Red Renault in Rural Lincolnshire

[pepper]

I saw a lovely Red Renault 4 on the way to see our friends in Irby in the Marsh this past weekend.

Thought I'd stop and take a few photos...

I'd hoped it was for sale as it was outside a garage, but it seems it was one of their customers cars Very nice looking car with a full length sunroof!

 

[benchseat]

Very interesting. I have a full-sunroof machine (1972) also beginning WBP, so they must have been popular in that licensing district!

The dashboard and speedo etc. in the car you show are off a GTL, so the machine must have been restored at some point. The wipers park to the left, which is characteristic of late-plate models (early ones parked to the right which is inconvenient on right-hand drive). In fact . . . . it also has a rear-wheel handbrake (between the seats) so it looks as if it is in fact a GTL chassis with an old body. I wonder if it is tax-exempt???

 

[renault4mad]

Well spotted Benchseat....your a right anorak...lol...bit of a cut and shut car
Funny how we keep spotting more and more 4s but there not on here...??? being its the number 1 R4 website in the UK...

 

[benchseat]

I only just noticed that the car has a plastic inlet vent at the front rather than a metal flap, and combined flashers/sidelights. The doors have "inside" rather than "outside" hinges. So the body is new as well, and possibly only the number plate and chromework date from the 1960s. It is obviously a GTL with a number plate transferred from an earlier vehicle. But if this is the case the owner should be using fluorescent plates, not black & white : and I do hope that he's not running it as a tax-exempt vehicle, otherwise DVLA would be very, very cross with him . . . . .

 

[alewis]

Could be a new body on an old chassis

 

[pepper]

I did wonder how observant we all were, I only put the pictures up, I didn't want to comment on the reg/chassis till others got what I saw too!

 

[benchseat]

Ref. alewis's reply : it can't be an old chassis, it has a floor (GTL-type rear wheel) handbrake. See my first post.
Ref. renault4mad's reply : the last site the owner of a hybrid vehicle would want to join would be a website crammed with knowledgeable anoraks, some of whom may work for DVLA . . .

 

[alewis]

I missed the handbrake !

Could be just the bit of chassis with the VIN number was kept

Very nice car tho

(btw it comes up as a 1968 845cc vehicle)

 

[pepper]

I missed the handbrake !

Could be just the bit of chassis with the VIN number was kept

Very nice car tho

(btw it comes up as a 1968 845cc vehicle)

EXACTLY!

I've seen Landrover owners doing this far worse than this minor little change, I've seen TD5 (1998 onwards) on tax free chassis and number plates!

 

[Firstandbest]

Just a thought chaps ... doesn't the owner deserve some privacy?

Wouldn't like to see Clementine taken away :shock:

 

[pepper]

Just a thought chaps ... doesn't the owner deserve some privacy?

Wouldn't like to see Clementine taken away :shock:

Probably, but I was quite interested. Besides I take pictures of cars all the time, it's not something I've done once, I have hundreds of pictures of peoples Renault 4's.

 

[snailshed]

I've seen Landrover owners doing this far worse than this minor little change, I've seen TD5 (1998 onwards) on tax free chassis and number plates!

This problem is beginning to plague Citroen 2cv's as well. I'd honestly reckon that nearly one in ten 2cv's appearing on ebay now have some kind of dubious identity swap issues going on (e.g. 1982 model only yellow Charlestons wearing a 1973 identity and M plates etc). I guess this is to be an expected result of any car that is basically just big meccano.

I'm always more concerned as to why the identity has been swapped. Its not unknown for 2cv's to be stolen, especially as its a) really easy to steal one, b) they are worth decent money in nice fettle and c) its monkey easy to change their identity (sounds like an R4 then!). I certainly can't think of many plausible (and honest) reasons for it to be changed.

Identity issues aside, I do think this car looks good in that colour with 60's bits!

 

[Firstandbest]

Hi Pepper. I found this thread really interesting and enjoyable. And we all enjoy making comparisons and spotting modifications. Cars are one thing but I feel uncomfortable to see speculation about an unknown private individual's possible relationship with the dvla on an open forum like this...


