Been through IVA? I'm not convinced it has!!

[Paul.B]

Buyer beware me thinks???

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2008-ROBIN-HOOD-2B-WHITE-/25...

[Steffan]

I agree there are obvious question marks about this car.

There are clearly items which would fail IVA in its present state.

But if it is registered as a Robin Hood (I do not know if it is) and an appropriate plate comes with the car with an appropriate testing date at the DVLA is this really a problem?

The absence of a plate also makes me wonder.

There could be work done after the IVA was done but I agree with you it looks very suspect.

[lewis s]

Out of interest what would cause this to fail the IVA? The lack of front arches?

[Paul.B]

Steffan said:

I agree there are obvious question marks about this car.

There are clearly items which would fail IVA in its present state.

But if it is registered as a Robin Hood (I do not know if it is) and an appropriate plate comes with the car with an appropriate testing date at the DVLA is this really a problem?

The absence of a plate also makes me wonder.

There could be work done after the IVA was done but I agree with you it looks very suspect.

To me it is the fact that the seller has not mentioned it. If I was selling a 2B having got it through I would shout it from the roof tops.


The lack of cycle wings would be illegal if driven on the road let alone IVA.

[one eyed mick]

I would ask Stefan what is so obvious re iva failure ? if the info given is correct the car is registered the man states he has the front wings and spares ok the missing reg no is strange but it's perhaps on a personal plate he wants to retain ,as in the purcahase of any thing the buyer must be aware of lots of things .I some times wonder why some posters [ no particular names its widespread ]are so negative? regards OEM

[ColinM50]

I reckon you lot have got the wrong end of the stick here.

What's all these stupid comments about IVA? The guy says the car was registered in 2009 and in case you didn't know that was under the old SVA rules. I know this for a FACT 'cos my car was SVA'd June 09 and was one of the last before the advent of IVA. He also says the car reg is E something or other, well nothing wrong with not divulging your number plate on e-bay is there? It's MoT'd and taxed so road legal in that respect.

Then you all go on about how it wouldn't meet IVA . What's that all about? Mine wouldn't now but it doesn't need to so where's the problem? And then you say there's no cycle wings fitted on the front, but he says he's got them and will include them in the deal so I don't really see what your gripe is.

So he's changed the engine and hasn't told DVLA yet. Oh horror of horrors, quick call the police rapid response team, his engine number doesn't match the V5. Oh and me too by the way.

Is it a bit of snobbishness that it's "only" a Robin Hood? Would your remarks and attitudes be different if it was a Caterham or Westfield? Hmmm

I reckon you're all being really unfair to the guy, seems an honest ad, maybe overpriced but that's up to each individual.

[Steffan]

Colin you may well be right. Perhaps we are presumptuous.

It just seems odd to show a car without front wings which clearly will not comply. Also unless I am missing something there are no windscreen wipers or sign of wiper drives. Also there is no heat shield I can see on the exhaust and this definitely will not pass IVA

You could be right it could have been SVA'd and then had bits done that do not comply nor could they have complied at SVA or IVA.

I somehow think it will not actually sell but we will see

[migwell]

I agree, ad seems ok to me, alot of sevens were put through SVA without a windowscreen as his then saved the agro of wiper speeds, washers, and the amount of screen cleared on a sweep.

Once car passed and registered then the screen was added.

[jamesG20V6]

Well said ColinM50. This ad is nothing to do with me but I do get pretty bored of reading posts such as these which infer something pretty serious without foundation. It does not do the image of kit cars any good in the wider domain to make such suggestions when actually, there may be a perfectly straight forward and legit answer.

[thescamper]

I'm not actually convinced that is a RH.

[singlecoil]

It's definitely a RH 2B, I've had a couple through the workshop and I'm quite sure.

As stated, no way it could have passed the SVA or IVA like that thogu, so the questions are valid.

[Mr2Mike]

Could be as simple as the photos were taken pre-SVA, i.e. they aren't up to date pictures. Still nasty though.

[Paul.B]

jamesG20V6 said:

Well said ColinM50. This ad is nothing to do with me but I do get pretty bored of reading posts such as these which infer something pretty serious without foundation. It does not do the image of kit cars any good in the wider domain to make such suggestions when actually, there may be a perfectly straight forward and legit answer.

I have seen the damage that incorrectly registered cars can do to the unwary. I had to tell a recent customer that the car (RH 2B) he had just plowed all his savings into was in fact unecominical to get on the road. He bought it in good faith believing it to be a legit car and then was later told it was a 'ringer.' Still a Sierra in the eyes of the DVLA and would require an IVA. All the builder had done was stamp the donor car VIN to the chassis and bolt the number plates on. The cost to get the car to IVA standard was huge, as in take it apart and start again!

