The elephant in the room thread.

Capri

....Also the description is stating that its ROVER P5B RANGE 5DR. As we are all aware the way the revenue entered details on the system was highly negligible.

If this guy can make a living making a product that customers want within the confines of the law then why begrudge him? Its unusual not illegal

Is everyone jealous of this man or what? Sometime you wonder are some of the posts on this forum liable or slanderous given what some owners are being accused of. this man is clearly converting these as part of his living so why wouldn't he do it correctly especially given how easy it is to do right. the legalities are simple in that the Reg No. and Tax book belong to the chassis and ANYTHING that bolts onto that chassis can be exchanged/changed for new parts including body parts.

IF someone's doing it legit AND making money then fair play to them - but most people would reasonably question why you'd fit a 30+ year old chassis and running gear to a modern bodyshell -even IF it's a 'simple' swopover :rolleyes:

http://www.google.co.nz/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enIE451IE451&q=fitting+discovery+body+onto+range+rover+chassis

type85

the people on here know the reason for using a 30+yr chassis is to avoid paying 1080 euro tax. and i used the term "simple" as it is pretty much a nut and bolt job to lift over the body, axles and transmission. with only fabrication required to weld on 2 engine mounts when fitting the 2/300 tdi or td5 engines. not 2 days work for a competent person.

carchaeologist

type85 wrote: »

the people on here know the reason for using a 30+yr chassis is to avoid paying 1080 euro tax. and i used the term "simple" as it is pretty much a nut and bolt job to lift over the body, axles and transmission. with only fabrication required to weld on 2 engine mounts when fitting the 2/300 tdi or td5 engines. not 2 days work for a competent person.

Not to mention avoiding the NCT also, nearly all, if not all the conversions are pre '80.

corktina

not to mention the fact that in most cases all that has been switched is the number plates

carchaeologist

corktina wrote: »

not to mention the fact that in most cases all that has been switched is the number plates

To be fair, I would say that anyone advertising this job as a business would have to be doing the job properly, because if something went down, like an accident, it would come back on him.

type85

see its the comments like that from corktina that get me. where is the evidence or proof that "most" of these are just a number plate swap?

corktina

it's an opinion...I erred in saying it was a fact I accept. However I bet I'm right

macplaxton

It's possibly more than 2 days work, given how rusty 30 year-old Rangie chassis can get.

corktina

macplaxton wrote: »

It's possibly more than 2 days work, given how rusty 30 year-old Rangie chassis can get.

probably more rusty than the chassis of the new body wouldn't you expect?

dr.fuzzenstein

corktina wrote: »

probably more rusty than the chassis of the new body wouldn't you expect?

So maybe better just swap that chassis number...

macplaxton

corktina wrote: »

probably more rusty than the chassis of the new body wouldn't you expect?

You may say so, but I couldn't possibly comment.

serious3

type85 wrote: »

the people on here know the reason for using a 30+yr chassis is to avoid paying 1080 euro tax. and i used the term "simple" as it is pretty much a nut and bolt job to lift over the body, axles and transmission. with only fabrication required to weld on 2 engine mounts when fitting the 2/300 tdi or td5 engines. not 2 days work for a competent person.

the very fact that the radius arms front and rear on TD5 discoveries mount inboard of the chassis makes it a lot more than nuts and bolts as does the fact that one of his "conversions" was a RRC LSE which is a longer wheelbase and didn't come into being till well after the vintage tax cut off point, in fact he hung up the phone when i asked him how this could be!!!!! i've seen one of his conversions on a P38 range rover which was reg'd as a vintage.....chassis and running gear was identical to the 1998 model that was supposedly off a 1977 range rover

Capri

Is everyone jealous of this man or what? Sometime you wonder are some of the posts on this forum liable or slanderous given what some owners are being accused of. this man is clearly converting these as part of his living so why wouldn't he do it correctly especially given how easy it is to do right. the legalities are simple in that the Reg No. and Tax book belong to the chassis and ANYTHING that bolts onto that chassis can be exchanged/changed for new parts including body parts.

serious3 wrote: »

the very fact that the radius arms front and rear on TD5 discoveries mount inboard of the chassis makes it a lot more than nuts and bolts as does the fact that one of his "conversions" was a RRC LSE which is a longer wheelbase and didn't come into being till well after the vintage tax cut off point, in fact he hung up the phone when i asked him how this could be!!!!! i've seen one of his conversions on a P38 range rover which was reg'd as a vintage.....chassis and running gear was identical to the 1998 model that was supposedly off a 1977 range rover

