Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Renewing tax online

  • 30-04-2017 3:38pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 13,038 ✭✭✭✭ antodeco


    So I got my tax renewal in the post,as I have been for the car the last 8 years. However, this year I noticed there was no pin number on.

    Tired the pin retrieval option and it said this car is not eligible for online taxing.

    I rang the tax office and was advised that as it's a vintage vehicle, I cannot tax online. Told them I've been doing it the last 8 years and just told me I can't do it anymore.

    Anybody else come across this recently?


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,600 jca


    Maybe they're finally clamping down on the fake insurance cert number scam. What did the tax office tell you? Do you have to send the cert like the old days?


  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 13,038 ✭✭✭✭ antodeco


    Yup. Said to post or call in. I'm going to give it a go with the last 6 digits of the cert and see how I get on. If no joy, in the post it goes!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,600 jca


    Let us know how it goes. Easy when you have an insurance cert for the vehicle to post it in. Hopefully it'll put a stop to the "put the vehicle in the wife's name, drive on the 3rd party extension" merchants.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,156 ✭✭✭ w124man


    The PIN code is the last 6 digits of your chassis number


  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 13,038 ✭✭✭✭ antodeco


    Interesting. Just used the last 6 digits of the cert and got the following message:

    "





    LICENSING STATUS DETAILS


    According to our records, a tax disc for this vehicle was requested online and has now been posted to the registered owner's address. If you have not received your disc 5 working days after you requested it, please contact the Motor Tax Online helpline (details below)."


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,110 ✭✭✭✭ elperello


    Why inconvenience everybody in order to catch the few?
    They should be able to track down the chancers and deal with them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 380 ✭✭ mattroche


    I have renewed my road tax on 3 Cars in the last few weeks, and had no problems.


  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 13,038 ✭✭✭✭ antodeco


    mattroche wrote: »
    I have renewed my road tax on 3 Cars in the last few weeks, and had no problems.

    They all vintage cars as well? I'm trying to figure out if the motortax are spoofing it not!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,600 jca


    elperello wrote: »
    Why inconvenience everybody in order to catch the few?
    They should be able to track down the chancers and deal with them.

    It's more than a few imo.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,699 ✭✭✭ Cheensbo


    jca wrote: »
    It's more than a few imo.

    But what of it? If someone has cover to drive what difference does it make how they got there? Just because they haven't paid through the nose for it - you have an issue with it?

    Are you worried about the insurance industry losing out on a few bob?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,600 jca


    Cheensbo wrote: »
    But what of it? If someone has cover to drive what difference does it make how they got there? Just because they haven't paid through the nose for it - you have an issue with it?

    Are you worried about the insurance industry losing out on a few bob?

    Look I'm not getting into a boards argument with you but people are driving on this third party extension malarkey when proper classic policies are readily available and aren't expensive. I was talking to a guy who has 2 Capri's insured for 280 euro. I've seen fellas put thousands into a vehicle in both money and hours and then put said vehicle into grannies name rather than pay for a proper policy that's atttached to that vehicle specifically. I really hope the tax office are stopping this messing and make it that everything matches. I can dream I suppose...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,699 ✭✭✭ Cheensbo


    Not getting into an argument either but I will certainly make my point:


    Heaven forbid someone get something for free in this world - Your viewpoint is begrudgery plain and simple.

    How someone arranges their insurance doesn't affect you or anyone else - it cannot affect you or anyone else, yet you want it gone because it allows people to get something for free (as such).

    Saying it's about how much money they spend on the car etc etc or how cheap a classic policy is - is bullshít because it's irrelevant to you or anyone else how a vehicle is covered once it's covered (insurance wise)

    Dream away - of an Ireland where we all must kneel down and cup the balls of the insurance industry every time we want to drive a car on the road.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,600 jca


    Cheensbo wrote: »
    Not getting into an argument either but I will certainly make my point:


    Heaven forbid someone get something for free in this world - Your viewpoint is begrudgery plain and simple.