But, as always, 'The Moderator's Decision is both fair and final'

Cheers
Mark

 

[benchseat]

Firstandbest raises an interesting ethical question. My view is yes, the owner is entitled to his privacy, and therefore (i) pepper should have respected that privacy and not posted the photos in the first place, (ii) Possibly the site should not feature details of cars other than those owned by members or using the site to advertise a sale (Moderator please consider). I'd certainly object if my battered LHD suddenly appeared on a website (even this one) without my permission.
On the other hand if there is a driver (any driver) out there who is running a car (any car) as tax-exempt which appears to be substantially "new" (i.e. post-1972), that driver is costing other motorists money. On the evidence of the photos of this particular R4, it looks like a GTL with chrome and an old number plate. If this is so, to claim tax-exempt status for such a vehicle would be fraudulent and the owner would only have himself to blame if the publicity led to him being prosecuted.

 

[barnfind]

In legal terms I am not sure that there is a right to privacy in this respect, providing that you didn't enter private premises uninvited to take the photograph. There are no privacy or copyright issues, for example, that prevent you from photographing private buildings such as houses, etc, if you take the photograph from the public highway. Google Street View would be out of business if there was.

The same presumably applies to any property that is on view, on the road, on a driveway visible from the road or in a public place such as a car park or garage forecourt.

Plus anyone who takes a car on the road these days is filmed goodness knows how many times by private and public CCTV, Traffic Cameras, etc. etc.

If a car is 'in public' it is fair game.

 

[Firstandbest]

Time Gentlemen, please?

Time Gentlemen, please?

I'm sure there is no problem taking pics and sharing on the forum. Thanks Pepper. I enjoyed the spot the difference game! Shame you removed the pic but think best in view of subsequent posts.

But discussing legality/personal tax position on the Forum is dangerous. The owner whose car is clearly identifiyable by the registration and approx location could have something nasty to say to Clementine and Malcolm! That was the point I was making badly!

FIN as they say in France?


Mark

 

[pepper]

As Barnfind says, there is nothing wrong with taking photos, I own the copyright to the images. I'm not doing anything wrong here.

I'm not making judgement on the person who is using the vehicle to possibly avoid paying tax, after I drove a 1972 tax free VW camper with a modern Peugeot Turbo Diesel engine in the back for 10 years

I know plenty of other Renaults that are classed as hysterical vehicles and yet are hardly what they appear to be.

 

[alewis]

Nice car nothing else matters

 

[benchseat]

As Firstandbest says, privacy is not an issue as long as the photo has not been taken from private land (e.g. a garage forecourt). Also, as pepper points out, he does own the copyright to the photos. But . . .

There are three issues here, all of which could, if things went wrong, impact either on us as classic car owners or on the Forum.

(i) The owner of this "interesting" R4 suddenly gets a knock on the door. DVLA have already seen the photos and discussion and have decided to act.

The owner finds out about this Thread and vents his displeasure either on pepper or on Malcolm/Steven.

(ii) You've probably noticed that lots of cars on eBay have the numberplates hidden, presumably to prevent the car being stolen off the driveway.

There was a sad post about nine months ago from someone whose 1968 R4 had been stolen from a lock-up. To my mind this must have been a targeted theft - no-one would steal a 1968 R4 on spec - it would only be worth about £70 scrap value and if they wanted to use it as a joyriding car they probably couldn't even work out how to put it in gear. To a collector, however, it might be worth £2000 (more if concours).

As a result of the photos on this Thread, someone decides to steal the "interesting" R4.

Anyone posting photos of other people's cars might like to imagine themselves in the position of the owners in (i) or (ii). The fact that there was no legal right to privacy or that the photographer had copyright of the images would not be much consolation to them.

(iii) If DVLA were to read this Thread they might get the impression that the Historic Vehicle Exemption was subject to abuse. If they did, one can be sure that any changes made would not be to our (enthusiasts') advantage.

 

[snailshed]

Hi, this post has thrown up all kinds of issues to do with car identities and whether you have a right to take pictures etc, but realistically if Pepper likes taking pictures of cars and we all like commenting, the solution seems to be for Pepper to 'smudge' the vehicles number plate in the pictures, unless the owner has given him permission to post the pictures...