Is this an Elephant?

26000 Elephants · 26-08-2014 2:31pm

mustang68 wrote: »

No need to get personal, I just asked a question.

Wasnt meant as a dig at you personally. More at the attitude in general. Sorry! :-)

alastair · 26-08-2014 2:52pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

No need to comment any further on your posts.

Ah well. Bye bye.

alastair · 26-08-2014 2:54pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Its nothing to do with classics. He just picked an identity that had a lower tax to pay.

So - nothing to do with classics - other than abusing a tax break that benefits actual classic owners, and helps jeopardise that same benefit for those who don't abuse it.

Gotcha.

unkel · 26-08-2014 5:50pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

You are clearly an individual who is so anally fixated that youve become cross eyed.

anyway, my original point was that reporting such things might be seen by some as a bit, well, w*nkish.

That's bordering on personal abuse. Less of that please.

swarlb · 26-08-2014 7:21pm

Is this not a case of the authorities simply not being on top of their game, as in not actually knowing enough about the subject they are dealing with, and thus allowing a 'loophole' to be abused.
But like most things in this country, the simplest method will be to punish everybody, that way you catch the 'lawbreaker'. Anyone else who sufferers....well who really cares ?

unkel · 26-08-2014 8:31pm

swarlb wrote: »

Is this not a case of the authorities simply not being on top of their game, as in not actually knowing enough about the subject they are dealing with

It would be impossible for a Garda to know all details about all rules / regulations of all vehicles. Once the vehicle is "in the system" in a particular way, the PULSE system will tell a Garda what is what according to the system

As in that R129 is registered with a ZV reg and reg date of '77. So PULSE will tell the Garda that it qualifies for classic tax and that it does not need an NCT

But of course the car should never have been regged as a '77 car. The official who did that should have known better, they weren't doing their job or worse, they did someone "a favour"

mountai · 26-08-2014 8:34pm

2600 Elephants ---- U a member of The Kit Car Club ???

alastair · 26-08-2014 8:51pm

unkel wrote: »

But of course the car should never have been regged as a '77 car. The official who did that should have known better, they weren't doing their job or worse, they did someone "a favour"

Or it's a ringer.

swarlb · 26-08-2014 9:45pm

unkel wrote: »

It would be impossible for a Garda to know all details about all rules / regulations of all vehicles. Once the vehicle is "in the system" in a particular way, the PULSE system will tell a Garda what is what according to the system

As in that R129 is registered with a ZV reg and reg date of '77. So PULSE will tell the Garda that it qualifies for classic tax and that it does not need an NCT

But of course the car should never have been regged as a '77 car. The official who did that should have known better, they weren't doing their job or worse, they did someone "a favour"

I don't accept that really. A Garda is meant to know rules and regulations, that's part of their job. But if they don't, then whoever in the section of Government who deals with vehicle details should know.
I'm no expert on Mercedes cars, in fact I know very little about them, but I know simply by looking at that car, that it was not built in 1973.
If the ZV number plate thing was abolished tomorrow, and that car had a
73 xxxxx plate, it would stick out like an elephants trunk....

Capri · 27-08-2014 12:47am

alastair wrote: »

Which panels could be a candidate? It's not exactly 911 territory, with variations on a theme between models.

To the UNTRAINED eye you might get away with doing a nose job as the rear looks 'similar'

unkel · 27-08-2014 2:51am

swarlb wrote: »

I don't accept that really. A Garda is meant to know rules and regulations, that's part of their job.

Judging by the number of threads on this forum alone about rules and regulations it seems many of us (myself included) don't even know some, certainly not all of them. And we're enthusiasts. And classic cars is about 0.01% of all rules and regulations a Garda has to deal with. So, no, a Garda doesn't know all rules and can't possibly be expected to know them

swarlb · 27-08-2014 6:55pm

unkel wrote: »

Judging by the number of threads on this forum alone about rules and regulations it seems many of us (myself included) don't even know some, certainly not all of them. And we're enthusiasts. And classic cars is about 0.01% of all rules and regulations a Garda has to deal with. So, no, a Garda doesn't know all rules and can't possibly be expected to know them

Just for argument sake lets view this from another angle....now I don't want a raft of replies on the differences between models, or engine sizes, this is just a scenario.....
Lets say I have a 2003 320 BMW with a 2.2 petrol engine = High Road Tax
Lets say I source a written off (in the UK) 2014 320 BMW with (in this country) a Low Road Tax
Lets say I go through all the importation regulations, and present my 2003 320 BMW to the NCT centre
Would the following happen.......
I'd get a 2014 plate to stick on my 11 year old 320, and subsequently get low road tax...
And, if stopped by a Garda, would he say " Ah here, that's taking the pizz"
Because that's exactly what has happened above, except in reverse