    How someone arranges their insurance doesn't affect you or anyone else - it cannot affect you or anyone else, yet you want it gone because it allows people to get something for free (as such).

    Saying it's about how much money they spend on the car etc etc or how cheap a classic policy is - is bullshít because it's irrelevant to you or anyone else how a vehicle is covered once it's covered (insurance wise)

    Dream away - of an Ireland where we all must kneel down and cup the balls of the insurance industry every time we want to drive a car on the road.

    Cup the balls?? Really?? You are obliged by law to have insurance on your vehicle. Third party extension is only for using someone elses vehicle for a short period as you well know but certainly will never admit. The sooner this classic/vintage car bull**** stops the better. I was involved in the classic car movement for years and the shenanigans some of the boyos got up to was unbelievable just to save 150 quid as it was at the time for a 1500 mile policy. Some of the club's started a "no disc no entry" policy as shows but they whinged like baby's, don't start me about the garage plate cowboy's they were a law onto themselves.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭ Silvera


    I agree that there are some chancers out there penny pinching and driving classic (and modern) cars in the 'grey area' of the 'other cars' insurance extension - basically many are uninsured.

    I also often see classics in regular with no tax discs - even though it only costs €56 p.a ?! Such people only bring the classic scene into disrepute.

    The is no point in posters here trying to defend such behaviour - its not about money, it's about people being properly insured. None of us want to be involved in an incident with such a vehicle.

    As regards garage plates, surely holders of such plates would have trade insurance in place (hence trade ins disc) - in fact they cant get trade plates without proof of insurance afaik - so I can see no real issue there tbh.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,600 jca


    Silvera wrote: »
    I agree that there are some chancers out there penny pinching and driving classic (and modern) cars in the 'grey area' of the 'other cars' insurance extension - basically many are uninsured.

    I also often see classics in regular with no tax discs - even though it only costs €56 p.a ?! Such people only bring the classic scene into disrepute.

    The is no point in posters here trying to defend such behaviour - its not about money, it's about people being properly insured. None of us want to be involved in an incident with such a vehicle.

    As regards garage plates, surely holders of such plates would have trade insurance in place (hence trade ins disc) - in fact they cant get trade plates without proof of insurance afaik - so I can see no real issue there tbh.

    Exactly. It was more the condition of the cars on the garage plates that was the issue for me rather than discs on the window.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,699 ✭✭✭ Cheensbo


    I can't offer an opinion on trade plates so I will say nothing on the matter as I don't know enough about it.

    With regard to 3rd party extension - if a vehicle is covered to be driven, what's the problem? There's no potential loss to any 3rd party.

    The only possible negative consequence (beyond total or partial loss of the vehicle being driven - which is obvious from the type of cover being used) is that the driver can get a fcpn of 80e for non display of an insurance disc, which is hardly the crime of the century to be fair.

    I just don't see what valid reason there is to try and remove an extremely handy and useful part of motor insurance.

    Talking about "these people hitting you" is irrelevant - their insurer has indemnified them, if the insurer investigates the incident and find that the policy extension was being used improperly - fair play to them, they can then recoup the payout from the policyholder. But the 3rd party still receives compensation regardless of the backstory.


    So to say that others will experience loss due to another person using a policy extension improperly is wrong.


    And as for clubs making rules - more luck to them, a club local to me defines a 91 rover metro as a classic but not a 91 toyota starlet gt. I don't care what these kind of people think about discs or anything else.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,600 jca


    Cheensbo wrote: »
    I can't offer an opinion on trade plates so I will say nothing on the matter as I don't know enough about it.

    With regard to 3rd party extension - if a vehicle is covered to be driven, what's the problem? There's no potential loss to any 3rd party.

    The only possible negative consequence (beyond total or partial loss of the vehicle being driven - which is obvious from the type of cover being used) is that the driver can get a fcpn of 80e for non display of an insurance disc, which is hardly the crime of the century to be fair.

