89 replies to this topic

[Ethel]

He very probably is, or somebody has, but it's by not doing the required V5 administration for the car the shell came from. If it had an identity, it still will, as long as it physically exists.

As Itsaminithing points out, the law's tied itself in knots. Snakes tied in knots are at least as likely to bite you.

We're discussing Min's, but the law makers won't have anticipated how obsessed and irrational we'd be. Normal people scrap cars when the repair bills are more than they're worth.

[minimans]

I don't think you can use the swapping vin plates fuels theft in THIS case. I highly doubt criminals are going to restore the shells of cars they nick (possibly even to customer specification). I stand by the fact that i don't think the seller is breaking the law, he's not trying to pass something of as something it isn't, there's no reason why an owner couldn't q plate it and it doesn't say anywhere it doesn't come with vin now.(though i suspect it doesn't!!!). If an owner decides to put his/her plates on it that's their risk not the sellers. Selling guns undoubtly fuels murders but gun shop owners do t get reported and locked up do they? to use the argument of the shell could be stolen is rubbish as you could say the same thing for every other time for sale on eBay! 

Selling guns fuels murders? That's about as true as selling cutlery caused obesity.....................................

[CityEPete]

I think you'd need some identification for buying a gun from a gun shop anyway!

[r3k1355]

 

so forgetting the morals - is this illegal or not? some seem to think it is others are quite adamant its not....... 

No he (the eBay guy) is doing nothing illegal.

 

 

Can you be done for facilitating fraud or whatever?   Obviously one sale on it's own is totally legal, but if he supplied a bunch to people who built flatpack classics??

Probably not in this case, but as others have said it's abit of a grey and murky area.

 

Mind you the police don't seem to stop people actively selling equipment to steal cars, so someone who's legally selling a bodyshell that 'possibly' could be mis-used isn't going to be of interest to them.

Edited by r3k1355, 09 November 2017 - 12:49 PM.

[CityEPete]

That's it, too many possiblys. He could sell them as art exhibits, he could even tell people to swap the vins over but he'd still not be the person doing it.

[r3k1355]

Law needs clearing up, and IMO there should be a legal avenue to do a re-shell using a donor car without getting a Q plate.

Everyone does it anyway, the DVLA should have some way to track whats been done instead of everyone just doing it on the sly and keeping quiet about it.

[Ethel]

There's potential for conspiracy to commit fraud. Unlikely anyone would be interested in gathering the evidence, but not impossible that he'd be dropped in it by a customer who got caught selling a ringer. He'd be more likely to get pulled by the DVSA off a string of Ebay adverts, but even that is barely worth their while.

[Ethel]

Law needs clearing up, and IMO there should be a legal avenue to do a re-shell using a donor car without getting a Q plate.

Everyone does it anyway, the DVLA should have some way to track whats been done instead of everyone just doing it on the sly and keeping quiet about it.

Won't happen,

 

Too much value attached vehicle ages* and originality. Then there's the matter of Class A write offs, cut 'n shuts, stolen cars - all reasons why we have V5's to audit a car's history.

 

*The rules have to cover the majority, who might buy a used car before it even needs its first MoT and use Glass's Guide as Gospel.

 

As every new car put on the road had a V5 there's no good reason why a legit used shell shouldn't still have it.

[Cooperman]

To be clear the vendor is doing nothing illegal. It is what a subsequent owner does that might be illegal.

 

However, a subsequent owner could build it into a racing car and that would be entirely legal. Or he/she could build a nice Mini and have a Q-plate.

 

Let's not judge in advance.

[mab01uk]

Law needs clearing up, and IMO there should be a legal avenue to do a re-shell using a donor car without getting a Q plate.

Everyone does it anyway, the DVLA should have some way to track whats been done instead of everyone just doing it on the sly and keeping quiet about it.

 

Back in 2011 'Classics Monthly' magazine started a 'Reshell or Die' petition (see below) to try and change the law for monocoque classic car restoration using a donor shell and bring it into line with older cars with separate body/chassis. At one stage it looked like the DVLA would include the proposal as part of the review of INF26 legislation but unfortunately like many such initiatives it was not high enough on their list of priorities........perhaps another time....after all it took many years of campaigning to reinstate the rolling historic car tax exemption and many on here thought that would never happen. Not to mention the extended MOT exemption rules recently announced for many classic cars.