26000 Elephants · 27-08-2014 8:48pm

swarlb wrote: »

Because that's exactly what has happened above, except in reverse

What you describe above is exactly what appears to be happening here. Ringing is commutative - Going old to new or new to old is immaterial - the goal is to reduce the liability to tax.

btw, thats what i mean when i say it has nothing to do with classic cars - per se.

pablo128 · 27-08-2014 8:56pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

What you describe above is exactly what appears to be happening here. Ringing is commutative - Going old to new or new to old is immaterial - the goal is to reduce the liability to tax.

btw, thats what i mean when i say it has nothing to do with classic cars - per se.

You're right about the tax. It's purely as a money saving exercise, as much as I despise the pre-'08 tax rates in this country. Nothing to do with any interest in cars. And you're right about it appearing to be a straightforward ringing job.
However, when you disguise a relatively modern car as a classic car using ZV number plates, and then avail of the classic car motor tax rate, well I have to disagree with you. It has potential to fcuk it up for us classic car owners if enough people are seen to be scamming it.

26000 Elephants · 27-08-2014 9:17pm

pablo128 wrote: »

However, when you disguise a relatively modern car as a classic car using ZV number plates, and then avail of the classic car motor tax rate, well I have to disagree with you. It has potential to fcuk it up for us classic car owners if enough people are seen to be scamming it.

No, you are correct. But I think it needs to be highlighted as a simple criminal act of fraud, as opposed to being somehow connected to classic car ownership and use. But by highlighting it, you could end up having a torch shone on the whole classic car tax concession. Considering that its escaped from austerity measures so far, it might be best to retain a low profile.I know that attitude annoys some people, but to be fair, the revenue arent exactly shy about going after fraudsters. They rarely need prompting.

swarlb · 27-08-2014 10:07pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

No, you are correct. But I think it needs to be highlighted as a simple criminal act of fraud, as opposed to being somehow connected to classic car ownership and use. But by highlighting it, you could end up having a torch shone on the whole classic car tax concession. Considering that its escaped from austerity measures so far, it might be best to retain a low profile.I know that attitude annoys some people, but to be fair, the revenue arent exactly shy about going after fraudsters. They rarely need prompting.

The easiest solution to this would be to simply put a 'cut off date' like they have with the NCT, not a rolling 30 year thing. I realize this will annoy those see cars from the 80/90's as 'classics' or even newer. Never mind what will crop up as time passes.
The whole idea of the cheaper rate for vintage cars was to allow people to have a hobby without the extra expense. This was never intended as loophole to use a car as an everyday means of transport.
I remember having to tax any older cars I had at the normal rate that applied at the time, and it was not that long ago either.

Casati · 27-08-2014 10:35pm

Ringing a car to get lower road tax is much the same as driving around for years in a UK reg car while living and working in Ireland. Both of them against the law and of interest to revenue, but in lovely Ireland people tend to mind their own business and won't usually report either to the authorities as its the way we are conditioned.

I'd seriously doubt that the driver of the ringed car would be insured though, so the owner must be taking a serious risk driving it around

corktina · 28-08-2014 10:53am

Casati wrote: »

Ringing a car to get lower road tax is much the same as driving around for years in a UK reg car while living and working in Ireland. Both of them against the law and of interest to revenue, but in lovely Ireland people tend to mind their own business and won't usually report either to the authorities as its the way we are conditioned.

I'd seriously doubt that the driver of the ringed car would be insured though, so the owner must be taking a serious risk driving it around

He can't be insured. The policy is on the car the number belongs too, not the one the number is being misused on

alastair · 28-08-2014 11:23am

26000 Elephants wrote: »

No, you are correct. But I think it needs to be highlighted as a simple criminal act of fraud, as opposed to being somehow connected to classic car ownership and use.

Again - it is connected to classic car ownership, as it abuses a mechanism designed to support the hobby of classic car ownership. That should be self-evident.

I'm delighted you've abandoned the notions that this abuse doesn't need to be highlighted, and that there's the possibility of a valid rationale for the reg on the car though. Progress, if a little slow.

