Victim Wanted!

johnos1984

I can see where people are coming from in criticizing Motorcheck and other such organisations as some of the car histories are rather blank especially when they have come from abroad.

However I feel some of the accusations and arguments being used are of a personal nature and have little or nothing to do with the company itself. And argument which sticks to the point is worth having.

Just my two cents

Wibbs

-Corkie- wrote: »

Well if you contributed regularly to this forum (which you dont).

300 plus posts not contribution enough for you then?

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.

I did and I agree the user Motorcheck has done as you said and has been helpful. I'm not denigrating that at all. Indeed I would be rght behind Motorcheck being a commercial rep in the forum. The more the merrier. I also agree that a detailed database for second hand cars is a good thing. What with the seeming propensity for dealers to clock cars at the very least.

I and others are simply asking questions about one of the representatives of Motorcheck the company and a perceived one sided angle here and in the national media that's being repeated with not a shred of evidence that this angle is a safety issue. Simple as that.

Tigger

johnos1984 wrote: »

I can see where people are coming from in criticizing Motorcheck and other such organisations as some of the car histories are rather blank especially when they have come from abroad.

However I feel some of the accusations and arguments being used are of a personal nature and have little or nothing to do with the company itself. And argument which sticks to the point is worth having.

Just my two cents

thread title is looking for victims
thread turned out a fella that selcars as private (loads of them) but has commercial insurance
a guy who says that jap cars are a problem and imports and sells them on with a fradulent log book

its a brilliant thread and wibbs has been a big part of it

Tigger

Old Skool Cars wrote: »

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

ok
needs must

Divorce Referendum

Tigger wrote: »

thread title is looking for victims
thread turned out a fella that selcars as private (loads of them) but has commercial insurance
a guy who says that jap cars are a problem and imports and sells them on with a fradulent log book

its a brilliant thread and wibbs has been a big part of it

How many is loads of them? Two hardly constitutes him a dealer

-Corkie-

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

How many is loads of them? Two hardly constitutes him a dealer

True. Your man has a bee in his bonnet and thats the problem.

Big Nasty

Said company is a regular contributor here.

Said company has often offered his services foc to other users.

Said company was asked to contribute to an interview on RTE.

Said company that has often offered help to other users came on and asked for help / contributions in return.

Some users decided to pick at the interviews subject and had some valid points, however said company cannot be responsible for RTE's choice of subject or the actions of their staff, especially if said events occured before the member of staff was employed by said company.

Thread derailed.

To be fair said company and said staff member have made the effort to try and defend themselves, and yes there maybe some small holes in their theories / explanations but I don't think they deserve to be attacked like a dead carcass by vultures.

P.S. Shane Teskey live on the Consumer Show on RTE now!

Tigger

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

How many is loads of them? Two hardly constitutes him a dealer

the car dealer insurance constitutes him as a dealer
and two does who that isn't a dealer has two cars on sale at once

Divorce Referendum

Tigger wrote: »

the car dealer insurance constitutes him as a dealer
and two does who that isn't a dealer has two cars on sale at once

I have two cars. I put both of them up for sale in the morning. Oh I see you got me. :rolleyes:

johnos1984

Tigger wrote: »

thread title is looking for victims

Indeed yes it is, for a consumer segment.

In fairness other people/organisations etc who do these programmes have just as shaddy backgrounds, I'm thinking of Eddie Hobbs who was plugging his own propertys a few years back

Tigger wrote: »

thread turned out a fella that selcars as private (loads of them) but has commercial insurance

From reading the thread it was actually someone else who sells cars but who came in to defend his position

Tigger wrote: »

a guy who says that jap cars are a problem and imports and sells them on with a fradulent log book

Thats fair enough I have no time in defending someone who has no scruples. Why not start a thread about it? EDIT not suggesting the person who sold the cars actually is dody. Also I've sold cars in the past, do I need to register as a dealer?

