allowing HVs and “cherished vehicles” to be assessed out with the provisions of the Code. We identified a potential threat to an HV written off on economic grounds but where a damage assessor placed it in one of the two categories (A or B) in the Code which would prevent the owner repairing it regardless of cost. Once placed in such a category the body would have to be crushed even if the owner had an apparent contractual right to retention of the salvage. As I previously explained, the position was governed by The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 as amended by later 2018 Regulations.

Ahead of any negotiations with the ABI we have sought some feedback from insurers with assistance from another organisation representing commercial interests. They have not identified any significant issues with the Code but do have concerns about whether damage assessors who may be well versed in modern vehicle repair technology would understand or be sympathetic to repair schemes for older vehicles.

We anticipate that by the time of publication we will have met with the ABI in the hope that any potential risk to HVs can be suitably mitigated. As I advised previously, in the interim, if the worse happens, ensure that your insurance company instructs an assessor of the damaged vehicle who understands older vehicles and more traditional repair techniques.