No back penalties for old cars in California

[Holdsteady]

Sorry to resurrect this old post. I just tried this at the CA DMV. They called up to Sacramento who said that my vehicle needed to have historic vehicle plates on it to qualify as being of historic interest. Any advice?

 

1966 Oldsmobile Toronado, last registered to me in 2012.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Holdsteady (see edit history)

[Packard Don]

It needs to have historic plates if you are registering it as a historic vehicle because the plates are part of the historic designation. You didn’t need to get historic plates to insure a vintage vehicle as such, though, and you don’t need to get them if you want only to register it. In other words, you can get a regular registration or you can get a historic registration but the latter requires historic plates. They are required only if registering it as historic. Any particular reason to register it historic?

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Packard Don (see edit history)

[Holdsteady]

Yeah I don't care to register it as a historic vehicle I just want to get the back fees for not registering it PNO waived. The DMV said I had to already have those plates to get the fees waived.

[Packard Don]

That’s the first I’ve ever heard that and not sure if the information is valid. As long as the car hasn’t been driven or parked on any public streets, or towed on one, it should have no back-fees.

[Diamondave]

Hi. New member here. Just had my third trip to DMV without success. I can't seem to convince a stubborn supervisor to follow the law or the instructions in her manual.

here are my details:

I bought a 1987 chevy pickup from a repair shop owner who had a lien sale because he went out of business. The registered owner and the lienholder are both deceased. No one contested the sale. no one bid on sale day. I bought 2 weeks later for $200. Last registered in 2011. vehicle was flat bed moved from private property to private property. (no wheels touched highway) I quoted cvc 4604 (d)3 as instructed with I am a collector...  this vehicle is exempt... statement. I have provided CNO to cover entire period from 2010 to today. (actually 3 separate cno's that overlap). I brought highlighted copies of cvc 4604; 5004; 5050: 5051. I also brought highlighted copies of DMV handbook "Vehicle Industry Registration Procedures (REG 611 ) chapter 3 copied straight from DMV website. The handbook states historical vehicles are exempt from PNO req's, and CNO req's apply to dissallow penalties and back fees. And still this supervisor insists that nothing matters except that my purchase was at lien sale and back fees/penalties apply. 

 

I pointed out that back fees/ penalties are based on PNO req's and do not apply. She say's if I had a title then ok, but it's a lien sale and I must pay (originally $1250, then $1100, then $700 if and only if I apply for historical plates) So I asked to transfer title only without registration ( it doesn't run yet anyway) but that was refused. (must pay first) I showed the section on transfers without registration but was sent away. 

 

I am more than a little frustrated but not yet angry. Any suggestions?    (I'm referring to DMV office in Costa Mesa, CA)

[Packard Don]

I would fill the application for title and the application for non-op, along with a check for $40 ($20 each, I believe but you should double-check) then mail it to Sacramento along with all the highlighted printouts you mentioned and a filled statement of facts (last section only).  In about 60 days, you should get your title.  Going to the DMV in person for this sort of thing is a waste of time!

[Diamondave]

I guess your'e right. I was thinking of elevating to the manager of this office because I'm sure that I am correct.  However, I recognize that one bureaucrat is more likely to support another rather than a citizen who disagree's . Although, I feel a need to adjust this person's attitude. It is a sad day when one is unable to obtain a fair ruling in spite of presenting clear evidence of the law and official procedures.  In fairness I have to say that the lien sale procedure does not specifically exclude historical vehicles, although it should .The authority to charge back fees and penalties is based on the PNO (planed non-operational ) requirements, which do not apply to historical vehicles.

I may elect to start over at a different DMV office.

[Packard Don]

I’ve been  collecting cars for over 50 years and have never had to pay back-fees even when the vehicles were not historic.  In one case when I bought a collectable car on the East Coast through a dealer that supplied only a bill of sale, it took two years to finally get the plates and then only after I resorted to mail rather than going into a local office.

