NIMAN Registered User
#1

Was are so many of the cars listed under 'Donegal' either NI or UK plates?

Surely there's some people the VRT folk could go after

If I'm in the market for a car, I don't want to see ones that I need to either (a) pay VRT on, or (b) drive illegally.

2 people have thanked this post
theblueirish Registered User
#2

Insurance is cheaper in the North, If young boy racer can get a Northern address he can save himself a few grand on insurance, maybe put it to good use like lowering the car.

4 people have thanked this post
smashey Administrator
#3

theblueirish said:
Insurance is cheaper in the North, If young boy racer can get a Northern address he can save himself a few grand on insurance, maybe put it to good use like lowering the car.

Or add the blue lights. Don't forget those! And that irritating noise they make like a "whooo" or something whatever the hell that is all about.

1 person has thanked this post
Ayla Registered User
#4

Surely the "Donegal" refers to the location of the seller? Then it's up to the individual seller to disclose where it's registered?

muffler Moderator
#5

Wasn't there something in the last few days about some local guy winning a case against the revenue with regards to the VRT?

If that were so and was allowed we would see a lot more NI reg cars for sale here.

NIMAN Registered User
#6

Didn't see that Muffler.

Interesting if true.

Broxi_Bear_Eire Registered User
#7

NIMAN said:
Didn't see that Muffler.

Interesting if true.


Don't know if this link is allowed so apoligies in advance if its not but this is the case here

http://www.funkymotors.ie/blog/2012/07/19/fire-your-solicitor-call-from-donegal-man-who-won-vrt-case/

NIMAN Registered User
#8

According to that the supposedly 'won' case was 3yrs ago!

So if thats true, how come judges are still finding in favour of Revenue when these cases go to court?

I'm confused.

Broxi_Bear_Eire Registered User
#9

NIMAN said:
According to that the supposedly 'won' case was 3yrs ago!

So if thats true, how come judges are still finding in favour of Revenue when these cases go to court?

I'm confused.


Its OK your not the only one. I think though that this is just the start and there is still a long way to go with it

1 person has thanked this post
NIMAN Registered User
#10

Once legal precedence has been set, does that not mean that all VRT challenges should now win?

3 people have thanked this post
Broxi_Bear_Eire Registered User
#11

NIMAN said:
Once legal precedence has been set, does that not mean that all VRT challenges should now win?


Well IMO in a world where the judicial system makes sense then yes but we don't live in that world

1 person has thanked this post
byte Registered User
#12

smashey said:
Or add the blue lights. Don't forget those! And that irritating noise they make like a "whooo" or something whatever the hell that is all about.

The dump valve?

1 person has thanked this post
muffler Moderator
#13

byte said:
Thought you were going to say it was a muffler

smashey Administrator
#14

muffler said:
Thought you were going to say it was a muffler

It was

Cee-Jay-Cee Registered User
#15

Broxi_Bear_Eire said:
Well IMO in a world where the judicial system makes sense then yes but we don't live in that world


NIMAN said:
According to that the supposedly 'won' case was 3yrs ago!

So if thats true, how come judges are still finding in favour of Revenue when these cases go to court?

I'm confused.


He didnt win his case, the way i read it was that the case against him was dismissed by the judge. It merely means his side presented a case which was stronger than the prosecution. He wrote an article and urged others to use the same line of defence as he did and hope that they can win too, but each case is judged independently and now that the state are aware of that line of defence no doubt they will have answer in law for it. He was lucky and nothing else, no precident has been set.

1 person has thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!