54 L Number Plate
54 L Number Plate
Number plate results shown. If you want to go to our main website you can use our reg plate search facility.
Regplates have over 99% of all available number plates available to buy online 24 hours a day. We are members of MIRAD, APRT & CNG trade dealers associations.
All number plates are transferred in accordance with the DVLA.
.
Unfortunately 54 L Number Plate From Regplates.com has now been sold, however, click below to search for similar numbers we do have available or call us on 01482 627 628
Search for available registrations similar to 54 L |
Our team of trained personalised number plate staff will professionally handle your transfer as swiftly as possible with all paperwork change over handled for you including the V5, tax disc and MOT certificate. We offer advice without technical 'jargon', and are always competitive on price. |
|
If you are looking to sell a private plate, our personalised registration plates valuations department can give you an accurate market value on your registration number by post or by e-mail.
Personalised Cherished Number Plates
Since their humble beginning in 1903, cherished numbers have continued to increase in popularity often adding the finishing touch to our prized possessions and very often prove to be a valuable investment.
 |
The First Number Plate Ever Issued A1 assigned in 1903 |
|---|
The Motor Car Act 1903, which came into force on 1 January 1904, required all motor vehicles to be entered on an official vehicle register, and to carry number plates. The Act was passed in order that vehicles could be easily traced in the event of an accident or contravention of the law. Vehicle registration number plates in the UK are rectangular or square in shape, with the exact permitted dimensions of the plate and its lettering set down in law.
You can find out where your personalised registration number plate was originally issued here.
NUMBER PLATES:
A private firm engaged by the Delhi government in 2012 to manufacture high security numberplates for city vehicles has been fined by the Delhi high court for "forum hunting."
HC on Thursday slapped a cost of Rs 50,000 on Rosemerta HSRP Ventures for trying to secure a favourable order from a different bench since the earlier judge had ruled against it.
"This court is also of the prima facie view that the present petition lacks bonafides; any clarification as to the order passed by this court on October 7, 2016 ought to have been obtained by filing an application in the disposed of appeal. However, it appears that the endeavour of Rosmerta was to avoid approaching the bench concerned by way of a clarification and it does appear that this is a case of forum hunting," Justice Vibhu Bakhru observed while imposing punitive costs.
Last year, a bench of Justice S Muralidhar had lifted a stay on Delhi government's transport department to go ahead with its termination of agreement with Rosmerta, even as it had clarified that the firm should be granted a hearing first by an authority higher than the transport commissioner who first took the decision to terminate its services.
However, Rosmerta came to court again claiming that Delhi government has asked it to appear before the chief secretary though it is the lieutenant governor who should hear its appeal, a contention rejected not just by the LG but also by Justice Bakhru.
Last year, SC had also paved the way for AAP government to end its contract with the controversial private firm that manufactures high security numberplates in Delhi.
Delhi government and Rosmerta have been locked in arbitration since 2014 after the government issued a show-cause notice to the firm, accusing it of several violations and irregularities in the execution of the high security numberplate project. This led the company to invoke an in-built arbitration clause in the agreement.
HC held that even as per the NCT Act and Rules, the chief secretary would be the secretary to the council of ministers and principal secretary, general administration department will be the joint secretary to the council.
A private firm engaged by the Delhi government in 2012 to manufacture high security numberplates for city vehicles has been fined by the Delhi high court for "forum hunting."
HC on Thursday slapped a cost of Rs 50,000 on Rosemerta HSRP Ventures for trying to secure a favourable order from a different bench since the earlier judge had ruled against it.
"This court is also of the prima facie view that the present petition lacks bonafides; any clarification as to the order passed by this court on October 7, 2016 ought to have been obtained by filing an application in the disposed of appeal. However, it appears that the endeavour of Rosmerta was to avoid approaching the bench concerned by way of a clarification and it does appear that this is a case of forum hunting," Justice Vibhu Bakhru observed while imposing punitive costs.
Last year, a bench of Justice S Muralidhar had lifted a stay on Delhi government's transport department to go ahead with its termination of agreement with Rosmerta, even as it had clarified that the firm should be granted a hearing first by an authority higher than the transport commissioner who first took the decision to terminate its services.
However, Rosmerta came to court again claiming that Delhi government has asked it to appear before the chief secretary though it is the lieutenant governor who should hear its appeal, a contention rejected not just by the LG but also by Justice Bakhru.