[Diamondave]

Well, I tried again at a different DMV office, in Santa ANA this time. I was told that to waive back fees/penalties I had to already have HISTORICAL plates. I am frustrated as this was my fourth DMV trip. I tried to convince them that to qualify under cvc5005 was sufficient but again I was refused. Interestingly, the amount due is now down to $619 from over $1200 then $1100, Then $700 from each previous trip. And still they would not transfer title unless I paid the fees/penalties.  I guess I will send the papers to SACTO and hope for the best. I sure would like to pull rank on them but who can I call?

 

added info... They also told me the highlighted info I supplied was not real, did not come from DMV website, and I was not allowed to have that information anyway... and they refused to even try to verify even when I told them how to access it in three clicks. On Monday, I will call the Public Inquiries Unit for more reference materials and try again. I'll report the results when and if... 

Edited September 30, 2018 by Diamondave
additional info (see edit history)

[Diamondave]

Well, I called the 916.657.6560 DMV customer service line this morning. My call was answered by a live person within a few minutes, but was not able to give any help except to transfer my call to 916.657.8035.  There my call was on hold for 20 minutes or so before allowing me to request a call back.  After waiting another 20 minutes without result I called again and asked again for a call back.  When the call came i was asked for my name and plate number, then put on hold "for just a moment" . 7 minutes of awful musac later the line went silent. 3 minutes after that the call disconnected.  So again I called and requested a call back.  about an hour later my call was returned. I explained the reason for my call and my name and plate number.  the "technician" looked at his computer the told me my vehicle was not designated historical already so was not exempt. I asked if he was familiar with this procedure and his response was "could I read the code 4606(d)3 to him, please" I requested that his manager call me as I had already have spoken with low level tech's and mid level super's enough to realize he had not a clue.  A short time later another tech returned my call from earlier. She explained that they were just phone answer folks who knew nothing and could do nothing to help. Her advice was to mail all my papers to SACTO attn. REGISTRATION and let them sort it out. I'm still waiting for that manager to call, but not holding my breath.  I really need Bill Adams help if he is still available. Can anyone contact Bill for advice? I see it's been a couple of years since his last post.  I have already sent 2 emails without response.  HELP!

Edited October 1, 2018 by Diamondave
typo ref. code 4604(d)3 (see edit history)

[Diamondave]

I have decided to send my papers to DMV in SACTO and take my chances. I was able to consult Bill Adams (thanks Bill). I have written a cover letter to send with my package explaining in detail  what each paper provides in evidence to support my case.  Then, I wrote an essay why I believe I am entitled to the exemption provided by cvc4604(d)3.

here it is:

 

PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE PLANNED NON-OP REQUIREMENT IN THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE

Before enactment of cvc4604 drivers in California were often tardy in paying yearly registration fees, slowing the revenue stream our government bureaucrats depend on. So it was decided that a system of late fees and penalties was needed to encourage the prompt and timely payment of vehicle taxes, thus smoothing out the cash flow. All late Fees are charged for this same reason. That is, to bias the tendency for payment towards early and away from being late. This applies to the short term delinquency. While there are many reasons for short term lateness, such as forgot due date, low on funds etc. all taxpayers will normally pay their taxes on time or as promptly as they can.

 

Now, mindful of those taxpayers who object to paying road taxes on vehicles not actually being used, the category of planned non-operation was conceived to provide relief for those payers whose vehicle was down for extended periods of time. (Partial year or medium term) To prevent abuse, the notice of planned non-op was required to be filed before registration expired.

 

Now, let’s consider the case for long term lapse of registration, often multiple years or even decades. There really is but one, and only one, reason a vehicle has a long term lapse in registration. It is deliberate on the part of the owner/taxpayer, but it is not to drive the vehicle without paying.  Not at all. Just the opposite, in fact. It is because the vehicle has broken down before registration has expired, and for whatever reason the owner has elected not to repair. So when the bill for next year’s registration comes, it goes into the infamous circular file. The vehicle then sits, parked in an out of the way location, off street. (It must be off street or it would be towed away and impounded).

