The elephant in the room thread.

Basil Fawlty

I would say its horrendous to drive as the shell for a P38 is much heavier than a disco or Range Rover Classic.

type85

i don't know what the difference is in weight but you won't be doing 100mph in one anyway, but you could always fit some air bags to assist/increase the spring rate, and retro fit the antiroll bars.

carchaeologist

type85 wrote: »

i don't know what the difference is in weight but you won't be doing 100mph in one anyway, but you could always fit some air bags to assist/increase the spring rate, and retro fit the antiroll bars.

I presume that an engineer has to pass these before they are sold?
Or is it that because it's always technically still an old Land Rover there is no issue?

type85

for the body(P38) swap i'd imagine the only person who might ask for an engineers report is your insurance company. But if your changing the engine also then you use the usual RF111 section 5.

Capri

MANY MANY years ago, I bought a rolled 6mth old Fiesta and went into my local Ford dealer and ordered a brand new painted shell. It arrived on a pallet to the front door and I proceeded to strip the old shell and put the bits in the garage, then I started to rebuild on the bits into the new shell - now, AFIR, I was not charged duty or given a new reg. no for the new shell, all I did was cut the old chassis no off the old shell and stuck it into the new shell - which had no chassis no stamped in it . When I sold it on I showed the buyer ALL the photos of the build etc and all the reciepts - he went off a happy man.

delthedriver

type85 wrote: »

for the body(P38) swap i'd imagine the only person who might ask for an engineers report is your insurance company. But if your changing the engine also then you use the usual RF111 section 5.

What is the question on the Insurers Proposal form.?

I guess non standard conversions must be an issue for the Insurance Companies?

corktina

Capri wrote: »

MANY MANY years ago, I bought a rolled 6mth old Fiesta and went into my local Ford dealer and ordered a brand new painted shell. It arrived on a pallet to the front door and I proceeded to strip the old shell and put the bits in the garage, then I started to rebuild on the bits into the new shell - now, AFIR, I was not charged duty or given a new reg. no for the new shell, all I did was cut the old chassis no off the old shell and stuck it into the new shell - which had no chassis no stamped in it . When I sold it on I showed the buyer ALL the photos of the build etc and all the reciepts - he went off a happy man.

with a new shell that is perfectly acceptable, the only way you can transfer an ID.

macplaxton

corktina wrote: »

with a new shell that is perfectly acceptable, the only way you can transfer an ID.

Is it? Might be acceptable across the water, but here the Revenue would be wanting it's pound of flesh.

corktina

macplaxton wrote: »

Is it? Might be acceptable across the water, but here the Revenue would be wanting it's pound of flesh.

you could be right, I can't show any proof that is the case...

macplaxton

corktina wrote: »

you could be right, I can't show any proof that is the case...

Okay, I'll give it try. Disclaimer: I'm no legal beagle and can be completely wrong. Go and find your own solicitor for legal advice.

Revenue Operational Manual VRT Section 1

1.2.3.1 Re-built Passenger Vehicles
Re-built passenger vehicles which are determined to be unregistered vehicles under the terms of s130A of Finance Act, 1992, as amended, will require an Individual Type-Approval from the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI).

Where Revenue determines that the chassis has been obtained from a registered vehicle and the rebuild does not amount to a conversion, as defined, registration is not required. The owner should be directed to notify the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in Shannon, of the changes in the registered particulars. Where Revenue determines that a conversion has been effected, the owner should be directed to make a declaration of conversion, supported by a certificate from a Suitably Qualified Individual.

It is the owner’s responsibility to notify the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in Shannon, of the scrapping of a vehicle, i.e. of the irrevocable destruction of the chassis, monocoque, or assembly serving an equivalent purpose. There is no need to notify Revenue because Revenue does not maintain records for more than five years and because Revenue confines itself, for the most part, to making VRT-sensitive amendments.

Section S.130A got deleted, but the definition in S.130 of "vehicle" was revised by S.83 of the Finance Act 2012 to:

(b) in section 130 by substituting the following for the definition of
“vehicle”:
“ ‘vehicle’ means a mechanically propelled vehicle, including an
unregistered vehicle–
(a) built up from the chassis, or
(b) built using a monocoque or an assembly serving an
equivalent purpose as a chassis,
which chassis, monocoque or assembly is either new or unused or
is derived from another unregistered vehicle;”,

Which all boils down to:

If the chassis, monocoque or assembly that is serving an equivalent purpose as a chassis is NEW, then it attacts VRT and re-registration.

If it is second-hand or repaired original, it carries the ID of either the second-hand or repaired original.