Tigger wrote: »

its a brilliant thread and wibbs has been a big part of it

Its far from brilliant and if that is how you treat regular and helpful posters who have provided a service to people for free on here thats shameful.

In fairness he came on looking for people who have had suffered at the hands of scam artists

Wibbs

johnos1984 wrote: »

However I feel some of the accusations and arguments being used are of a personal nature and have little or nothing to do with the company itself.

FWIW I agree on the personal bits.

johnos1984 wrote:

Indeed yes it is, for a consumer segment.

Again I agree, but the general rule on Boards last time I looked is to ask mods/Boards ltd first before posting up requests for data/survey/media stuff. If that was done then apologies to all.

In fairness other people/organisations etc who do these programmes have just as shaddy backgrounds, I'm thinking of Eddie Hobbs who was plugging his own propertys a few years back

I agree and again FWIW I think Motorcheck(and any like it) as a service is very badly needed in this country. The government need to take their finger out too. It shouldnt be left to third parties in an ideal world, but I'm glad someone is doing it.

Motorcheck the user is a very helpful chap. Contrary to one opinion above I'm in and read this forum quite a bit. Have been since 05 and I have seen Motorcheck being very helpful since he signed up. That nor he per se is not where my questions are aimed.

From reading the thread it was actually someone else who sells cars but who came in to defend his position

My reading of it is that he works with Motorcheck Ltd. He was the chap representing the company on Primetime. A program that raised more than a few hackles and questions. That puts a different slant on things.

Thats fair enough I have no time in defending someone who has no scruples. Why not start a thread about it?

Well I wouldnt go so far as to claim no scruples for the guy. Bit harsh. I would say as I have that his subsequent stated position on the same area of the market is a bit of a hmmmm moment. Now he has to be fair as MCMLXXV said defended himself and fair play.

Divorce Referendum wrote:

I have two cars. I put both of them up for sale in the morning. Oh I see you got me.

He's already said he's a dealer. He's already said he owned and drove a car registered as a 2.0 when it was in fact a 2.6. His trade insurance covered that and apparently he paid full road tax on, and some other body paid VRT. So when people watched the Primetime segment concerning the exact same thing and the same chap lambasting the practice(rightly), of course people are gonna ask questions.

MCMLXXV wrote:

To be fair said company and said staff member have made the effort to try and defend themselves, and yes there maybe some small holes in their theories / explanations but I don't think they deserve to be attacked like a dead carcass by vultures.

Agreed and neither do I, but part and parcel of internet forums is that questions will be raised more than in the usual media. It's par for the course. In both positive and negative ways.

johnos1984

WIBBS I'm happy enough with everything you said.

It clears much up for me. I felt you and others had been targeting Motorcheck unfairly.

My reading of it is that he works with Motorcheck Ltd. He was the chap representing the company on Primetime. A program that raised more than a few hackles and questions. That puts a different slant on things.

I never saw the interview so I cannot comment on what was said. Probably a poor choice for a public face in this case.

I'm not familiar with the makeup of the organisation but is it possible he was given the task without choice?

As for the 'no scruples' bit it wasn't intended to be harsh against the poster. My apologies.

the general rule on Boards last time I looked is to ask mods/Boards ltd first before posting up requests for data/survey/media stuff. If that was done then apologies to all.

I can't comment I've not read the charter/rules. however it is normal enough to look for permission on forums first in a case like this.

Wibbs

johnos1984 wrote: »

It clears much up for me. I felt you and others had been targeting Motorcheck unfairly.

No not at all. Like I said earlier in the thread I read the Motorcheck blog regularly enough. I think the service is really bloody needed in this country and its a well laid out site and service. Like you and others have mentioned and Ive seen for myself the chap is very helpful to members here.