Capri · 28-08-2014 11:32am

Another angle to all this is that the Customs/Revenue & Gardai are generally p**sed off with their jobs/salaries/cutbacks and don't want to do anything other than clock in and out and do the minimum in between - now if there was a cash 'reward' for all those ossifers based on detections then we'd see an upsurge in same.Like in one country I visit where the police 'buy' a stretch of road from their commander and split the speed fines 3 ways - them/commander/state :eek:

mountai · 28-08-2014 12:17pm

corktina wrote: »

He can't be insured. The policy is on the car the number belongs too, not the one the number is being misused on

Well if you are insured with AXA , you have no worries , as they KNOWINGLY insure cars that are illegally on the road.

corktina · 28-08-2014 1:31pm

I have heard that alright. (especially Classics). Will they pay out though?

steinbock123 · 28-08-2014 2:08pm

Saw a Land Rover Discovery yesterday - Reg.No. was ****ZD, which is 1972 Dublin plate. I thought they didn't start making them until the late 80's? Took a picture but can't post it, despite having been on here since 2011 and posting photos previously.

alastair · 28-08-2014 3:29pm

steinbock123 wrote: »

Saw a Land Rover Discovery yesterday - Reg.No. was ****ZD, which is 1972 Dublin plate. I thought they didn't start making them until the late 80's? Took a picture but can't post it, despite having been on here since 2011 and posting photos previously.

Some Land rovers / Range rovers can be swapped onto older chassis - so technically, it is a '72 car with a radical bit of bodywork modification.

corktina · 28-08-2014 3:44pm

alastair wrote: »

Some Land rovers / Range rovers can be swapped onto older chassis - so technically, it is a '72 car with a radical bit of bodywork modification.

possibly, except of course it's the chassis that rots quicker than the body, so it's more likely to be a number plate swap for economic reasons (imo)

26000 Elephants · 28-08-2014 5:24pm

corktina wrote: »

possibly, except of course it's the chassis that rots quicker than the body, so it's more likely to be a number plate swap for economic reasons (imo)

Probably not the case in most cases - early series landies rust anywhere that wasnt covered in oil, but range rovers were surprisingly resistant usually requiring only rear cross members. Any part of the chassis is available and easily welded on.

Its just a question of finding one in a field, applying for the logbook, do the rebody (which is surprisingly straightforward as disco shares wheel base with range rover) and away you go.

Pretty disgusting if you are a fan of the early range rovers ( like me), as every zv plated disco is another classic range rover that wont get restored, but completely legal.

26000 Elephants · 28-08-2014 5:50pm

swarlb wrote: »

The easiest solution to this would be to simply put a 'cut off date' like they have with the NCT, not a rolling 30 year thing.

Thats fine for our generation, but what about the next generation? The future members of the Nissan qashqai club of ireland will be burning effigies of you.... ;-)

Simple solution is to restrict cars availing of the 52e tax to 'off peak' usage - after 7pm Mon thru' Friday and all day weekends. If you get caught commuting in your classic you automatically are liable for the difference in the full road tax rate for your car based on co2 or cc (plus a fine). That would stop the problem overnight and would not effect 'true' classic owners.

alastair · 28-08-2014 7:46pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Thats fine for our generation, but what about the next generation? The future members of the Nissan qashqai club of ireland will be burning effigies of you.... ;-)

Simple solution is to restrict cars availing of the 52e tax to 'off peak' usage - after 7pm Mon thru' Friday and all day weekends. If you get caught commuting in your classic you automatically are liable for the difference in the full road tax rate for your car based on co2 or cc (plus a fine). That would stop the problem overnight and would not effect 'true' classic owners.

Neither is a solution. A rolling 30 year rule is grand - pretty soon it'll hit the point where we're into full on built-in-obsolescence era cars, which won't really lend themselves to long term ownership (in the same way as pre-ECU maintained cars did). For better or worse, there's not much chance of the same degree of viability in hanging onto cars of the 90's as there was of the older generations of cars (and I speak as someone who, until recently opted to drive a 1990 car as a daily driver).

The reality is most people don't want to drive classics every day (or indeed; at all) - they're comparatively thirsty, slow, and unsafe, and they're a pain to keep from rusting and to find a willing mechanic to work on, if you're not prepared to go DIY on maintenance (which most people aren't). It's a niche interest, and will remain so.

Having said that, pushing that niche interest into evenings and weekends only makes little sense from anyone's perspective - it requires that the authorities would then have to enforce such restrictions, which would not be practical, and more importantly, it would penalise classic owners who, quite legitimately, use their cars for commuting, or weekday purposes. I know I had a perfectly enjoyable fortnight driving a classic around France this summer - mostly daytime driving of weekdays.

The sensible solution to the problem of people abusing the vintage tax situation by ringing, is to ensure that they're not allowed get away with it. It's cheap, simple, and ensures actual classic hobbyists aren't forced to jump through new hoops aimed at discouraging law-breakers.

