Victim Wanted!

Wibbs

This is a long one folks, even for me. So bear with me. As the bishop said to the actress....

Motorcheck wrote: »

Wibbs - Why so cynical on the thread title? It's a genuine request on behalf of Motorcheck and The Consumer Show - I'm not trying to 'pimp' anything here but give some constructive advice on a topic that will be featured on tomorrow's show.

I'd have more faith in the level of constructive advice if vested interests or to be kinder a particular angle weren't in play in such advice.

Re. the Japanese imports. You're obviously well read on the information available to an importer

Because after doing some research albeit basic at first, I realised going to the source and cutting out the local middle man was the best option to guarantee some level of trust in what I was ultimately going to drive. So I imported my own car direct from Japan. If you have a web connection, do research and then do it yourself. Simple as that. And you save a fair few quid in the process. Near 3 grand in my case.

and judging by the link on your signature you understand the relationship between speed and road deaths much better than I ever will.

That thread was started by another chap. Not me. I couldn't hope to match his eloquence and thankfully don't have to match his experience. So I really don't think it seemly for either of us to bring his post into the equation. Your position would be crass at best and untenable at worse if you did.

The point we made on the show and one I stand by today is that any car going on Irish roads should be properly identified and documented.

While a laudable sentiment, it also comes neatly back to what I was saying about vested interests. Given that one can properly identify and document a Japanese import at source(or Australian, American, European), why doesn't your company or any other do so? Laziness? Lack of expertise and skillset? Your issue, not ours. And before you retort with the equally lazy angle of "it's all our issues", you have charged yourselves with the checking of imports, so rather than deflecting the issue in ever decreasing circles, why not, I dunno actually do what you claim to do and actually check our motors?

Misrepresenting a cars specification, no matter how minor you think it is, could give an insurance company grounds for denying a claim.

Ah yes the hit them in the pocket as a scare tactic response. Again why can't you properly identify and document this section of the import market? A UK DVLA database search is easy I suppose. Hell I can do much of it myself http://www.taxdisc.direct.gov.uk/EvlPortalApp/application?origin=vehicleEnquiryInfo_en.jsp&event=bea.portal.framework.internal.portlet.event&pageid=Vehicle+Enquiry&portletid=VehicleEnquiry&portletns=VehicleEnquiry_en&wfevent=link.next What if I import a car from I dunno France or Germany never mind Japan? They're closer to home so why not?

If all the information is available why do importers do it?

Greed or ignorance. Much more the former I suspect. Slightly damaged Jap imprt at half the usual price and twice the mileage expected, quick clocking and paint tart up and away one goes.

TBH - I understand the temptation - cheaper VRT and lower insurance would be an attraction to anyone but I'm interested in your opinion.

That is but a small part of the importer end.

if these cars were properly identified at the point of importation what do you think the outcome would be? More or less of them on the road?

Well why doesn't your company identify them? Or look to point out those dealers who don't? Like I say it's more than doable, so why isnt someone doing it? Why isn't your company doing it? I mean you are called motorcheck. So rather than lambasting a section of the market for easy scaremongering, just because it's out of your remit, why not bring it into your remit?

Del2005

Motorcheck wrote: »

The point we made on the show and one I stand by today is that any car going on Irish roads should be properly identified and documented. Misrepresenting a cars specification, no matter how minor you think it is, could give an insurance company grounds for denying a claim.

The only part of a claim that the insurance companies can deny for misrepresenting the vehicle is the owner/drivers claim. All 3rd party claims are covered and the insurance company is entitled to go after the responsible party to reclaim any money paid out.

If insurance companies weren't so lazy and properly investigated insurance claims then miss registering a vehicle wouldn't be an issue. They could also stop paying out for unaccompanied L drivers, bikers on restricted licences with unrestricted bilkes etc.

The only people who would loose out then are people who lie and/or are driving illegally, which I have no issue with. But then you'd have everyone calling Joe saying how unfair it is

ottostreet

I don't understand what that Mirage ad is supposed to point out. It says 'logbook says 1.6 mirage'....thats exactly what it is!

the mivec mirages were 1.6? so its not a lie!