Last year, SC had also paved the way for AAP government to end its contract with the controversial private firm that manufactures high security numberplates in Delhi.
Delhi government and Rosmerta have been locked in arbitration since 2014 after the government issued a show-cause notice to the firm, accusing it of several violations and irregularities in the execution of the high security numberplate project. This led the company to invoke an in-built arbitration clause in the agreement.
HC held that even as per the NCT Act and Rules, the chief secretary would be the secretary to the council of ministers and principal secretary, general administration department will be the joint secretary to the council.
Halfords has commissioned a survey which asked whether the respondents were in favour of number plates for cyclists. A “convincing” 59 percent of respondents were in favour of such a measure, said Halfords, with the retailer claiming the suggestion would “encourage responsible riding.”
However, the survey has been criticised by motoring and cycling groups. AA president Edmund King told BikeBiz: “The AA believes that the introduction of number plates for cyclists would be impractical and unnecessary – police already have the powers to stop cyclists.”
Cycling UK’s head of campaigns and advocacy Duncan Dollimore said: “[The] government has consistently reached the conclusion that such proposals are disproportionate and unnecessary.” And British Cycling's policy advisor Chris Boardman said: "No country in the world requires bicycles to be registered because it does not serve the public interest – it would be hugely expensive and drastically cut the number of people who cycle."
The number plate proposal from one of the leading UK retailers of motor-vehicle number plates is included in a press release that has been teased out to the mainstream media over the last couple of days. (The embargo ended one minute ago.) It’s possible that the press release will result in some negative coverage for cycling, especially following the recent blanket media coverage given to Matthew Briggs’ campaign to incorporate death and serious injury cycling offences into the Road Traffic Act.
The online survey of 2,042 adults was carried out in August by YouGov and has led to the production of “Sharing the Road”, a 20-page infographic-heavy report produced for Halfords by its external PR company. The document has a foreword by the retailer’s chief customer officer Karen Bellairs, who said “we wanted to examine whether there was a genuine willingness among cyclists and motorists to share the road.”
The survey asked whether cyclists should have to take proficiency tests before being allowed to cycle on the public highway, and also asked whether motorists should be required to ride bicycles as part of the driving test. (The answers, respectively, were 50 percent and 18 percent in favour.) Respondents were also asked whether penalties should be increased for cyclists “who don’t abide by the Highway Code” and ditto for motorists who “drove aggressively near cyclists.” (86 percent and 80 percent respectively.)
Article continues below
While Halfords may claim that it is not itself advocating for cyclists to be forced to carry number plates, or for sanctions against cyclists to be increased, it’s clear that they were the questions put to respondents by YouGov, and provided to them by Z PR of London on behalf of Halfords.
“What our new research makes very clear is that the car is still the nation’s favourite means of getting around,” said Bellairs, adding that “there is massive support among motorists for better training, more cycle lanes and improved facilities for cyclists.” (45 percent of survey respondents said there ought to be “dedicated cycle lanes on all roads”.)
Bellairs also claimed that the survey showed, with no evidence provided other than the online questioning, that there was a “genuine willingness” from Britain’s motorists to “share the road.” She said that this is something that “Halfords, which champions motoring as well as cycling, is very keen to foster.”
The Sharing the Road report advises cyclists to “be a peacock” and to “always make sure you’re wearing bright clothing when cycling, whether it’s a high vis jacket or a high vis vest” but it does not contain similar advice for motorists (Halfords missed a trick here, it could have suggested motorists buy its spray-cans of yellow paint so they can make their cars more conspicuous).
The Halfords press release – which is headlined "Britons back tougher penalities for people who cycle aggressively but drivers and cyclists want to work better together" – states that “65% agree that cyclists should be required to wear reflective clothing, to give them the best chance of being seen.”
Required? As in forced? That won’t endear the company to many cycling customers.
There was no survey result – or, presumably, any question – about the compulsory wearing of helmets for everyday journeys, either for cyclists or motorists. However, there were questions and answers about cycle servicing. A perhaps surprising 48 percent of those asked said they could mend cycle punctures. And, in what will be news to independent bike shops, 43 percent of Brits can “tighten a loose chain”; 37 percent “know how to adjust their own brakes”; and 31 percent “can clean their gear mechanisms.” (Those answers should make one wary of all the others.)