    I just don't see what valid reason there is to try and remove an extremely handy and useful part of motor insurance.

    Talking about "these people hitting you" is irrelevant - their insurer has indemnified them, if the insurer investigates the incident and find that the policy extension was being used improperly - fair play to them, they can then recoup the payout from the policyholder. But the 3rd party still receives compensation regardless of the backstory.


    So to say that others will experience loss due to another person using a policy extension improperly is wrong.


    And as for clubs making rules - more luck to them, a club local to me defines a 91 rover metro as a classic but not a 91 toyota starlet gt. I don't care what these kind of people think about discs or anything else.

    There's no denying it is a handy feature when used for what it's intended, my car is on the jack when I realise I was given the wrong brake pads in the auto factors, hop into father's car to get pads, I'm covered by my third party extension for that trip. You can say what you like but it's not for your wife to be driving the car you're both insured on with you driving up the country in "the classic" on a Sunday morning on the third party extension because said car is in uncle Ned's name. I think you know that but will never admit it. If my proposal was ever enacted you'd be doing some crying..


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,699 ✭✭✭ Cheensbo


    Well to be fair what you describe - the wife & husband etc etc is definitely a huge issue because both drivers cannot be separately driving different cars under the one policy. Either one or both of them are driving without insurance cover.

    However, in all other cases (I.e. people driving other cars) you have no basis for your argument - I cannot see it benefitting anyone - apart from the insurers themselves, to remove the clause.

    I would cry, because of the same reasons you would - the use of the mothers car, the brothers car, my sisters cars etc.

    Also to clarify for you - all of my road vehicles have their own respective policies in place. I do, however, use my 'driving other cars' to drive other cars on a regular basis, all in line with the criteria set out by the underwriters of my insurance policies.

    I still can't see a good reason why it should be done away with.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,156 ✭✭✭ w124man


    Here's a legal spanner for you ....


    An insurance policy in your name on a motor vehicle that you are not the legal owner of is null and void unless the vehicle is under a leasing/hp agreement. Your name in the logbook does not mean you are the legal owner by the way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,699 ✭✭✭ Cheensbo


    w124man wrote: »
    Here's a legal spanner for you ....


    An insurance policy in your name on a motor vehicle that you are not the legal owner of is null and void unless the vehicle is under a leasing/hp agreement. Your name in the logbook does not mean you are the legal owner by the way.


    Always wondered about that one - how would a person/entity be able to prove or disprove either way? Seems awful grey, almost makes 'driving other cars' a necessity...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,600 jca


    Cheensbo wrote: »
    Well to be fair what you describe - the wife & husband etc etc is definitely a huge issue because both drivers cannot be separately driving different cars under the one policy. Either one or both of them are driving without insurance cover.

    However, in all other cases (I.e. people driving other cars) you have no basis for your argument - I cannot see it benefitting anyone - apart from the insurers themselves, to remove the clause.

    I would cry, because of the same reasons you would - the use of the mothers car, the brothers car, my sisters cars etc.

    Also to clarify for you - all of my road vehicles have their own respective policies in place. I do, however, use my 'driving other cars' to drive other cars on a regular basis, all in line with the criteria set out by the underwriters of my insurance policies.

    I still can't see a good reason why it should be done away with.

    I never said it should be removed. What I'm saying is that it's being abused by the classic/vintage car owners to save money on buying a proper stand alone policy for each car they own. I've seen situations where the classic car is in the show after been driven on public roads to the event by the Father, the family car is also there with Mammy and the kids, the classic is in uncle Ned's name and being driven on the third party extension of the afore mentioned family car, and by your admission neither vehicles are insured. I don't care whether your vehicles have respective policies in place(although I doubt it to be frank) I just hope you don't hit any of my family when travelling home from some field day or other.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,600 jca


    w124man wrote: »
    Here's a legal spanner for you ....