Old Skool Cars

Tomebagel wrote: »

Did you ask him about his laurel?

Hi,

Ian Bergin here. Just to point out something which for one is irrelevant and also completely ridiculous and points out the obvious concerns stressed by user Motorcheck.

1. Yes, i did own a Nissan Laurel. It was a 97' Laurel C35 which was imported in 2007 with a Skyline GTR engine transplant. However the car was originally a 2.0 Automatic. At the time of purchase i was working in a dealership and also had my own Trade Policy which covered me for my own insurance NOT by the vehicles CC but by the valuation of the cars. I could drive anything to a value of €150,000 insured. Anyone who KNOWS me will be well aware of my motor trade dealing for the past 5/6 years.

If anything this is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how easy it is to get a car in from Japan and register it as something its not. The car was cleared by the dealer I bought the car from as a 2.0. Believe it or not but it would be far harder to VRT the car as an actual 2.6 twin turbo Laurel as none ever existed in Japan so it would need an independant report done post VRT anyway as there is no stat code for it in the first place? I think you will agree that for a dealer to go above and beyond the call of the VRT's job is ridiculous - remember, cars are BROUGHT too the VRT office for inspection, its their job to inspect the vehicles, not the person bringing it. also, every dealer and Joe Soap would do there best to get any car registered as the lower spec alternative etc to try avail of cheaper VRT - I dont blame anyone for that as its a stupid double taxation but thats another days work.

Bottom line being, Yes i was insured on the Laurel and yes it was registered as a 2.0 when it had/has a 2.6 twin turbo in it. whos to blame? me or the VRT inspectors for not noticing? Its very difficult to point any blame when all export documentation states "2.0" so i guess they are just doing their job by the book.....

Here is the car in Question, catch you later on AE86irl guys.

http://www.ae86irl.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4092&highlight=laurel

Regards,
Ian.

Old Skool Cars

ottostreet wrote: »

I don't understand what that Mirage ad is supposed to point out. It says 'logbook says 1.6 mirage'....thats exactly what it is!

the mivec mirages were 1.6? so its not a lie!

Correct, its not a lie at all...its simply an uninformed description of the car Make and Model without describing the model Variant - i.e MIVEC.

MIVEC. GTI. VTEC, TURBO etc....i guess you get where im going with this....

Wibbs

Old Skool Cars wrote: »

Bottom line being, Yes i was insured on the Laurel and yes it was registered as a 2.0 when it had/has a 2.6 twin turbo in it. whos to blame? me or the VRT inspectors for not noticing? Its very difficult to point any blame when all export documentation states "2.0" so i guess they are just doing their job by the book....

So hang on. Maybe I'm picking this up wrong as I don't know the backstory, so apologies to all if so. You work for Motorcheck Ltd in some way Old Skool Cars? If so the very thing you're pointing out as a bad thing, you've been party to yourself? Worse as it wasn't just an extra bit on the badge you were omitting, but a engine transplant? If so, it appears you're admitting to knowingly defrauding the VRT and but for your trade insurance you'd have been uninsured too. Indeed if you had crashed the car, I'd be fairly sure the insurance company would have fought any payout once they discovered the disparity. Did you inform the insurance company of the engine transplant? IMHO apportioning blame to the VRT types is a tad disingenuous on your part. Using it as an example to pimp the company is damn near laughable.

MIVEC. GTI. VTEC, TURBO etc....i guess you get where im going with this...

Oh I think we do. Again I put the question, why can't Motorcheck or any other private agency include background checks on imports other than from the UK. Anyone can do the latter, it's but a click away. The problem I see is that it feels more like "let's cause concern about a section of imports we don't have the expertise to trace, rather than actually get that expertise". So IMHO it's still far more about business interests than any notion of "safety".