No one is driving a vehicle that has multiple years expired tags. Obviously, it would be cited and/or impounded by the first LEO who observes it.

 

Now then, we come to the reason that vehicles 25 years old and older and of some interest to at least one collector, is deserving of an exemption from paying those back fees/penalties. First, the vehicle was not being driven by some scofflaw avoiding the payment of road use taxes. Second, it was not the collector who failed to pre-notify DMV of the vehicle’s breakdown. It was the registered prior owner who made that error.  But, DMV has not been cheated because the vehicle was not (could not) be driven.  Thus, in all fairness, the collector who has resurrected this dead relic is entitled to start over with a new registration, free from any tax and penalty for road use that never accrued.

 

Please note, it has nothing to do with having applied for and receiving historical status and corresponding license plate. That plate restricts use of the vehicle to a very limited scope, and therefore the owner pays an extremely low, one time fee.

 

 The statute providing exemption to the collector uses the DESCRIPTION found in the code for historical status to define the historically interesting vehicle belonging to the collector as eligible for the exemption from paying those back taxes/penalties that never accrued. The collector still must pay for the current year road taxes because the vehicle is now using the road.

 

I hope this essay has made clear to the reader why the exemption for collectable vehicles per California vehicle code 4604(d)3 is fair and just. It is not a loophole exploited by a person of questionable character to avoid paying fees. In reality, it is DMV whose denial of state mandated fee relief procedures that may well be questioned. It is my opinion that DMV should be in all cases fair and trustworthy for its clients, and not driven to gouge the highest possible tax from us. I am sure, nearly everyone will agree, DMV works for us, not the other way around. 

 

Signed,

 

 

DAVID J DEVONSHIRE

CAR  & MOTORCYCLE COLLECTOR,

TAXPAYER,  CITIZEN  

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA

 

 

 

 

[JFranklin]

I have a motorcycle in the barn that hasn't been on the road or licensed since 1979. It is in Oregon but I have been watching this thread to see how it all will turn out. I ran into the same problem here.

[Packard Don]

Sometimes giving the DMV too much information simply confuses them, which is why I generally just fill the appropriate applications, write the check and mail it all in.  Sometimes in special cases like this, I also fill the Statement of Facts’ last section where you can write free-style to explain, in the most basic of terms, why there is no title.  Again, not too much detail.  Since the vehicle wasn’t towed, parked or driven on any public road since you purchased it, you absolutely are not responsible for any back-fees although you will need to get the VIN verified if you haven't already done so.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Packard Don (see edit history)

[Diamondave]

I have a verification form and can get a local LEO to fill it in. However, in four DMV visits no-one as questioned the vehicle. I do have the expired registration for 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007 as well as all the lien sale doc's with the same information. Anyway, it seems that my essay has not garnered the support I thought it would. So it will be omitted  from my package. I am on hold for the time being, waiting for some back channel negotiations to run their course. Fingers crossed...

[Packard Don]

If the vehicle is in the CA DMV database, then no verification needed but if not, then it will be required using form reg31 without question.  It’s typical of the DMV to not tell you everything needed, though, so it would not hurt to have it verified by a mobile verifier who will come to you to do it and they will supply the form with their license information prefilled.  Obviously I’m too far away to do it (and I’m in Zürich, Switzerland at the moment) so cannot assist but you should be able to find a licensed mobile VIN verifier in your area.  Since it doesn’t run, I presume you’re trying for a non-op but once the time comes to register it, it will also need an emissions test which they probably also didn’t tell you.