The report goes on to claim that an “overwhelming 93% think it would be beneficial for all education on road safety to be aimed at cyclists and motorists,” as if it isn’t already.
Responding to the Halfords report, the AA president told BikeBiz:
“Most cyclists are drivers and many drivers are cyclists so we need to live in harmony with each other. Rather than harsher penalties all round, we believe it is preferable to promote better training, infrastructure and positive attitudes."
King said he didn’t believe there was a requirement for harsher penalties for law-breaking cyclists:
“There are already penalties in place for cyclists who don’t abide by the Highway Code and we believe that targeted enforcement alongside education courses are a more effective way of making our roads safer.”
The AA president added that existing laws need to be enforced first.
“We would prefer to see targeted police enforcement through schemes such as Operation Safe Pass whereby the police target dangerous drivers [who pass too closely to cyclists],” said King.
While careful not to criticise Halfords directly (the retailer and Cycling UK partnered for a project earlier this year) Dollimore was critical of the report’s timing: “Given the uneven tone of the current debate on cycling, it was perhaps optimistic to expect this survey would be a constructive addition to the discussion.”
He added: “We already knew some people instinctively think regulation and testing of cyclists is the answer. Those people frequently fail to appreciate the practicalities of imposing and enforcing regulations on children, the costs involved, or the public health and other implications of putting up further barriers to cycling. Fortunately government has consistently reached the conclusion that such proposals are disproportionate and unnecessary.
“Ultimately, there are opinions expressed in this survey which we agree with, and others we don't, but the truth is this is merely a summary of what people said in response to a series of questions. It's far better, when suggesting a need for change, to assess the arguments for and against, and this is precisely the point we will make to government as it considers its forthcoming cycle safety review."
Boardman said "compulsory proficiency tests and number plates, are quite obviously non-starters and cannot be regarded as a serious contribution to the public debate on road safety."
He added: "The reality is that [British Cycling], and other cycling organisations, already work with groups representing pedestrians and motorists to find ways to make our streets safer for everyone. Indeed Halfords themselves are part of our #ChooseCycling Network of British businesses that strongly believe more cycling is crucial to help business thrive, to encourage people to live healthier lives and to make Britain a greener, less congested and more pleasant place to live."
Boardman – who has an eponymously named brand stocked by Halfords – stressed that "laws should be developed using evidence, focusing proportionately on those with the ability to cause most harm. Around 1,800 people die on British roads annually and more than 99 percent involve collisions with motor vehicles."
A private firm engaged by the Delhi government in 2012 to manufacture high security numberplates for city vehicles has been fined by the Delhi high court for "forum hunting."
HC on Thursday slapped a cost of Rs 50,000 on Rosemerta HSRP Ventures for trying to secure a favourable order from a different bench since the earlier judge had ruled against it.
"This court is also of the prima facie view that the present petition lacks bonafides; any clarification as to the order passed by this court on October 7, 2016 ought to have been obtained by filing an application in the disposed of appeal. However, it appears that the endeavour of Rosmerta was to avoid approaching the bench concerned by way of a clarification and it does appear that this is a case of forum hunting," Justice Vibhu Bakhru observed while imposing punitive costs.
Last year, a bench of Justice S Muralidhar had lifted a stay on Delhi government's transport department to go ahead with its termination of agreement with Rosmerta, even as it had clarified that the firm should be granted a hearing first by an authority higher than the transport commissioner who first took the decision to terminate its services.
However, Rosmerta came to court again claiming that Delhi government has asked it to appear before the chief secretary though it is the lieutenant governor who should hear its appeal, a contention rejected not just by the LG but also by Justice Bakhru.
Last year, SC had also paved the way for AAP government to end its contract with the controversial private firm that manufactures high security numberplates in Delhi.
Delhi government and Rosmerta have been locked in arbitration since 2014 after the government issued a show-cause notice to the firm, accusing it of several violations and irregularities in the execution of the high security numberplate project. This led the company to invoke an in-built arbitration clause in the agreement.
HC held that even as per the NCT Act and Rules, the chief secretary would be the secretary to the council of ministers and principal secretary, general administration department will be the joint secretary to the council.
The 1 CUE cherished Number offers a unique chance to show the world you are at the top of your game' Bruno Morris of Image registrations told us.
Cherished numbers are a great investment and now is the perfect time to start your collection.
A private firm engaged by the Delhi government in 2012 to manufacture high security numberplates for city vehicles has been fined by the Delhi high court for "forum hunting."