Old Skool Cars

Wibbs wrote: »

So hang on. Maybe I'm picking this up wrong as I don't know the backstory, so apologies to all if so. You work for Motorcheck Ltd in some way Old Skool Cars? If so the very thing you're pointing out as a bad thing, you've been party to yourself? Worse as it wasn't just an extra bit on the badge you were omitting, but a engine transplant? If so, it appears you're admitting to knowingly defrauding the VRT and but for your trade insurance you'd have been uninsured too. Indeed if you had crashed the car, I'd be fairly sure the insurance company would have fought any payout once they discovered the disparity. Did you inform the insurance company of the engine transplant? IMHO apportioning blame to the VRT types is a tad disingenuous on your part. Using it as an example to pimp the company is damn near laughable.
Oh I think we do. Again I put the question, why can't Motorcheck or any other private agency include background checks on imports other than from the UK. Anyone can do the latter, it's but a click away. The problem I see is that it feels more like "let's cause concern about a section of imports we don't have the expertise to trace, rather than actually get that expertise". So IMHO it's still far more about business interests than any notion of "safety".

As you said in your first line, you are picking this up wrong...entirely! making mountains out of molehills about my car above is fine for argumentative opinion, fact remains IN MY PERSONAL CASE that i was insured, the clear fact that the car is insured under valuation through working for a dealership and having my own separate trade policy which i have had for years with my father only re-assures myself that i had nothing to be worrying about or doubtful of in case of any accident. The policy does not take into account make, model and engine specifics like a private policy so it makes no difference if i drive a Micra or a Ferrari - as long as value does not exceed €150,000. As i also said, im not blaming anyone in the VRT office, they were doing their job by the book at the time of question and the fact that they have since moved the VRT offices to the NCT test centers to (what i believe anyway) conduct thorough inspections on such cars above....also, its worth noting, i didn't VRT the car personally so i personally didn't defraud anyone - if anything since i joined Motorcheck i have been able to shed a lot of light on such cars that are misrepresented on PAPER to what they actually are in REALITY. Is that such a bad thing? If so, why?

Call it what you like - the fact remains a lot of cars on the road are insured and driven by inexperienced drivers who wouldn't be able to do so if the cars where registered correctly from point of import. The reason why most of this information is not simply disclosed on a general history check is due to the fact that the information is simply not there or the "intel" is inaccurate. If the car is registered incorrectly, then it goes onto the national vehicle file incorrectly which is where a lot of information for any car history check is derived from. so its wrong from the offset, and Motorcheck is determined to correct what it can along the line.

Apart from going completely off topic in this instance i hope you can see the reasoning for Motorcheck to want to have exact particulars on file for grey or Jap Imports. Its not pointing a finger at the VRT office or making dealers out to be bad registering cars as something they are not - if it can be rectified afterwards im sure there is a majority of people out there (and insurance companies) only too happy to be supplied accurate Japanese Import information - something at present which isnt available as you said yourself.

Tigger

Old Skool Cars wrote: »

Hi,

Ian Bergin here. Just to point out something which for one is irrelevant and also completely ridiculous and points out the obvious concerns stressed by user Motorcheck.

1. Yes, i did own a Nissan Laurel. It was a 97' Laurel C35 which was imported in 2007 with a Skyline GTR engine transplant. However the car was originally a 2.0 Automatic. At the time of purchase i was working in a dealership and also had my own Trade Policy which covered me for my own insurance NOT by the vehicles CC but by the valuation of the cars. I could drive anything to a value of €150,000 insured. Anyone who KNOWS me will be well aware of my motor trade dealing for the past 5/6 years.

If anything this is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how easy it is to get a car in from Japan and register it as something its not. The car was cleared by the dealer I bought the car from as a 2.0. Believe it or not but it would be far harder to VRT the car as an actual 2.6 twin turbo Laurel as none ever existed in Japan so it would need an independant report done post VRT anyway as there is no stat code for it in the first place? I think you will agree that for a dealer to go above and beyond the call of the VRT's job is ridiculous - remember, cars are BROUGHT too the VRT office for inspection, its their job to inspect the vehicles, not the person bringing it. also, every dealer and Joe Soap would do there best to get any car registered as the lower spec alternative etc to try avail of cheaper VRT - I dont blame anyone for that as its a stupid double taxation but thats another days work.