[Diamondave]

I am aware it needs to pass smog test. DMV has told me also. Once I get a ruling on the back fees/penalties and pay those costs, DMV will give me a temporary pass to drive it to be smog tested.  I also need insurance before it is driven anywhere. We will wait for a while longer...thanks.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Diamondave
Update results ... Made another run at DMV today. found out they have record of a ticket in 2011 for expired tags. That voids any claim that the vehicle has not been operated since the registration expired. Therefore I am not exempt from paying. (see edit history)

[CarFreak]

On 10/2/2018 at 10:26 AM, Diamondave said:

I have decided to send my papers to DMV in SACTO and take my chances. I was able to consult Bill Adams (thanks Bill). I have written a cover letter to send with my package explaining in detail  what each paper provides in evidence to support my case.  Then, I wrote an essay why I believe I am entitled to the exemption provided by cvc4604(d)3.

here it is:

 

 DAVID J DEVONSHIRE

CAR  & MOTORCYCLE COLLECTOR,

TAXPAYER,  CITIZEN  

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA

 

 

Status of your transaction request? 

[Diamondave]

After multiple attempts to convince local DMV offices that I was entitled to claim collector status thus exemption from back fees and penalties, I was unsuccessful. I did however convince the folks at the La guna Hills office to send my papers to Sacramento along with a cashier’s check for $343. That is the amount I estimated to be the current year fees. I was told to wait six to eight weeks for a ruling.

 

Starting week nine thru week sixteen I made no less than 31 phone calls to the office handling registrations before I finally spoke to a supervisor about the bogas excuses and distinct lack of effort to complete the review of my documents. The following week I received a call from the actual technician who would process my papers.   A few days later all my documents were returned “approved” with the note requiring smog certification.

 

They did not actually exempt the back fees and penalties, per se. The itemized billing just stopped charging once the total reached $343. The remaining fees and penalties were left blank or omitted. The end result is the same, I guess. Although I would have preferred an honest accounting and ruling in writing that could be used as precedent.

 

I have not yet had the smog test. The two ‘one-day permits’ I was given for smog test went unused and expired after 60 days. The current year tags expire in April so I will have to pay a couple hundred more for next year by the time I get smogged.

 

All things considered I would have been better off to have accepted the $619 quote given early last August, and skipped the frustration and delay. I received a bunch of abuse from most of the clerks and supers (polite abuse I’ll allow) that I dealt with. The worst from Huntington Beach and the least from Laguna Hills.  They all lied or tried to bulls__t me. For example, telling me they had record of a ticket issued after the tags expired, therefore all fees were due.  I checked the superior court record and found a ticket issued for seat belt (not) used before the tags expired.

 

To all who are interested, I say keep trying. If we don’t fight for our rights, we will loose them. Just be patient and calm when you present at the DMV, and have all your ducks lined up before you go. Good Luck.

 

Dave  

 

[xdmn]

Updated links for this code use.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=4604.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=5004.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=5051.

 

The DMV has continued to be less and less inclined to interpret this properly and each person is subjected to the whims of the field office or the clerk.  However, if you can decipher these correctly and remain calm and respectful but insistent, you will prevail every time.  I am not responsible for your efforts to use or mis-use this code.  All I can say is that if used in the above stated manner, it will work. I have been used and abused, to put it mildly, since I have posted this as an aid to my fellow collectors in attempting to find some sanity in this states approach to their own code.

 

I will continue to help those I can but the moment you become a disrespectful ass or expect me to assist you beyond this general info for free, I will leave you to it. 

 

Bill

Oakdale

209-402-6167

xdmn@yahoo.com

[Grimy]

Bill, thank you VERY much for these links!

 

FYI, about ten years ago, I went to a DMV field office armed with copies of these and other pages printed from the DMV's own website (don't think the VC is on the DMV website any longer).  In a discussion with the officious Field Office manager, she stated "we apply our own rules," to which I replied, "THESE are enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, and anything DMV does to implement must be in keeping with the Vehicle Code." I then called the DMV Public Inquiries Office who confirmed my understanding (no need to non-op a >25-yr-old car, thanks to Jack Passey over 25 yrs ago), who asked that I put the manager on the line.  The manager sounded like a motor boat,,,but but but but.... and I walked out with what I wanted.

 

In fairness to the field office people, they are not trained in these issues which represent an infinitesimally small part of their business.  I have had good results from calling the DMV Public Inquiries Office in advance of my field office visit and requesting the paragraph number in the DMV Field Office Operations Manual.  In one case (putting Horseless Carriage plates on an eligible car), the paragraph citation enabled the counter clerk to key in that number, and I was done in two minutes.