    An insurance policy in your name on a motor vehicle that you are not the legal owner of is null and void unless the vehicle is under a leasing/hp agreement. Your name in the logbook does not mean you are the legal owner by the way.
    The point of the thread I think Mr Legal Eagle. If your name on the logbook doesn't determine who the legal owner is, what does determine who the legal owner of a vehicle is?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭ Silvera


    jca wrote: »
    The point of the thread I think Mr Legal Eagle. If your name on the logbook doesn't determine who the legal owner is, what does determine who the legal owner of a vehicle is?

    w124 is correct. Old style Irish log books state 'the person in whose name the vehicle is registered may or may not be the legal owner'.

    UK V5C documents state - in bold letters on the front page - 'This Document Is Not Proof of Ownership. It shows who is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle'.

    To my knowledge, whoever pays for a vehicle is the legal owner.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,600 jca


    Silvera wrote: »
    w124 is correct. Old style Irish log books state 'the person in whose name the vehicle is registered may or may not be the legal owner'.

    UK V5C documents state - in bold letters on the front page - 'This Document Is Not Proof of Ownership. It shows who is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle'.

    To my knowledge, whoever pays for a vehicle is the legal owner.

    Is that stated on the present Irish vehicle registration cert? If you get a vehicle for free which does happen, transfer ownership as per usual, who owns the vehicle?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭ Isambard


    fwiw, I taxed my 79 Capri online today with no issues (except I forgot it was due and only spotted it when I got home from the Motor Tax office where I taxed my 87 Transit.... senility I blame, although I didn't forget to change the tax class to Vintage :-)

    I also renewed the insurance on both of them today.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭ Silvera


    jca wrote: »
    Is that stated on the present Irish vehicle registration cert? If you get a vehicle for free which does happen, transfer ownership as per usual, who owns the vehicle?

    It doesnt for some reason, probably another oversight when they introduced the reg certs in 1993.

    I didnt make this up. If you choose not to believe me thats ok. Legally-speaking money needs to change hands in order for ownership to transfer 'legally'. Thats why transactions (for anything, not just cars) often include a 'token payment' (even if its just €1) to make the transaction legal.

    I'm tired of this thread now. Over and out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,962 ✭✭✭ blackbox


    w124man wrote: »
    Here's a legal spanner for you ....


    An insurance policy in your name on a motor vehicle that you are not the legal owner of is null and void unless the vehicle is under a leasing/hp agreement. Your name in the logbook does not mean you are the legal owner by the way.

    What this means is that you can only insure your own vehicle, not someone else's. You cannot insure against someone else's loss, only your own.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,600 jca


    Silvera wrote: »
    It doesnt for some reason, probably another oversight when they introduced the reg certs in 1993.

    I didnt make this up. If you choose not to believe me thats ok. Legally-speaking money needs to change hands in order for ownership to transfer 'legally'. Thats why transactions (for anything, not just cars) often include a 'token payment' (even if its just €1) to make the transaction legal.

    I'm tired of this thread now. Over and out.

    Jesus chill man, I only asked a question. My father received a motorcycle from a guy in the 1970s with a tax book so in the eyes of the law it isn't the Aul fella's bike, that's gas. The law can be strange sometimes..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,600 jca


    blackbox wrote: »
    What this means is that you can only insure your own vehicle, not someone else's. You cannot insure against someone else's loss, only your own.

    That's a better way of putting it, thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭ Testacalda


    Silvera wrote: »
    driving classic (and modern) cars in the 'grey area' of the 'other cars' insurance extension - basically many are uninsured.

    In fairness if people would read the fine print of their policy document there would be no grey area. Every policy is different, some insurers have strict rules on the 3rd party extension and some dont. Its either in the fine print or its not.


    Back on point, I taxed one of my classics recently online, got an email about it with the pin, renewed a few days later on line and the disc came in the post


Advertisement