nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Commercial tax conversion for Range Rover Vogue

Groga

Hi

I have just heard that there was a new law passed recently if you convert say a Range Rover Vogue like mine, to have a bulk head fitted behind the seats, that you can now get commercial insurance, though I cannot seem to find anything about it online.

Can anyone shed any light please? I need to get mine done and need to find out where , how, what exactly needs doing, how much etc.

Find more posts tagged with

bulkhead

jeep

road tax

suv

audi q7

Quick Links

Comments

colm_mcm

I don't think the RR qualifies, could be due to the rear door opening size or something

Satanta

I think the cargo area has to be 45% of the length of the interior space. Open to correction.

kuro2k

see here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057194624

Harry Palmr

Cheapstake - just buy a van if you want cheap tax/insurance

Theanswers

OSI wrote: »

What a way to ruin and instantly devalue a Range Rover.

It won't devalue it - in-fact it will increase it's value. No one wants to pay 1400-1900 euro road tax.

[Deleted User]

OSI wrote: »

What a way to ruin and instantly devalue a Range Rover.

I'd say it would be a great selling point being able to tax it commercially especially as you keep the rear seats now. Commercial (even with no back seats) is the only type of 4x4 i'd consider personally be it a range rover, landcrusier or similar.

Theanswers

OSI wrote: »

Honestly, if you're buying a Range Rover and your main cost concern is the tax, you're in for a serious shock.

I'm detecting a-bit of jealously - possibly. RRs have there problems like any 4x4, however parts and service is only expensive if you go for the main dealer route in ROI. Brit-part and plenty of garages in the north offer extremely good value on parts. For example; service kit around 45 euro.

Brand new high pressure fuel pump 50 euro delivered. Dare I guess what that would be here.

*Note; low pressure fuel pump. Under Passenger side rear door.

[Deleted User]

OSI wrote: »

Honestly, if you're buying a Range Rover and your main cost concern is the tax, you're in for a serious shock.

I absolutely hate this sort of statement, "such and such is the least of your worries if you are buying that......" :rolleyes:. 1000 euro+ a year in the difference is very significant.

Theanswers

OSI wrote: »

2 RR's, a Discovery and 2 Defenders in the family in the past 15 years. I'm well aware of how expensive Land Rovers are to run.

Multiple RRs (Classics, P38s and L322s), 1 Disco 3 and no Defenders yet - so I too understand Land Rovers.

They are brilliant, very little can beat them. Most of the dreaded problems are highly preventable, I believe much is due to incorrect maintenance. Irish Garages, when it comes to this stuff don't have a clue.

You keep yourself well informed as a owner and will have little issues.

So yes, I to understand a Land Rovers cost, however I also understand how to prevent said cost from arising and if it does, I know there is a place not to far from here whereby all things Land Rover aren't automatically shot down as junk and parts are very reasonable.

Eric Cartman

OSI wrote: »

What a way to ruin and instantly devalue a Range Rover.

Ive seen a few appear on donedeal lately with commercial tax . Id be looking into it myself.

It not just about the tax , although that helps. Buying a commercial vehicle (when you need one) lets you write off up to 24k against your tax bill, stop in loading bays for deliveries , write off the diesel you use and get the vat back and cheaper insurance.

The range rover vogue is a lovely vehicle , but with high maintainence costs every little saving is helpful , the 'bulkhead' needed seems to only be a dog guard which is a common enough sight on them anyway.

If anyone knows of an SQI passing full fat rangies for N1 commercial please pm me, im very interested.

currently 'crewcab'd ones on done deal :

http://cars.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/2004-range-rover-vogue-crew-cab/7319681
http://cars.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/range-rover-p38-tax-330euro-crewcab/7255626
http://cars.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/09-range-rover-cheap-tax/7336708
http://cars.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/beautiful-range-rover/7345772
http://www.donedeal.ie/commercials-for-sale/5-seater-commercial/7272628
http://cars.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/land-rover-range-rover-5-seater-commerc/7005004

[Deleted User]

OSI wrote: »

This is all besides the point as the Range Rover can't be converted.

All the ones for sale with commercial tax suggests otherwise.

quadrifoglio verde

OSI wrote: »

Honestly, if you're buying a Range Rover and your main cost concern is the tax, you're in for a serious shock.

Not at all. If it costs 2k to do a conversion and you plan on keeping it for long enough to get that 2k plus an extra k or 2 back for the hassle involved happy then it makes sense.
What would t make sense would be spending 4 k to save 2k.

quiteguy

Alrite, new to this page and not really sure how to use this site or any forum
The only way i can seem to get on to a thread is by getting onto someone else's!
Here is my question anyway, I am thinking of buying a van which is registered as commercial and if I buy the van can i get commercial tax on it or do I have to go private tax?
I am an electrician but not registered and just want the van for getting about and doing foxer!

Popoutman

It's possible to convert the RR for sure - but the back seats will be sacrificed. The rear seat belt mounts will have to be welded over, preventing the trivial and safe refitting of rear seats. Still possible to put the seats back in but you'll get screwed at the annual DOE.