There's a clear enough line (for me) between those people who abuse the vintage tax/registration policy, and those who stretch the spirit of the law. The range rover and 911 body swappers, and kit car enthusiasts are able to benefit from the law, in a fashion that may not adhere to the original intent of the legislation, but again - these are niche interest groups. Most people won't choose kit cars or elderly chassis cars over the real deal, so the scope for this stretching of the spirit of the law is self-limiting. Ringing, however, is straightforward fraud, and should only be tackled by penalising offenders, not making life more difficult for those who don't break the law.

John Larkin · 28-08-2014 8:28pm

alastair wrote: »

Neither is a solution. A rolling 30 year rule is grand - pretty soon it'll hit the point where we're into full on built-in-obsolescence era cars, which won't really lend themselves to long term ownership (in the same way as pre-ECU maintained cars did). For better or worse, there's not much chance of the same degree of viability in hanging onto cars of the 90's as there was of the older generations of cars (and I speak as someone who, until recently opted to drive a 1990 car as a daily driver).

The reality is most people don't want to drive classics every day (or indeed; at all) - they're comparatively thirsty, slow, and unsafe, and they're a pain to keep from rusting and to find a willing mechanic to work on, if you're not prepared to go DIY on maintenance (which most people aren't). It's a niche interest, and will remain so.

Having said that, pushing that niche interest into evenings and weekends only makes little sense from anyone's perspective - it requires that the authorities would then have to enforce such restrictions, which would not be practical, and more importantly, it would penalise classic owners who, quite legitimately, use their cars for commuting, or weekday purposes. I know I had a perfectly enjoyable fortnight driving a classic around France this summer - mostly daytime driving of weekdays.

The sensible solution to the problem of people abusing the vintage tax situation by ringing, is to ensure that they're not allowed get away with it. It's cheap, simple, and ensures actual classic hobbyists aren't forced to jump through new hoops aimed at discouraging law-breakers.

There's a clear enough line (for me) between those people who abuse the vintage tax/registration policy, and those who stretch the spirit of the law. The range rover and 911 body swappers, and kit car enthusiasts are able to benefit from the law, in a fashion that may not adhere to the original intent of the legislation, but again - these are niche interest groups. Most people won't choose kit cars or elderly chassis cars over the real deal, so the scope for this stretching of the spirit of the law is self-limiting. Ringing, however, is straightforward fraud, and should only be tackled by penalising offenders, not making life more difficult for those who don't break the law.

That is a very well put and rational argument Alastair!

MrFoxman360 · 28-08-2014 8:55pm

alastair wrote: »

Neither is a solution. A rolling 30 year rule is grand - pretty soon it'll hit the point where we're into full on built-in-obsolescence era cars, which won't really lend themselves to long term ownership (in the same way as pre-ECU maintained cars did). For better or worse, there's not much chance of the same degree of viability in hanging onto cars of the 90's as there was of the older generations of cars (and I speak as someone who, until recently opted to drive a 1990 car as a daily driver).

The reality is most people don't want to drive classics every day (or indeed; at all) - they're comparatively thirsty, slow, and unsafe, and they're a pain to keep from rusting and to find a willing mechanic to work on, if you're not prepared to go DIY on maintenance (which most people aren't). It's a niche interest, and will remain so.

Having said that, pushing that niche interest into evenings and weekends only makes little sense from anyone's perspective - it requires that the authorities would then have to enforce such restrictions, which would not be practical, and more importantly, it would penalise classic owners who, quite legitimately, use their cars for commuting, or weekday purposes. I know I had a perfectly enjoyable fortnight driving a classic around France this summer - mostly daytime driving of weekdays.

The sensible solution to the problem of people abusing the vintage tax situation by ringing, is to ensure that they're not allowed get away with it. It's cheap, simple, and ensures actual classic hobbyists aren't forced to jump through new hoops aimed at discouraging law-breakers.

There's a clear enough line (for me) between those people who abuse the vintage tax/registration policy, and those who stretch the spirit of the law. The range rover and 911 body swappers, and kit car enthusiasts are able to benefit from the law, in a fashion that may not adhere to the original intent of the legislation, but again - these are niche interest groups. Most people won't choose kit cars or elderly chassis cars over the real deal, so the scope for this stretching of the spirit of the law is self-limiting. Ringing, however, is straightforward fraud, and should only be tackled by penalising offenders, not making life more difficult for those who don't break the law.

That's the most sensible thing I have read about this topic on here in a long time.

Testacalda · 28-08-2014 9:02pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Simple solution is to restrict cars availing of the 52e tax to 'off peak' usage - after 7pm Mon thru' Friday and all day weekends... that would stop the problem overnight and would not effect 'true' classic owners.