HC on Thursday slapped a cost of Rs 50,000 on Rosemerta HSRP Ventures for trying to secure a favourable order from a different bench since the earlier judge had ruled against it.
"This court is also of the prima facie view that the present petition lacks bonafides; any clarification as to the order passed by this court on October 7, 2016 ought to have been obtained by filing an application in the disposed of appeal. However, it appears that the endeavour of Rosmerta was to avoid approaching the bench concerned by way of a clarification and it does appear that this is a case of forum hunting," Justice Vibhu Bakhru observed while imposing punitive costs.
Last year, a bench of Justice S Muralidhar had lifted a stay on Delhi government's transport department to go ahead with its termination of agreement with Rosmerta, even as it had clarified that the firm should be granted a hearing first by an authority higher than the transport commissioner who first took the decision to terminate its services.
However, Rosmerta came to court again claiming that Delhi government has asked it to appear before the chief secretary though it is the lieutenant governor who should hear its appeal, a contention rejected not just by the LG but also by Justice Bakhru.
Last year, SC had also paved the way for AAP government to end its contract with the controversial private firm that manufactures high security numberplates in Delhi.
Delhi government and Rosmerta have been locked in arbitration since 2014 after the government issued a show-cause notice to the firm, accusing it of several violations and irregularities in the execution of the high security numberplate project. This led the company to invoke an in-built arbitration clause in the agreement.
HC held that even as per the NCT Act and Rules, the chief secretary would be the secretary to the council of ministers and principal secretary, general administration department will be the joint secretary to the council.
The UK's most expensive number plate to date is the F1 registration number purchased by a British businessman for £440,625 in 2008, though that's just small change compared to the £7m spent by Abu Dhabi-based Saeed Khouri on the 1 number plate - officially the largest sum of money ever spent on a registration number.
Halfords has commissioned a survey which asked whether the respondents were in favour of number plates for cyclists. A “convincing” 59 percent of respondents were in favour of such a measure, said Halfords, with the retailer claiming the suggestion would “encourage responsible riding.”
However, the survey has been criticised by motoring and cycling groups. AA president Edmund King told BikeBiz: “The AA believes that the introduction of number plates for cyclists would be impractical and unnecessary – police already have the powers to stop cyclists.”
Cycling UK’s head of campaigns and advocacy Duncan Dollimore said: “[The] government has consistently reached the conclusion that such proposals are disproportionate and unnecessary.” And British Cycling's policy advisor Chris Boardman said: "No country in the world requires bicycles to be registered because it does not serve the public interest – it would be hugely expensive and drastically cut the number of people who cycle."
The number plate proposal from one of the leading UK retailers of motor-vehicle number plates is included in a press release that has been teased out to the mainstream media over the last couple of days. (The embargo ended one minute ago.) It’s possible that the press release will result in some negative coverage for cycling, especially following the recent blanket media coverage given to Matthew Briggs’ campaign to incorporate death and serious injury cycling offences into the Road Traffic Act.
The online survey of 2,042 adults was carried out in August by YouGov and has led to the production of “Sharing the Road”, a 20-page infographic-heavy report produced for Halfords by its external PR company. The document has a foreword by the retailer’s chief customer officer Karen Bellairs, who said “we wanted to examine whether there was a genuine willingness among cyclists and motorists to share the road.”
The survey asked whether cyclists should have to take proficiency tests before being allowed to cycle on the public highway, and also asked whether motorists should be required to ride bicycles as part of the driving test. (The answers, respectively, were 50 percent and 18 percent in favour.) Respondents were also asked whether penalties should be increased for cyclists “who don’t abide by the Highway Code” and ditto for motorists who “drove aggressively near cyclists.” (86 percent and 80 percent respectively.)
Article continues below
While Halfords may claim that it is not itself advocating for cyclists to be forced to carry number plates, or for sanctions against cyclists to be increased, it’s clear that they were the questions put to respondents by YouGov, and provided to them by Z PR of London on behalf of Halfords.
“What our new research makes very clear is that the car is still the nation’s favourite means of getting around,” said Bellairs, adding that “there is massive support among motorists for better training, more cycle lanes and improved facilities for cyclists.” (45 percent of survey respondents said there ought to be “dedicated cycle lanes on all roads”.)