 

Although I've never been challenged on the issue by a police officer, one GLARING issue is that although VC Section 5004 says HC and HV plates are for vehicles "primarily" (5004(a)) and "principally" (5004(f)) used for exhibitions, tours, parades, etc., TO OBTAIN THESE PLATES ONE MUST SIGN A DMV FORM CERTIFYING THAT ONE MAY USE THE VEHICLE ONLY/EXCLUSIVELY FOR THOSE USES.  That DMV action is inconsistent with the letter of Sec. 5004 AND the legislative intent.  For my vehicles with HC and HV plates, I carry a printed copy of VC 5004 with my registration and insurance cards--and with "primarily" and "principally" highlighted.

 

Thanks again for your efforts!

[xdmn]

Agreed there are some inconsistencies in the code and many other "oddities".   Why is a 16 cylinder car specifically mentioned or some other opposing descriptions. Per Jack, that happened after the DMV staff wrote the statutes and some wanted to allude to their cars(someone apparently had a Cadillac or Marmon).  I sure do miss Jack but call Mona occasionally to say hi. Though I did get his Travco that he used to get one of his Pierce-Arrow's from back east and has a picture of it in Buffalo in front of the factory in the book written about him.

 

When I first started doing this, I asked Jack what the original intent was and then reviewed what I interpreted the statutes meaning to be with a few of the higher ups with the DMV.  I still have the email chain from our agreed upon mutual interpretation and have had to refer new DMV staffers to it since the original ones have retired. So I have what I believe is a great basis for being insistent and consistent with the application of these statutes.

 

Have had no issues with any LEO on these interpretations either.  Thankfully, those of us with old cars are not typically profiled as a bad element types. We do need to ensure this is not too broadly interpreted and abused though IMHO.

[Packard Don]

Quote

no need to non-op a >25-yr-old car

 

This is absolutely not true, or at least it is no longer true. Any and all vehicles including trailers, RVs, tiny homes and mobile homes must be verified if not already in the CA DMV database.

[umbasa]

Is this still the law? Im trying to use this on a 83 Toyota but reading through it myself i struggle to interpret that it is retroactive. If i cant understand it myself  i definitely cant convince the DMV person of it. It sort of sounds like the previous owner would need to have one or more collectible cars to qualify. Can someone help me understand better or let me know if it no longer works?

[Grimy]

Packard Don said " This is absolutely not true, or at least it is no longer true. Any and all vehicles including trailers, RVs, tiny homes and mobile homes must be verified if not already in the CA DMV database. "  Two separate issues here:

1.  For a >25-yr-old car (say, off the road for a restoration), one does not need to pay the $20 fee annually (although I recommend doing so to keep the car in the DMV computer lest it be dropped after 4 or so years and require an inspection/certification of VIN/serial which can be a major PIA) but....

2.  Upon registering the car for the road, you still must complete a Certificate of Non-Operation (DMV Form REG102) covering the period when there was no valid registration.

 

Trailers, especially travel trailers, have NO NON-OP exemption--and I *think* (Don, correct me if I'm wrong) you must continue to pay even if parked--or incur penalties.

 

Don, if you disagree, please explain CVC Sec. 4604(d)(3).

[Grimy]

24 minutes ago, umbasa said:

Is this still the law? Im trying to use this on a 83 Toyota but reading through it myself i struggle to interpret that it is retroactive. If i cant understand it myself  i definitely cant convince the DMV person of it. It sort of sounds like the previous owner would need to have one or more collectible cars to qualify. Can someone help me understand better or let me know if it no longer works? 

You need to explain your situation more completely.  If you (as many of us do) acquired an out-of-registration car and want to legalize it (so to speak), you will need the previous owner to complete a form REG102 (certificate of non-op) from the date last registered until date of sale to you, and you must complete one covering the date of purchase forward.  I was asked once, "how did you transport the vehicle when you bought it?"  The true, and only correct answer, is "car trailer."  Do you have a clear title, not a "jump title"?

