Is this an Elephant?

unkel

swarlb wrote: »

I don't accept that really. A Garda is meant to know rules and regulations, that's part of their job.

Judging by the number of threads on this forum alone about rules and regulations it seems many of us (myself included) don't even know some, certainly not all of them. And we're enthusiasts. And classic cars is about 0.01% of all rules and regulations a Garda has to deal with. So, no, a Garda doesn't know all rules and can't possibly be expected to know them

swarlb

unkel wrote: »

Judging by the number of threads on this forum alone about rules and regulations it seems many of us (myself included) don't even know some, certainly not all of them. And we're enthusiasts. And classic cars is about 0.01% of all rules and regulations a Garda has to deal with. So, no, a Garda doesn't know all rules and can't possibly be expected to know them

Just for argument sake lets view this from another angle....now I don't want a raft of replies on the differences between models, or engine sizes, this is just a scenario.....
Lets say I have a 2003 320 BMW with a 2.2 petrol engine = High Road Tax
Lets say I source a written off (in the UK) 2014 320 BMW with (in this country) a Low Road Tax
Lets say I go through all the importation regulations, and present my 2003 320 BMW to the NCT centre
Would the following happen.......
I'd get a 2014 plate to stick on my 11 year old 320, and subsequently get low road tax...
And, if stopped by a Garda, would he say " Ah here, that's taking the pizz"
Because that's exactly what has happened above, except in reverse

26000 Elephants

swarlb wrote: »

Because that's exactly what has happened above, except in reverse

What you describe above is exactly what appears to be happening here. Ringing is commutative - Going old to new or new to old is immaterial - the goal is to reduce the liability to tax.

btw, thats what i mean when i say it has nothing to do with classic cars - per se.

pablo128

26000 Elephants wrote: »

What you describe above is exactly what appears to be happening here. Ringing is commutative - Going old to new or new to old is immaterial - the goal is to reduce the liability to tax.

btw, thats what i mean when i say it has nothing to do with classic cars - per se.

You're right about the tax. It's purely as a money saving exercise, as much as I despise the pre-'08 tax rates in this country. Nothing to do with any interest in cars. And you're right about it appearing to be a straightforward ringing job.
However, when you disguise a relatively modern car as a classic car using ZV number plates, and then avail of the classic car motor tax rate, well I have to disagree with you. It has potential to fcuk it up for us classic car owners if enough people are seen to be scamming it.

26000 Elephants

pablo128 wrote: »

However, when you disguise a relatively modern car as a classic car using ZV number plates, and then avail of the classic car motor tax rate, well I have to disagree with you. It has potential to fcuk it up for us classic car owners if enough people are seen to be scamming it.

No, you are correct. But I think it needs to be highlighted as a simple criminal act of fraud, as opposed to being somehow connected to classic car ownership and use. But by highlighting it, you could end up having a torch shone on the whole classic car tax concession. Considering that its escaped from austerity measures so far, it might be best to retain a low profile.I know that attitude annoys some people, but to be fair, the revenue arent exactly shy about going after fraudsters. They rarely need prompting.

swarlb

26000 Elephants wrote: »

No, you are correct. But I think it needs to be highlighted as a simple criminal act of fraud, as opposed to being somehow connected to classic car ownership and use. But by highlighting it, you could end up having a torch shone on the whole classic car tax concession. Considering that its escaped from austerity measures so far, it might be best to retain a low profile.I know that attitude annoys some people, but to be fair, the revenue arent exactly shy about going after fraudsters. They rarely need prompting.

The easiest solution to this would be to simply put a 'cut off date' like they have with the NCT, not a rolling 30 year thing. I realize this will annoy those see cars from the 80/90's as 'classics' or even newer. Never mind what will crop up as time passes.
The whole idea of the cheaper rate for vintage cars was to allow people to have a hobby without the extra expense. This was never intended as loophole to use a car as an everyday means of transport.
I remember having to tax any older cars I had at the normal rate that applied at the time, and it was not that long ago either.

Casati

Ringing a car to get lower road tax is much the same as driving around for years in a UK reg car while living and working in Ireland. Both of them against the law and of interest to revenue, but in lovely Ireland people tend to mind their own business and won't usually report either to the authorities as its the way we are conditioned.

I'd seriously doubt that the driver of the ringed car would be insured though, so the owner must be taking a serious risk driving it around

corktina

Casati wrote: »

Ringing a car to get lower road tax is much the same as driving around for years in a UK reg car while living and working in Ireland. Both of them against the law and of interest to revenue, but in lovely Ireland people tend to mind their own business and won't usually report either to the authorities as its the way we are conditioned.

