Fraudulent paperwork anyone?

[HK1837]

I agree with you Dave that to use one of these to somehow make a car look more valuable for sale would be fraud. But to fill one out with the details of your car if you know it isn't fraud. If I could find the correct blank one for my HJ Premier i'd fill it out as I know every detail for it (sale date, selling dealer, name and address of buyer and the rego number). I'd be writing on the bottom that the document was a reproduction though.

[Innuendo]

Yeah well if that does your head in Dave, get a load of this offering from Rare Spares no less.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/HK-HOLDEN...-/400828314416

hk_repro_service_manual.jpg

You "could" fake up a whole service history.

As for Guns, ISIS and your reply novel? Simply old Holden literature/ephemera and seriously not worth getting all excited about!

[Flamenco_not_Flamingo]

Disagree. The suggestion that you present; "its whats done with it that matters" is an old one Innuendo, it is (for instance) very similar to; "guns dont kill people, people kill people" (the reason its the same is becuase you are saying it's the end user that breaks the law, not the provider of the ability to easily use the thing they provide). Or "its not the ciggerette companies to blame, everyone has a choice not to smoke".

Now, regardless of what people think on those issues for instance (and I'm sure in some minds the guns thing will be a testy one, just hear me out for a second). Would a person think it's desireable/ok for Australian dealers to sell guns in an unlicenced fashion ? OK, if one does, how about to foreign powers? How about to foreign powers Australia has isolated military activity in, such as The Solomon Islands? OK, if thats ok, then would one extend that to the ability for General Dynamics to sell F-16s to ISIS? Well of course not, so some things are illegal to sell or buy.

1. The potential this sort of forgery has to devalue many genuine cars will disturb many owners of classic vehicles (Holden or not) world wide. I can not see why a person would think it is a good thing if they own genuine classic original vehicles.

2. Perhaps I dont understand your statement that "a lot of the information we talk about here or have a personal knowledge comes from such items" ? None of mine does. If I had seen anything on this site that caused me to think it did I would have questioned it, in my opinion, information derived in such a fashion would reduce, rather than "maintain" a history.

3. The day Holden Legal laughs at me will be the day I pay them to bake my hat into an edible cake which I will consume in front of them. I do not see that day coming soon if at all.

4. And of course, I am sure that the comment about "dibber dobbers" does not refer to me.

However, of course, I point out that this would seem a spectacularly naive thing to say, as, some very important moments in the creation of a safe, fair go, egalitarian, nation building community in Australia have relied on whistleblowers. (As has been the case for engineering safety generally for over a century and a half). Notably (for a site such as this) we could look at road and transport infrastucture to confirm this, and do so even at the slightest of glances. Would you really think that this nation would prefer that truck drivers can not "dibber dob" when they are made to drive 19 hours plus three days straight? I think that actually in Australia, (unless they are the one being "dobbed" on), in most instances, the vast majority of those concerned like a whistle blower, and in terms of road transport, it keeps our children safe.

Just giving you the drum.


In terms of other comments on this thread which respond to mine, I politely remind respondants, that falsification of documents is illegal in Australia. There would seem (from the point of veiw of any court in Australia) no point in paying out money to purchase such blank documents from ebay unless one had the intention to use them, or could prove otherwise. At it's most simple, its called fraud. The onus would be on the purchaser to prove they had no intention to commit fraud. I really have not really given this any drawn out thought, (mostly responding to the "dibber dobber" thing here) but it seems to me, it is probably as illegal to buy them as it is to sell them.

I can look the fines up if you like.

With all due respect Dave, wow, what a digression from replica documents to a dissertation of all that's wrong with the world.

I think the best way for you to prove that you were right and everyone is was wrong would have been to simply approach Holdens legal team and present the offending documents and then put your official reply from Holden here then I would have been gnawing on my Akubra.

Once again, with all due respect, it all appeared shrill.

[SLR_dave]

I agree with you Dave that to use one of these to somehow make a car look more valuable for sale would be fraud. But to fill one out with the details of your car if you know it isn't fraud. If I could find the correct blank one for my HJ Premier i'd fill it out as I know every detail for it (sale date, selling dealer, name and address of buyer and the rego number). I'd be writing on the bottom that the document was a reproduction though.