 

Reshell or Die - One law for different vehicle designs
"Perception of what is deemed a classic car changes with subsequent generations of enthusiasts. The term is no longer the preserve of chrome-laden icons built before 1973.
Vehicle construction methods have long since moved away from separate chassis and bodyshells in response to manufacturing, safety and design influences. Monocoque-body classics (no separate chassis) have been recognised as such for decades but restoring one by reshelling can alter this perception in the eye of current legislation.
I can quite legally build a repro bodyshell from new off-the-shelf pattern panels for a separate chassis classic and the car be easily considered genuine. A similar-aged car of monocoque design would be illegal if I replaced the shell with an identical second-hand shell and tried to keep its original identity to avoid it being re-registered as a Q-plate.
This law is outdated and doesn't reflect the growing popularity of monocoque classics and enthusiasts' desire to preserve them with their original identity."
Gary Stretton, Editor. Classics Monthly

The Classics Monthly proposal:
To retain the original identity and registration of a reshelled vehicle.

1. The recognised legal owner of two similar cars would have permission to create one classic vehicle from both, retaining the original identity of the nominated car.

2. In order to do this they would notify the DVLA of their intention, stating the vehicles concerned.

3. An appointed body (or approved engineer) would inspect both vehicles for a fee payable by the proposer to confirm vehicle identities.

4. Any checks such as HPI and police checks would also be part of the process and would need to be satisfied by the proposer before point 6.

5. The DVLA would then acknowledge the request, stating any legal reasons why this couldn’t happen. For example a powerful variant of a vehicle using a similar donor vehicle without necessary considerations to braking, extra shell strengthening and so on. This information is widely held by owners’ clubs.

6. Upon approval, the owner would then be free to transfer key components, e.g. engine, suspension, brakes, steering and transmission.

7. Once ready, an appointed engineer would inspect, for another fee, both vehicles to ensure the reshelling is both legal and roadworthy.

8. The discarded bodyshell would be recycled (scrapped) and the identity of the donor vehicle associated with the original car's identity by the DVLA.

9. If necessary, a chassis or VIN number could be given an additional suffix or prefix (‘R’, for example) to denote a reshelling has taken place.

This proposal, we believe, meets the legal concerns of the DVLA, keen to stamp out car 'ringing' and the cost of implementing the scheme.
It would safeguard the future of monocoque-bodied classic cars, deter their illegal reshelling and recycle otherwise perfectly good bodyshells.
The survival of such classics will ensure employment within the automotive sector and help maintain the billions of pounds the classic sector creates for the UK economy.
Petition:
If you believe the reshelling of a classic car, retention of its original identity and the preservation of future classics in a legally transparent manner is essential for the future of our hobby, and those employed by it, please sign our petition.
Classics Monthly wants to see a change in the law to reflect the changing perception of what a classic car is and the desire of enthusiasts to preserve them responsibly, safely and legally.

Note: 2011 Petition in link below is now closed:-

https://www.gopetiti...tion/42909.html

Edited by mab01uk, 09 November 2017 - 07:11 PM.

[Cooperman]

Whether the DVLA accept it or not and whether it is legal or not, it is going to continue to happen.

If one takes a Mini as an example, there is no specific body identification at all before the time when the VIN was stamped into the scuttle panel lip. Even when it was so stamped the need for scuttle panel replacement due to the propensity of that panel to rust on the later cars, means that even a later car without a VIN stamped on it could be and probably is still the original shell.

No-one seems to be able to define whether or how that number should be retained in the event of a scuttle panel replacement. The best answer I got was from an ex-police Chief Inspector friend who is also a Mini enthusiast. He said to buy a set of metal stamps the same size as the VIN numbers and stamp the number into the scuttle panel in the correct position. That, he feels, would not be in any way illegal as the car is yours and the number is still correct. However, my MoT test station friend says that so long as the pressed and rivetted-on VIN plate is fitted and the numbers appear correct he would never look any further as the scuttle panel may well not be original and, anyway, he wouldn't know from which date the stamped number should be present.

The problem is that the law is out of step with the reality. Re-shelling will still happen and there is absolutely no way of stopping it. 

What is unacceptable is re-shelling a Mk.1 or Mk.2 into a Mk.3 or later shell, because that effectively ends the existence of the original specification car. It would be the same as re-shelling a Mk.1 Escort into a Mk.2 Escort - the differences are very obvious.

