# Verification record — `gb/dvla/transfer-vehicle-to-trade` v1.0.0 This file is the **source-review record** for this document version, per the [`manual-source-review-v1`](../../../../../practices/manual-source-review-v1.md) practice. It documents the provenance of the published fields and flow and states the current verification claim honestly. ## Current claim - **`status`:** `draft` - **`verification.method`:** `manual-source-review-v1` - **`verification.lastVerifiedAt`:** `2026-07-02` The document was **derived from and cross-checked against** the official sources below, but the full field-by-field comparison the practice requires (`manual-source-review-v1` → Procedure step 2) has **not** yet been completed and recorded against every screen of the live online service — the service could only be exercised up to and including vehicle look-up (see "What was directly observed vs. inferred" below). It therefore remains `draft`, not `verified`. ## Sources examined - **Document `(id, version)`:** `gb/dvla/transfer-vehicle-to-trade` / `1.0.0` - **Spec version:** GovSchema `0.3.0` - **Authority:** Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). - **Primary source URL:** — the GOV.UK smart-answer wizard "Tell DVLA you've sold, transferred or bought a vehicle". Fetched live (curl, raw HTML, HTTP 200, no block), 2026-07-02, resubmitting the wizard's own GET-based `response` parameter down the "sold it" → "sold it to a motor trader" branch (the sibling "sold it privately" branch is modelled separately in `gb/dvla/vehicle-keeper-change-v5c`, GOV-620). The terminal guidance page ("Sold your vehicle into the motor trade") and its outbound link to the relevant DVLA digital service were captured directly. - **Online service (motor-trade path, modelled here):** — "Sold a vehicle to the motor trade", a DVLA Beta digital service, distinct from `change-private-vehicle-sale.service.gov.uk` (used by `gb/dvla/vehicle-keeper-change-v5c`) but built on the same shared component library (form field names share the `wizard_shared_*` prefix, versus that service's `wizard_change_keeper_*`). Fetched live, 2026-07-02, walking the flow screen by screen with a real session cookie and CSRF `authenticity_token` replayed at each step: 1. **"Provide trader details"** — unauthenticated start screen. Captured the exact `` `name`/`id`/`maxLength` for `traderName`. `POST`ed a fabricated trader name ("Acme Motor Traders Ltd") and advanced. 2. **"Find trader's address"** — a genuine UK postcode-lookup screen. Captured the exact `` `name`/`id`/`maxLength`/input-mask for the house-number and postcode inputs. `POST`ed a real, well-known UK postcode (`SW1A 1AA`, Buckingham Palace) and received **five real candidate addresses back from DVLA's live address-lookup API** (`Buckingham Palace, London, SW1A 1AA` and four sub-addresses at the same postcode) — confirming this step calls a genuine third-party address API, not a stub. 3. **"Select trader address"** — selected the first candidate (`selected_address_id` query parameter on a plain link, not a form `POST`) and advanced. 4. **"Details of the vehicle being sold"** — captured the exact `` `name`/`id`/`maxLength`/input-mask for `vehicleRegistrationNumber` and `v5cDocumentReferenceNumber`. 5. A `POST` with a fabricated registration number (`AB12CDE`) and V5C reference number (`12345678901`) was submitted (session cookie + CSRF token replayed correctly) to exercise the service end to end, per this cycle's "complete a test run with valid example mock data" instruction. The service correctly redirected to `/seller/dropout/unable-to-find-vehicle`, whose page text confirms it validates the pair against DVLA's live vehicle record — **there is no public test/sandbox mode**, and this schema does not attempt to guess or brute-force a real UK vehicle's registration/V5C pair to progress further (that would mean probing a live government record-matching system with invented identifiers, which this review treats as out of scope for a reference-schema authoring pass regardless of technical feasibility). - A `capture-trader-email-confirmation` route exists between steps 1 and 2 in the URL scheme but auto-redirected straight through with no visible form on this run (no trader email is collected in this flow — plausibly a conditional screen this review's fabricated trader name never triggered). - **Official form id:** V5C (the vehicle log book itself). The guidance also references the log book's yellow "sell, transfer or part-exchange your vehicle to the motor trade" perforated section as the paper-channel equivalent of this online notification; that section was not independently opened or extracted (postal fallback, out of scope — see "Scope" below). - **Retrieved / reviewed:** 2026-07-02 (all sources confirmed live at authoring time). - **Reviewer:** GovSchema Engineering (Standards Engineer — initial authoring source review). ## What was