Bottom line being, Yes i was insured on the Laurel and yes it was registered as a 2.0 when it had/has a 2.6 twin turbo in it. whos to blame? me or the VRT inspectors for not noticing? Its very difficult to point any blame when all export documentation states "2.0" so i guess they are just doing their job by the book.....

Here is the car in Question, catch you later on AE86irl guys.

http://www.ae86irl.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4092&highlight=laurel

Regards,
Ian.

Old Skool Cars wrote: »

As you said in your first line, you are picking this up wrong...entirely! making mountains out of molehills about my car above is fine for argumentative opinion, fact remains IN MY PERSONAL CASE that i was insured, the clear fact that the car is insured under valuation through working for a dealership and having my own separate trade policy which i have had for years with my father only re-assures myself that i had nothing to be worrying about or doubtful of in case of any accident. The policy does not take into account make, model and engine specifics like a private policy so it makes no difference if i drive a Micra or a Ferrari - as long as value does not exceed €150,000.

was it taxed correctly mr ian bergin

Tigger

so you drive/drove around with a falsely reristered car paying the wrong tax and then you think that some lads dying in donegal is a time to go on prime time and pimp your site.

brilliant

hey the cars you are selling on donedeal adverts etc are you selling them privatly or as a dealer

Wibbs

Old Skool Cars wrote: »

As you said in your first line, you are picking this up wrong...entirely! making mountains out of molehills about my car above is fine for argumentative opinion, fact remains IN MY PERSONAL CASE that i was insured,

I quote:

Old Skool Cars wrote: »

1. Yes, i did own a Nissan Laurel. It was a 97' Laurel C35 which was imported in 2007 with a Skyline GTR engine transplant. However the car was originally a 2.0 Automatic.

You purchased this car. Were you the first owner in this country? If so and again I quote:

i didn't VRT the car personally so i personally didn't defraud anyone

So who did VRT the car if you were the first owner in the country? The same garage you held the insurance policy with? Someone somewhere along the line pulled a fast one.

Secondly, did you road tax the car as a 2.0 or a 2.6? If the former while under your ownership, again something doesn't quite add up.

I dunno it seems to me disingenuous pointing out the failures in the system, when you yourself, by dint of having access to a motor trade insurance policy were able to circumvent the very thing you're seeking to highlight. As an aside, I was led to understand that a garage policy didn't apply to cars for personal use? Not a lot of wriggle room from where I'm standing.

the fact remains a lot of cars on the road are insured and driven by inexperienced drivers who wouldn't be able to do so if the cars where registered correctly from point of import.

Unless they had access to a trade policy of course.

The reason why most of this information is not simply disclosed on a general history check is due to the fact that the information is simply not there or the "intel" is inaccurate.

The information is there. Far more so than on an Irish secondhand car. But it goes "missing". I have no connection to the motor trade beyond having one mate who is also a mechanic. So how can such as I as a complete amateur with no experience nor connection to the motor trade import a car from Japan and have all the details. Owners name, date of purchase, location, mileage, service history, shaken reports, even the original number plate. The auction sheet alone is chock full of info. How come I as a newbie can get that, yet very very very few dealers will supply same? Things that make you Hmmmmm indeed.

if anything since i joined Motorcheck i have been able to shed a lot of light on such cars that are misrepresented on PAPER to what they actually are in REALITY. Is that such a bad thing? If so, why?

I have zero issue with being able to trace and correctly identify a car. I don't contend otherwise.

something at present which isnt available as you said yourself.

I said the opposite. Certainly with regard to Japanese imports. The data is available at point of auction. The Japanese road authorities also have the data. Indeed they're positively anal about such things. The problem are the dealers not knowing their business or losing such details in an effort to pass on clocked cars. There is also laxity on the part of the government(though the recent NCT/VRT goes someway to addressing that). Targeting one section of the import market because you don't have the knowledge to check such cars is like I said in my first post here, smoke and mirrors. It's also plugging into the current meme of "boy racers" yet I've yet to see any evidence that such grey imports are involved in accidents to any appreciable degree.