Now personally, I'm happier with the DVLA's take on new replacement monocoques and chassis to original specification. But plenty grumble about that too...

Capri

....supported by a certificate from a Suitably Qualified Individual.

"Hello, Revenue ? Can you give me a list of Suitably Qualified Individuals in Dublin?"

" Sorry, can't do. You have to find one yourself"

" Where would I find a list of them?"

" Can't tell you that either" :mad::mad::mad:


Better to use a bus and GoCar, feck this paying tax lark to a department that doesn't want your money :rolleyes::rolleyes:

macplaxton

SQIs

I can give you a list for Dublin...

http://www.iaea-online.org/view-listings/?cn-s=dublin&cn-cat=&cn-pg=1

Capri

macplaxton wrote: »

SQIs

I can give you a list for Dublin...

http://www.iaea-online.org/view-listings/?cn-s=dublin&cn-cat=&cn-pg=1

Grand, Ta

macplaxton

If I can find them, so can they.

PLUG71

Hi I have been reading this with great interest from OP to 1415 today.
Anyway I noticed the DD advert for the Disco / Range weeks ago and im glad that some other people have doubts about how legit this vehicle actually is.

Can anybody tell how you would get insurance cover without telling them porkies and if you did get cover what would happen whilst trying to make a claim?

oceanman

PLUG71 wrote: »

Hi I have been reading this with great interest from OP to 1415 today.
Anyway I noticed the DD advert for the Disco / Range weeks ago and im glad that some other people have doubts about how legit this vehicle actually is.

Can anybody tell how you would get insurance cover without telling them porkies and if you did get cover what would happen whilst trying to make a claim?

why would you need to tell them porkies?

Basil Fawlty

You should always fully disclose everything to your insurance company otherwise you will only have a worthless piece of paper. I would suggest asking the insurance companies about it directly.

corktina

I found one easily enough in Cork to certify my Camper

Capri

Basil Fawlty wrote: »

You should always fully disclose everything to your insurance company otherwise you will only have a worthless piece of paper. I would suggest asking the insurance companies about it directly.

It's a gamble - 'full disclosure' is an excuse for some conehead in a partition in an insurance to hike up your premium based on his total lack of knowledge of motors other than his company Fiesta ( guy said to me about my 73Dyane 6 - "cars don't have engines that small" :rolleyes: )

If you 'wing it' then the assessor might miss the chassis change and you'll be up bobs.;)

Hermy

This is being discussed on Liveline now.

MercMad

Capri wrote: »

MANY MANY years ago, I bought a rolled 6mth old Fiesta and went into my local Ford dealer and ordered a brand new painted shell. It arrived on a pallet to the front door and I proceeded to strip the old shell and put the bits in the garage, then I started to rebuild on the bits into the new shell - now, AFIR, I was not charged duty or given a new reg. no for the new shell, all I did was cut the old chassis no off the old shell and stuck it into the new shell - which had no chassis no stamped in it . When I sold it on I showed the buyer ALL the photos of the build etc and all the receipts - he went off a happy man.

................I'm guessing prior to 1993 when VRT came along. Prior to that the shell was considered a spare part. Post '93 the were subject to VRT and not sold by dealers unless it was a special request and the Insurance Companies were involved, i.e a car less than months old being totalled. Generally it wasn't economical though. Even the rally boys had serious trouble re-shelling cars.

MercMad

Hermy wrote: »

This is being discussed on Liveline now.

......missed it. What was the outcome ?

Kenny Logins

MercMad wrote: »

......missed it. What was the outcome ?

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/programmes/2013/0910/473380-liveline-tuesday-10-september-2013/?clipid=1307648

Capri

Here's a possible -

http://cars.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/jaguar-xj-3-4-petrol-6-cylinder/5654612

(Look at 'tax' :eek::eek: )




http://cars.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/jaguar-xj-executive-bargain-1550/5434989



shape is identical, to the untrained eye
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

dr.fuzzenstein

Capri wrote: »

Here's a possible -

http://cars.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/jaguar-xj-3-4-petrol-6-cylinder/5654612

(Look at 'tax' :eek::eek: )




http://cars.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/jaguar-xj-executive-bargain-1550/5434989



shape is identical, to the untrained eye
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Am I missing something? Why is the 1974 car €1809 tax?

hi5

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Am I missing something? Why is the 1974 car €1809 tax?

Because the last time it was taxed it wasn't vin/vet, it's still on the 'private' category.

dr.fuzzenstein

hi5 wrote: »

Because the last time it was taxed it wasn't vin/vet, it's still on the 'private' category.

