Customs seize car after six-hour stand-off

testicle

murraymarmalade wrote: »

i resent that comment :mad: the treaty was amended in 1972!!!!!! fact

fiction.

1972 was when Ireland signed the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

Here it is, perhaps you'd like to point out where VRT is illegal. http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/

Anan1

testicle wrote: »

fiction.

1972 was when Ireland signed the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

Here it is, perhaps you'd like to point out where VRT is illegal. http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/

Anan1 wrote: »

Like I said, this has been done to death many times here already. Please, no further discussion on the legality or otherwise of VRT. If you want to discuss that, take it to the legal forum.

JHMEG

Can we just sell Donegal to the Brits... then we'll have a lot less VRT threads. And we should get a few quid for it too. Win, win!

smash

Matt Simis wrote: »

There is no way a non-car owning cyclist is contributing as much to Health Care, Roads, Civil Servant Salaries, the Dole etc as a car driver, all else being equal.

But you can't say "all else being equal" - the cyclist might earn more money so they pay more tax, may have bought a more expensive house so they paid more stamp duty, they might spend more in shops etc etc...

gpjordanf1

R.O.R wrote: »

I think a fairer ananolgy would be that the window tax was already in place and you went and bought a house with 25 windows, and then refused to pay the tax. You could have bought a house with 1 window if you wanted.

Since were on about sticking to the law and all that, you couldn't buy a house with one window, it wouldn't comply with building regulations etc.

So thats a bit of a non runner there, use an analogy of breaking the law to prove a point about not breaking the law.

Ah love it!

alias no.9

JHMEG wrote: »

Can we just sell Donegal to the Brits... then we'll have a lot less VRT threads. And we should get a few quid for it too. Win, win!

Only if they promise to take Sweary Mary as part of the deal, that would seal it for me.

Matt Simis

steve06 wrote: »

But you can't say "all else being equal" - the cyclist might earn more money so they pay more tax, may have bought a more expensive house so they paid more stamp duty, they might spend more in shops etc etc...

Oh come on, thats exactly why I said "all else being equal". The point is Joe Cyclist there was bitching about people paying less tax but using all these wonderful "facalities" the country offers, when in reality a cyclist will pay a lot less tax (therefore support the country significantly less) than a motorist. On a yearly basis, we are talkng 10s of thousands less to support society.

Obviously we arent talking specifically about him or me, but in "general". If it makes it easier, just pretend its two identical individuals, same salary, different modes of transport. Due to the unfairness of the VRT and Motor Tax system, the one with the car helps the Community, School, Society more than he should while the one on the bike doesnt, as he doesnt have the "opportunity" to haemorrhage tax money like the motorist.

The Window tax, despite its insanity in principle, at least affected virtually everyone as everyone lived "somewhere".

dergside

Matt Simis wrote: »

Completely true, as is:

* Lets be clear, Rosa Parks was not taking a stand against Civil Liberty Injustice. She was simply trying to get home. Retrospectively others have beatified her disregard for the City Code as a stand for Civil Rights.

Yes, her words, one act of defiance was later used to define a general sentiment and a boycot against an unjust law.

Clearly, high horsers, Im being a bit tongue in cheek here, VRT and Segregation are not on par, but dont be so fast to dismiss all acts of Law breaking that didnt declare themselves as pariahs from the start.

Fair point! BUT,

a) Rosa Parks was involved in the Civil Rights movement, and
b) her involvement started before the bus event.

Whether the woman in Donegal was involved in the anti-VRT movement prior to the confrontation with C&E is not clear from any of the articles. It may be that her conversion was after the event. So, equally, its not safe to say that her action was motivated by any more noble a principle than to evade tax.

Matt, if you picked holes in any of the objective (I would say that, wouldn't I?!) - and therefore dispassionate, points I made, rather than the most subjective one, I'd be interested to hear!

dergside

JHMEG wrote: »

Can we just sell Donegal to the Brits... then we'll have a lot less VRT threads. And we should get a few quid for it too. Win, win!

Depending on your political views, you may find that they already own quite a bit of it......;)

murraymarmalade

one little question......do the guards and the customs have the right to come onto ones private property without a search warrant?

murraymarmalade

betafrog wrote: »

Yes

so whats a search warrant for then?

Lando Griffin

How long from when she purchaced the car does she have to get the NCT on it without running the risk of a large fine?

Tea 1000

murraymarmalade wrote: »

so whats a search warrant for then?

Guards need a warrant, Customs don't. And rightly so in my opinion, you need to have at least one elite group of state law enforcers who don't need to wait on paper pushers to do a job.

murraymarmalade

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Guards need a warrant, Customs don't.

hard to know what to belive here.
anyone like to put up a link showing the powers of the customs please.

Tea 1000

Lando Griffin wrote: »

How long from when she purchaced the car does she have to get the NCT on it without running the risk of a large fine?

