Morris Minor Owners Club

Has anyone noticed that more and more car a coming up for sale on ebay that are not the age declared. I always thought that this was illegal and people are obviously using earlier identification plates on later cars to get MOT exemption and sell valuable number plates. Any thoughts?

Yes there have been a few, I think the 'rat look' moggy is still on, sellers claims is a 1958 and boasts about tax and mot exemption and also says sills need doing !!!! The body shell is NOT a 58 and a car with dodgy sills wouldn't pass an mot. So really it shouldn't be on the road yet last time I looked it was approaching £2,500 i think.

Yes - there have been/are a few around - people think if they 'check with DVLA' that all is well..... I'm sure the check confirms the V5 and Reg Number are for a Morris Minor - just probably NOT the car in the pictures.. When there was a 'rammy' about this recently, MMOC refused to get involved - and indeed the thread was locked to stop any further discussion. So - it's ok it seems ! Nobody cares... More worrying than 'MOT dodging' of course is that the car may have been stolen - and then plated up with an ID from a scrapper... One way to check is to look for the stamped in chassis number (and worry more if it has been ground away) - and to check the body number to confirm when the body shell was made. And the other of course is to NOT buy a car unless there is a thick pile of MOT certificates to confirm it's age and annual mileages. The other worrying trend is for folks to pick up a bodyshell - and think it will be ok to transfer all the bits from their own rotten car to this shell. Not legal of course - unless applying for a Q registration. Once a bodyshell has been registered it must retain that registration ID (Private Plates allowed of course) to the end. The Mini (and Midget and MGB) lads are better served here - because a NEW bodyshell can be purchased from Heritage - and parts transferred - and that's ok because it is a NEW shell, that has never been registered. It's a great pity that Heritage don't see a market for NEW Minor Convertible shells (no complicated roof panel to make!) and I'm sure they would sell well and would be legal with parts from a Saloon fitted.

Ssshhhhhh
We are not allowed to talk about it

I usually ask the eBay seller of log books if he is aware of the fraud and theft he is inviting and a typical answer is:
"It s a car that has rotted away and all these parts and bits are left , so get of your high horse and move along"
I then report to eBay and take satisfaction that the ads are usually removed. It only takes 10 mins, I Ignore the insults and feel I may be saving somebody a lot of heartache!

Well done that man

John Naylor wrote:I usually ask the eBay seller of log books if he is aware of the fraud and theft he is inviting and a typical answer is:
"It s a car that has rotted away and all these parts and bits are left , so get of your high horse and move along"
I then report to eBay and take satisfaction that the ads are usually removed. It only takes 10 mins, I Ignore the insults and feel I may be saving somebody a lot of heartache!

Seconded!

Probably a pointless excercise,but I list the chassis, engine numbers and DoFRs from logbooks I see for sale.

However you look at it, transferring a vehicles ID from one shell to another is a criminal offence, especially if done for profit. Knowingly selling a vehicle with such identity is also an offence. Seems some traders think it doesn't apply to them. A MOT exempt car which is actually a much later model could get you into a whole world of trouble if you needed to claim on your insurance, especially if plod were involved.

As Roy points out, a recent thread was locked when the age of a Traveller was called into question - I believe this attitude to be ridiculous - it is OUR responsibility to highlight all dubious vehicles.

By NOT raising concerns, this only aides the criminal element, therefore, if you see a vehicle that looks "iffy", post it on here.

Don't make life easy for the baskets, log down your vehicles' numbers - better still, stamp body number into the battery tray.

POMMReg wrote:As Roy points out, a recent thread was locked when the age of a Traveller was called into question - I believe this attitude to be ridiculous - it is OUR responsibility to highlight all dubious vehicles.

For those who aren't aware, a previous thread was locked for the following reasons

There is no problem with highlighting potential identity issues of vehicles for sale, to assist potential purchasers, but this can be done without resorting to posting personal comments/criticism about individuals on the messageboard or posting disparaging remarks about the vehicle. As previously stated please make the seller aware of the potential problems if you wish to highlight them here. This thread is now closed but if you have any further comments to make on the subject please send them to me via pm.

For those who feel that asking people to be polite in their postings is 'ridiculous', there are no doubt other messageboards out there where you can be as rude as you like about individuals and their vehicles. However this forum isn't one of them so if anyone is still having trouble understanding why the other thread was locked, as stated previously, please contact me by pm to discuss. Thank you.

Pretty sure I wasn't 'rude' - my understanding is that the Trader in question contacted MMOC to stop any further discussion (which was fair and factual) about the obviously 'wrong' Traveller she was advertising.

Pretty hard actually to be "highlighting potential identity issues" on here regarding a car offered for sale without "posting disparaging remarks about the vehicle" .
Isn't it Louise?

Posting a link and saying that you have informed the seller that there might be a issue over age/ identity and have asked them to contact the club office doesn't seem disparaging does it? You will be alerting any potential purchasers and at the same time assisting a seller who may not be aware of the problem.

I don't think there was anything 'disparaging' about the vehicle - it was actually quite a nice looking Traveller - just remarks pointing out the facts that made the car NOT the claimed age (1958?) Crikey - it's STILL on for sale if anyone wants a look - the only change is that it now appears to date from year 1000 rather than 1958.. http://www.taclassics.co.uk/cars/morris ... er/47629/0

On the ad from the above link it's year is quoted as 1000, that's rare that is.

Indeed it is - way ahead of it's time. Maybe you should enquire - I had better stay out of it.......

Surely falls under the remit of the trade descriptions legislation?

Anyone got a link to the original thread that this vehicle was posted in?

les wrote:Anyone got a link to the original thread that this vehicle was posted in?

http://www.mmoc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=62769

It's disappointing that comments are still being posted up here in relation to this vehicle, and the seller, despite the earlier discussions in the previous thread and individuals being fully aware that upset is being caused to the seller.

I have heard from a previous owner of the car, who is a long standing member of this messageboard, and is able to shed some light on the vehicle's history:

It was advertised on Ebay by the son in law of a charming old gent(in his 80s I think)in Beverley who was getting too old to manage it. He had bought the car 10-12 years previously from what he said was a firm in the NE that specialised in Minors and they told him that they had retimbered it. Said operation were recommended to him by an official of the club Hull branch. He couldnt remember their name and I wasn't interested anyway. I just liked the car and knew I could make it cosmetically better. I of course noticed the discrepancy between purported age and the body. I checked the documents which were all in order and just assumed that at sometime in its previous 50 odd years it had possibly been in an accident and reshelled. I mentioned it to the old man who didnt understand what I was talking about. Once again it didn't then(and still doesnt) seem important to me. I didnt "restore" it I just repainted it put on some new bits of chrome, replaced the late indicators on the wings with earlier type and generally tidied it up.

As stated, there is nothing wrong with highlighting any particular issues with vehicles advertised for sale but there is a tendency for some to jump to conclusions about the vehicle and the seller without being fully informed. Clearly, as can be seen by comments in the previous thread, some have very strong views and others don't. No problem with stating personal views but a line needs to be drawn when comments are upsetting to an owner who has bought a vehicle in good faith. Potential purchasers of any vehicle should assure themselves that they are happy with what they are buying, and local MMOC branches will be able to offer advice if required. And as previously stated, owners who feel there may be an issue with the identity of their Minor are welcome to contact the club office and the matter will be looked into. I would hope that all those posting here would try to be helpful to both sellers and potential purchasers to provide a positive impression of the club and it's members. Please be considerate to other Minor owners when posting.