Possible Ringer on Ebay?

DVLA shows date of first reg. 20-01-1970.
Must be a '69 build.
even to my (Rover) inexperience eye looks very dubious.

Is the bonnet a different shade?
Click to expand...

mine says Date of First Registration 20 01 1971?
 
I can't see what the fuss is about.It's hardly expensive and worth the current £608 for the wheels and steering wheels
Aren't we in danger of becoming too anorakish ? Few cheap old cars are totally original
 
yea i would not mind it for my self how many people have change plates over to a new car just to save 1 the way i see end of the day its still a p6 and it looks tidy dont really matter if its got wrong bits on it mine is a series 1 but have series 2 seats, dash, and a few other things. probly wots happened the old series 1 was rotten to got a series 2 and change the bits over i cant see nothing wrong with that
 
I can't see what the fuss is about.It's hardly expensive and worth the current £608 for the wheels and steering wheels
Aren't we in danger of becoming too anorakish ? Few cheap old cars are totally original
Click to expand...

You're right in most cases I think. Ringing though is different in that the car is going to be a problem in the event of an accident or if the DVLA gets reason to inspect it. buy yourself your pride and joy only to have it crushed...?
 
garethp6 said:
i cant see nothing wrong with that
Click to expand...

Because it is illegal !! The chassis or monocoque is the true identity, not the number
plate nailed on the front. it is done to deceive, we are not deceived,does that make
it right? The government is being deceived, and as rockdemon says they do care and
will do something about it. Yes, it is worth the sum of it's parts but should we buy it
and encourage the practice. Would we buy a modern Jag with a Morris Minor identity?
We have to draw the lie somewhere.

Rant over.

Colin
 
We're not the Ebay Police and people viewing this thread might think we think we are and be put off from joining in .
I'd rather the Police dealt with real crimes than a P6 of dubious identity .It's probably happened so long ago they'd never get to the bottom of it
Just my view though - each to their own
 
Gents

I didn't mean to start a row. I just meant to gently indicate to people that this car appeared to be other than the description.

On one level this is good clean anorak fun.

On another level it could mean real problems for the new owner.

I'm pretty sure the seller is innocent and doesn't understand what's happening here.

I agree with Gareth - provided you understand what you are getting into - what's the issue - it's a nice P6 (potentially).

I also agree with Colin - this person is screwing me by not paying taxes - QED I have to pay more of them - and there is a level of deceit which is irritating at best and criminal at worst.

Chris
 
I think we are right to bring it to the attention of forum members, if I was the guy who bought this thinking everything was above board and then found out some respected members of the forum had issues but said nothing mmmmmmmmmm. I wouldn't be too impressed. As long as you know what your buying then you make your decision and live with it. But you need to know before making that decision. Well done guys.
 
chrisyork said:
I also agree with Colin - this person is screwing me by not paying taxes - QED I have to pay more of them - and there is a level of deceit which is irritating at best and criminal at worst.
Click to expand...

Quite.. If there is determined deceit then it is criminal.

Without sounding like a paragon of virtue :) it amazes me how many people think this sort of fraud is "OK" - like doing guvvie / cash jobs. Yet they will turn on MPs' expenses, Starbucks & Jimmy Carr when most of those are at least acting within the rules, however immoral they may seem.
 
Nothing wrong with a bit of pocket money Mr Robson. Notice I call you Mr Robson this time, that's for a reason. :D
 
Phil Robson said:
Yet they will turn on MPs' expenses, Starbucks & Jimmy Carr when most of those are at least acting within the rules, however immoral they may seem.
Click to expand...

They don't 'seem' immoral, they are immoral.
 
The ridiculous situation is brought about the government in the first place. A car 1 day newer than another attracts road tax. Essentially identical cars. In real terms you save 2 to 3 tanks of petrol a year buy having a tax free example, in those terms it doesn't seem worth the trouble to change a vehicle's identity.
 
Well as feared I've missed my chance to view he did say I could come down today but wife decided that taking down Xmas lights was priority no. 1 over any misguided car hobby!!
Spoke to the seller on phone for a while and as he only got the car on 14th December and has no real interest in classic cars we can 100% rule him out from any wrong doings . The previous owner an old fella who owned it for the last 17 years has recently died and the car was passed to his daughter .
The seller purchased the car along with a pile of antigues just to help the daughter out! And no doubt himself as he is an antigue dealer .
He has some new parts to come with car, like window rubbers and front valance plus other panels doors and wing .
So none the wiser about car but likely to have been as is for at least 17 years.
 
My oh my!! We have gone from "Possible ringer" to " People who cheat the system should be *******" "quicker than that car could get to 60MPH!
There is no proof whatsoever that the car is bent. My Dad bought his H Plate 3500 in 1978 and the inner sills were as bad as ive seen, beating some of the horrors that ive seen on here YET the car was only EIGHT years old. The doors were all shot too, the front wing was terminal and all of this on what was then, a reasonably new(ish) luxury car.
My dad could easily have bought an accident damaged series 2 or stolen recovered or ( you get the picture) and transferred bits and pieces over to make one very good car.
This is probably what has happened here AND Id be amazed if Plod or the DVLA would have a clue how to prove that the car WASNT what it was appearing to be.
They would probably have to ask the owners club for pointers........ :wink:
 
There maybe no obvious proof Rob,but there is reasonable doubt!!

Well its base unit D post is Mexico!!!
Is there any way to find out the original colour of HYY84J or if it was auto,manual V8 or even a 2000 when new?
Of course DVLA colour info could easily have been changed over the years,as could eng number.
If it happened to have rot in the inner wings around the chassis number area,then repaired,its ID will then be gone,and the MOT doesnt require a chassis number to be present on a car if built before about 1981!
There are things and places to look at for its original ID if you know where to look!
Granted plod and DVLA wont know,but in the event of a nasty accident,then its very possible it will be uncovered,rendering insurance void,and its owner liable to prosecution.
 
HYY 84J
Rover 3500
Chassis number 45102###A
Engine number 42525###C
Registered 20th Jan 1971.

Pretty conclusive I would say....?

PS - 7 previous keepers recorded.
 
Rubythursday said:
The ridiculous situation is brought about the government in the first place. A car 1 day newer than another attracts road tax. Essentially identical cars. In real terms you save 2 to 3 tanks of petrol a year buy having a tax free example, in those terms it doesn't seem worth the trouble to change a vehicle's identity.
Click to expand...
Tony, I agree that the current UK situation on classic tax exemption provides an incentive to ring cars. One of my arguments for introducing a fairer rolling exemption is that it would lessen this incentive. In the case of existing ringers, it might even encourage those concerned to restore vehicles to their true identity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top