ONE of these quotes is correct and knowledgable, I know which quote I trust :rolleyes:

MAYBE the fact that registration is now done by the NCTS means that Revenue have washed their hands of it ??

kasper

this guy wil lsell a car on zvs and also give an original irish tax book to suit same car if the buyer can use their nut , he has four adds altogether two are in Dublin and two are in kildare
http://cars.donedeal.ie/vintagecars-for-sale/austin/5285685
http://cars.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/mercedes-cls-320cdi/5620866
http://cars.donedeal.ie/find/all/for-sale/Ireland/?uid=708220
http://www.donedeal.ie/birds-for-sale/cockatiels-and-cage/5261301

in the third add he advises how important it is to get your vintage car transported by a reputable insured haulier

Basil Fawlty

corktina wrote: »

not to mention the fact that in most cases all that has been switched is the number plates

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

Basil Fawlty

serious3 wrote: »

the very fact that the radius arms front and rear on TD5 discoveries mount inboard of the chassis makes it a lot more than nuts and bolts as does the fact that one of his "conversions" was a RRC LSE which is a longer wheelbase and didn't come into being till well after the vintage tax cut off point, in fact he hung up the phone when i asked him how this could be!!!!! i've seen one of his conversions on a P38 range rover which was reg'd as a vintage.....chassis and running gear was identical to the 1998 model that was supposedly off a 1977 range rover

False! The Disco II arms mount in the same position albeit with different mounts. They are certainly not inboard of the chassis. So you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

In relation to the P38 he did, when he advertised it he showed photos of the RR chassis underneath it in the advertisement. A friend of mine rang about it, and the gentleman told him how he'd done the conversion etc, and said while it was done properly he told him not to expect it to drive like a P38 as it was still a clunky old Range Rover underneath.

Personally I think people should now be restoring the earlier Range Rovers rather than putting Disco II bodies on them.

Basil Fawlty

corktina wrote: »

suggest you see post 188

(as it happens I do know of quite a few cars definitely ringed and could probably prove it in some cases if ever the Gards/ Customs start investigating as I know where they came from and details of the seller)

I posted before I read that one! Yes while people have been correct in the past about some of the glaringly obvious ones, the ones with doubt should be given the benefit of that doubt.

corktina

the thing is, if you do it once , and do it carefully,and just for your own pleasure, then you'll probably get away with it, but if you do it multiple times and sell the resulting vehicles, the chances are sooner or later you'll get caught, which will also have repercussions on all the new owners and on the "movement" as a whole

type85

Basil Fawlty wrote: »

False! The Disco II arms mount in the same position albeit with different mounts. They are certainly not inboard of the chassis. So you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

In relation to the P38 he did, when he advertised it he showed photos of the RR chassis underneath it in the advertisement. A friend of mine rang about it, and the gentleman told him how he'd done the conversion etc, and said while it was done properly he told him not to expect it to drive like a P38 as it was still a clunky old Range Rover underneath.

Personally I think people should now be restoring the earlier Range Rovers rather than putting Disco II bodies on them.

you are spot on, with the radius rods on the older having pin and newer having an eye bushing. and both being the same at the axle ends.:)

and in the advert for the P38 it was clearly visible to see the original RR outriggers alongside the newly fabricated body mounts.:)

carchaeologist

Basil Fawlty wrote: »

In relation to the P38 he did, when he advertised it he showed photos of the RR chassis underneath it in the advertisement. A friend of mine rang about it, and the gentleman told him how he'd done the conversion etc, and said while it was done properly he told him not to expect it to drive like a P38 as it was still a clunky old Range Rover underneath.

As I said earlier, if you are doing this as a buisiness, you would have to have everything above board or at some stage you would get caught out.

Though why you would want to nail a P38 body on a range rover chassis is totally beyond me!!
It must drive horribly?

Basil Fawlty

I would say its horrendous to drive as the shell for a P38 is much heavier than a disco or Range Rover Classic.

type85

i don't know what the difference is in weight but you won't be doing 100mph in one anyway, but you could always fit some air bags to assist/increase the spring rate, and retro fit the antiroll bars.

carchaeologist

type85 wrote: »

i don't know what the difference is in weight but you won't be doing 100mph in one anyway, but you could always fit some air bags to assist/increase the spring rate, and retro fit the antiroll bars.

