Ringing kits for sale on ebay...No not on our watch!

[LLantrisant]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&am...

http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C516611




a super seven registered as MG Midget!!!

the car is a Locost..this has been proved already...built 1996 or later...but running on a v5c from the engine-donor MG Midget.

the seller knows about all those facts, but is still insiting that everything is "correct"...so deliberately misleading potential (innocent) buyers.

[GC8]

Was it not possible to register it as an MG Midget Special in 1996? Providing that it used all of the Midget parts than that would have been correct.

[LLantrisant]

in 1996 came the locost book and it came the SVA Test!!!

the car has some components from a midget (from 1 or from 20 midgets???), like engine, gearbox, (modified)pedal box, steering column..to name the important ones...but as the chassis is new, suspension is new, body is new instruments are from different cars..ect..the car might have got an age related plate named locost in the V5c.

but with such an amount of components from different cars its usually a Q-plate

this car was definately built with SVA test in mind ..you can see it on certain car´s details...but than a MG V5c was used to make registration things easier..

[Steffan]

LLantrisant said:

in 1996 came the locost book and it came the SVA Test!!!

the car has some components from a midget (from 1 or from 20 midgets???), like engine, gearbox, (modified)pedal box, steering column..to name the important ones...but as the chassis is new, suspension is new, body is new instruments are from different cars..ect..the car might have got an age related plate named locost in the V5c.

but with such an amount of components from different cars its usually a Q-plate

this car was definately built with SVA test in mind ..you can see it on certain car´s details...but than a MG V5c was used to make registration things easier..

It is a real pity that the likes of EBay and Classic car are prepared to entertain such nonsense. The car is a not the legitimate vehicle it purports to be. Note the careful avoidance of photographs showing the actual chassis in any real detail. I have owned dozens of kit cars and MG Midgets and I have been building rebuilding modifying and racing and driving them for over fifty years personally. I also IVA about five kit cars a year. It is my hobby.

This is NOT an MG Midget. Nor is it a rebodying of an MG Midget chassis. As Llantrisant says earlier it is probably a Locust/locost kit certainly based on a chassis which is not original and therefore the car does not have the supposed registration identity.

Anyone buying this car is heading straight for a VOR notice from DVLA because MOT garages are now required to refuse to test vehicles where the V5 description does not match the car. Which this car clearly does not because this car is not a MG Midget. As Llantrisant says it does have some Midget bits and pieces but the car has a replacement chassis and MUST therefore be IVA tested before use on the road.

I also think if it were tested since there is presumably no provenance for the parts used a Q plate must result. If in fact it will pass IVA which is a moot point and it will costs at least £450 to find out. Not to mention the probability that it will almost certainly fail and require retest which most kit cars do. Another fee!

I also very much doubt if the DVLA will allow the use of the supposed description of MG Midget in the event of it being IVA'd successfully which it may well not. The DVLA are understandably distinctly dubious of manufacturers identities being improperly misused. Thus calling a car a Lotus or Morgan because you would like to is verboten. All in all a car to avoid.

Edited by Steffan on Wednesday 16th July 22:32

Edited by Steffan on Wednesday 16th July 22:33

[LLantrisant]

as a midget is a moncoque vehicle its basically impossible to rebody a midget radically?

Midget = moncoque
the acutal car=independent chassis

the definate prove of registration being false

(by the way: the chassis is definately a locost chassis as the front section with the wishbones clearly identifies it. ..and it looks exactly like the chassis of my locost!!!)

[Steffan]

LLantrisant said:

as a midget is a moncoque vehicle its basically impossible to rebody a midget radically?

Midget = moncoque
the acutal car=independent chassis

the definate prove of registration being false

(by the way: the chassis is definately a locost chassis as the front section with the wishbones clearly identifies it. ..and it looks exactly like the chassis of my locost!!!)

In my view radical alteration of any monocoque would by definition require IVA in every case. A monocoque is built as a unity of strength with support designed into the monocoque from the start. Altering any monocoque substantially therefore must require a full test by the DVLA to satisfy the safety aspects. What we have been given in the kit car world in the UK is a relatively low cost alternative to the type approval process which would make all kit cars an impossible dream because the increase in costs would be massive. We are in fact fortunate in the UK many EU members simply will not entertain the idea.