She technically doesn't need an NCT on it if it's not registered in the state. However, an insurance company may see an NCT or MOT as a certificate of roadworthyness, which in the small print of your policy your car needs to be before it's covered.
Also if you're driving a foreign registered car you are not paying any road tax. (or as some people on this forum insist, motor tax!).
I'm all for making a point, or taking a stand, or starting a protest, but buying a Lexus and breaking the law by avoiding all taxes on it and going about your daily business is not the way to do it.

danbohan

JHMEG wrote: »

Can we just sell Donegal to the Brits... then we'll have a lot less VRT threads. And we should get a few quid for it too. Win, win!

much better sell dublin , its full of west brits already

Yawns

Matt Simis wrote: »

Oh come on, thats exactly why I said "all else being equal". The point is Joe Cyclist there was bitching about people paying less tax but using all these wonderful "facalities" the country offers, when in reality a cyclist will pay a lot less tax (therefore support the country significantly less) than a motorist. On a yearly basis, we are talkng 10s of thousands less to support society.

Obviously we arent talking specifically about him or me, but in "general". If it makes it easier, just pretend its two identical individuals, same salary, different modes of transport. Due to the unfairness of the VRT and Motor Tax system, the one with the car helps the Community, School, Society more than he should while the one on the bike doesnt, as he doesnt have the "opportunity" to haemorrhage tax money like the motorist.

The Window tax, despite its insanity in principle, at least affected virtually everyone as everyone lived "somewhere".

Of course in the case of the cyclist against our dear friend in DOnegal, she's only paying tax on her fuel. If of course she doesn't get it across the border that is. As it is she hasn't paid VRT or motor tax so in the same boat as our dear cyclist

langdang

murraymarmalade wrote: »

so whats a search warrant for then?

...searching! I believe they can enter the "curtilage" of a building anytime as per anyone else (eg postman) as long as they don't have to climb over a locked gate or anything. If you invite them into the house and they observe something in plain view then they don't need a warrant either.

*mixture of opinion and second hand info - I'd consult with a Gardai before doing anything based on the above info!

Tea 1000

murraymarmalade wrote: »

hard to know what to belive here.
anyone like to put up a link showing the powers of the customs please.

Try doing some of your own research. I know customs don't need a warrant, I don't care what you "believe".
No point coming on here with a bunch of half-baked notions and forcing an arguement on them.
Customs were doing their job, you can't argue with that. Whether VRT should or shouldn't exist is a different matter, but today, here in the Republic of Ireland, VRT exists and the Customs Officers are employed to enforce that law and have the power to seize non-complying vehicles from anywhere they wish, private property or not.
So no point in criticising them.

Yawns

Tea 1000 wrote: »

She technically doesn't need an NCT on it if it's not registered in the state. However, an insurance company may see an NCT or MOT as a certificate of roadworthyness, which in the small print of your policy your car needs to be before it's covered.
Also if you're driving a foreign registered car you are not paying any road tax. (or as some people on this forum insist, motor tax!).
I'm all for making a point, or taking a stand, or starting a protest, but buying a Lexus and breaking the law by avoiding all taxes on it and going about your daily business is not the way to do it.

It may not be registered in the state but it does need to be road legal in the country it is registered to. So if it's still reged to a north address she would need her yearly mot after the car is 3 years old and she would need it to be road taxed there too.

Why are the media saying the customs and guards were heavyhanded? IMO she deserves the car to be siezed as it's not legally on the roads. She should be fined through the roof and given a chance to pay her VRT. IF she can't pay, then auction the car off or crush it

Tea 1000

Yawns wrote: »

It may not be registered in the state but it does need to be road legal in the country it is registered to. So if it's still reged to a north address she would need her yearly mot after the car is 3 years old and she would need it to be road taxed there too.

Why are the media saying the customs and guards were heavyhanded? IMO she deserves the car to be siezed as it's not legally on the roads. She should be fined through the roof and given a chance to pay her VRT. IF she can't pay, then auction the car off or crush it

It should be taxed in NI alright, but it's not possible to tax it unless you have an address up there.

murraymarmalade

some amount of bluffers on this thread:rolleyes:

Yawns

Tea 1000 wrote: »

It should be taxed in NI alright, but it's not possible to tax it unless you have an address up there.

Aye and assuming she doesn't have a northy address, the car is not taxed nor is it MOT'd so it is completly illegal to be on our roads.

Sticking with the topic on thread, the lady tried to dodge tax and failed miserably.

furtzy

murraymarmalade wrote: »

one little question......do the guards and the customs have the right to come onto ones private property without a search warrant?

Seems they do

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/foi/s16/customs/enforcement/

Chapter 3

Statutory Right of Entry allows them onto your property i.e yard, driveway etc but not into your home.