I'd seriously doubt that the driver of the ringed car would be insured though, so the owner must be taking a serious risk driving it around

He can't be insured. The policy is on the car the number belongs too, not the one the number is being misused on

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

No, you are correct. But I think it needs to be highlighted as a simple criminal act of fraud, as opposed to being somehow connected to classic car ownership and use.

Again - it is connected to classic car ownership, as it abuses a mechanism designed to support the hobby of classic car ownership. That should be self-evident.

I'm delighted you've abandoned the notions that this abuse doesn't need to be highlighted, and that there's the possibility of a valid rationale for the reg on the car though. Progress, if a little slow.

Capri

Another angle to all this is that the Customs/Revenue & Gardai are generally p**sed off with their jobs/salaries/cutbacks and don't want to do anything other than clock in and out and do the minimum in between - now if there was a cash 'reward' for all those ossifers based on detections then we'd see an upsurge in same.Like in one country I visit where the police 'buy' a stretch of road from their commander and split the speed fines 3 ways - them/commander/state :eek:

mountai

corktina wrote: »

He can't be insured. The policy is on the car the number belongs too, not the one the number is being misused on

Well if you are insured with AXA , you have no worries , as they KNOWINGLY insure cars that are illegally on the road.

corktina

I have heard that alright. (especially Classics). Will they pay out though?

steinbock123

Saw a Land Rover Discovery yesterday - Reg.No. was ****ZD, which is 1972 Dublin plate. I thought they didn't start making them until the late 80's? Took a picture but can't post it, despite having been on here since 2011 and posting photos previously.

alastair

steinbock123 wrote: »

Saw a Land Rover Discovery yesterday - Reg.No. was ****ZD, which is 1972 Dublin plate. I thought they didn't start making them until the late 80's? Took a picture but can't post it, despite having been on here since 2011 and posting photos previously.

Some Land rovers / Range rovers can be swapped onto older chassis - so technically, it is a '72 car with a radical bit of bodywork modification.

corktina

alastair wrote: »

Some Land rovers / Range rovers can be swapped onto older chassis - so technically, it is a '72 car with a radical bit of bodywork modification.

possibly, except of course it's the chassis that rots quicker than the body, so it's more likely to be a number plate swap for economic reasons (imo)

26000 Elephants

corktina wrote: »

possibly, except of course it's the chassis that rots quicker than the body, so it's more likely to be a number plate swap for economic reasons (imo)

Probably not the case in most cases - early series landies rust anywhere that wasnt covered in oil, but range rovers were surprisingly resistant usually requiring only rear cross members. Any part of the chassis is available and easily welded on.

Its just a question of finding one in a field, applying for the logbook, do the rebody (which is surprisingly straightforward as disco shares wheel base with range rover) and away you go.

Pretty disgusting if you are a fan of the early range rovers ( like me), as every zv plated disco is another classic range rover that wont get restored, but completely legal.

26000 Elephants

swarlb wrote: »

The easiest solution to this would be to simply put a 'cut off date' like they have with the NCT, not a rolling 30 year thing.

Thats fine for our generation, but what about the next generation? The future members of the Nissan qashqai club of ireland will be burning effigies of you.... ;-)

Simple solution is to restrict cars availing of the 52e tax to 'off peak' usage - after 7pm Mon thru' Friday and all day weekends. If you get caught commuting in your classic you automatically are liable for the difference in the full road tax rate for your car based on co2 or cc (plus a fine). That would stop the problem overnight and would not effect 'true' classic owners.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Thats fine for our generation, but what about the next generation? The future members of the Nissan qashqai club of ireland will be burning effigies of you.... ;-)

Simple solution is to restrict cars availing of the 52e tax to 'off peak' usage - after 7pm Mon thru' Friday and all day weekends. If you get caught commuting in your classic you automatically are liable for the difference in the full road tax rate for your car based on co2 or cc (plus a fine). That would stop the problem overnight and would not effect 'true' classic owners.

Neither is a solution. A rolling 30 year rule is grand - pretty soon it'll hit the point where we're into full on built-in-obsolescence era cars, which won't really lend themselves to long term ownership (in the same way as pre-ECU maintained cars did). For better or worse, there's not much chance of the same degree of viability in hanging onto cars of the 90's as there was of the older generations of cars (and I speak as someone who, until recently opted to drive a 1990 car as a daily driver).

