Board logo

Things the RH club don't like?
jps - 9/8/13 at 07:20 AM

Would this be the sort of thing that I often see threads on here about? I.e. a car which is one thing on the V5, but something else in the flesh?

7 for sale on eBay

I ask purely out of interest - not because I have any great problem with the buyer or the transaction that may result - as it was built c. 2000 I did wonder whether the rules used to permit a kit car to run round on the V5 from the donor at some point?

[Edited on 9/8/13 by jps]

snakebelly - 9/8/13 at 07:34 AM

Sorry but i think its a

40inches - 9/8/13 at 07:38 AM

Not on the road legally, therefore any insurance would be void. It needs to go through IVA. There was an amnesty, many years ago, that allowed incorrectly registered kit cars to be registered without going through SVA, now long gone.

watsonpj - 9/8/13 at 07:44 AM

I'll get in before the popcorn starts to come out :-)
If the car was built in 2000 it should hva been SVA'd but if before 1998 (I think) no SVA existed so this kind of registration happened (but I'm sure it shouldn't have). Once the SVA was introduced however these (pre SVA) cars should have been properly registered onto the correct (sometimes made up for one offs) vehicle type.
In theory they should be refused an MOT as they are clearly not the vehicle that is on the log book.
The problem with buying a car like this is it now extremely unlikely that they will allow you to re-register it without an IVA, and putting older cars through IVAs can be difficult and expensive.
As to if this is the sort of things people don't like this may be an owner who has bought it in good faith and because of its age that seems more likely in this case. The ones that are more clearly an issue are the ones that are newer cars but say registered as a dutton or something similar which seems to be a clear attempt to avoid IVA.


Hope this helps
Pete

loggyboy - 9/8/13 at 07:51 AM

HE doesnt say it was built in 2000, hes says around 2000.
Its also more likely to be before that as the S7 was replaced by the 2B in 1998. Chances are this car is Pre SVA however it should have been picked up during the amnesty and reregistered correctly.
Sadly, it doesnt make it any less incorrectly registered.

40inches - 9/8/13 at 07:56 AM

quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
HE doesnt say it was built in 2000, hes says around 2000.
Its also more likely to be before that as the S7 was replaced by the 2B in 1998. Chances are this car is Pre SVA however it should have been picked up during the amnesty and reregistered correctly.
Sadly, it doesnt make it any less incorrectly registered.


Very true, you still see unfinished S7's on eBay, they must be a mare to get through IVA.

Grimsdale - 9/8/13 at 08:23 AM

production of the dolomite based kits ceased in 1991, so it is quite likely it was misregistered pre-SVA. I'd still avoid, for reasons identified above.

People have still got the later steel monocoque cars through IVA, only a few relatively easy modifications required.

I'm not sure what the title of the thread is inferring?

jps - 9/8/13 at 08:33 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Grimsdale
I'm not sure what the title of the thread is inferring?


I seem to remember reading on here that the Robin Hood owners club proactively report vehicles that are not correctly registered to the powers that be. Or perhaps, having read the responses, I got that wrong - and it was the Dutton owners club who are hot on the topic?

That's what I meant by the title - does this car fall into that category...

Not stirring trouble - just interested in peoples understanding/opinions. Sounds like this car could potentially have been sorted during the amnesty referred to above, but wasn't... Shame really - I think it looks quite nice :-D

loggyboy - 9/8/13 at 08:39 AM

Im sure the ringer patrol on here will have already sent a few messages to the seller explanining whats wrong. However the price he is selling it for is quite fair allowing for a another £1k being spent on the car to IVA it. He just needs to reword his advert to make it clear, to be fully legal the car needs an IVA.

[Edited on 9-8-13 by loggyboy]

adithorp - 9/8/13 at 09:24 AM

quote:
Originally posted by watsonpj

In theory they should be refused an MOT as they are clearly not the vehicle that is on the log book.

Pete


I keep reading this on here but... Why? There is no requirement for the owner to present the V5 at MOT or for the test station to check it.

watsonpj - 9/8/13 at 09:34 AM

Wow I thought there was! So is it just done on chassis number and number plate on the computer and no vehicle description.
Does the mot inspector have the description at all? If so do they have the right to refuse and any way of reporting a vehicle.

Not Anumber - 9/8/13 at 10:45 AM

So long as the seller is honest in his description good luck to the guy. Someone will snap up a useable kit car that will give them many years of enjoyment, they will tax and MOT it every year and it is no more likely to fall apart or prove unroadworthy than anyone else's car on here. It's a mix and match industry, bits from here, bits from there.

FazerBob - 9/8/13 at 01:50 PM

quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
quote:
Originally posted by watsonpj

In theory they should be refused an MOT as they are clearly not the vehicle that is on the log book.

Pete


I keep reading this on here but... Why? There is no requirement for the owner to present the V5 at MOT or for the test station to check it.



There is no requirement to produce the V5, but when the MoT Tester books the car in (on-line) he will see the vehicle details in front of him - make, model, colour etc. If the computer says 'Dolomite' that's what car he will expect to see.

SCAR - 9/8/13 at 05:18 PM

The main issue being that no matter how genuine the seller is if the car has the wrong plates fitted it could be seized and crushed irrespective of claims regarding insurance, mot, road tax, sorn, its location or any excuses.
If registered during the amnesty I would have expected a Q plate and a different description on the v5.
Its sad when someone's experience of kit car ownership is spoiled this way. Imagine the enthusiasm when buying it then the despair finding you cant legally use it.

britishtrident - 9/8/13 at 07:07 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Not Anumber
So long as the seller is honest in his description good luck to the guy. Someone will snap up a useable kit car that will give them many years of enjoyment, they will tax and MOT it every year and it is no more likely to fall apart or prove unroadworthy than anyone else's car on here. It's a mix and match industry, bits from here, bits from there.


There were major safety concerns over Robin Hoods the use of Triumph Dolomite/Toledo/1500 front suspension components, unlike the Herald/Vitesse front end the Dolomite used lower ball joint and it was not designed to take spring loads. The ball joint is a unique design integral with the steering arm it is small and pretty puny and was a major MOT weak spot on the donor even without spring loads trying to pull the ball joint out its' socket.