SIMI are all very well and good, but when so many cars are brazenly clocked(Ive reported two garages - one proudly sporting a SIMI plaque - a few years back and nada was done) and clocking itself is not even illegal here, only counted as fraud if you don't inform the buyer. AFAIK even Motorcheck can't find out if a car is reported stolen here as the cops won't release the data. The details on our logbooks can be bloody vague. Finding out about outstanding loans on a car is equally difficult for amateurs. Worse of all IMHO is the amount of non petrol head people out there who seem to blindly accept this state of affairs and will knowingly buy a car that has been clocked. There was a chap in this very forum who did not so long ago and watched the car he traded in "magically" lose 15,000 miles when it was advertised in the paper. By a dealer. And this was "to be expected". He's not alone in that thinking either. Caveat emptor "Buyer beware" needs to be drilled more into the national psyche.

I never saw the interview so I cannot comment on what was said. Probably a poor choice for a public face in this case.

I'm not familiar with the makeup of the organisation but is it possible he was given the task without choice?

Very possible alright. Basically my personal take on the segment(and I wasn't alone) was the usual joe duffy scare tactic on the back of the recent at the time tragedies and was wheeling out the same tired lines, rather than looking at the actual problems or solutions. The "jap imports are the work of satan" being one such. Problem is if no Jap imports existed in Ireland not one of those tragedies would have been averted. Pity that point wasn't questioned. Neither was it questioned why such imports which come with very comprehensive histories at point of sale, end up here magically without them. RTE were as much at fault too.

Actually on that note, here's a thought. Rather than rail against the lack of history on such imports why doesnt someone establish a connection in Japan that can look up the vin numbers and the attendant history. That would kill the glanza as starlet brigade and kill off the shonky dealers.

As for the 'no scruples' bit it was intended to be harsh against the poster. My apologies.

Oh good god sir, don't ever apologise to me. Just call me a bollex and tell me to feck off, that's more effective

johnos1984

Good points their WIBBS.

Its better to fish out the details in these arguments as it had been going very off topic.

Another good point:

Oh good god sir, don't ever apologise to me. Just call me a bollex and tell me to feck off, that's more effective

Feck off ya USELESS ****PIECE before i shoot you with ****E

Wibbs

Yep that worked. I'm fecking off now to avoid the **** gun. *stay low, duck and weave, duck and weave*

Owen

RTÉ are, and always will be numptys. I was interviewed twice as an expert in a field of IT, when clearly, I was just a hobbyist. Their words, not mind. They love a bit of self promotion, and elevating joe soap to the position of expert/consultant to make their shows seem more professional is something that happens on a regular basis.

Wibbs

They're also very good at winding such guests up to make for simplistic and tabloid telly.

Tigger

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I have two cars. I put both of them up for sale in the morning. Oh I see you got me. :rolleyes:

I'll say it slowly

he has commercial car dealer insurance

for everything else wibbs sez it better than i care to

lafors

Jaysus its amazing how quickly threads can be dragged off topic and into the gutter!! Amazed how it hasn't been locked already

I actually saw the primetime in question and have to say I agreed with most of what ye said but this thread isn't the place for it, and talk about the trolling by bringing it to a personal level :eek:

Motors has gone downhill to the level of after hours.....Thank God for the secret motors forum

Oh and Tigger, stop being a troll :rolleyes:

IBTL

Old Skool Cars

Tigger wrote: »

I'll say it slowly

he has commercial car dealer insurance

Just to settle something that i think has also been ASSUMED to date:

I HAD a Motor Trade policy from 2005-2009 until i 1. ceased working in the motor trade 2. ceased my personal trade policy when i was considering emigrating.

Since January 2010 i have my own PRIVATE insurance policy and i have owned 3 cars Privately. 1. 00' BMW 5 Series Touring, 2. 02' BMW 5 Series Touring and 3. BMW Z3M Roadster - currently for sale....

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Regards,
Ian.

P.S: I hope you enjoyed RTE's Consumer Show last night for those who watched it. Another clear point for concern that needs immediate clampdown so cases like this are limited - unless of course you own a car that has finance outstanding on it and you fancy your chances selling it unknown privately to someone......then im sure such people will have a different opinion on the matter!