Lord Jaysus :eek: Good job your not minister for transport anyway.

I would consider myself a 'true' classic enthusiast as you put it, but what you are suggesting would be a terrible restriction on any classic car enthusiast. Yes people mostly drive classics at the weekends and in the evenings, but no one would be happy about being tied to that!

I drive mine during the day when I'm not at work, I also drive them weekdays after work and I take one on holidays all over the country during the summer time. I have two other modern vehicles which I pay my full road tax on by the way, but I love being able to drive my old ones whenever I can too.

The thing most people like to do with their classics is drive them!

26000 Elephants · 28-08-2014 10:12pm

John Larkin wrote: »

That is a very well put and rational argument Alastair!

Apart from it being contradictory? I dont see how it is impractical to retrict them because "it requires that the authorities would then have to enforce such restrictions" while later saying that its much simpler to check for classic ringers - "...is to ensure that they're not allowed get away with it. It's cheap, simple,..."

The key to the ringing issue is to remove the incentive. How thats done is still obviously open to debate.

Also, I dont think the Luddite view of later cars is a fair one. My idea of a classic car differs greatly from that of my father ( He loved 1940's Fords and 50's Jags) He could never understand me restoring a 1970's range rover - a car he had bought (almost) new. Im sure I wont understand my son wanting to restore a bmw z4 in 20 years, but thats the way things go. Advocating a cut off is simply saying, "Im alright, Jack, sod the rest of you"

26000 Elephants · 28-08-2014 10:28pm

Testacalda wrote: »

Lord Jaysus :eek: Good job your not minister for transport anyway.

If I was, you'd be paying 250e a year to tax a 2 litre car :cool: (but you'd be paying 2e a litre for diesel!! :eek:

Testacalda wrote: »

I drive mine during the day when I'm not at work,

My feeling is that its this usage pattern that will lead to the scrapping of the classic tax band before any furore over so called elephants. anyone who sees your car on a regular basis will be wondering why they are paying 700e in tax when you are 'getting away' with 52e. They may not be aware of the other cars in your collection, for which you pay full rate tax.

Basil Fawlty · 28-08-2014 10:33pm

I think everyone here is missing the real issue. Which is that tax is prohibitively expensive on cars using the CC based tax system. Anything over 1.6 is crazy money to tax. The guy with the merc is a true idiot and will of course be found out sooner than later, but the way people here talk about the vintage tax rate and the fear they have of it being taken away really winds me up.

That tax rate was achieved by enthusiasts lobbying the relevant bodies in government. You the enthusiast have the freedom and the ability to solve this problem with a little hard work. Why not focus your efforts on lobbying for a fairer rate of motor tax for the cars in the CC based system. This would mean you dont have to worry about elephants and that you too could have a late 80s or 90s classic on the road with fairly priced motor tax.

How do people ever expect this country to get better if you don't demand change on the issues that bother you.

alastair · 28-08-2014 10:57pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Apart from it being contradictory? I dont see how it is impractical to retrict them because "it requires that the authorities would then have to enforce such restrictions" while later saying that its much simpler to check for classic ringers - "...is to ensure that they're not allowed get away with it. It's cheap, simple,..."

The key to the ringing issue is to remove the incentive. How thats done is still obviously open to debate.

No contradiction in anything I posted tbh. Enforcement of a new law is, by definition, more costly than enforcing existing laws - it's an additional burden, and in this case, a clearly awkward and impractical law to enforce. Dealing with a small number of ringers is clearly simpler and cheaper than monitoring every old looking car on the roads during work hours.

The key to resolving all forms of criminality is not to penalise those who aren't criminals, but to penalise those who are.

alastair · 28-08-2014 11:03pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

My feeling is that its this usage pattern that will lead to the scrapping of the classic tax band before any furore over so called elephants. anyone who sees your car on a regular basis will be wondering why they are paying 700e in tax when you are 'getting away' with 52e. They may not be aware of the other cars in your collection, for which you pay full rate tax.

Very few would be interested in 'trading down' to the aforementioned thirstier, slower, less safe, option, that requires a garage and a specialist (read expensive) mechanic. Just as there are few who would opt to drive around in a hearse for the tax break. The mass rush to drive classics or hearses isn't likely to happen any time soon. Meanwhile the abuse of the system so people can fraudulently drive modern cars under the vintage tax umbrella, is an existent, actual, threat to the tax break for legitimate classic owners.