Old Skool Cars

Tigger wrote: »

was it taxed correctly mr ian bergin

Yep!

Tigger

Old Skool Cars wrote: »

Yep!

so it was taxed as a 2.6L but logged as a 2L

brilliant

did you miss the other question?

Old Skool Cars

Tigger wrote: »

so you drive/drove around with a falsely reristered car paying the wrong tax and then you think that some lads dying in donegal is a time to go on prime time and pimp your site.

brilliant

hey the cars you are selling on donedeal adverts etc are you selling them privatly or as a dealer

Clearly this is now a personal issue as being ASKED by RTE to go on air is hardly standing up to any relevance when comparing A. my own personal cars past or present and B. "pimping" anything on TV.

Please.

L-M

LOL...

Old Skool Cars

Tigger wrote: »

hey the cars you are selling on donedeal adverts etc are you selling them privatly or as a dealer

If needs must then i will answer this question - privately.

Tigger

Old Skool Cars wrote: »

Clearly this is now a personal issue as being ASKED by RTE to go on air is hardly standing up to any relevance when comparing A. my own personal cars past or present and B. "pimping" anything on TV.

Please.

what personal issue

tax evasion affects me a a tax payer but not on a personal level

and if you sell cars and have trade insurance then you sell car commercially and should represent yourself as such.

do you

i shall asume you don't

Tigger

Old Skool Cars wrote: »

If needs must then i will answer this question - privately.

brilliant

L-M

Tigger wrote: »

what personal issue

tax evasion affects me a a tax payer but not on a personal level

and if you sell cars and have trade insurance then you sell car commercially and should represent yourself as such.

do you

i shall asume you don't

IMO, you're taking a bit too far and personally... Just IMO

Wibbs

Old Skool Cars wrote: »

Clearly this is now a personal issue as being ASKED by RTE to go on air is hardly standing up to any relevance when comparing A. my own personal cars past or present and B. "pimping" anything on TV.

Please.

It has only become a "personal issue" because regardless of being asked by RTE, you were introduced as an expert on such things. You gave an opinion that would impact your business, or "pimp" it as it were. I am quite convinced that if you did have the facility to trace Japanese imported cars to this country, your opinion of them would be quite different.

Secondly it would be natural to question you re this misrepresented car you yourself owned when you're on a mission to stamp them out. How would the Primetime questions have changed if this information was available to them?

On the expert front I blame RTE more than anyone, by plugging into the current hysteria about such cars. As has been pointed out ad infinitum, can anyone show a greater risk with these cars? Can anyone show just one fatal incident where one of these misrepresented cars or any "sporty" Japanese domestic market car was involved. One would be nice. Made for Joe Duffy telly, not reality. Mr Hobbes show will doubtless egg it up even more.

BTW how can one pay road tax on a 2.6 when the log book shows 2.0? Would questions not be raised.

R.O.R

Just to point out that Motorcheck is just one part of a larger business. I'm not affiliated with them in any way, but used to deal with them a lot a couple of years ago.

Mr. Motorcheck himself has been in the Irish Motor industry for a good few years, and it's probably more because of this than the Motorcheck stuff that's he (and collegues) are being invited on as experts.

Wibbs

R.O.R wrote: »

Mr. Motorcheck himself has been in the Irish Motor industry for a good few years, and it's probably more because of this than the Motorcheck stuff that's he (and collegues) are being invited on as experts.

And thats cool, but what makes someone like that an expert on road safety? When a particular segment of cars on the road is targeted for particular ire, with no statistical reason why, a segment they dont have the facility to check up on, then you will pardon my cynicism about their motives. Like I say if their service could check Jap cars(and I can't see why they can't) then I strongly suspect it wouldnt even be on the radar. It's the usual easy answer that makes headlines, but little else.