However there are execeptions to this depending on the investigation

smash

Matt Simis wrote: »

Obviously we arent talking specifically about him or me, but in "general". If it makes it easier, just pretend its two identical individuals, same salary, different modes of transport. Due to the unfairness of the VRT and Motor Tax system, the one with the car helps the Community, School, Society more than he should while the one on the bike doesnt, as he doesnt have the "opportunity" to haemorrhage tax money like the motorist.

Yea but that's because a car is a luxury for most people... therefore, you pay for it. And sure you pay less if you 'go green' these days.

I don't agree with the VRT or motor tax system so we're on the same page but your argument is kind of silly. It's like me saying "I don't use buses or trains, so I shouldn't have to pay a portion of my taxes to run them."

furtzy wrote: »

Stautory Right of Entry allows them onto your property i.e yard, driveway etc but not into your home.

Keep your car in a garage attached to your home!

Tea 1000

murraymarmalade wrote: »

some amount of bluffers on this thread:rolleyes:

You can sing that!

Cookie_Monster

murraymarmalade wrote: »

some amount of bluffers on this thread:rolleyes:

I'm yet to see anything valid from you to support any of you points?!

Gophur

I don't like Income Tax.

Can I therefore be exempt and get mine back?

Surely it's breaking some Treaty somewhere and I should be allowed claim every penny back?

Cookie_Monster

The more this thread goes on the more I think she should have her car crushed on show on the 9pm news as an example to everyone else.

Del2005

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The more this thread goes on the more I think she should have her car crushed on show on the 9pm news as an example to everyone else.

Do it the way they did the drug dealers Evo on Topgear, destroyed by 50cal.

JHMEG

danbohan wrote: »

much better sell dublin , its full of west brits already

Who'll pay your dole then!

Lauder

Fair play to the customs lads. Greater enforcement is required. Citizens should always support enforcement, regardless of whether of not they support VRT. It really boils my blood seeing so many Northern (or mainland, Polish, Eastern EU etc...) cars used illegally here.

I personally disagree with VRT and Annual Motor Tax as they are both regressive forms of taxation and should be moved towards a polluter pays (annual mileage to emissions system). But everyone else pays it, and those who do not are de facto criminals.

squod

Customs must be a massive employer around some parts of the country, for other parts......... there just don't seem that many. Still a load of foreign registered cars used day to day in the state.

squod

http://www.u.tv/UTVMediaPlayer/Default.aspx?vidid=130405&chapid=106227&arti_id=f9f35891-5926-4563-b043-adbb666ac639

Video from UTV of the vehicle being lifted.

smash

Why is she crying? she knew the risk....

Lando Griffin

I think myself that Ryan Stewart has used this woman to gain support for his own facebook campaign against VRT.
She obliviously isn’t the brightest spark in the world after buying that piece of junk never mind his campaign to get rid of the VRT in a time when the government is looking to bring in an extra 3 billion.

Guy:Incognito

Anan1 wrote: »

I'd say a lot of people would agree with you. Go lobby your TD/stand for election yourself, let's find out.;)

The people of Donegal and the other border counties will definately agree to it. In fact, the more thats added to fuel and the less other taxes they pay the better, they will just go across the border and buy fuel.

JHMEG wrote: »

Can we just sell Donegal to the Brits... then we'll have a lot less VRT threads. And we should get a few quid for it too. Win, win!

They're not stupid enough to take another county off us to pour money in to.:)

murraymarmalade

Lando Griffin wrote: »

I think myself that Ryan Stewart has used this woman to gain support for his own facebook campaign against VRT.
She obliviously isn’t the brightest spark in the world after buying that piece of junk never mind his campaign to get rid of the VRT in a time when the government is looking to bring in an extra 3 billion.

piece of junk...:D

cruizer101

Stuff like this makes my day, delighted to see tax dodgers caught. She bought that car knowing full well she wasn't going to pay the tax on it. She should be made to pay the tax, and the cost of the operation of seizing it, and still not be given her car back for being a tax dodgin wagon. I'd also wonder was the car insured, I'm going to guess not as not sure how you would go about insuring it, so lock her in jail for that too.

Guy:Incognito

Tea 1000 wrote: »

It should be taxed in NI alright, but it's not possible to tax it unless you have an address up there.

Plus if the car was bought properly in the North or UK the permenant export section of the V5 cert wll have been sent off meaning it's been permenantly exported as far as he DVLA(NI) are concerned so it's no longer registered anywhere and may as well have no plates at all.




As for the points at the start of the thread about bad PR. It's only bad PR to the peoplewho agree with tax evasion and the Gards /customs are not a company selling a product, who cares if some people hate them?

alexmcred

Six weeks ago she purchased the car which says to me she had feck all intentions of paying VRT. She should also be fined for each day of the six weeks she had the car in the state.

