Motorhome with motorbike/moped in garage is a "living van" - not motorcarvan

[Beemer]

A very informative thread and the letter back from VOSA quite clear.

"A 'Motor Caravan' has installed equipment and facilities necessary for the vehicle to provide living accommodation and which only carries goods needed for the purposes of residence in the vehicle (e.g. sufficient food for expected length of holiday, cycles, surfboards etc). They could even carry something like a scooter, if is used for the purpose of residence in the vehicle (the scooter could be used for shopping because of the size of the caravan). Regardless of weight, they would come under Class IV."

So at least a scooter could be carried..

 

[wildebus]

A scooter and a motorcycle are the same vehicle type legally (just like a campervan and a motorhome are both "Motor Caravans". So if you can legally carry a Scooter, you can legally carry a Motorcycle.

 

[Okta]

A scooter and a motorcycle are the same vehicle type legally (just like a campervan and a motorhome are both "Motor Caravans". So if you can legally carry a Scooter, you can legally carry a Motorcycle.

I agree that it would be difficult to distinguish beween a scooter and a m’cycle. I think the important difference with the m’cycle that started this thread may be that it was a motocross one (or so I understood) and that as such it was nothing to do with the purpose of living in the van but goods on their way to a sporting event. I know that horseboxes with living accommodation are not treated as living vans because a horse is nothing to do with living puposes.

 

[wildebus]

I don't see a requirement from VOSA/DVSA that the 'scooter' must be registered for the road?

 

[Okta]

I don't see a requirement from VOSA/DVSA that the 'scooter' must be registered for the road?

I am sure you are right but whatever you are carrying must be needed for the purpose of living in the van. A registered m’cycle might fit this limitation but an unregistered one would not.

 

[mr brown]

i wonder where toys come into these 'regs' ? a lot of us , i imagine , carry kites, bats and balls etc etc . certainly not necessary , but also not 'goods'
so assuming that it's ok to carry stuff to play with once we reach our destination, that isn't strictly necessary for van living , then i don't see it as much of a stretch to carry a 'field ' bike , no paperwork , for playing in the dunes or firebreaks. i used to carry 2 , one for the road , legal , and one for offroad with no papers apart from a reg doc.

 

[GeoffL]

i wonder where toys come into these 'regs' ? a lot of us , i imagine , carry kites, bats and balls etc etc . certainly not necessary , but also not 'goods'
so assuming that it's ok to carry stuff to play with once we reach our destination, that isn't strictly necessary for van living , then i don't see it as much of a stretch to carry a 'field ' bike , no paperwork , for playing in the dunes or firebreaks. i used to carry 2 , one for the road , legal , and one for offroad with no papers apart from a reg doc.

It is possible to interpret the VOSA response in the thread linked in the OP to infer that anything not strictly used for habitation is considered to be "goods". So the kites, bats and balls etc. might also be 'goods'

I use my (over 3500 kg GVW) motorhome for going to music festivals and as a mobile astronomical observatory. That is, I often carry musical instruments, telescopes, etc. that are required for activities I do when I get where I'm going rather than for merely surviving in my vehicle. That said, I use those same items at home when I reside in my bricks 'n sticks house. So I should be paying business rates on my house if I were to use the (somewhat obtuse) logic of the DVSA for that. From that, the DVSA interpretation seems rather perverse. If you keep something at home for use while you reside there then you should be able to keep it in your motorhome without changing the classification of the vehicle. You keep a motorcycle in the garage of your bricks 'n sticks home without your home being reclassified as 'commercial property'; you should be able to keep the same motorcycle in the garage of your motorhome without it being reclassified as a 'commercial vehicle' IMO. (rant over)

 

[mr brown]

which is why i say these ''regs'' are ,in fact, guidelines that have been thrown together a bit quickly and can be argued against- as in my bedroom/workshop 20 minute transformation. find out what 'they' want, then work out your interpretation that you can argue

 

[trevskoda]

If one person has already been done then all will jump aboard,only court can set the presedent.

 

[RV2MAX]

One way to look at it is what was probably the intent of the way the definition was framed . I would contend that it was to mean goods for sale or in connection with trade , eg as used by fairground people . The whole of the legislation surrounding "motorhomes" is badly drafted , or stretched to fit , and has been playing catchup.