It is this type of goings on that damages the image of kit cars. The car in the add may well be totally legit. I hope it is I really do. But to not mention the SVA/IVA etc in the add rang a very large bell.
If it is registered properly and done right then good luck to the vendor. A lot of hard work and effort will have gone into the car.

[mattstead]

Paul.B said:

It is this type of goings on that damages the image of kit cars. .

And it is this kind of jumping to conclusions and posting on forums that damages the reputations of 100% rated ebayers and potentially ruins his sale. I apprieciate your actions for warning me, but Would n't you have been better off emailing the seller, a fellow kit car owner, to enquire about the exact details of the car, and to advise how they could improve their advert? Thereby assisting the seller (who as you say may be legit) and assisting future kitcar owners, should the seller update the advert accordingly.

Surely every car should be buyer beware and you should always view them as suspiciously as possible? There are some VERY dodgy sellers out there and some VERY dodgy kits, but there are some VERY dodgy normal cars too. We need to be cautious always.

[one eyed mick]

As I thought lots of people talking but nobody is making much sense. About warning people a couple of comments about this are very true but alot out there take the high moral ground and continiue banging on about things that are not relevant ,if the car is Properly registered it has passed the relevant tests, who gives a monkey's OEM

[singlecoil]

one eyed mick said:

As I thought lots of people talking but nobody is making much sense. About warning people a couple of comments about this are very true but alot out there take the high moral ground and continiue banging on about things that are not relevant ,if the car is Properly registered it has passed the relevant tests, who gives a monkey's OEM

You've obviously misunderstood the point of the thread. The question has been raised as to whether or not the car is properly registered, because it is evident that it could not pass the relevant test as it is shown in the pictures.


Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with

What is a "monkey's OEM" anywyay?

[seansverige]

one eyed mick said:

I would ask Stefan what is so obvious re iva failure ? if the info given is correct the car is registered the man states he has the front wings and spares ok the missing reg no is strange but it's perhaps on a personal plate he wants to retain ,as in the purcahase of any thing the buyer must be aware of lots of things .I some times wonder why some posters [ no particular names its widespread ]are so negative? regards OEM

+1. Dunno why you'd want to take front wings off LSIS when on the road (sounds like a recipe for a faceful of gravel...), but I know a few hot rodders who do the same; and they're mentioned in the listing anyway. A number of times on this forum I've seen it suggested to either fit something for testing and subsequently remove it for use - or vice versa - as a 'solution' to a problem.

If it's passed an SVA (something it would have been good to explicitly mention in the listing) what does it matter what the IVA standard requires? Obviously a potential buyer would need to check the V5 details but guess what - you should always check the V5. Leaving aside things said about Robin Hoods generally () seems like a workaday listing.

[singlecoil]

seansverige said:

If it's passed an SVA (something it would have been good to explicitly mention in the listing) what does it matter what the IVA standard requires? .

IF it has passed, then the IVA requirements don't necessarily matter (although the Construction and Use regulations would make it illegal to drive it in the state shown), but that's the question, has it passed the SVA? (It wouldn't have passed the SVA either, as shown) or is it still showing Sierra on the V5. Pity the registration number is missing from the photos or I could look it up and then we would know.

[seansverige]

singlecoil said:

seansverige said:

If it's passed an SVA (something it would have been good to explicitly mention in the listing) what does it matter what the IVA standard requires? .

IF it has passed, then the IVA requirements don't necessarily matter (although the Construction and Use regulations would make it illegal to drive it in the state shown), but that's the question, has it passed the SVA? (It wouldn't have passed the SVA either, as shown) or is it still showing Sierra on the V5. Pity the registration number is missing from the photos or I could look it up and then we would know.

Absolutely, but in the absence of that information there seems to be presumption of guilt rather than innocence. Just goes to show that this is something best stated in the listing.

Poor bugger's probably wondering why he's got so many page views and not a single bid....

[singlecoil]

I've just had another look at it, and the description, and there's something else worrisome. It says it's still registered as a 1.8. Now for a Sierra donor that would need to be the 1.8 CVH (they didn't offer a 1.8 pinto). A CVH engine has the exhaust manifold on the other side. For the car to have been registered as a 1.8 it would have had to had the CVH engine in it, so if we are to believe that it has been SVA'd then we also need to believe that the engine was subsequently removed and replaced with the Pinto, the hole in the side panel blocked, a new hole cut on the other side and a new exhaust manifold obtained.

With all that in mind, I'm guessing it's still registered as a Sierra