It's an involved job and you'd want to have a very good reason to do it. My own opinion is that you would be better off with a van ,or if you think you need the offroad capabilities get a commercial Toureg with proper tyres. Both options will cost a lot less money and will be loads more reliable than a RR.

colm_mcm

How can the system be so crooked that a car like the RR which doesn't meet the criteria is being passed? Same as all those 530ds with 2.0 on the logbook, they were all signed off by somebody. Revenue should be chasing up these tax evaders.

Eric Cartman

colm_mcm wrote: »

How can the system be so crooked that a car like the RR which doesn't meet the criteria is being passed? Same as all those 530ds with 2.0 on the logbook, they were all signed off by somebody. Revenue should be chasing up these tax evaders.

To be fair , the 530d as a 2 litre is a problem and blatent and clear tax evasion and probably insurance fraud too.

A full fat range rover as a crewcab could very well be legitimatley used as a commercial vehicle. I know myself my d-max would normally have 2 toolboxes and a few boxes of goods in the back, which would fit easily in the boot of a range rover. I do use the seats to bring contractors with me on occasion but 90% of the time im on my own . With the rear seats folded youd get a pallet of stuff in easily and a ladder. Theres no reason people who use their car every day for work should be relegated to rattly vans or bog spec 4wd vehicles . The comfort of a RR makes sense if you work out of your car and have a lot of miles or some offroad jobs to do. It should be 100% legal to convert them with 5 seats imo, with crewcab declerations and the clampdown on commercial tax to those with vat / herd numbers it is no longer a case of any joe soap converting one to wvade tax.

colm_mcm

So you're saying anyone who uses their vehicle for work should pay less road tax than someone who uses their car to drive to work?
Are any of these people using the rear seats for the purpose of bringing crew around?
Surely a 2 seat commercial would have done if its for driving around and off-roading?

My main point is (assuming this is true?) that the FFRR doesn't meet the requirements for a 5 seat crewcab so how aren't revenue chasing up these and seeing who passed them?

Eric Cartman

colm_mcm wrote: »

So you're saying anyone who uses their vehicle for work should pay less road tax than someone who uses their car to drive to work?
Are any of these people using the rear seats for the purpose of bringing crew around?
Surely a 2 seat commercial would have done if its for driving around and off-roading?

My main point is (assuming this is true?) that the FFRR doesn't meet the requirements for a 5 seat crewcab so how aren't revenue chasing up these and seeing who passed them?

The crewcab transit and others are for sale even in countries where tax implications arent an issue. So obviously there is a need.

In an ideal world nobody would pay motor tax , but as it stands the commercial benefits (loading bays, diesel and purchase writeoff ) are the real advantage , people doing this to save 1k a year for personal use are mad.

It appears the ffrr does meet the specs or else it wouldnt be passing, unless somebody can point out how all these sellers have defrauded the system ?

mullingar

I'd love to know how Ford can put a new Kuga with 4 seats as a commercial

K.Flyer

As far as I know crew cab conversions can still be done following a strict criteria. Sorry I cannot find the link.
It goes along the lines that firstly the bulkhead must be a permanent type of fixture, welded or bolted into place, and must fully seperate (seal off) the two areas where nothing can pass or be passed between the two areas. The cargo floor has to be a permanent fixture (folded seats not acceptable) and the floor length has to be a certain percentage of the wheelbase (otc but I think 55%)

101sean

That's outdated, crewcab is now 30% of the wheelbase from back of the seat (top of the seat rake, not at the floor) to the inside face of the door and the rear door has to have a clear opening of 12800 cm2. No bulkhead is needed. The change has to be checked by a certified engineer.

Post 2010 vehicles have to be N1 from the factory and all new Defenders (no matter how many seats or layout) are N1 and 5 seat Discovery4s can be had as N1. LR will never produce a RR or RRS commercial, gives the wrong image!

Ongoing crewcab thread over on 4x4, tractors etc forum. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057194624&page=7

[Deleted User]

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Not at all. If it costs 2k to do a conversion and you plan on keeping it for long enough to get that 2k plus an extra k or 2 back for the hassle involved happy then it makes sense.
What would t make sense would be spending 4 k to save 2k.

None of this is required if you can get it certified as a "crew cab" as explained about. This is the beauty of it, there is little of no cost so you are making savings straight away.

R.O.R

Darius Large Visionary wrote: »

None of this is required if you can get it certified as a "crew cab" as explained about. This is the beauty of it, there is little of no cost so you are making savings straight away.

There are savings to be made if you legitimately use the vehicle for commercial purposes only (as if :rolleyes:) or you are willing to make a false declaration.

If taxed correctly, as a private vehicle, the tax cost is more for the N1 commercials than it is for the corresponding passenger vehicle on the brand new ones. On pre July 08's it would be the same, so it's only really a saving on July 08 to model change, versions, which are in Tax Band G (or new SDV8's) - for those, it will save €856 a year at current rates for the 3.0Tdi's, or €541 for over 3 Litre models..

[Deleted User]

R.O.R wrote: »

There are savings to be made if you legitimately use the vehicle for commercial purposes only (as if :rolleyes:) or you are willing to make a false declaration.

I think we all know people aren't at all bothered about the vehicles use. I would say all privately owned commercial vehicles are used for private use also and you know as well as I do that a considerable percentage are used exclusively for private use.

I wouldn't dream of paying private tax on anything that could be taxed commercially.