Bodhan

I thought the piece was good, RTE did a little bit too much drama in the film and not enough comment from the guests.
Outstanding finance is a real problem, I know two people in trouble with cars because someone else couldn't keep up the payments.

Divorce Referendum

Tigger wrote: »

I'll say it slowly

he has commercial car dealer insurance

for everything else wibbs sez it better than i care to

Old Skool Cars wrote: »

Just to settle something that i think has also been ASSUMED to date:

I HAD a Motor Trade policy from 2005-2009 until i 1. ceased working in the motor trade 2. ceased my personal trade policy when i was considering emigrating.

Since January 2010 i have my own PRIVATE insurance policy and i have owned 3 cars Privately. 1. 00' BMW 5 Series Touring, 2. 02' BMW 5 Series Touring and 3. BMW Z3M Roadster - currently for sale....

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Regards,
Ian.

I will say it extra slowly he isnt a dealer :rolleyes:

Wibbs

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I will say it extra slowly he isnt a dealer :rolleyes:

In the midst of all this (pointless) point scoring, maybe you need to read it extra slowly too. He was a dealer with trade insurance from 05-09, as the chap has stated himself.

In any case no point going on a witch hunt. The point about the primetime programme and the highly debatable and singular onus on one section of the import market and its even more highly debatable(negligible) impact on road safety and the spate of deaths on the road has been made.

Divorce Referendum

Wibbs wrote: »

In the midst of all this (pointless) point scoring, maybe you need to read it extra slowly too. He was a dealer with trade insurance from 05-09, as the chap has stated himself.

In any case no point going on a witch hunt. The point about the primetime programme and the highly debatable and singular onus on one section of the import market and its even more highly debatable(negligible) impact on road safety and the spate of deaths on the road has been made.

Wibbs i take it you actually read what he said. He stated he had cars for sale privately at PRESENT even though he is a dealer or did you leave that part out? There is no question he WAS a dealer last year. Bloody hell.

Wibbs

To recap for those coming late this is broadly the issue raised

Motorcheck wrote: »

If all Japanese imports were correctly registered, you would find that the insurance premiums would go up and make them unaffordable for young drivers thus reducing the chances of a fatality occurring in one.

While the first part is true, the second has little basis in observed reality as no one has come forward with any stats whatsoever that back the claim that Jap imports figure in the fatality stats in any appreciable way. It's a scaremongering meme that ignores so many other factors in these tragedies.

I'm sure you understand given the problems you experienced yourself insuring a Toyota Starlet?

Then there were questions raised by some in the know when a rep of the Motorcheck company on the panel on primetime in an expert capacity owned and knowingly drove such a jap import with a completely different engine to what was on the log book. He was able to insure it under his dealer policy(or that of the garage he was working in?). Apparently it was VRT'd by someone else, for what amount is not clear and it was apparently road taxed for the actual engine size, which must have raised questions in the tax office with the obvious difference in the official log book. Those questions have been defended, but I don't see why people feel it inappropriate to ask in the first place when such an apparent disparity between the two positions is pointed out.

Wibbs

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Wibbs i take it you actually read what he said. He stated he had cars for sale privately at PRESENT even though he is a dealer or did you leave that part out? There is no question he WAS a dealer last year. Bloody hell.

I did. Read the thread again and youll see the issue in this case.

Divorce Referendum

Wibbs wrote: »

I did. Read the thread again and youll see the issue in this case.

He isnt a dealer and has cars for sale privately. Shocking stuff i know. It was stated many times by tigger that he was a dealer selling cars privately which is obviously illegal. He isnt a dealer now and has cars for sale privately now. Whats the problem with that?

Wibbs

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

He isnt a dealer and has cars for sale privately. Shocking stuff i know. It was stated many times by tigger that he was a dealer selling cars privately which is obviously illegal. He isnt a dealer now and has cars for sale privately now. Whats the problem with that?

Nothing whatsoever. Like I said read the thread again. That isn't the issue.