John Larkin · 28-08-2014 11:19pm

Basil Fawlty wrote: »

I think everyone here is missing the real issue. Which is that tax is prohibitively expensive on cars using the CC based tax system. Anything over 1.6 is crazy money to tax. The guy with the merc is a true idiot and will of course be found out sooner than later, but the way people here talk about the vintage tax rate and the fear they have of it being taken away really winds me up.

That tax rate was achieved by enthusiasts lobbying the relevant bodies in government. You the enthusiast have the freedom and the ability to solve this problem with a little hard work. Why not focus your efforts on lobbying for a fairer rate of motor tax for the cars in the CC based system. This would mean you dont have to worry about elephants and that you too could have a late 80s or 90s classic on the road with fairly priced motor tax.

How do people ever expect this country to get better if you don't demand change on the issues that bother you.

I have lobbied for change for many years. Between 1978 and 2000 I made three very detailed and fully costed submissions to the Government that road tax should be charged by increasing excise duty on petrol. It was clear from the responses that I received on each occasion that the civil service was against the idea, even when the ministers were in favour. I sought support from an established car club to promote the idea, but they considered the idea to be controversial and declined to help. This fear of rocking the boat is common among the "representative" car clubs. I gave up eventually --- I saw no point in tilting at windmills any longer.

The low tax rate that we enjoy on old cars was put in place by the late Albert Reynolds who listened to a small group of enthusiasts who made a good case which he supported and pushed through despite civil service resistance. Reasonable pragmatic politicians such as he are rare indeed.

26000 Elephants · 28-08-2014 11:57pm

alastair wrote: »

No contradiction in anything I posted tbh. Enforcement of a new law is, by definition, more costly than enforcing existing laws - it's an additional burden, and in this case, a clearly awkward and impractical law to enforce. Dealing with a small number of ringers is clearly simpler and cheaper than monitoring every old looking car on the roads during work hours.

The key to resolving all forms of criminality is not to penalise those who aren't criminals, but to penalise those who are.

Its contradictory because you say one solution is impractical because it requires enforcement, but the other is practical because it simply requires enforcement. I think we have already established that the 'elephant' issue is because laws arent being enforced as they should be.

As for the "Enforcement of a new law is, by definition, more costly than enforcing existing laws" - by what definition? Laws change all the time, Ive never heard of anyone saying we are not changing the alcohol limit because its 'too expensive'. If an existing law is NOT working, then you change it. Or do a crackdown. How would you do that? Check every car availing of the classic tax? Sounds expensive and entirely impractical.

Again, the problem is people falsifying the identity of a vehicle to reduce the road tax and then use it as their daily driver. Remove this incentive and you will eradicate the issue. Enforcement is simple - you see a zv car in rush hour, you stop it.If the owner wants to use it all day everyday, then they can pay what everyone else has to pay.

Silvera · 29-08-2014 2:34am

I believe the 'Vintage' rate of €52pa should remain in it's current form.

What needs changing is the way a car owner may have to pay, for example, €1800pa in year 29 and €52 in year 30. IMHO, cars over 20 (or 25) years should have a reducted 'classic' rate, e.g. half their normal rate pa. As many owner of such classics may only tax their vehicle for 6 months anyway, they would effectively only then be paying 1/4 of the current rate of motor tax.

The 'ZV' system also needs an urgent overhaul. I have listed (many times) one example of a fairer/more appropriate 'vintage' registration system. The fact of the matter is that a lot of vintage/classic vehicle owners are unhappy with the current system of 'ZV' or 'year' registration plate options. In turn IMO this contributes to a large element of 'ringing' of such vehicles.

macplaxton · 29-08-2014 7:32am

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Simple solution is to restrict cars availing of the 52e tax

Silvera wrote: »

I believe the 'Vintage' rate of €52pa should remain in it's current form.

*cough*

It's been €56 for over a year-and-a-half now.

01 Jan 2013 > / €56
01 Jan 2012 to 31 Dec 2012 / €52
01 Jan 2009 to 31 Dec 2011 / €48
01 Feb 2008 to 31 Dec 2008 / €46
01 Jan 2004 to 31 Jan 2008 / €42
01 Jan 2003 to 31 Dec 2003 / €40

Max Headroom · 29-08-2014 7:59am

macplaxton wrote: »

*cough*

It's been €56 for over a year-and-a-half now.

01 Jan 2013 > / €56
01 Jan 2012 to 31 Dec 2012 / €52
01 Jan 2009 to 31 Dec 2011 / €48
01 Feb 2008 to 31 Dec 2008 / €46
01 Jan 2004 to 31 Jan 2008 / €42
01 Jan 2003 to 31 Dec 2003 / €40

Someone that doesnt even own a classic would not know this.....;)

alastair · 29-08-2014 8:59am

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Its contradictory because you say one solution is impractical because it requires enforcement, but the other is practical because it simply requires enforcement. I think we have already established that the 'elephant' issue is because laws arent being enforced as they should be.