[umbasa]

The lady i bought it from stopped paying on it in 2003 when here husband died. She never transferred it into her name so we did a bill of sales. It is still in the DMV system and they only want three years of back tags but it will still cost over $700. Does the fact that it is still in the system mean i cant retroactively non-op it? It was moved with my car trailer and is still on privet property.

[Packard Don]

Quote

one does not need to pay the $20 fee annually

 

There is no $20 annual fee for no-op.  Although the DMV had made it annual many years ago which is how my own cars fell out of the DMV system, it is a one-time fee now and has been for at least the last decade or two although they recommend to “renew” it every five years by resubmitting without any payment just to assure it doesn't get removed.  Same with unused vanity plates if you want to use them at some future date. As for the back payments, not sure but I’ve never had to pay any myself although your situation seem an odd one as without registration for all those years it should no longer be in the DMV system.  As I handle only VIN verifications and I’m not a DMV employee, I can’t speak outside my own experiences.

[Grimy]

1 hour ago, umbasa said:

The lady i bought it from stopped paying on it in 2003 when here husband died. She never transferred it into her name so we did a bill of sales. It is still in the DMV system and they only want three years of back tags but it will still cost over $700. Does the fact that it is still in the system mean i cant retroactively non-op it? It was moved with my car trailer and is still on privet property

A title (pink slip) beats the heck out of a bill of sale, even if not in her name.  IF SHE HAS THE TITLE DOCUMENT, GET IT!  You need from the lady:

1.  Title document in her husband's name.

2.  Her signature on a form REG102 (Non-Op Cert) covering dates from expiration of last registration until the date you picked it up.

3.  Some documents showing the car's VIN (insurance cards in the glove box?), her old insurance policies, etc. (Years ago, I called up the husband's obituary online and printed it out showing that he was survived by wife named....same as who I got the car from.)

4.  Some document showing she inherited the car--will, probate, etc.  Copy of marriage license + cy her ID, cy his death certificate.  SHOW THE CHAIN OF OWNERSHIP.

5.  She signs a Statement of Facts form REG256 explaining all of this.

 

The car was not yet 20 years old in 2003 when the husband died, so it SHOULD have been non-op ed at that time.  Try getting all this stuff and THEN call the DMV Public Inquiries Unit in Sacramento at 916-657-6560 who USED to be sympathetic to car collectors.  Explain what you have, what you tried to get but couldn't get, and what else do you need? 

[Packard Don]

2 hours ago, Grimy said:

Quote

The car was not yet 20 years old in 2003 when the husband died

 

 

Again, the age of the vehicle has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. If it’s out of the DMV database, it must be verified but even if it’s still in the system by whatever strange means, if no documents, then it will be very difficult to re-title. Even to simply verify it, one must have either the title or a registration card even if expired. A bill of sale will not suffice and neither will any DMV receipts or printouts.

[umbasa]

Thanks for all the help! I’ll try again today with the PNO form and statement of facts filled out and call that number. I do have the pink slip with the husbands signature but I was told I needed a bill of sales. I will also try a different office. 

[Grimy]

9 hours ago, Packard Don said:

Again, the age of the vehicle has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. If it’s out of the DMV database, it must be verified but even if it’s still in the system by whatever strange means, if no documents, then it will be very difficult to re-title. Even to simply verify it, one must have either the title or a registration card even if expired. A bill of sale will not suffice and neither will any DMV receipts or printouts.

Don, the less-than-25-years age of the car at time of his death means ONLY that at THAT TIME the widow should have non-op'ed the car because AT THAT TIME it did not meet the exemption criteria of CVC 4604(d)(3)--and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the need for VIN verification, which is certainly your area of expertise.  I find it interesting that the poster says the car is still in the system (Lord knows why) but if so that's a good thing. 