I suppose the replacement of wings and body panels might be acceptable if these were originally welded to the monocoque. But any shortening of the monocoque, cutting of the floor or major components such as outriggers must require a full IVA. I therefore agree with Llantrisant (a good Welsh name by the way) that this car is clearly not the full shilling and must be avoided. In this case the entire Monocoque has been replaced totally How could that possibly not require IVA.?? The answer is it cannot be right it does definitely require IVA and it is therfore best avoided.

[LLantrisant]

but lets see all those kits from another view:

how the hell is it possible that they pass a MOT?

are the testers blind??

[Steffan]

LLantrisant said:

but lets see all those kits from another view:

how the hell is it possible that they pass a MOT?

are the testers blind??

There have always been elements of the car trade who are more concerned with profit than quality of service. There are MOT stations that clearly allow cars which ought not to get through an MOT test through the test. The reality of this is shown when MOT's can and are obtained without the vehicle present which to my certain knowledge does happen. Despite regular reporting of such stations and MOT inspectors efforts it still does happen particularly in the big urban inner city sprawl around the UK. Most of the car enthusiasts on here will have seen examples of very iffy MOT's on cars which were clearly not in a condition to pass an MOT at the time of testing. Some examples are clearly totally unsafe and illegal but an MOT they have had.

The extent of the vehicle thefts particularly at the high end of car crime in the UK and the visible ineffectiveness of the considerable efforts by the Police to catch the serious criminals who perpetrate such illegality demonstrate how close some of the car trade is to unlawful practices. I cannot see any change approaching which is why car enthusiasts need to be aware of the fact that an MOT may not always be what it seems. Fortunately most MOT stations are genuine and most MOT's are issued in accordance with the regs. But inside that legitimate trade there are unlawful practices and sadly there will continue to be such illegality.

Caveat Emptor remains the most effective means of defence particularly with Kit cars with inadequate and suspect provenance. I still see on average two or three Kit cars a month through my contacts with the Kit car industry in the West Midlands where the Kit car is clearly not what it seems but is clearly an amalgam of an older Kit car where, on occasion, the only connection between the original Kit car and the current form is the Vin plates and registration number. Those cars will be weeded out and many of the nonsenses I have seen have in fact been spotted fr what they are, and are in the process of either being IVA'd proprerly or mre commonly scrapped. Be vigilant and insist upon proper and adequate paperwork before purchase must be the best protection. Caveat Emptor really is the only effective protection.

[Cliftonite]

Lamborghini Gallardo anyone?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&am...

And this is probably within eBay rules!

Edited by Cliftonite on Monday 21st July 09:45

[rovermorris999]

Cliftonite said:

Lamborghini Gallardo anyone?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&am...

And this is probably within eBay rules!

Edited by Cliftonite on Monday 21st July 09:45

That is incredible. Surely that is totally unusable so essentially a V5 is being sold.

[Cliftonite]

rovermorris999 said:

That is incredible. Surely that is totally unusable so essentially a V5 is being sold.

Prexactly!

[LLantrisant]

how comes this:

its a locust, but the V5c in paperform shows Lotus as "make", model S3 Super Seven with a 1969 reg-date and a 18digit SABTVR.... chassis number



and when you check online with DVLA the number plate is listed as:

Make: White Rose Vehicles
The vehicle details for Q225 BNN are:
Date of Liability 01 12 2010
Date of First Registration 15 05 1997
Year of Manufacture 1997
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 1700cc
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type PETROL
Export Marker N
Vehicle Status Unlicensed
Vehicle Colour MULTI-COLOUR
Vehicle Type Approval Not Available

[Cliftonite]

rovermorris999 said:

That is incredible. Surely that is totally unusable so essentially a V5 is being sold.

Item sold!!! Lock up your Lambos, everyone. Unless it has been pinched already.

[marshalla]

LLantrisant said:

how comes this:

its a locust, but the V5c in paperform shows Lotus as "make", model S3 Super Seven with a 1969 reg-date and a 18digit SABTVR.... chassis number



and when you check online with DVLA the number plate is listed as:

Make: White Rose Vehicles
The vehicle details for Q225 BNN are:
Date of Liability 01 12 2010
Date of First Registration 15 05 1997
Year of Manufacture 1997
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 1700cc
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type PETROL
Export Marker N
Vehicle Status Unlicensed
Vehicle Colour MULTI-COLOUR
Vehicle Type Approval Not Available

White Rose ? There's a name from the past - ISTR they took over the JC Midge, didn't they ? Nothing like a 7.