As for the "Enforcement of a new law is, by definition, more costly than enforcing existing laws" - by what definition? Laws change all the time, Ive never heard of anyone saying we are not changing the alcohol limit because its 'too expensive'. If an existing law is NOT working, then you change it. Or do a crackdown. How would you do that? Check every car availing of the classic tax? Sounds expensive and entirely impractical.

Again, the problem is people falsifying the identity of a vehicle to reduce the road tax and then use it as their daily driver. Remove this incentive and you will eradicate the issue. Enforcement is simple - you see a zv car in rush hour, you stop it.If the owner wants to use it all day everyday, then they can pay what everyone else has to pay.

Dunno how to make this much simpler for you.

Introducing a law that impacts on all classic cars involves a greater enforcement overhead than a law that only applies to fraudulently registered cars. That's more costly in terms of time and money. That's aside from the basic issue of additional enforcement always having an impact on the enforcement of existing law. There is no contradiction. And again - the practicality of enforcing a curfew on specific types of car would be a complete nightmare.

There's no problem in people using their classic as a daily driver. You keep claiming this, but the actual problem is quite different. It's one of a minority breaking the law - while you focus on those who are not.

Capri · 29-08-2014 9:09am

In Singapore, as I've mentioned before, there's a cheaper rate for cars used in the evenings/weekends and they have red plates

Cheaper tax - Red licence plates indicate that the car may be driven only during off-peak times unless a daily fee is paid. Off peak times are from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekdays and all day on Saturdays and Sundays

German rules

Car collectors: Red plates starting with the number 07 are reserved for collectors of vintage cars. Originally, vintage cars had a required minimum age of 20 years from first registering. Since April 2007 onwards the required minimum age has been 30 years. Plates issued under the old 20 years rule remained valid after this date. The collectors must get an official certificate of approval (such as no criminal records). They are allowed to use one set of plates on any of their cars under the condition that they keep a strict record of use. No day-to-day use of the cars is allowed. A valid official technical inspection is not mandatory but the cars have to be technical fit for use on public roads

Classic cars (known in German by the pseudo-English expression Oldtimer) can get an H (historisch, historic) at the end of the plate, such as K-AA 100H in order to preserve the so-called "vehicle of cultural value" (kraftfahrtechnisches Kulturgut"). It also includes a flat tax of appr. €190 per year. The requirements for a vehicle for an H-Plate are:
The first documented registration lies at least 30 years in the past.
The car must be in mostly original and preservation worthy condition. Preservation worthy means a grade C by popular car grading standards. The older the car, the more signs of usage it can show. This purely concerns the car's appearance, the road worthiness is established by separate mandatory safety inspections. Universally accepted modifications include changes that benefit safety, such as seat belts and disc brakes, and environmental friendliness, such as catalytic converters and LPG conversions (if invisible from the outside). Further modifications that are generally accepted are those contemporary of the car's first registration (plus and minus 10 years, burden of proof lies with the owner through historic material such as photographs) and new paintjobs of any color, including two tone paint if originally offered and historic company logos, but no murals or custom patterns.

Cars (or more often, motorbikes) with seasonal number plates have two numbers at the end of the plate indicating the months between which they are registered to drive, with the licence being valid from the start of the upper month until the end of the lower month. This results in lower car taxes, as well lower insurance premiums

Here, we have a skewed market - 85Merc worth €800, 84Merc worth€3000 and all for the sake of €1800 tax p/a :rolleyes:
About time there was a sensible revision of the rules - but it's Ireland, it'll never happen :mad:

26000 Elephants · 29-08-2014 12:12pm

macplaxton wrote: »

*cough*

It's been €56 for over a year-and-a-half now.

Genuine typo on my part. see my earlier post, where i quote the correct cost.

26000 Elephants · 29-08-2014 12:35pm

alastair wrote: »

Dunno how to make this much simpler for you.

Your argument is simple enough as it is. any simpler and you would reduce it to a mere gutteral noise, accompanied by some arm waving!! Im merely suggested that it was contradictory. But now I think its simply the polar opposite of reality.

Introducing a law that impacts on all classic cars involves a greater enforcement overhead than a law that only applies to fraudulently registered cars.

Thats assuming the fraudulant cars have large flashing signs on their roofs. How do you identify them? Otherwise gardai have to satisfy themselves of the bona fides of every classic they come across, which is impractical.

And again - the practicality of enforcing a curfew on specific types of car would be a complete nightmare.