Tigger

Limerick man wrote: »

IMO, you're taking a bit too far and personally... Just IMO

acually i'm interested in human nature i'm delighter to find this chap he fascinates me

Big Nasty

Here’s the way I see it:

It is possible that any imported vehicle from any country has had modifications without changes to status. Such cars with large / powerful engines can be insured as a more basic model. The reason powerful cars are expensive for young males to insure is simple: young male + high powered car = high risk, based on their statistics. Secondly if the cost to insure is so high it should put powerful cars out of the reach of the young male. The availability of relatively powerful cars with omission of spec (e.g. Mivec, Turbo) defeats the purpose of the high insurance costs in the first place. More often than not this occurs on Jap cars and here lies the subject of the interview.

If Motorcheck are asked to comment and in the course of the interview have an opportunity to promote themselves damn straight they should - they would be silly not to!

Wibbs

I have no issue with promotion, if its transparent and above board. I have issue when a focus is put on something that has little to do with safety and more to do with rabble rousing, bugger all substance and the inability of a company to check such cars. When one rep of said company has admitted to running such a car then it gets to the point of farce TBH. To quote another chap from the previous thread on the Primetime show: "hes giving out about japanese cars, yet he sometimes judges the prodrift, also he said more tracks wouldnt help, course he he doesnt think so, sure more tracks means less people for his courses in Mondello... and all this thing about engine changes, all he wants is people to use his site to make sure their car is as it should be"

In short, don't piss down our necks and tell us its raining. If someone wants to do that may I suggest politics.

Big Nasty

What one rep has done in his past life has no bearing on the mission or ethical position of any company.

sophie1234

but maybe it should be more looked into that the car that the person is insured in is what it says! say for instance someone buys a car on the log book its says 1.6 infact its a 1.6turbo that person crash becomes (god forbid) disabled. the insurance company dont pay out to the family who in turn will need financial aid to care for there son/daughter the parents where unaware the child had lied or more so not told the the truth about the specs of the car and now there stuck! if it was as he was saying on primetime more looked into it would prevent this!
now one thing i disagree with that yes it does happen with a majourity of imports it also happens on non imports!
and in turn motorcheck can provied this information to insurance companys...
sorry if ive got the point completly wrong but it was how i was reading this

Wibbs

MCMLXXV wrote: »

What one rep has done in his past life has no bearing on the mission or ethical position of any company.

It does when the person is representing the company on a public platform.

Of course cars should have proper histories attached. All cars regardless of where they come from. Including Irish cars. Never mind wrong specs, the amount of dealer clocked cars out there is ridiculous. If motorcheck or anyone else feels the jap imports are an issue then tackle that by sourcing info from the Japanese motor authorities. Don't hype up a situation because you can't or won't. That's my issue.

Big Nasty

Wibbs wrote: »

It does when the person is representing the company on a public platform.

To be fair that person wasnt on here to represent the company, he was dragged in to the thread via on off topic debate and was big enough to come on here and try and defend himself.

Wibbs

I agree. You will understand though when people have an issue when they saw half truths and scaremongering on that primetime segment. Both of which would serve to help the company financially. Like I said before I am firmly of the opinion that if Motorcheck could trace Jap imports with the same degree of accuracy as UK imports then they would not have been mentioned.

This thread looked for examples that would help them look good as a service on our national broadcaster. That's pimping in my book and indeed I have reported same.

-Corkie-

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree. You will understand though when people have an issue when they saw half truths and scaremongering on that primetime segment. Both of which would serve to help the company financially. Like I said before I am firmly of the opinion that if Motorcheck could trace Jap imports with the same degree of accuracy as UK imports then they would not have been mentioned.

This thread looked for examples that would help them look good as a service on our national broadcaster. That's pimping in my book and indeed I have reported same.

Well if you contributed regularly to this forum (which you dont). Motorcheck has contributed to it in a big way giving advice to people and even offering free checks to Boardsies who posted looking at a particular car. I think you should look at the bigger picture here. Anyway the Motoring mods here know that. I suppose you will report me for pimping too..