Bellairs also claimed that the survey showed, with no evidence provided other than the online questioning, that there was a “genuine willingness” from Britain’s motorists to “share the road.” She said that this is something that “Halfords, which champions motoring as well as cycling, is very keen to foster.”
The Sharing the Road report advises cyclists to “be a peacock” and to “always make sure you’re wearing bright clothing when cycling, whether it’s a high vis jacket or a high vis vest” but it does not contain similar advice for motorists (Halfords missed a trick here, it could have suggested motorists buy its spray-cans of yellow paint so they can make their cars more conspicuous).
The Halfords press release – which is headlined "Britons back tougher penalities for people who cycle aggressively but drivers and cyclists want to work better together" – states that “65% agree that cyclists should be required to wear reflective clothing, to give them the best chance of being seen.”
Required? As in forced? That won’t endear the company to many cycling customers.
There was no survey result – or, presumably, any question – about the compulsory wearing of helmets for everyday journeys, either for cyclists or motorists. However, there were questions and answers about cycle servicing. A perhaps surprising 48 percent of those asked said they could mend cycle punctures. And, in what will be news to independent bike shops, 43 percent of Brits can “tighten a loose chain”; 37 percent “know how to adjust their own brakes”; and 31 percent “can clean their gear mechanisms.” (Those answers should make one wary of all the others.)
The report goes on to claim that an “overwhelming 93% think it would be beneficial for all education on road safety to be aimed at cyclists and motorists,” as if it isn’t already.
Responding to the Halfords report, the AA president told BikeBiz:
“Most cyclists are drivers and many drivers are cyclists so we need to live in harmony with each other. Rather than harsher penalties all round, we believe it is preferable to promote better training, infrastructure and positive attitudes."
King said he didn’t believe there was a requirement for harsher penalties for law-breaking cyclists:
“There are already penalties in place for cyclists who don’t abide by the Highway Code and we believe that targeted enforcement alongside education courses are a more effective way of making our roads safer.”
The AA president added that existing laws need to be enforced first.
“We would prefer to see targeted police enforcement through schemes such as Operation Safe Pass whereby the police target dangerous drivers [who pass too closely to cyclists],” said King.
While careful not to criticise Halfords directly (the retailer and Cycling UK partnered for a project earlier this year) Dollimore was critical of the report’s timing: “Given the uneven tone of the current debate on cycling, it was perhaps optimistic to expect this survey would be a constructive addition to the discussion.”
He added: “We already knew some people instinctively think regulation and testing of cyclists is the answer. Those people frequently fail to appreciate the practicalities of imposing and enforcing regulations on children, the costs involved, or the public health and other implications of putting up further barriers to cycling. Fortunately government has consistently reached the conclusion that such proposals are disproportionate and unnecessary.
“Ultimately, there are opinions expressed in this survey which we agree with, and others we don't, but the truth is this is merely a summary of what people said in response to a series of questions. It's far better, when suggesting a need for change, to assess the arguments for and against, and this is precisely the point we will make to government as it considers its forthcoming cycle safety review."
Boardman said "compulsory proficiency tests and number plates, are quite obviously non-starters and cannot be regarded as a serious contribution to the public debate on road safety."
He added: "The reality is that [British Cycling], and other cycling organisations, already work with groups representing pedestrians and motorists to find ways to make our streets safer for everyone. Indeed Halfords themselves are part of our #ChooseCycling Network of British businesses that strongly believe more cycling is crucial to help business thrive, to encourage people to live healthier lives and to make Britain a greener, less congested and more pleasant place to live."
Boardman – who has an eponymously named brand stocked by Halfords – stressed that "laws should be developed using evidence, focusing proportionately on those with the ability to cause most harm. Around 1,800 people die on British roads annually and more than 99 percent involve collisions with motor vehicles."
It should be noted that there are no restrictions on using a vanity or cherished registration on a car that is newer than the original date of the registration plate, but it is prohibited to transfer a registration that is newer than the vehicle it is used on. This is to prevent the transfer of newer registrations to older vehicles as a measure to protect consumers.
Members of MIRAD and
the Cherished Numbers Guild
the Cherished Numbers Guild
- Free transfer service - your paperwork is handled by our trained team
- Over 25 years expertise - long established and trusted company
- DVLA Recognised Reseller - linked directly from the DVLA website
- DVLA Registered Number Plate Supplier - in line with all DVLA & MOT regulations
