He's bought a stolen bike
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Germany 4 English.Sheep.Shaggers 1
Next: Sad Dad
From: JackH on 28 Jun 2010 12:52 On Jun 28, 5:39 pm, wessie <putmynameh...(a)tesco.net> wrote: > JackH <jackhacket...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote innews:6f74dcf8-6fdc-4466-b4e5-e642c1d2962d(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: > > > Anyway, getting back to my point above, if I were considering handing > > the bike in, I'd be handing it in as is rather than tampering with the > > evidence as it were as suggested above, as the more authentic looking > > the dodgy numbers, the more likely it is plod will believe you'd had > > no idea up until now rather than having to explain why you'd bought > > and held onto something with blatantly illegible and tampered with > > numbers, for 18 months plus. :-) > > Your original point is spurious. There is a significant body of data to > indicate that many punters don't check VINs when buying, or if they do they > don't know what to look for. As the bike has got past an MOT inspection > then the renumbering must be fairly convincing. Yes... I agree. So why deface the good work of whoever rung the bike before presenting it to plod? In fact you've just made more of case for not doing that; if the numbers are that illegible when the bike is presented to them, it then raises the question 'Did whoever MOT'ed the bike do their job properly?'. > There would be nothing to explain other than saying, "I asked a mate, an > expert in the used bike trade, to look over the bike as I wanted a > valuation and he spotted the problem." Indeed... which is why I've argued the corner of 'present it to plod as is, if you're going down that route', above. -- JackH
From: The Older Gentleman on 28 Jun 2010 13:43 wessie <putmynamehere(a)tesco.net> wrote: > Your original point is spurious. There is a significant body of data to > indicate that many punters don't check VINs when buying, Check > or if they do they > don't know what to look for. Check > As the bike has got past an MOT inspection > then the renumbering must be fairly convincing. Check. Three out of three :-)) -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Beav on 28 Jun 2010 15:59 <crn(a)NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote in message news:i08t5a$7ff$1(a)news.albasani.net... > wessie <putmynamehere(a)tesco.net> wrote: >> >> as matey has had the bike for 18 months I imagine the DVLA system sees >> it as a legit bike i.e. the stolen bike was given the identity of a >> damaged bike. Possibly something on TPFT weighed in for scrap, sold at a >> salvage auction or a bike used on a track. > > It is quite possibly a semi-legitimate case of a previous owner having > bent the bike and transferred his original numbers onto a secondhand > frame. And why would he do that? It'd be perfectly Ok to have a new/different and *legal* frame and new/different number incorporated into a new V5 rather than rumble stupidly down an illegal road don't you think? -- Beav
From: Andy Bonwick on 28 Jun 2010 16:45 On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:12:32 -0700 (PDT), "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On 28 June, 08:41, "sweller" <swel...(a)mztech.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >> Lozzo wrote: >> > > But what would you do? Anyone? >> >> > Same - get shot before it comes home to roost. Someone may at some time >> > lose that bike with no chance of recovering any money from it, I >> > wouldn't want to be that person. >> >> But that's simply wrong - would you like it if someone passed it on to >> you, or a close mate? >> >> He's bought a stolen bike. �Tell the police, maybe the insurers will let >> him keep it. �If it's an ebay purchase ebay may have kept records of the >> transaction and contact details of the seller and they can pursue it. >> >> Either way it's wrong to pass it or parts of it to another 'mug' and it's >> one of those lump it or plead ignorance. >> > >I agree, and these days that's probably what I'd do. However, were I >in the position of not being able to afford the potential loss, I >think my attitude would differ. > My attitude would vary according to the amount of disposable in my bank account. I'm not ashamed to admit that if I found I'd purchased a ringer and I couldn't take the financial hit I'd either move it on or break it. I certainly wouldn't go and fess up to plod and risk losing my money. These days I'd try and get hold of the person who sold me the bike and offer them the choice of giving me a refund or copping for a couple of gallons of unleaded through their letterbox when they were asleep.
From: Beav on 28 Jun 2010 16:53
"Krusty" <dontwantany(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:i09llg$3ur$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > The Older Gentleman wrote: > >> So what to do? He's had the bike maybe 18 months. Possibly a bit >> longer. I think it was an eBay purchase. >> >> Sell it now, fast, and move on was my (probably unethical) advice. I >> doubt that 99% of purchasers would spot anything amiss and it will >> continue to circulate on the roads until it gets scrapped. >> >> But what would you do? Anyone? > > Tell the police. Selling it would put him in the same pond as the scum > who stole it in the first place, as he'd potentially be knowingly > stealing whatever he sells it for from the buyer if it gets seized > later. No, he'll have to return the money the next buyer paid him, if it ever gets seized. It's the buyers responsibility to make sure the vehicle is "straight", but if it turns out to be a ringer and plod can find the last seller, it's him wot'll end up out of pocket, so our hypothetical pal will get stiffed if he tells plod and they take it off him, or he'll get stiffed if he sells it and plod seize it from the latest owner. If he just rides it and gets it MOT'd and no-one notices it's a ringer, then that's the cheapest (to him) option and the one with the least aggro in the long term. He should bin the bike when he's done with it though, and not try to sell it on. -- Beav |