The reality is most people don't want to drive classics every day (or indeed; at all) - they're comparatively thirsty, slow, and unsafe, and they're a pain to keep from rusting and to find a willing mechanic to work on, if you're not prepared to go DIY on maintenance (which most people aren't). It's a niche interest, and will remain so.

Having said that, pushing that niche interest into evenings and weekends only makes little sense from anyone's perspective - it requires that the authorities would then have to enforce such restrictions, which would not be practical, and more importantly, it would penalise classic owners who, quite legitimately, use their cars for commuting, or weekday purposes. I know I had a perfectly enjoyable fortnight driving a classic around France this summer - mostly daytime driving of weekdays.

The sensible solution to the problem of people abusing the vintage tax situation by ringing, is to ensure that they're not allowed get away with it. It's cheap, simple, and ensures actual classic hobbyists aren't forced to jump through new hoops aimed at discouraging law-breakers.

There's a clear enough line (for me) between those people who abuse the vintage tax/registration policy, and those who stretch the spirit of the law. The range rover and 911 body swappers, and kit car enthusiasts are able to benefit from the law, in a fashion that may not adhere to the original intent of the legislation, but again - these are niche interest groups. Most people won't choose kit cars or elderly chassis cars over the real deal, so the scope for this stretching of the spirit of the law is self-limiting. Ringing, however, is straightforward fraud, and should only be tackled by penalising offenders, not making life more difficult for those who don't break the law.

John Larkin

alastair wrote: »

Neither is a solution. A rolling 30 year rule is grand - pretty soon it'll hit the point where we're into full on built-in-obsolescence era cars, which won't really lend themselves to long term ownership (in the same way as pre-ECU maintained cars did). For better or worse, there's not much chance of the same degree of viability in hanging onto cars of the 90's as there was of the older generations of cars (and I speak as someone who, until recently opted to drive a 1990 car as a daily driver).

The reality is most people don't want to drive classics every day (or indeed; at all) - they're comparatively thirsty, slow, and unsafe, and they're a pain to keep from rusting and to find a willing mechanic to work on, if you're not prepared to go DIY on maintenance (which most people aren't). It's a niche interest, and will remain so.

Having said that, pushing that niche interest into evenings and weekends only makes little sense from anyone's perspective - it requires that the authorities would then have to enforce such restrictions, which would not be practical, and more importantly, it would penalise classic owners who, quite legitimately, use their cars for commuting, or weekday purposes. I know I had a perfectly enjoyable fortnight driving a classic around France this summer - mostly daytime driving of weekdays.

The sensible solution to the problem of people abusing the vintage tax situation by ringing, is to ensure that they're not allowed get away with it. It's cheap, simple, and ensures actual classic hobbyists aren't forced to jump through new hoops aimed at discouraging law-breakers.

There's a clear enough line (for me) between those people who abuse the vintage tax/registration policy, and those who stretch the spirit of the law. The range rover and 911 body swappers, and kit car enthusiasts are able to benefit from the law, in a fashion that may not adhere to the original intent of the legislation, but again - these are niche interest groups. Most people won't choose kit cars or elderly chassis cars over the real deal, so the scope for this stretching of the spirit of the law is self-limiting. Ringing, however, is straightforward fraud, and should only be tackled by penalising offenders, not making life more difficult for those who don't break the law.

That is a very well put and rational argument Alastair!

MrFoxman360

alastair wrote: »

Neither is a solution. A rolling 30 year rule is grand - pretty soon it'll hit the point where we're into full on built-in-obsolescence era cars, which won't really lend themselves to long term ownership (in the same way as pre-ECU maintained cars did). For better or worse, there's not much chance of the same degree of viability in hanging onto cars of the 90's as there was of the older generations of cars (and I speak as someone who, until recently opted to drive a 1990 car as a daily driver).

The reality is most people don't want to drive classics every day (or indeed; at all) - they're comparatively thirsty, slow, and unsafe, and they're a pain to keep from rusting and to find a willing mechanic to work on, if you're not prepared to go DIY on maintenance (which most people aren't). It's a niche interest, and will remain so.

Having said that, pushing that niche interest into evenings and weekends only makes little sense from anyone's perspective - it requires that the authorities would then have to enforce such restrictions, which would not be practical, and more importantly, it would penalise classic owners who, quite legitimately, use their cars for commuting, or weekday purposes. I know I had a perfectly enjoyable fortnight driving a classic around France this summer - mostly daytime driving of weekdays.

The sensible solution to the problem of people abusing the vintage tax situation by ringing, is to ensure that they're not allowed get away with it. It's cheap, simple, and ensures actual classic hobbyists aren't forced to jump through new hoops aimed at discouraging law-breakers.