I agree with your sentiment Byron. Writing on the bottom or top (or preferably across the middle) would, probably I think, (advisable to use a stamp and a date and check with a lawyer first) get a person using one of these around being accused of falsifying a document in some cases (but not necessarily all). I cant advise this, for anyone thinking of this, off their own back, I would say check your actions with a lawyer first! Falsifying documents, is not a cool thing, even by accident, as the last sentence of Byrons post clearly recognises.

However, more effectively, it may be possible, with a heap of time and effort, and probably money, that if a vehicle has so much of a traceable paper (and other) record that it is clear that the recreation of the document is absolutely accurate, and unquestionably belonged to that vehicle, to get a reproduced document certified by either, the RTA in your state, a dealer, or a legal firm, or perhaps, even, Holdens - in which case it would become a legitimate document, which is a much cooler thing to have. (Probably would still have some sort of stamp on it though), but that just becomes part of the vehicles official history anyway. I do belive that this may in some cases be possible, but I imagine its work that would consume several years of effort and effective communication. Even then placing replicated signatures on it is of course not likely to be possible, unless one is able to find the person who signed the original and agrees to signing the recreated and affirmed document. Perhaps you can!

However were it me, I'd be leaving those spaces blank if I was considering any attempt on this sort of historical document replication.

[SLR_dave]

Yeah well if that does your head in Dave, get a load of this offering from Rare Spares no less.

Politely, um no, its a different document, it doesnt designate the origin of the vehicle. In any case it would be pretty difficult to fill in every service record with original dealer stamps and stapled receipts. But more than that, I got a sneaking suspicion itwill be printed somewhere in there that the booklet is a replica. Perhaps, if I'm wrong, Rares may soon correct this.

[SLR_dave]

With all due respect Dave, wow, what a digression from replica documents to a dissertation of all that's wrong with the world.

I think the best way for you to prove that you were right and everyone is was wrong would have been to simply approach Holdens legal team and present the offending documents and then put your official reply from Holden here then I would have been gnawing on my Akubra.

Once again, with all due respect, it all appeared shrill.

Ahw shucks. I thought I made a fairly quick discourse on the idea that that the proponent of (a thing) can not be held to be responsible to the end result of (that thing). I used the most obvious and simple examples that came to mind, however I do take your point, perhaps not so polite of me, I hope I can restore that by apologising, peace on earth at this time.

Anyway, my intention earlier in this thread was to canvas opinion on whether somebody should approach Holden about this, and then a day or so after, still awaitng opinion, asked if anybody wanted to supply a contact, I suppose I am beginning to get an answer, however, I'd put that at about 50/50 atm. My approach, was to present my opinion and ask this site if anyone had approached Holden, as is evident in the thread.

So all good, I hope, but the idea a manufacturer would approve or ignore replication of its own documents by external parties for the means of making profit is um.... well not common.

[wbute]

Re-stamping a chassis or tampering with id plates is fraud. These are permanent identification and were intended as such. That piece of paper was never intended as such. It's an interesting thing if you have one but it's not proof of anything.
Holdens only interest in these in my opinion would be if they are a copy. This may infringe copyright.

[SLR_dave]

Thats right Wb. You got it. But thats just the start, theres also the trademark infringement (a different issue). Thats all before we get to whether they are interested in vehicle history replication, and I do think they will be - enough to stop it on trademark infringement anyway, take em ten minutes.

[HK1837]

Most of the information on the sheet is all readily obtainable either off the vehicle or from the GMH service/warranty 'fiche. The only bits you can't get are the original owner's details (which I have for my Premier off an old pink slip, so name, address and rego number) and the day of the month of sale (I don't have this unfortunately). Plus you can't get the dealer's signature but that is OK. I would just like to have the info recorded on something that will most likely stay with the car in case something happens to me.

[wbute]

They don't infringe copyright either though. They are not a reproduction,as far as the add reads anyway. They are NOS I assume.
I can't see any issue with them.
Most people would have thrown these things out the first time they cleaned out the glove box or more so when they sold the car. No one wants their personal details left in the car. You often see them blacked out of the owners manual for that reason.