To save you the bother read this from above: There were questions raised by some in the know when a rep of the Motorcheck company on the panel on primetime in an expert capacity owned and knowingly drove such a jap import with a completely different engine to what was on the log book. He was able to insure it under his dealer policy(or that of the garage he was working in?). Apparently it was VRT'd by someone else, for what amount is not clear and it was apparently road taxed for the actual engine size, which must have raised questions in the tax office with the obvious difference in the official log book.
Any clearer?

Divorce Referendum

Wibbs wrote: »

Nothing whatsoever. Like I said read the thread again. That isn't the issue.

To save you the bother read this from above: There were questions raised by some in the know when a rep of the Motorcheck company on the panel on primetime in an expert capacity owned and knowingly drove such a jap import with a completely different engine to what was on the log book. He was able to insure it under his dealer policy(or that of the garage he was working in?). Apparently it was VRT'd by someone else, for what amount is not clear and it was apparently road taxed for the actual engine size, which must have raised questions in the tax office with the obvious difference in the official log book.
Any clearer?

Wibbs it was an issue that Tigger not you brought up. I was replying to him not you till you butted in and gave your opinion on it. To be honest in regard to YOUR issue which i never commented on, its irrelevant. The car that he bought and got someone to VRT for him was insured no matter what engine was in it. It was taxed correctly as well.

Anyone who registers a car this way normally wont be insured and wont be paying the correct tax. As to whether it contributes to crashs/deaths there are no statistics to validate your arguement or none to rubbish it, so at the moment its just your opinion thats all. RTE have an agenda against imported cars from Japan not registered correctly. Ian the 'expert' agrees. It would look funny if he didnt agree wouldnt it.

Wibbs

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

The car that he bought and got someone to VRT for him was insured no matter what engine was in it. It was taxed correctly as well.

That still raises questions. If he was the first owner, who registered the car and who paid the VRT on it? The importer? The garage? If it was registered as a 2.0 litre when it was in fact a 2.6 then the VRT on it might be different. The insurance was covered by the trade policy so that's grand. Then we come to road tax. When I've taxed any car I've owned I've handed in the log book. The log book in this case said 2.0 litre, so would be charged road tax accordingly. If I had asked to tax a 2.6, a car registered as a 2.0 then questions would have been asked unless the guy in the tax office was hungover. Imagine yourself if your car (and I don't know what size it is of course) is a 2 litre and you chose to pay 3 litre tax? Eh questions would be raised. On your sanity if nothing else . If it was taxed online then it would be entirely down to what was on the log book and impossible to tax it as anything else unless the log book was changed. So I can't see how proper road tax was paid.

Anyone who registers a car this way normally wont be insured and wont be paying the correct tax.

Exactly(though I still don't know how it was ever correctly road taxed). So when this car was eventually sold on was the log book changed? If not then there is a third party driving a wrongly registered car, probably uninsured(unless a trader) and avoiding higher road tax. That's precisely the problem that Motorcheck ltd and Motorcheck himself has been rightfully pursuing. Along with finding write offs and cars still under finance. I consider it ironic that an expert wheeled out on the nations airwaves drove such a car around while lambasting others for it. If he had said I've dne it myself and it was well out of order and this is how easy it is to do, then the argument would have had far more validity and would have been respected more.

As to whether it contributes to crashs/deaths there are no statistics to validate your arguement or none to rubbish it, so at the moment its just your opinion thats all.

There have been enough tragedies this year and last reported widely in the media and not a single one involved cars of this nature or any high powered cars at all. No Beemers, No Porsches, No Scoobys, No Type R's/S' Gti's No Evo's, No Glanzas. So unless you or anyone else can point to one, just one then its more than just my opinion.

RTE have an agenda against imported cars from Japan not registered correctly. Ian the 'expert' agrees. It would look funny if he didnt agree wouldnt it.

Ehhhh wut? That makes no sense. As the expert he should be setting the agenda if any is present with as unbaised an opinion as possible. In any case on that programme it was more a case of the bias going the other way.