There's a clear enough line (for me) between those people who abuse the vintage tax/registration policy, and those who stretch the spirit of the law. The range rover and 911 body swappers, and kit car enthusiasts are able to benefit from the law, in a fashion that may not adhere to the original intent of the legislation, but again - these are niche interest groups. Most people won't choose kit cars or elderly chassis cars over the real deal, so the scope for this stretching of the spirit of the law is self-limiting. Ringing, however, is straightforward fraud, and should only be tackled by penalising offenders, not making life more difficult for those who don't break the law.

That's the most sensible thing I have read about this topic on here in a long time.

Testacalda

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Simple solution is to restrict cars availing of the 52e tax to 'off peak' usage - after 7pm Mon thru' Friday and all day weekends... that would stop the problem overnight and would not effect 'true' classic owners.

Lord Jaysus :eek: Good job your not minister for transport anyway.

I would consider myself a 'true' classic enthusiast as you put it, but what you are suggesting would be a terrible restriction on any classic car enthusiast. Yes people mostly drive classics at the weekends and in the evenings, but no one would be happy about being tied to that!

I drive mine during the day when I'm not at work, I also drive them weekdays after work and I take one on holidays all over the country during the summer time. I have two other modern vehicles which I pay my full road tax on by the way, but I love being able to drive my old ones whenever I can too.

The thing most people like to do with their classics is drive them!

26000 Elephants

John Larkin wrote: »

That is a very well put and rational argument Alastair!

Apart from it being contradictory? I dont see how it is impractical to retrict them because "it requires that the authorities would then have to enforce such restrictions" while later saying that its much simpler to check for classic ringers - "...is to ensure that they're not allowed get away with it. It's cheap, simple,..."

The key to the ringing issue is to remove the incentive. How thats done is still obviously open to debate.

Also, I dont think the Luddite view of later cars is a fair one. My idea of a classic car differs greatly from that of my father ( He loved 1940's Fords and 50's Jags) He could never understand me restoring a 1970's range rover - a car he had bought (almost) new. Im sure I wont understand my son wanting to restore a bmw z4 in 20 years, but thats the way things go. Advocating a cut off is simply saying, "Im alright, Jack, sod the rest of you"

26000 Elephants

Testacalda wrote: »

Lord Jaysus :eek: Good job your not minister for transport anyway.

If I was, you'd be paying 250e a year to tax a 2 litre car :cool: (but you'd be paying 2e a litre for diesel!! :eek:

Testacalda wrote: »

I drive mine during the day when I'm not at work,

My feeling is that its this usage pattern that will lead to the scrapping of the classic tax band before any furore over so called elephants. anyone who sees your car on a regular basis will be wondering why they are paying 700e in tax when you are 'getting away' with 52e. They may not be aware of the other cars in your collection, for which you pay full rate tax.

Basil Fawlty

I think everyone here is missing the real issue. Which is that tax is prohibitively expensive on cars using the CC based tax system. Anything over 1.6 is crazy money to tax. The guy with the merc is a true idiot and will of course be found out sooner than later, but the way people here talk about the vintage tax rate and the fear they have of it being taken away really winds me up.

That tax rate was achieved by enthusiasts lobbying the relevant bodies in government. You the enthusiast have the freedom and the ability to solve this problem with a little hard work. Why not focus your efforts on lobbying for a fairer rate of motor tax for the cars in the CC based system. This would mean you dont have to worry about elephants and that you too could have a late 80s or 90s classic on the road with fairly priced motor tax.

How do people ever expect this country to get better if you don't demand change on the issues that bother you.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Apart from it being contradictory? I dont see how it is impractical to retrict them because "it requires that the authorities would then have to enforce such restrictions" while later saying that its much simpler to check for classic ringers - "...is to ensure that they're not allowed get away with it. It's cheap, simple,..."

The key to the ringing issue is to remove the incentive. How thats done is still obviously open to debate.

No contradiction in anything I posted tbh. Enforcement of a new law is, by definition, more costly than enforcing existing laws - it's an additional burden, and in this case, a clearly awkward and impractical law to enforce. Dealing with a small number of ringers is clearly simpler and cheaper than monitoring every old looking car on the roads during work hours.

The key to resolving all forms of criminality is not to penalise those who aren't criminals, but to penalise those who are.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

My feeling is that its this usage pattern that will lead to the scrapping of the classic tax band before any furore over so called elephants. anyone who sees your car on a regular basis will be wondering why they are paying 700e in tax when you are 'getting away' with 52e. They may not be aware of the other cars in your collection, for which you pay full rate tax.