[umbasa]

I got it all sorted out. Thanks again for all the help! I did end up paying over $700 because it was never dropped from the system. The manager at the Napa DMV was familiar with the historical vehicle rule but said it would not help in my case. My theory about why it stayed in the system is that the husband started the non op paperwork but didn’t finish so it was a pending case. At least I know how to register my bel air and international now, if I ever get around to finish them. Thanks again!!

[Grimy]

53 minutes ago, umbasa said:

I got it all sorted out. Thanks again for all the help! I did end up paying over $700 because it was never dropped from the system. The manager at the Napa DMV was familiar with the historical vehicle rule but said it would not help in my case. My theory about why it stayed in the system is that the husband started the non op paperwork but didn’t finish so it was a pending case. At least I know how to register my bel air and international now, if I ever get around to finish them. Thanks again!!

Congrats!  Please photos when you get a chance--we love pictures!

 

The penalties you had to pay are largely because a less-than-25 car was not non-op'ed at the time of the man's death.  If it had been 25 yrs old at that time, there would have been an exemption under 4604(d)(3).  Suggest you print and save the statutes that Bill Davis posted for use in the future.  On balance, though, you saved dozens of hours going thru verification by having the car in the system.

[MMVV]

I recently purchased a '72 vw. It has Cali license plate and VIN but hasnt been registered since 2010 and has no Pink Slip. I just have a Bill of Sales. Would I still be able to register the vehicle and get a new pink slip? Im just not sure what to expect going to the DMV or what to even bring.

[Rollin]

Thanks for the post Bill! I hope the info you posted can help me.

In 2010 I purchased and registered a 1967 Rolls Royce. After getting the plates for the car I out it into storage and went into my AAA office in San Diego and paid $20 to non op the car. A few months ago I went to my local dmv to register it and they want to charge me over $900. Saying it was never put into pno. I went home to search for a receipt from AAA but was unable to find it. I found this forum and took the info about collector cars being exempt from late fees into the same dmv and spoke to the supervisor. They took all my info and had me write out a paragraph stating that I put the car into pno and that they claim no record of it. I also stated that it should be exempt from all late fees, along with the vehicle codes Bill posted. They she said she would send it to Sacramento for them to decide and that I should get a call from them in 2 to 3 weeks. It has now been over 3 weeks with no word. Has anybody else dealt with Sacramento? Do you know how long it generally takes to hear back? I'm not sure who I should call as I'm sure the average phone tech isn't going to be able to help me. Anyone got a phone number to someone at Sacramento dmv that would be able to help me? I want to get my car ready for summer. Thanks

[Grimy]

Rollin, see my post above about the DMV Public Inquiries Unit in Sacto, 916-657-6560.  Once they answer your question, THEN ask them for a chapter/paragraph reference in the Field Offices' Operations Manual which will make it go MUCH faster at the window.

 

 

[Randall barragan]

Yeah i knew hof the law years ago with a 53 chev i owned .so yesterday i go to dmv to register my 1973 dodge van that was last registered in 2018 and was told there is no such thing . when i iasked how much was it going to be i was told $425 well how much are the penaltys at first she didnt know and that she didnt have a calculater .then said $168 the yearly registration fee are $68 on my old 2011 registration papers it shows $68 then the late fees max out at $192. So does my 73 dodge cualify as a classic .and my registration doesnt even show the different fee that add up to the fees amount?

[Randall barragan]

I told the clerk that the vehicle was a classic she said so what is that about .i told her that the late fees were exempt if the vihicle is a classic .she said there ois no such law.

[xdmn]

What DMV office did you go to and is your vehicle insured as a collector car?  A 73 Van can certainly qualify but we want to be certain we are in line with the spirit of the statute. What do you intend to use the van for?

[Randall barragan]

Actually its a motor home conversion that i cusomized for show into one of the first mobile tattoo shops on wheels.after finishing it a few years ago its just been parked and ive got myself into a bind and i must sell my cars .and no i dont have any special classic car insurance on it.but i didnt have any special insurance on my 69 mustang and they waved the penaltys being a clssic on it years ago.