- Mar 14, 2005
- 18,396
- 3,676
- 50,935
The question comes down to which plate the authorities would use if testing the caravan. They have to use the one that meets the statutory requirements, so that will be the one that correctly shows the vin identification and type approval which ties its data to the trailer.
- May 29, 2018
- 280
- 42
- 4,685
Correct John. And the only one with BOTH type approval and VIN is the one is the gas locker (The door sticker only has type approval.)
Therefore regardless of the paid for upgrade, my MTPLM remains at 1724kg rather than 1800kg. So I’ve rather wasted my money, unless Bailey are incorrect.
As you previously pointed out, it doesn’t matter what anyone else’s plate says but it’s worth noting I have a pic of a 2019 Turin plate with the identical type approval code showing 1800 with 1000 per axle. So I am still hoping that the dealer and Bailey come back with something more concrete.
Bailey will be reluctant to admit they made a mistake with this one, as they know they will set the precedent, and they will be coughing up for many more.
Taking what Lutz has stated as correct, I am wondering what is the point now if the dealer is simply going back to Bailey, will you not get the same answer?
It appears, again taking Lutz's information, that Bailey don't understand the legislation, a real surprise given their line of business.
I fully appreciate the desire to resolve it, its exactly what I would be seeking to achieve.
It's just I feel in reality it will prove somewhat pointless asking those that got it wrong at each turn what it should be..
More fruitful territory might be sending a dossier of photos etc to the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, at least a copy of the lodged question would make excellent defence material if pulled, even if they never respond. If they respond indicating you are not upgraded, then Bailey might take more notice?
If you've paid for a weight upgrade, but no increase is possible then you're entitled to a refund, at minimum - although I understand you'd like the weight increase
No thats not right. Ste6t9 has already posted pics of his axle rating plates and they are 1000Kg each. They are rated at 1000 Kg ea/1800 as a pair. 1800 Kg is the type approved MTPLM, and that is what Bailey has advertised as an upgrade and the dealer sold. This is game, set, and match. All he has to do is get the dunderheads to realise!
just to add my two peneth worth,My new elddis has come with what we know as the silver gas locker weight label next to the door NOT in gas locker.I believe all new vans will come with this conformity label instead of the old sticker near door,nothing in gas locker except cris vin number.
I'm all for it as only one sticker=no conflicting weights,However,how many "stickers"fade over time/from constant cleaning?
I'm all for it as only one sticker=no conflicting weights,However,how many "stickers"fade over time/from constant cleaning?
Can there be a "big difference" between trailers sharing the same type approval number?
That would rather imply the "type approval" was way off approval of anything specific.
- May 29, 2018
- 280
- 42
- 4,685
Yes true. I dug around Bailey’s site to find the specs for the 2019 Grande Turin. That is lighter to start with than mine so a bigger payload upgrade is available. Still a potential of 1800 after upgrade which is what is in his locker.
Attachments
- Mar 14, 2005
- 9,975
- 819
- 30,935
That's just further proof that Bailey don't know what they are talking about. There is no such thing as MTPLM (lower limit) or MTPLM (upper limit). An MTPLM is an absolute limit and there can be just one. That's how the regulations are worded. There are no provisions in any legislation for lower and upper values. Who is to know anyway when the lower one or the upper one applies if both appear on a caravan on two different plates?
- May 29, 2018
- 280
- 42
- 4,685
I’m also waiting on my friend who has picked up an Alicante Grande Porto today.
Same chassis, same potential upgrade to 1800 so I wait to see what his locker plate says.
Do things vary between, built with to order with the upgrade, and post build upgrade, as yours was?
Or am I incorrectly assuming Bailey build to customer raised orders, and just make identical vans that have any end customer options added sometime after build?
Last edited:
- Nov 11, 2009
- 22,809
- 7,664
- 50,935
Your dilemma only serves to confirm what I have said on a number of previous posts……… ” a cottage industry”. But on reflection that would be unfair on the original cottage industries that sustained the country for many hundreds of years prior to the Industrial Revolution, and those still succeeding today.
I suspect the chassis and so its maximum "potential" remain the same. That must be the case where "upgrading" is offered post build without any physical changes.
However, if the legal type approval plates are identical, ie contain the same maximum weight, how then can the industry play the down grading trick?
That is, plicating, driving licensing limitations, car towing limits, possible Insurance restrictions and the UK's 85% ratio obsession? Much of that being based on a plated MTPLM, as Lutz points out you can't have differing MTPLMs, it is an absolute value. You can credit a particular van with a lower MTPLM than the potential maximum, but not share that Type approval's MTPLM.
Last edited:
- May 29, 2018
- 280
- 42
- 4,685
I suppose that IF you don’t have the upgrade then the van ends up being bound by the limits of the lower amount. Mine would be 1724 and so might make it available to a few more towcars.
I guess that if the potential maximum is always the only MPTLM then probably all Bailey twin axles would have an MPTLM of 1800 and therefore would rule out possible sales to a lot of people.
I’m not condoning it and I think it’s bit crap because of the obsession with the 85% advice but I can assume that’s why it’s done.
Pure capitalism.
I guess that if the potential maximum is always the only MPTLM then probably all Bailey twin axles would have an MPTLM of 1800 and therefore would rule out possible sales to a lot of people.
I’m not condoning it and I think it’s bit crap because of the obsession with the 85% advice but I can assume that’s why it’s done.
Pure capitalism.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 22,809
- 7,664
- 50,935
With that weight van anyone without a BE licence is unlikely to find a suitable Towcar. Therefore the concept fails to recognise that you don’t have to load it to MTPLM anyway.
- May 29, 2018
- 280
- 42
- 4,685
Yes agreed. The 85% guidance looks at the lightest car (using the kerbweight figure) and the MTPLM figure assuming the person loads it to the limit. (Which to be fair we nearly do) however we also have the car a LOT heavier than kerbweight.
I guess the 85% guidance looks at the worst case scenario or lighter car with heaviest van.
Facebook
Twitter