Vrt !

Sizzler · 13-12-2006 2:15pm #1

This has been doing the rounds ....

Devon · 13-12-2006 2:30pm

Wasn't there something about the traffic corps having the power to seize foreign vehicles if the driver couldn't prove they were only a visitor or some such? I like the .pdf by the way. Thanks.

Tipsy Mac · 13-12-2006 3:46pm

Why would SIMI issue this when they are fully in favour of the current VRT system?

Anan1 · 13-12-2006 3:51pm

Tipsy Mac wrote:

Why would SIMI issue this when they are fully in favour of the current VRT system?

Because they are fully in favour of the current VRT system.;)

jimmycrackcorm · 13-12-2006 6:28pm

Perhaps the SIMI would like to guesstimate also how many of those cars could actually be legally re-registered by their owners without the need to pay VRT i.e. moving here from another country but leaving the re-registration for a long time. No extra VRT there!

Anan1 · 13-12-2006 11:02pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

Perhaps the SIMI would like to guesstimate also how many of those cars could actually be legally re-registered by their owners without the need to pay VRT i.e. moving here from another country but leaving the re-registration for a long time. No extra VRT there!

Good point, but a bit complex for the SIMI.

seamus · 13-12-2006 11:58pm

Tipsy Mac wrote:

Why would SIMI issue this when they are fully in favour of the current VRT system?

It's not an attack on VRT. It's an attack on the Revenue because they are fully within their power to seize a vehicle which has not had VRT paid on it, where required.

Tipsy Mac · 14-12-2006 8:39am

seamus wrote:

It's not an attack on VRT. It's an attack on the Revenue because they are fully within their power to seize a vehicle which has not had VRT paid on it, where required.

Yes I misread it in my rage at any mention of SIMI and VRT in the same page

Vrt !

Comments