|
|
Aug 13, 2006 15:38:26 GMT
|
Don't follow you, quite, unless I've missed something? It's a common trade on Triumphs, take the plates and tags off and re-register it accordingly. Seen it before, especially when a shed turns up that's tax exempt. I had a "Sprint" for a while that consisted of just the chassis plate, engine bay plate and a reg doc - scrapped it mind! ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2006 15:41:30 GMT
|
I think, though that it IS naughty.
Ultimately you are creating a 'ringer' , which if you sell it without telling the punter is fraud, and is otherwise tax fraud.
Happens alot with Land Rovers too. Find a fooked S2 in a farmers field with V5. Buy a new-ish defender or CSW, swap the plates over and ta-daa.... tax-free landy on coils with a decent engine and some creature comforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2006 15:42:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2006 15:49:22 GMT
|
Oh I appreciate it's illegal and 'not right' by the way! Just thought I best say that
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 13, 2006 15:49:33 GMT by Lewis
|
|
slater
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 6,390
Club RR Member Number: 78
|
another ebay idiot!slater
@slater
Club Retro Rides Member 78
|
Aug 13, 2006 16:11:15 GMT
|
Its a reshell but seriously i don't see alot wrong with it. It may be a bit illegal but it semes to me the only people loosing out is the tax man.
|
|
|
|
1900sr
Part of things
I like Mantas me!
Posts: 875
|
|
Aug 13, 2006 17:13:40 GMT
|
That's fine, until the powers that be decide the only way to stop this kind of thing is to withdraw the historic vehicle exemption, and then everyone's paying road tax again.
There was an interesting article in the FBHVC newsletter about a guy who was on holiday and spotted one of these Landies. He reported the vehicle to the DVLA, and got a follow up from the local plod. Turns out not only was the vehicle not entitled to it's tax free status, it also contained a number of stolen parts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2006 17:32:40 GMT
|
Its a reshell but seriously i don't see alot wrong with it. It may be a bit illegal but it semes to me the only people loosing out is the tax man. Would you still not see alot wrong with it if your pride and joy was nicked so that some scum bucket could ring it with an identical car that they had got for pennies because it had spent the last 20 years sitting in a field? Its ringing, plain and simple. Deception, fraud, call it what you will, it doesnt matter. If the Tax man were to be the only one to miss out then fair play but too many cars are ID swapped purely for profit, so long as the car can be passed onto an unsuspecting punter. How would a person feel finding out that the several thousand pounds that they had forked out on a "genuine" Cooper S was really to buy a Mini 850 with a non Cooper 1275 engine and the rest of it made to look the real thing? Funny really, everyone was up in arms because a car had been clocked yet swapping ( ringing) cars doesnt seem to be quite as hideous a crime. Isnt ringing worse?
|
|
If Typhoo put the Tea in Britain who put the c**t in Scunthorpe?
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2006 17:38:42 GMT
|
Clearly taking tax exempt docs from an old Landy and putting them on a defender is out of order but with older cars the line between what's okay and what's not is a bit finer.
Say for example I have a rotten 1972 Datsun 1200 and a good 1973 shell. If I pull all the components from the '72 and use them to build up the good '73 shell it would seen pretty daft to not use the '72 identity, considering most of the parts would be from that car. I'd effectively be replacing the '72 shell with a replacement part.
Look at it another way. I could cut the floor, chassis and all the solid bits from the '73 shell and use them along with the doors, wings, bonnet and bootlid to repair the '72 shell.
In the latter example I've gone by the book and it's all legal but I end up with a slightly inferior car with a shell that may not be as strong or as safe as the original. In cases like this, where two virtually identical old cars are concerned, I see no real problem but swapping a tax free identity from one model to a different much later model is just plain wrong.
If replacing a shell in this way and keeping the identity of the original car is wrong then all the cars rebuilt with heritage shells should be on Q plates.
|
|
1962 Datsun Bluebird Estate - 1971 Datsun 510 SSS - 1976 Datsun 710 SSS - 1981 Dodge van - 1985 Nissan Cherry Europe GTi - 1988 Nissan Prairie - 1990 Hyundai Pony Pickup - 1992 Mazda MX5
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2006 17:39:29 GMT
|
fair play rob, I'm just about to purchase a car from early 1974 I'm going to do things proper with that one, it would be easy to find a scrapper and assume the identity of it, but for £15ish a month tax why bother!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2006 17:44:00 GMT
|
Would you still not see alot wrong with it if your pride and joy was nicked so that some scum bucket could ring it with an identical car that they had got for pennies because it had spent the last 20 years sitting in a field? This doesn't really have much to do with tax exemption status. Nicked cars would still be ringed wether tax exemption existed or not. Again, this kind of thing happens anyway, regardless.
|
|
1962 Datsun Bluebird Estate - 1971 Datsun 510 SSS - 1976 Datsun 710 SSS - 1981 Dodge van - 1985 Nissan Cherry Europe GTi - 1988 Nissan Prairie - 1990 Hyundai Pony Pickup - 1992 Mazda MX5
|
|
|
slater
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 6,390
Club RR Member Number: 78
|
another ebay idiot!slater
@slater
Club Retro Rides Member 78
|
Aug 13, 2006 17:56:08 GMT
|
I have a 72 escort and a 74 escort. The 72 escort is very rusty so i build the 74 one. Theres not relly any differance between the cars and chances are 90% of the parts didnt come off either of the cars to start with so i use the 72 log book and get free tax.
Thats whats acceptible.
I break a 72 car, keep the log book, a year later i buy a 74 car of the same model/spec etc. i swap the plates for the 72 ones to get free tax.
A bit more dogey!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2006 19:07:46 GMT
|
go slater! do you want a proper john deer radio for the mini? its free nada nothing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2006 20:17:21 GMT
|
I have a friend with a tax-exempt 1990ish Range Rover Vogue...it always makes me smile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 17:13:20 GMT
|
Ive got a 72 triumph 2.5PI, but its about a month too young to be tax exempt. I bought a rotter tax exempt '72 from ebay for its engine and box. The cars were identical in all respects apart from the tax exemption bit. Ive swapped the rivetted vin plate onto the newer shell. Its getting the tax exempt ones engine and box anyway. Effectively its a reshell with a secondhand shell. If I were to declare all of this the car would end up with a Q plate, but now it will be tax exempt on an "original" plate. I guess its still ringing though. Have I done wrong?
|
|
1987 Maestro 1.6 HL perkins diesel conversion 1986 Audi 100 Avant 1800cc on LPG 1979 Allegro Series 2 special 4 door 1500cc with vynil roof. IN BITS. HERITAGE ISSUES.
|
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 17:21:55 GMT
|
Ringing a car could be the act of changing a cars idendity using a similar car, but in reality my personal definition of ringing would be using another cars idendity to disguise a stolen car. I have no problem with creating one good tax exempt car using two legitimately procured cars. Obviously in the court of law you'd get done either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 17:24:18 GMT
|
yes i see your point.... but imagine putting all the components from two cars in a giant cement mixer and picking bits out at random as they come out. Thats what ive done, but added the tax exempt registration at the end
|
|
1987 Maestro 1.6 HL perkins diesel conversion 1986 Audi 100 Avant 1800cc on LPG 1979 Allegro Series 2 special 4 door 1500cc with vynil roof. IN BITS. HERITAGE ISSUES.
|
|