Why? Its enforced the same way any other RTA law is enforced. If you are stopped in a zv plated car at 8.30am you are outside the terms of your reduced tax. As has been mentioned previously, there exist several precedents for this legislation.

There's no problem in people using their classic as a daily driver. You keep claiming this, but the actual problem is quite different. It's one of a minority breaking the law - while you focus on those who are not.

Those who are breaking the law are doing so because they get to drive a car on a daily basis at a reduced tax intended for classic enthusiasts to be able to enjoy their hobby (and im paraphrasing from earlier in this thread). Having a restriction would remove that incentive to defraud. And yes, I do feel that people who use a classic, with classic tax, as a daily driver, or worse as their sole vehicle may be as much part of the problem as the people who falsify the identity of their cars.

In essence, there is a risk that it will weaken the whole argument for classic tax, and will further damage our hobby by reducing several candidate classic cars to merely an extreme form of "Bangernomics"

26000 Elephants · 29-08-2014 1:06pm

John Larkin wrote: »

I have lobbied for change for many years. Between 1978 and 2000 I made three very detailed and fully costed submissions to the Government that road tax should be charged by increasing excise duty on petrol. It was clear from the responses that I received on each occasion that the civil service was against the idea, even when the ministers were in favour. I sought support from an established car club to promote the idea, but they considered the idea to be controversial and declined to help. This fear of rocking the boat is common among the "representative" car clubs. I gave up eventually --- I saw no point in tilting at windmills any longer.

The low tax rate that we enjoy on old cars was put in place by the late Albert Reynolds who listened to a small group of enthusiasts who made a good case which he supported and pushed through despite civil service resistance. Reasonable pragmatic politicians such as he are rare indeed.

I agree. Front loading tax on car ownership is bizarre. Especially so in the age of co2 based tax. A car that travels 10000km at a co2 of 115 puts out more co2 than a car that does only 3000km at 300co2's. SO move the tax from the possession of the car to the use of the car. However, the danger with that is the likely increase in fuel laundering and fraud that will occur as the price of the legitimate stuff goes up.

But again, thats about enforcement. Its not as easy as simply mugging motorists at the tax office.

At a stroke, it would solve the 'elephant' issue as well.

pablo128 · 29-08-2014 6:26pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I agree. Front loading tax on car ownership is bizarre. Especially so in the age of co2 based tax. A car that travels 10000km at a co2 of 115 puts out more co2 than a car that does only 3000km at 300co2's. SO move the tax from the possession of the car to the use of the car. However, the danger with that is the likely increase in fuel laundering and fraud that will occur as the price of the legitimate stuff goes up.

But again, thats about enforcement. Its not as easy as simply mugging motorists at the tax office.

At a stroke, it would solve the 'elephant' issue as well.

A lad on another forum I frequent, managed to work out how much extra would have to be put on fuel to make it workable. I think it worked out at much less than 10 cent per litre. Not too bad if that was all they put on extra.

Testacalda · 30-08-2014 10:30am

26000 Elephants wrote: »

My feeling is that its this usage pattern that will lead to the scrapping of the classic tax band before any furore over so called elephants. anyone who sees your car on a regular basis will be wondering why they are paying 700e in tax when you are 'getting away' with 52e. They may not be aware of the other cars in your collection, for which you pay full rate tax.

You're hardly suggesting that me driving one of my 1970's cars during the day on a Tuesday is going to jeopardise our cheaper tax rate some how?. I don't feel bad about driving my car during the day with its cheaper tax rate, that's why we have the cheaper tax rate, to make it feasible for enthusiast to have a classic on the road in the first place.

26000 Elephants · 30-08-2014 10:59am

Testacalda wrote: »

You're hardly suggesting that me driving one of my 1970's cars during the day on a Tuesday is going to jeopardise our cheaper tax rate some how?. I don't feel bad about driving my car during the day with its cheaper tax rate, that's why we have the cheaper tax rate, to make it feasible for enthusiast to have a classic on the road in the first place.

I feel it will weaken the case for a blanket reduced tax aimed at supporting enthusiasts in their 'hobby'. I understand some enthusiasts want to drive their car all the time, but I feel its only fair that they pay the same rate as everyone else in that case.

But the PRIMARY problem with unrestricted use of classic tax, is that it makes it attractive for people to scam it by ringing, rebodying, etc. And thats the crux of this thread.

bbsrs · 30-08-2014 12:28pm

There's more debate in this forum about , vintage tax, dodgy logbooks and ringed cars than about classic cars. Maybe it should be renamed the the vintage tax forum!

Is this an Elephant?

Comments