Edited by Cooperman, 09 November 2017 - 11:09 PM.

[Ethel]

The circumstances under which they're not doing anything illegal are so narrow as to be highly unlikely. The shell would have to be unregistered, e.g. from an import or a runabout on someone's private estate. Likewise, he can't take a shell in exchange without registering as the new keeper on the V5. So, unless the purchaser also has a private estate, there'll be some explaining to be done in order to get some Q plates.

[Cooperman]

One might wonder what would the legal situation be if someone owned a shell which had never been road-registered, but which was bought new in the '60's and built into a racing car. Then, much later the shell was used to restore a road car. Technically it would be an unregistered shell so it should be OK.

 

The DVLA don't seem particularly interested in the re-shelling of classic cars. They, and the Old Bill, are far more interested in the theft and 'ringing' of expensive modern cars like Porsche's, Mercs, BMW's, Audi's etc., into written off cars and selling them on as genuine. The use of a different shell on, say, a 1964 Mini is not really high on their list of things to do.

 

I did once buy a 'ringer'. It was in 1970 and the car was a Cortina 1600E. That was a real stolen car scam and I had to sue the dealer to get my cash back, which I did.

 

The fraud comes with these late cars which carry early plates, but they are easy to spot if you know what to look for. Personally I think we might be over-reacting a bit. A thief is not going to take a shell, do a restoration on it, paint it then sell it for just a few thousand pounds which barely covers his costs and labour. It is doubtful if the guy selling the restored shell above will make much on it and he would make as much profit from buying a complete car in need of restoration and doing a bit of work on it. When I sold the Mk.1 shell I mentioned above (with the V5 and some other bits) I didn't really make much if anything. I just felt I didn't have time then to finish it as I had so much else on and I needed the space.

 

Are we making too much of this?

Edited by Cooperman, 10 November 2017 - 10:02 AM.

[Steve220]

 

Are we making too much of this?

 

I believe so. The whole conversation seems to be going round in circles based on the seller's clear misunderstanding of the rules and regs of putting a car back on the road and whether or not the shells are stolen.

[mab01uk]

The DVLA don't seem particularly interested in the re-shelling of classic cars. They, and the Old Bill, are far more interested in the theft and 'ringing' of expensive modern cars like Porsche's, Mercs, BMW's, Audi's etc., into written off cars and selling them on as genuine. The use of a different shell on, say, a 1964 Mini is not really high on their list of things to do.

 

I think this recent case below illustrates how low on the list such things as a classic Mini bodyshell swap would be on Police priorities these days........

 

From AutoExpress magazine:-
Graham Hope relives the theft of his car from his North London home, and the sluggish police response…
Who believes in fate? Two weeks ago, we (AutoExpress) reported on the dramatic rise of hi-tech vehicle theft. Last week, I became the latest victim.
It was a textbook case. My test car was parked up overnight on my driveway in a quiet suburban area of North London. The next morning it was gone. I still had the keys; it had simply vanished. With a tracking device on the car, I immediately called the maker’s On Call service, which I’d subscribed to, to see if it could be traced or immobilised.
The chap on the line was very sympathetic, but explained I would need to speak to the police first before he could do anything. So that’s who I called next, to be told that only the “investigating officers” could speak to the On Call service and that they’d phone me back. This they did; seven hours later.
By that stage, the car was probably on its way out of the country. Everything about the theft smacked of it being a ‘pro’ job. The culprits had simply hacked the keyless go entry system and driven off, with the car apparently “invisible” to the tracking company.
But what really jolted me was my second conversation with the police, which lasted a mere five minutes. I was asked a few cursory questions and then told: “We won’t be able to investigate this further.” It felt like the ultimate box-ticking exercise.
Surprised, I spoke to a copper acquaintance of mine, who said this was par for the course. “We no longer provide a service to the public,” he told me. “We are so far behind the curve we’ve become a response service only. If the public weren’t so apathetic to what’s going on they’d realise we’re sleepwalking into a lawless society.” An apocalyptic vision indeed.
I’m told my car is now likely on its way to Africa or Eastern Europe. That’s shocking enough. But it’s the casual acceptance of its fate that will be my lasting impression of the whole sorry episode.

http://www.autoexpre...ing-it-was-gone