[Steffan]

marshalla said:

LLantrisant said:

how comes this:

its a locust, but the V5c in paperform shows Lotus as "make", model S3 Super Seven with a 1969 reg-date and a 18digit SABTVR.... chassis number



and when you check online with DVLA the number plate is listed as:

Make: White Rose Vehicles
The vehicle details for Q225 BNN are:
Date of Liability 01 12 2010
Date of First Registration 15 05 1997
Year of Manufacture 1997
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 1700cc
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type PETROL
Export Marker N
Vehicle Status Unlicensed
Vehicle Colour MULTI-COLOUR
Vehicle Type Approval Not Available

White Rose ? There's a name from the past - ISTR they took over the JC Midge, didn't they ? Nothing like a 7.

Yes White Rose took over the JC Midge but it did not last long. As you say nothing like a Seven and this car is a real nonsense. Textbook identity swap. Avoid. It will get found out and when it does game over.

[LLantrisant]

but how is it possible that the v5c in paperform shows a differnt identity than the dvla database?

the DVLA database is definately shwoing the correct data´s...as the car is from 1997, its a locust (white rose took over locust from T&J mid /end 90ies), correct engine size, correct chassisnumber etc...

Edited by LLantrisant on Wednesday 23 July 17:23

[smokeey]

Cliftonite said:

Item sold!!! Lock up your Lambos, everyone. Unless it has been pinched already.

Would it not be easier for the purchaser to insure the car for a year or so and then make a claim for theft?
Obviously the car will never be found because it was chopped into pieces many months before it was reported stolen and the owner will get paid out the full value of an unrecorded Gallardo?

[Cliftonite]

smokeey said:

Cliftonite said:

Item sold!!! Lock up your Lambos, everyone. Unless it has been pinched already.

Would it not be easier for the purchaser to insure the car for a year or so and then make a claim for theft?
Obviously the car will never be found because it was chopped into pieces many months before it was reported stolen and the owner will get paid out the full value of an unrecorded Gallardo?

So obvious . . . now! But I didn't think of it! I am never going to make much money out of this crooked car dealing mullarkey am I?

[Steffan]

Cliftonite said:

smokeey said:

Cliftonite said:

Item sold!!! Lock up your Lambos, everyone. Unless it has been pinched already.

Would it not be easier for the purchaser to insure the car for a year or so and then make a claim for theft?
Obviously the car will never be found because it was chopped into pieces many months before it was reported stolen and the owner will get paid out the full value of an unrecorded Gallardo?

So obvious . . . now! But I didn't think of it! I am never going to make much money out of this crooked car dealing mullarkey am I?

40++ years in the Accountancy profession made me realise that the truly bent individuals in business have a massive advantage because they lie as necessary to make an easy living. Without consciences. This does undoubtedly work for them. The truth becomes grist to the mill.

Being too fat to hide behing lapoats and indeed upon occasion too fat to hide behind a smsll elephaant and wanting to sleep at night I avoided those sorts of individuals on every occasion I met one. I do not believe everyone gets their cumuppance nor do I believe in the law of Karma. Making money in business honestly is very much harder and the increasing bureaucracy of the state does tend to overextend itself and become onerous particularly on small businesses. But it is still the only way to properly proceed IMO.

Sadly the Internet has clearly benefitted such unlawful antics massively and as the various million selling traders on ebay who do not register for VAT demonstrarevonly too clearly, this has become very big business. The fact is that despite all the huff and puff of the Treasury and HMRC claiming to be cracking down of fraudulent trading and tax evasion their efforts are in fact at the chocolate teapot level at best. The huge advantages of trading in cash is skewing the economy and we will all be the poorer for it. In consequence the poor taxpayers, will once again, pick up the losees generated to the exchquer. I regret that i cannot see this changing.

[marshalla]

Steffan said:

Yes White Rose took over the JC Midge but it did not last long. As you say nothing like a Seven and this car is a real nonsense. Textbook identity swap. Avoid. It will get found out and when it does game over.

Just did a bit of digging - White Rose also took over the Locust, apparently.