Very few would be interested in 'trading down' to the aforementioned thirstier, slower, less safe, option, that requires a garage and a specialist (read expensive) mechanic. Just as there are few who would opt to drive around in a hearse for the tax break. The mass rush to drive classics or hearses isn't likely to happen any time soon. Meanwhile the abuse of the system so people can fraudulently drive modern cars under the vintage tax umbrella, is an existent, actual, threat to the tax break for legitimate classic owners.

John Larkin

Basil Fawlty wrote: »

I think everyone here is missing the real issue. Which is that tax is prohibitively expensive on cars using the CC based tax system. Anything over 1.6 is crazy money to tax. The guy with the merc is a true idiot and will of course be found out sooner than later, but the way people here talk about the vintage tax rate and the fear they have of it being taken away really winds me up.

That tax rate was achieved by enthusiasts lobbying the relevant bodies in government. You the enthusiast have the freedom and the ability to solve this problem with a little hard work. Why not focus your efforts on lobbying for a fairer rate of motor tax for the cars in the CC based system. This would mean you dont have to worry about elephants and that you too could have a late 80s or 90s classic on the road with fairly priced motor tax.

How do people ever expect this country to get better if you don't demand change on the issues that bother you.

I have lobbied for change for many years. Between 1978 and 2000 I made three very detailed and fully costed submissions to the Government that road tax should be charged by increasing excise duty on petrol. It was clear from the responses that I received on each occasion that the civil service was against the idea, even when the ministers were in favour. I sought support from an established car club to promote the idea, but they considered the idea to be controversial and declined to help. This fear of rocking the boat is common among the "representative" car clubs. I gave up eventually --- I saw no point in tilting at windmills any longer.

The low tax rate that we enjoy on old cars was put in place by the late Albert Reynolds who listened to a small group of enthusiasts who made a good case which he supported and pushed through despite civil service resistance. Reasonable pragmatic politicians such as he are rare indeed.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

No contradiction in anything I posted tbh. Enforcement of a new law is, by definition, more costly than enforcing existing laws - it's an additional burden, and in this case, a clearly awkward and impractical law to enforce. Dealing with a small number of ringers is clearly simpler and cheaper than monitoring every old looking car on the roads during work hours.

The key to resolving all forms of criminality is not to penalise those who aren't criminals, but to penalise those who are.

Its contradictory because you say one solution is impractical because it requires enforcement, but the other is practical because it simply requires enforcement. I think we have already established that the 'elephant' issue is because laws arent being enforced as they should be.

As for the "Enforcement of a new law is, by definition, more costly than enforcing existing laws" - by what definition? Laws change all the time, Ive never heard of anyone saying we are not changing the alcohol limit because its 'too expensive'. If an existing law is NOT working, then you change it. Or do a crackdown. How would you do that? Check every car availing of the classic tax? Sounds expensive and entirely impractical.

Again, the problem is people falsifying the identity of a vehicle to reduce the road tax and then use it as their daily driver. Remove this incentive and you will eradicate the issue. Enforcement is simple - you see a zv car in rush hour, you stop it.If the owner wants to use it all day everyday, then they can pay what everyone else has to pay.

Silvera

I believe the 'Vintage' rate of €52pa should remain in it's current form.

What needs changing is the way a car owner may have to pay, for example, €1800pa in year 29 and €52 in year 30. IMHO, cars over 20 (or 25) years should have a reducted 'classic' rate, e.g. half their normal rate pa. As many owner of such classics may only tax their vehicle for 6 months anyway, they would effectively only then be paying 1/4 of the current rate of motor tax.

The 'ZV' system also needs an urgent overhaul. I have listed (many times) one example of a fairer/more appropriate 'vintage' registration system. The fact of the matter is that a lot of vintage/classic vehicle owners are unhappy with the current system of 'ZV' or 'year' registration plate options. In turn IMO this contributes to a large element of 'ringing' of such vehicles.

macplaxton

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Simple solution is to restrict cars availing of the 52e tax

Silvera wrote: »

I believe the 'Vintage' rate of €52pa should remain in it's current form.

*cough*

It's been €56 for over a year-and-a-half now.





01 Jan 2013 > / €56
01 Jan 2012 to 31 Dec 2012 / €52
01 Jan 2009 to 31 Dec 2011 / €48
01 Feb 2008 to 31 Dec 2008 / €46
01 Jan 2004 to 31 Jan 2008 / €42
01 Jan 2003 to 31 Dec 2003 / €40