Wow I just read the whole lot(yeah some of us Kiwi's can read)And Now I have serious head pain!
From what I have read and seen I have to say I am 100% with Oz on this.But it is an interesting duscusion.
CheErs Kiwivan
ps this is my 2 cents worth.
Wow I just read the whole lot(yeah some of us Kiwi's can read)And Now I have serious head pain!
From what I have read and seen I have to say I am 100% with Oz on this.But it is an interesting duscusion.
CheErs Kiwivan
ps this is my 2 cents worth.
It is not about the journey,It is the style we travel in!
thanks kiwi..nice to see someone from another country can see the basic logic and principal to the simple paperwork that was posted to start with...maybe we need more kiwis in canberra?
--- Updated ---
do they even let kiwis into canberra as politicians?
--- Updated ---
Originally Posted by ambientgoat
thankyou mr goat for finding this peice of gold....
now i am just waiting for 2 t to come back with some more wonderful logic that can be debated in the upper house of mysandman.com.au..
RegoPapers.jpg
Note Typos in both engine and chassis numbers. I can confirm they are typos.
As you can see my van also uses, to quote directly....
"Replacement chassis number becomes primary
vehicle identifier"
As goats example states.
The debate we are having is if the vehicle takes on on all of properties including the model designation from the donor vehicle. It is logical that the vehicle takes the identifier from the donor. The original is gone. You cant have a vehicle with out a unique identifier.
As far as rego is concerned it is still a HZ Van
That'll depend on the guys doing the paperwork. Obviously they didn't give a rats about what yours said on the paperwork if they put the wrong Chassis AND Engine number. That looks like a pretty old rego paper, probably from before ACT rego gave 2 hoots about collectability and rebirthing. There was a guy on Fastlane recently trying to find what year his chassis was from. He was obviously getting a more thorough going over by the RTA.
2t your debate/argument is becoming so mute that you really should give up...
come up with something that will support your bullshit arguments to make us believe your correct..which your not.
you have asked for and been provided with everything you need to prove me wrong....how about now showing everyone that you have absolute legal definitions to what your trying to prove...you cannot and all you are doing is making yourself look wrong bot not giving up...
I might be a nervous sort of fellow, but If it was me and I was restoring a car I'd want to get my rego and ownership details sorted out before I threw money at the resto. I've read too many horror stories were the guy has gone in for rego to be told that the car doesn't exist on the system and can't be registered... I'd hate for you to have drama if that car needed to be inpected for some reason (don't know the rego procedure over there, but inspections can be full on, mook's latest experiance being the exception to the rule)
Secondly to this, I don't think your example were the rego has clearly been updated at about 4:55pm on a friday afternoon, is a very good case to build your argument on. I mean, if they havn't recorded the information correctly, I don't think that's called following the proper legal procedure.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks