mk1-forum.net

Interesting story below seen posted on TMF (The Mini Forum)......



Note also the article says 'Court heard he had to sell due to high cost of re-taxing it without historic status'......after paying £250,000 for the car!

Can't see how this story has any relevance or would be of any interest to anyone over here on a old Mini forum.

Does that mean some of those red and white minis are only worth about £30,000

I would have thought the seller of the Cobra was the guy to sue?
But interesting to see who wins! ( other than the Legal Eagles).

Polarsilver wrote:I would have thought the seller of the Cobra was the guy to sue?
But interesting to see who wins! ( other than the Legal Eagles).

Spot on, surely the buyer's not the one to be asking questions of!!

I say that it is a basic fundamental given of common law that official paperwork/documentation must be deemed to be accurate and correct (R-HMC&E v.Sterling for case law). As for suing the DVLA. Financially right because they issued the documentation AND they have the funds to pay if they're found at fault whereas the seller might now be skint

he will get no where trying to sue the DVLA as their position is that they only re-issue documentation on the advice of clubs etc....


I bet there will be a few more cases like this popping up in the next few years.

it the guy has bought a 'bad-un' then his gripe should be with the people he bought the car from

in this case there must be more than is currently been reported by the press, the DVLA must have had a very good case for pulling the book

reading between the lines it 'sounds like' the car was a modern replica that someone had claimed an original id back on

Ah, yes....., there might be more to it but the press cannot pre-judge it sub-judice and all that. But being the devils advocate, I'd say that the fact remains that the documentation was incorrect and as a direct consequence, he was 'put at cost' as they say. And the ' ....to the best of our knowledge and belief.....' defence is VERY thin and even more subjective when examined closely - as the judges will do in their own time. I see your point Rich. What about a friendly £20 bet to any Forces charity that he wins the case.

The DVLA can sue the supplier of the info and so on down the line

Peter Laidler wrote:Ah, yes....., there might be more to it but the press cannot pre-judge it sub-judice and all that. But being the devils advocate, I'd say that the fact remains that the documentation was incorrect and as a direct consequence, he was 'put at cost' as they say. And the ' ....to the best of our knowledge and belief.....' defence is VERY thin and even more subjective when examined closely - as the judges will do in their own time. I see your point Rich. What about a friendly £20 bet to any Forces charity that he wins the case.

The DVLA can sue the supplier of the info and so on down the line

he will never win against the DVLA, as there is no case against them, its just sour grapes

the documentation will have been 'correct', just for the wrong car

its not the DVLAs fault that 'someone' has (i assume) used the documentation belonging to one car on another vehicle, the fact that this cars 'problem' occured in 2002 (post iva/sva ect') suggests that 'something' has gone on

at the end of the day, cobras are (after c type / d type jags) probably one of the best recorded chassis number lists going, so the history of any original chassis number will be very well documented, so there will be a full 'known' story about the hisotry of this car.

i suspect that this is why the logbook as been voided.

the sellers main complaint with the DVLA is that they voided the logbook rather than letting him know first so that he has the oportunity to 'get rid'

different websites are using different photos of cobras, so its difficult to see what car it is, but i bet there is a great thread going on a cobra forum somewhere

In a way you could say DVLA are passing the buck, you could say the buyer was a fool for being had over but ultimately the whole issue goes (or should do!) right back to the dingbat that either built the car and/ or applied for the logbook. I'm sure there's a few folk with squeeky bum syndrome who thought it'd be fun to apply for a works Mini logbook or some other such significantly valuable Mini without having the car to start with who are now wondering whether that was a good idea! All I can see in the future is this kind of litigiation falling back to the originators of the problem domino style, as it should! I feel sorry for the owner if he was duped and he should very rightly be compensated by whoever he can prove to have knowingly bent the law. Makes me wonder why his car popped up on the DVLA's radar in the first place?

Yes the DVLA rely on the clubs to authenticate but clubs do have their pants pulled down by the unscrupulous and sometime have to admit they've screwed up by rubber stamping a lemon! The personel involved in authentication authorised by DVLA need to be totally independant but also clued up and that's always been the problem and always will be.

Isn't this just the same as buying a eagle e type jag or the modified MGB thingy . They have old documentation attached to them to avoid SVA etc , but are essentially log book rebuilds . He probably based he's purchase on it having a old registration . The seller may have not done a thing wrong in the eyes of the law . ... ken

swifty wrote:. The seller may have not done a thing wrong in the eyes of the law . ... ken

apart from knowingly selling a ringer if they have attached / claimed back an original cobra identity onto a modern built car

the rules changed in 1998, this cobras issues occurred in 2002, so I doubt any 'continuation' can be claimed

id really like to see the ruling on this cobra, I'm sure there is much more to the back story of this that hasn't yet been reported, I suspect its going to be like the Stanley man case where it was simply 'greedy investor whines when caught out'

As with any detailed disussion on this topic I always return to my long held belief that it's a total f*cking minefield!!

Some cars are an open and shut case, like using a cherished number to falsely represent a car or applying for a V5 when it's documented you only have a radius arm from the original but the rest is one massive massive headache that I'm sure the DVLA will never be able to solve or barely scrape the surface of, and what good it would do if they tried? reshelled cars, restored cars with 90% new panels, new trim and new engine leading to a recalled V5?? We'd all be in the sh*t!

For those who want to try and find more the reg no is/was PTF 47B



From the picture file name this car was possible what is known as a continuation model. In the US they get given titles as a 1964 Cobra when built, so my guess it was built in the US, imported on the 1964 Title and then registered by the DVLA as a 1964 car. Yet another case of someone not doing their homework before paying out a large sum of money on a car.

first reg in 2009

chassis number is CSX2620


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cJe ... ac&f=false


seems it has a bit of 'history'.............

any wonder the DVLA have pulled it!

Are the old unused chassis number gets used later in life.

Maybe the club was instrumental in policing this, like a vintage motorcycle club did recently with an issue with a mate’s bike that was awarded its rightful number. With the Minis it seems the kids are in charge of their own sweetshop? To be fair there’s a few Goodwood racers that fit the same ‘continuation’ criteria but again it’s a minefield!

The guy is wasting his time trying to sue the DVLA & I'm sure whoever advised him to do so is now making a pretty penny out of the whole debacle.

I reckon it is a bit rich claiming he can't afford the road tax after having bought a car for quarter of a million quid.

The DVLA make it pretty clear that their V%C is no proof of anything at all.

What I can't understand is why he is not going for the seller, unless he knew something that he is not letting on

The whole lawsuit is a sham, he'll never get anything from the DVLA (nor should he, in my opinion).

The responsibility lies with the seller, who surely knew the history of the car wasn't legitimate. And to that point, what sort of man spends a quarter of a million pounds on a "historic" car without having meticulous third-party inspection or appraisal done? Just boggles my mind..

I would of thought that the owner would of had the common sense to have checked the cars history and provinance before shelling out all that money???? Complete muppet!