So it hasn't been taxed since 2004?

hi5

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So it hasn't been taxed since 2004?

Either that, or the owner doesn't know about the vintage tax rate.

I have a car myself a 1954 Ford which hasn't been taxed since 1986 when it was imported. The tax rate it shows is the private rate.

carchaeologist

hi5 wrote: »

Either that, or the owner doesn't know about the vintage tax rate.

I have a car myself a 1954 Ford which hasn't been taxed since 1986 when it was imported. The tax rate it shows is the private rate.

It's up to you to tell them about the vintage rate. If your ignorant of the fact the will keep charging you the previous rate.

Sam Russell

Capri wrote: »

Here's a possible -

http://cars.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/jaguar-xj-3-4-petrol-6-cylinder/5654612

(Look at 'tax' :eek::eek: )




http://cars.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/jaguar-xj-executive-bargain-1550/5434989



shape is identical, to the untrained eye
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

More likely the dondeal website filled that bit automatically and advertiser did not notice or did not know. That car looks like a XJ6 of the appropriate age. Would need better photos and more of them to be sure. View of the rear and view of the engine bay would confirm.

delthedriver

First car -1974 Jaguar XJ 6 ,series 2, qualifies for classic tax and Insurance

Second car- 1996 Jaguar XJ 6 ,x300, normal tax rates apply.

MercMad

That XJ could be worth a gander at that price, original Irish, dry stored etc...Mmmm!

corktina

a lot of car for very little!

Do-more

What is the penalty for ringing? Does anyone know?

The only sentences I can find in the papers refer to cases where stolen cars are ringed I can't find anything relating to a situation where the vehicle is legitimately owned but given a false identity.

If the authorities wanted to crack down on this activity I imagine a few cases where individuals were sentenced to prison would help to clean up the scene pretty quickly.

JoeySully

Do-more wrote: »

What is the penalty for ringing? Does anyone know?

The only sentences I can find in the papers refer to cases where stolen cars are ringed I can't find anything relating to a situation where the vehicle is legitimately owned but given a false identity.

If the authorities wanted to crack down on this activity I imagine a few cases where individuals were sentenced to prison would help to clean up the scene pretty quickly.

I think the main issue would be insurance, you would not be insured at all because the vehicle you are insuring is not the one you have swapped the plates/vin for.
That would be a hefty find/disqualification.

mountai

JoeySully wrote: »

I think the main issue would be insurance, you would not be insured at all because the vehicle you are insuring is not the one you have swapped the plates/vin for.
That would be a hefty find/disqualification.

In discussions with AXA, I had it confirmed by them , that as long as the details of the Chassis No and the Engine capacity are correct,then the Reg No is of no interest to them .The legal standing of any particular vehicle that is on the road, does not dictate that they will refuse cover. They are aware that this practice is widespread among a certain section of the "Classic" owners, so I assume that as long as they profit by ignoring this fraud, they will continue to do so. If anyone wishes to contact Myles O Reilly of AXA , he should confirm this.

Testacalda

mountai wrote: »

In discussions with AXA, I had it confirmed by them , that as long as the details of the Chassis No and the Engine capacity are correct,then the Reg No is of no interest to them .The legal standing of any particular vehicle that is on the road, does not dictate that they will refuse cover. They are aware that this practice is widespread among a certain section of the "Classic" owners, so I assume that as long as they profit by ignoring this fraud, they will continue to do so. If anyone wishes to contact Myles O Reilly of AXA , he should confirm this.

I have also made enquiries on behalf of my club regarding this issue and insurance cover. As long as the details of the car you have insured are correct, eg: engine size, year, make, model, chassis number (if they even ask for it) etc.. the actual registration number itself is not an issue and the vehicle will be covered by insurance in the event of an accident or claim.

Now if you give incorrect details about your actual vehicle, thats breech of insurance conditions the same as any policy and thats a different story for example some people may insure a 1.6L car as 1.3L etc..., but ringed or not, for vintage and classic cars there is no reason why someone would have to lie at all, just give the actual details of the vehicle itself and your Hunky Dory, no issues!

corktina

I doubt that will hold water when put to the test

Testacalda

corktina wrote: »

I doubt that will hold water when put to the test

Why, what did your insurance company say on the matter?

corktina

i'm not ringing cars so I have had no need to ask. I imagine the Gards and the Courts would have different opinions on whether the registration number is of no matter

Testacalda

corktina wrote: »

I imagine the Gards and the Courts would have different opinions on whether the registration number is of no matter

I'd say your right there, no doubt about that, but it is not a concern of the insurance company in terms of providing valid cover, as long as the policy holder has given the correct details about their actual car, the insurance will be valid. As I said I have queried this with insurance company and had it confirmed.

