81 replies to this topic

[VulcanBomber]

Hi all,

I was looking at ebay the other night and found a really nice Mk1 Mini. The seller said that it had had a new shell, I looked at the pics and was seriously thinking about bidding.

The problem is that I think the shell he has used is second hand, and the car should be on a Q plate. I have now confirmed that if the shell is second hand it should be on a Q plate and have an inspection. I have sent him several e mails asking fir clarification and he has not responded. I have given him my number and no joy, but he seems to be answering all the other emails ok about the car!

What shoudl I do? Should I report it to ebay or mind my own business? I feel, if the car is a ringer I should say something as I know of cars that have been stolen and ended up on ebay with different plates.
This is the item number: 320286083414

[THE ANORAK]

in my opinion, you cant class that as a 1962 car

in fact i would go as far to say that it started out as a bog standard MPi, and has been dresses up as a Mk1 and swapped to its reg details, certainly not a valid Tax free car, i think someone should investigate (DVLA etc), trouble is, they dont know what their looking at half the time.

very dodgy

Edited by THE ANORAK, 16 August 2008 - 08:24 AM.

[matt615]

Yes that is definitely a 1990s Mini, not 1960s. Up to you if you want to report it. You could report it to E bay as well as DVLA.

[photographymatt]

just dont buy it?

[Ethel]

It's only had a new brush head 'n a couple of handles

I wouldn't pay over the odds for it, I'd be amazed it's not been challenged by an MoT tester and you'd always have the risk that it would be, or turn out to be a stolen car. It might be a genuine tale and it does look a nice car but without proof that a brand new shell was used I'd only value it as if on a Q plate - even then it's bending the rules a fair old way.

Reading between the lines, I'm wondering if he's put 2 Mk1's together and used the left over V5 on a MPI write off.

[Minisniper]

Hiya
I've just had a look at the mini and I have to say it looks very nice I read through all of his info and being a novice it doesn't really mean too much to me but I feel if there are members on here that are genuinely concerned that this vehicle is either a rogue, stolen etc etc then maybe someone who knows about these things should either contact DVLA or ebay. I can't because as I have said above I know very little and would end up chatting bubbles, this post is only an opinion so please don't have a go at me.

Minisniper

[62S]

I think the shell he has used is second hand

If you only think the shell is second hand then you have no business hassling the seller and it is little wonder he is ignoring your questions. I have sold a couple of cars on ebay in the past and the number of stupid questions and statements you get is beyond belief; so much so that I will no longer use ebay for selling a Mini.

What shoudl I do?

(sic)
That is quite simple - don't bid on it.

Should I report it to ebay or mind my own business?

If you are in possession of incontravertible evidence that the car is a ringer then of course you should report it but if this is merely red top tabloid style ill founded speculation then mind your own dashed business. The car appears to be accurately described and he seems to have been quite upfront about what he has done.

[R1mini]

A car is not a ringer if you reshell it, a ringer is a stolen car given a new identity. Dodgy quite possibly, but I have seen cars on the mini forums with a similiar history.

Cheers
David

[VulcanBomber]

I think the shell he has used is second hand

If you only think the shell is second hand then you have no business hassling the seller and it is little wonder he is ignoring your questions. I have sold a couple of cars on ebay in the past and the number of stupid questions and statements you get is beyond belief; so much so that I will no longer use ebay for selling a Mini.

What shoudl I do?

(sic)
That is quite simple - don't bid on it.

Should I report it to ebay or mind my own business?

If you are in possession of incontravertible evidence that the car is a ringer then of course you should report it but if this is merely red top tabloid style ill founded speculation then mind your own dashed business. The car appears to be accurately described and he seems to have been quite upfront about what he has done.

I have every business to hassle the seller to answer my questions! They have put it on a web auction site and expect questions to be asked. I now understand that ringing is stealing a car and swaping its ID so ringing is not the correct term, but the facts are it does not say that it is a brand new shell, I am a serious bidder, I have asked questions and not got a response - what the hell am I meant to think?

[Kinjo]

I thought if you wanted to 'keep' the current status then the shell needed to be brand new, unregistered from Heritage, otherwise would have to go on a Q plate.

He clearly says he got the shell off ebay, so what are the chances of this being very dodgy!

[Ru55boy]

I've just had a look at the advert and can't see much to suggest its a stolen car.

It looks to me as if the the owner has, as he states, built it from scratch. He's got hold of a late MPI as a doner vehicle for a brand new late shell. I would guess he's also owned a 1962 Mk1 which, if it still exists, is probably beyond restoration. I would also guess that there is nothing on the car for sale that is from the Mk1.

So, the most likely, fully legal option would've been to then put the old reg on the new car by way of cherished transfer.

If the owner contacted DVLA for advice, they may well have assigned a Q plate as the actual date of the car could not be established.

Or, the owner could've stated that some of the 1962 car still exists and that all he's done is replace the shell and engine.

They grey area is at what point does a car cease to hold its original identity? If you replace over 50% of the bodywork? Replace the whole shell? then the engine?....

If the V5 has the correct numbers on it, and DVLA are happy, then its 100% legal.

I am a Police Officer and an Autocrimes Vehicle Examiner. As you've seen it in the flesh, and spoken to the guy, if you still think it could be a ringer, ie part of it is stolen, PM me with the full Reg and I'll look into it.

Russ

[Ru55boy]

Oh, and also bear in mind that the seller and/or people who know him, could be reading this...

[VulcanBomber]

Hi Russ,

If the shell is brand new, from BMH then there are no issues at all, but why not go for the correct mark of shell? If the shell is from an already registered car then it goes on a Q plate. Thats the law.

[Ethel]

It's an offence to deliberately pass off anything as something it isn't. Because of its registered age it would qualify for tax exempt status, so claiming that could be fraud too. There are regulations controlling what you can do to a car and keep its exempt status, one is you can only reshell it with a brand new shell of the original specification. It's very difficult to see that as a restoration as only the boot lid, rear lights, instruments and some of the bright work look anything like original specification.

Somebody who's unaware of the regulations could buy the car and land themself with a stack of problems. If I was that somebody I'd be grateful for someone's hassling.

It's one thing fiddling the treasury out of £110 a year but quite another to misrepresent a car to make money out of a fellow Mini enthusiast and set them up unwittingly in the same fiddle.

If the seller has genuinely squared it all with DVLA then they should be happy to prove it, settling the issue with sceptics like me could increase the number of potential buyers.

[THE ANORAK]

if its legal, then it shouldn't be, i doubt there is anything from the original Mk1 car on the car that's for sale, its just stinks of standard MPi.

its not a 62 car, he's claiming it is, in my opinion..... wrong