 

[mr brown]

people get the laws they deserve.
only a few years ago , people attempting self builds for the first time, and being used to being told what to do, demanded a list of requirements from the DVLA, rather than the common sense method used till then .
lovely ! my favourite req is for at least one fixed bed , minimum 6foot long . this basically meant you couldn't sleep across most of the vans available , so ruining the layouts of hundreds of builders , who accepted these reqs as regs. i ignored it of course , utter nonsense to tell a person of 5'8'' that they had to sleep lengthways. it would just take one dwarf to say ''discrimination'' to sort that one out !

 

[linkshouse]

I don't doubt many will disagree, but I have a bit more faith in common sense - and human nature...

The officer doing the check is human. If you're hostile and uncooperative with him then he will be the same with you and is open to use his interpretation of the regs (on the spot, at the time). If you're polite and cooperative with him then he may be more inclined to listen to your interpretation.

As far as I can see we don't know the full details of the original article. If, say, the motorhome was carrying a moto-cross bike along with all other associated paraphernalia for a trials ride then this surely would be rightly seen as goods under the regs and it would be difficult to argue otherwise.

If on the other hand, the motorhome was carrying a moped or a small scooter then one might reasonably argue (suggest) that this was for the purpose of shopping etc. whilst camped up.

As for bats, balls, kites etc. It would have to be some seriously silly officer to try and pursue that as an infringement.

I must say I've been pulled several times in my driving life, occasionally for speeding , and I've always been polite and never tried to argue the facts (not much point trying to say you were doing 70 if you were 98). I've only ever been fined once. All the other occasions were a ticking off and told not to do it again.

Like I say - human nature.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[Bigbarry]

I believe VOSA was and the DVSA is a Government Agency not a private company. As an arm of Government it probably has very extensive powers and I suspect refusing to cooperate with them would just raise their suspicions and land you in even deeper doo doo.

I have seen a boat in harbour stripped down to its basic components by Government officials and not put back together afterwards when nothing was found. So if it were me being stopped I would cooperate fully even if it did involve a small fine because I am sure they have direct lines to other arms of Government who have very drastic powers. The word “bollXXs” would not cross my lips until after we had parted company.

Couldn't agree more, so many times in my life when I wished I had just kept my thoughts in my head

 

[trevskoda]

They wont bother much here but if i go to mainland and stopped then once i speak im fu-ked.

 

[Okta]

One way to look at it is what was probably the intent of the way the definition was framed . I would contend that it was to mean goods for sale or in connection with trade , eg as used by fairground people . The whole of the legislation surrounding "motorhomes" is badly drafted , or stretched to fit , and has been playing catchup.

I do not read it as limited to goods for sale and in practice this is not what seems to have happened. There is no suggestion that the person who got pulled over was selling the motocross bike involved.

 

[RV2MAX]

I do not read it as limited to goods for sale and in practice this is not what seems to have happened. There is no suggestion that the person who got pulled over was selling the motocross bike involved.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make re original intention of the legislation , at the time these regs were made for example mobility scooters didnt even exist . motorcaravan specific legislation pretty much has never been made as a standalone , its mostly been dealt with by stretching existing instruments to cover , why else would they have over 3.5 tonne classed as hgv for one piece of legislation , eg driving licence yet be tested as a below 3.5 tonne car for MOT . This fudge has a lot to do with our common law based legal system .
It is possible the carriage of goods specification was to prevent persons putting accomodation basics in a vehicle and then carrying goods , and by classing as a motorcaravan evading the HGV regulations , and operator licencing etc .

 

[silverweed]

When VOSA ceased to exist it amalgamated with DVLA and became Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency ( DVSA). The old DVLA and old VOSA are now one new government department

 

[rayc]

It would be interesting to know the outcome of the ' guy in a self built campervan, registered with DVLA as a motorcaravan ' mentioned in the OP.
I must admit a little bit of confusion over the C&U Regs definition of a Living Van "a vehicle used primarily as living accommodation by one or more persons, and which is not also used for the carriage of goods or burden which are not needed by such one or more persons for the purpose of their residence in the vehicle". Specifically the phrase "which is not also used..."