I presume that an engineer has to pass these before they are sold?
Or is it that because it's always technically still an old Land Rover there is no issue?

type85

for the body(P38) swap i'd imagine the only person who might ask for an engineers report is your insurance company. But if your changing the engine also then you use the usual RF111 section 5.

Capri

MANY MANY years ago, I bought a rolled 6mth old Fiesta and went into my local Ford dealer and ordered a brand new painted shell. It arrived on a pallet to the front door and I proceeded to strip the old shell and put the bits in the garage, then I started to rebuild on the bits into the new shell - now, AFIR, I was not charged duty or given a new reg. no for the new shell, all I did was cut the old chassis no off the old shell and stuck it into the new shell - which had no chassis no stamped in it . When I sold it on I showed the buyer ALL the photos of the build etc and all the reciepts - he went off a happy man.

delthedriver

type85 wrote: »

for the body(P38) swap i'd imagine the only person who might ask for an engineers report is your insurance company. But if your changing the engine also then you use the usual RF111 section 5.

What is the question on the Insurers Proposal form.?

I guess non standard conversions must be an issue for the Insurance Companies?

corktina

Capri wrote: »

MANY MANY years ago, I bought a rolled 6mth old Fiesta and went into my local Ford dealer and ordered a brand new painted shell. It arrived on a pallet to the front door and I proceeded to strip the old shell and put the bits in the garage, then I started to rebuild on the bits into the new shell - now, AFIR, I was not charged duty or given a new reg. no for the new shell, all I did was cut the old chassis no off the old shell and stuck it into the new shell - which had no chassis no stamped in it . When I sold it on I showed the buyer ALL the photos of the build etc and all the reciepts - he went off a happy man.

with a new shell that is perfectly acceptable, the only way you can transfer an ID.

macplaxton

corktina wrote: »

with a new shell that is perfectly acceptable, the only way you can transfer an ID.

Is it? Might be acceptable across the water, but here the Revenue would be wanting it's pound of flesh.

corktina

macplaxton wrote: »

Is it? Might be acceptable across the water, but here the Revenue would be wanting it's pound of flesh.

you could be right, I can't show any proof that is the case...

macplaxton

corktina wrote: »

you could be right, I can't show any proof that is the case...

Okay, I'll give it try. Disclaimer: I'm no legal beagle and can be completely wrong. Go and find your own solicitor for legal advice.

Revenue Operational Manual VRT Section 1

1.2.3.1 Re-built Passenger Vehicles
Re-built passenger vehicles which are determined to be unregistered vehicles under the terms of s130A of Finance Act, 1992, as amended, will require an Individual Type-Approval from the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI).

Where Revenue determines that the chassis has been obtained from a registered vehicle and the rebuild does not amount to a conversion, as defined, registration is not required. The owner should be directed to notify the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in Shannon, of the changes in the registered particulars. Where Revenue determines that a conversion has been effected, the owner should be directed to make a declaration of conversion, supported by a certificate from a Suitably Qualified Individual.

It is the owner’s responsibility to notify the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in Shannon, of the scrapping of a vehicle, i.e. of the irrevocable destruction of the chassis, monocoque, or assembly serving an equivalent purpose. There is no need to notify Revenue because Revenue does not maintain records for more than five years and because Revenue confines itself, for the most part, to making VRT-sensitive amendments.

Section S.130A got deleted, but the definition in S.130 of "vehicle" was revised by S.83 of the Finance Act 2012 to:

(b) in section 130 by substituting the following for the definition of
“vehicle”:
“ ‘vehicle’ means a mechanically propelled vehicle, including an
unregistered vehicle–
(a) built up from the chassis, or
(b) built using a monocoque or an assembly serving an
equivalent purpose as a chassis,
which chassis, monocoque or assembly is either new or unused or
is derived from another unregistered vehicle;”,

Which all boils down to:

If the chassis, monocoque or assembly that is serving an equivalent purpose as a chassis is NEW, then it attacts VRT and re-registration.

If it is second-hand or repaired original, it carries the ID of either the second-hand or repaired original.


Now personally, I'm happier with the DVLA's take on new replacement monocoques and chassis to original specification. But plenty grumble about that too...