directly observed vs. inferred | Field | Basis | |---|---| | `traderName` | **Directly observed**: exact `` `name`, `id`, `maxLength` from the live, unauthenticated "Provide trader details" screen's HTML. | | `traderAddressLine1`, `traderAddressTown`, `traderPostcode` | **Directly observed end to end**: the postcode-lookup input's exact `name`/`id`/`maxLength`/input-mask were captured, a real postcode was submitted to DVLA's live address-lookup API, and a genuine resolved address ("Buckingham Palace, London, SW1A 1AA") was returned and selected — a stronger sourcing basis than a guidance-inferred address (contrast `gb/dvla/vehicle-keeper-change-v5c`'s `newKeeperAddress*` fields, which could not be screen-verified because that service's flow reaches its own wall before any address screen). | | `vehicleRegistrationNumber`, `v5cDocumentReferenceNumber` | **Directly observed**: exact `` `name`, `id`, `maxLength`, and input-mask class from the live "Details of the vehicle being sold" screen's HTML, and exercised end to end with a `POST` that produced the expected live-record-validation rejection. | | `sellerEmailAddress` | **Inferred, not directly observed as a screen field.** The vehicle-lookup step is the last screen of the online service this review could reach (see above); the wizard's own guidance page for this branch states "You'll be sent: an email confirmation (if you gave your email address)", which requires an email-capture screen to exist somewhere past the point this review reached. This is the schema's weakest sourcing point and the first thing a future revision should firm up once the service can be exercised past vehicle look-up (e.g. with an authorised test vehicle, if DVLA ever publishes one, or via direct confirmation from DVLA). | **Discrepancy noted, not resolved:** the live rejection page for `v5cDocumentReferenceNumber` describes the number as coming from the V5C's yellow "sell, transfer or part-exchange your vehicle to the motor trade" section, while the field's own on-screen label calls it the general "Latest V5C registration certificate (logbook) document reference number" (the same wording used by the private-sale service). Both plausibly refer to the one document-reference number printed on the current V5C, but this review could not confirm that with an authorised test vehicle — flagged in the field's `description` for a future reviewer to resolve. ## Scope and jurisdiction notes - **Whole of the United Kingdom.** DVLA's vehicle registration function is UK-wide; `jurisdiction.country` is `GB` per registry convention for `gb/dvla/*` sibling entries. - **Seller-initiated only.** This schema models the person giving up the vehicle notifying DVLA — not the trader's own registration/stock-in steps. - **Private, person-to-person sale or gift is out of scope.** DVLA runs a distinct digital service for that, `change-private-vehicle-sale.service.gov.uk`, already modelled as `gb/dvla/vehicle-keeper-change-v5c` (GOV-620). - **The postal, no-log-book fallback is out of scope.** When a seller has no V5C to reference, the wizard's guidance directs a paper channel instead (perforated yellow section, or a letter to DVLA Swansea with name/address, registration number, make and model, exact date of sale, and the trader's name/address) — a different (postal) channel, not a description of what the online service asks for. - **Vehicle tax is out of scope.** The guidance states tax is cancelled and any refund is calculated automatically once DVLA is notified; no tax-related input is collected by this schema (see the already-published `gb/dvla/vehicle-tax` for the separate tax process). - **Scrapyard/insurance/finance-company sales share this same online service** per the wizard's own guidance prose ("This includes an insurance company, finance company, scrap yard or any car buying service") — modelled as a single `traderName` field rather than a separate transaction-type distinction, since the guidance draws no functional difference between these counterparties for this notification. ## Path to a `verified` claim (next step) To advance to `status: verified`, a reviewer applies `manual-source-review-v1` (Procedure step 2) field-by-field against the live `transfer-vehicle-to-trade.service.gov.uk` flow using a genuine, authorised UK vehicle and V5C reference number (the one blocker this cycle could not clear), confirms or corrects the inferred `sellerEmailAddress` field and the `v5cDocumentReferenceNumber` discrepancy noted above, resolves any discrepancy by shipping a **new schema version** (immutability — VERSIONING §3, practice Procedure step 5), and records the outcome here plus sets `status: verified` with a current `verification.lastVerifiedAt`/ `nextReviewBy`. ## Re-verification Per the practice's **Cadence**, `nextReviewBy` is set to **2027-01-01** (6 months). Re-check the source on or before that date and on any `source.url` change.