Its hard to get facts, but everyone had their own opinions and views, but its the facts that matter, that's why I queried it

corktina

I think if a Gard stands up and says "Judge, I have charged this driver with driving without insurance because the details in his policy do not match those of the car which should be bearing the number xxDxxxx" then the Judge will agree that the Insurance is not valid.

The Insurance Company will say" nothing to do with us, we covered him in good faith based on the details he gave us"

You see the guy has NOT given the correct details, he has lied about the id of the car.

mountai

Testacalda wrote: »

I'd say your right there, no doubt about that, but it is not a concern of the insurance company in terms of providing valid cover, as long as the policy holder has given the correct details about their actual car, the insurance will be valid. As I said I have queried this with insurance company and had it confirmed.

Its hard to get facts, but everyone had their own opinions and views, but its the facts that matter, that's why I queried it

So its obvious, that the Ins Cos , by ignoring the Legal Status of these vehicles are encouraging criminal activities. Fair comment????

delthedriver

All as clear as mud!

When there is a serious accident it will be interesting to see which way the various parties involved, will actually jump !

delthedriver

mountai wrote: »

In discussions with AXA, I had it confirmed by them , that as long as the details of the Chassis No and the Engine capacity are correct,then the Reg No is of no interest to them .The legal standing of any particular vehicle that is on the road, does not dictate that they will refuse cover. They are aware that this practice is widespread among a certain section of the "Classic" owners, so I assume that as long as they profit by ignoring this fraud, they will continue to do so. If anyone wishes to contact Myles O Reilly of AXA , he should confirm this.

Sorry, I am completely lost here? Are the Insurers agreeable to put all this in writing? I can't imagine an Insurance Company turning a blind eye to something illegal? Perhaps I am simply naive. Guys am I missing something here? Can someone clarify the situation perhaps in a few bullet points? Please
Many thanks

mountai

delthedriver wrote: »

Sorry, I am completely lost here? Are the Insurers agreeable to put all this in writing? I can't imagine an Insurance Company turning a blind eye to something illegal? Perhaps I am simply naive. Guys am I missing something here? Can someone clarify the situation perhaps in a few bullet points? Please
Many thanks

What do you not understand?. I"ve given you my experience , and I"m sure Testacalda is not spoofing either. Contact Myles , see what he says.

delthedriver

mountai wrote: »

What do you not understand?. I"ve given you my experience , and I"m sure Testacalda is not spoofing either. Contact Myles , see what he says.

They are aware that this practice is widespread among a certain section of the "Classic" owners, so I assume that as long as they profit by ignoring this fraud, they will continue to do so.

If this is fraud as suggested by you, I don't understand why any Insurance Company would wish to be part of it.

So its obvious, that the Ins Cos , by ignoring the Legal Status of these vehicles are encouraging criminal activities.

Bizzare!

I don't think Insurance Companies are in the business of encouraging criminal activities, as suggested by you.

Perhaps you should contact the Insurance Company and clarify. Alternatively you may wish to raise allegations of fraud and criminal activities with the Garda Fraud Squad.

corktina

mountai wrote: »

What do you not understand?. I"ve given you my experience , and I"m sure Testacalda is not spoofing either. Contact Myles , see what he says.

no doubt the Insurance Company would stand over it, but it still doesn't mean that the Gards or Courts would accept that the car is properly insured. I would say you would have no leg to stand on in court if it came to that,

macplaxton

Under the insurance principle of "good faith", declaring the actual material facts of the vehicle having a dodgy ID wouldn't be an issue, should they choose to accept the risk. It's another matter altogether if it wasn't declared to the insurers and they found out something was amiss.

Given the apparent value difference between a late import, against an original Irish car, I would have thought the insurers would be looking for any old excuse to refuse/reduce pay out in the event of a total loss on a vehicle that was found to have a questionable ID.

In practice though, I would have thought it unless it was a big claim or something wrong that stood out a mile, they wouldn't bother/even notice.

swarlb

mountai wrote: »

What do you not understand?. I"ve given you my experience , and I"m sure Testacalda is not spoofing either. Contact Myles , see what he says.

So, if I told AXA that I had a Ferrari 250GTO, and backed it up with paperwork, where in actual fact I had a plastic bodied fake with a Jag V12, and then it caught fire and was reduced to a pulp of molten goo....would they pay me a few squillion in a claim ??
Would this Myles person put his job on the line, and insure a fake ?