I think this could be turned to C&E advantage by making an example of her as others have said.

REXER

Gophur wrote: »

And Council Tax?

Given the state of the country's finances, you may well end up paying the extra 10c per litre, anyway.

VRT is an elective tax, nobody is forced to pay it, nobody is forced to import a used car, or buy a new car.

We all know the rules.

Used car prices are kept at an artificial high level due to VRT!

Matt Simis

REXER wrote: »

Used car prices are kept at an artificial high level due to VRT!

Yes, clearly this is true as it doesn't just evaporate, at best you can minimise it. I suspect Gophur will simply disagree and make some vague comparison to prices in the UK 2nd hand etc etc.

To preempt that, any used car price you find here vs UK thats the same or less here (and they do exist I agree) would have been even cheaper here if it wasnt for the VRT propping up the price way back when. On the same token, if you find a car thats cheaper here only because of the VRT added to the imported UK price, you have just found an example of restiction of the sale of goods.
Not illegal, but quite against the point of the Union we are part of.

murraymarmalade

alexmcred wrote: »

Six weeks ago she purchased the car which says to me she had feck all intentions of paying VRT. She should also be fined for each day of the six weeks she had the car in the state.

I think this could be turned to C&E advantage by making an example of her as others have said.

mabe she didnt have the log book which would have prevented her from registering the car in the republic.

Stinicker

The customs are scumbags and VRT is an immoral tax contrary to the ethos of the free market European Union. In Ireland we have no public transport so driving is a basic freedom and to curb this freedom with excessive taxation is impinging upon our human rights.

It is okay to pay taxation to the central government if you get something back from the government but in this country we have Scandinavian levels of taxation with 3rd world services and infrastructure.

I would have no problem paying taxation if we got proper tarmacadam surfaced roads and infrastrucuture to match accordingly however in Ireland all we have is bailouts for banks and friends of Fianna Fail.

If the customs and guards came onto my property to steal my car I would take any necessary actions to defend my property and if they attempted to lift a car of mine I would open fire on them first with a warning shot and if they continued I would warn them to back down or I would shoot to kill, if the were stupid enough to persist I would open fire against the taxcollectors of this illegal undemocratic government.

I imported a car a few years ago and paid my VRT then as it was too expensive being under a €1,000 but would not pay anything more expensive. The citizens of Ireland are in charge of this country and if guards and tax collectors try to steal my property or infringe my rights then they would get the full rigours of my wrath.

Then again for that woman I have no real pity for her because if she can afford the lexus (and its alcoholic fuel habit) then she should have been able to pay the tax.

Matt Simis

Stinicker wrote: »

If the customs and guards came onto my property to steal my car I would take any necessary actions to defend my property and if they attempted to lift a car of mine I would open fire on them first with a warning shot and if they continued I would warn them to back down or I would shoot to kill, if the were stupid enough to persist I would open fire against the taxcollectors of this illegal undemocratic government.

While we are on the same "side", I think you are really hurting my argument here! They are just doing their job enforcing a dubiously ethical law, yes, but I think thats a bit of a severe reaction (crying in your car for 6hrs is too).

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

Yes, clearly this is true as it doesn't just evaporate, at best you can minimise it. I suspect Gophur will simply disagree and make some vague comparison to prices in the UK 2nd hand etc etc.

To preempt that, any used car price you find here vs UK thats the same or less here (and they do exist I agree) would have been even cheaper here if it wasnt for the VRT propping up the price way back when.

The fact that you can buy registered running cars so cheap here (I'd say you can buy a oldish running car here cheaper than just about anywhere in Europe) makes one wonder what's the point importing something relatively old that you cannot afford to clear....

Guy:Incognito

murraymarmalade wrote: »

mabe she didnt have the log book which would have prevented her from registering the car in the republic.

Well that would be her own fault again. Your supposed to get it (minus the permenant export section) when you buy the car.

dergside

Stinicker wrote: »

I would have no problem paying taxation if we got proper tarmacadam surfaced roads and infrastrucuture to match accordingly .

Do you know what? I reckon that even if this nirvanna was achieved, you'd still find a miserable excuse to justify why you are doing us all a favour by not paying your dues.

Guy:Incognito

Stinicker wrote: »

If, if the were stupid enough to persist I would open fire against the taxcollectors of this illegal undemocratic government.
.

2 points here. How would they be stupid to persist?Without needing to know you I can confidently say that the government, through it's law enfocement arms, can out match you on both firepower and manpower grounds.

HAvign said that I wouldlove to watch the action unfold on the news, it would beat the hell ut of a repeat of Die Hard 4.

Secondly how is the government illegal and undemocratic? They were clearly elected. If anything, people calling for an earlyelction are the ones trying to be undemocratic seeing as everyone knew they were electing a governemnt for 4 years last time round. Who are we to deny them their rights?