# VRT enforcement procedure



## trevork (8 Sep 2008)

I am driving a Northern Ireland registered vehicle, and this morning while driving to work in Co. Monaghan, I was stopped by an Garda Siochana who seized the car and left me standing on the side of the road. I met with the revenue official later in the morning, who said the car would not be returned until I pay a €2,000 penalty, and I would then be required to pay the VRT of €6,000. I have no issue with the VRT element, but I was of the impression that you would be given a warning first, rather than be slapped with a penalty? I had been driving the car for 2 months in the Republic having moved from Northern Ireland, I hold a Northern Ireland driving licence. I rang the Donegal office and they said it is because I had owned the car since late April, that they were imposing a penalty without giving a warning.
It seems to me a very draconian procedure, to leave someone on the side of the road like that, and is obviously a response to the treasurys coffers being so empty. The fact that I am still waiting on Garda reports to pursue an insurance claim after my last car was written off in an accident, not of my doing, which left me unexpectedly short of funds and repaying two car loans was of no consequence to them. My question is, do I have grounds for an appeal?


----------



## kbie (8 Sep 2008)

trevork said:


> I am driving a Northern Ireland registered vehicle, and this morning while driving to work in Co. Monaghan, I was stopped by an Garda Siochana who seized the car and left me standing on the side of the road. I met with the revenue official later in the morning, who said the car would not be returned until I pay a €2,000 penalty, and I would then be required to pay the VRT of €6,000. I have no issue with the VRT element, but I was of the impression that you would be given a warning first, rather than be slapped with a penalty? I had been driving the car for 2 months in the Republic having moved from Northern Ireland, I hold a Northern Ireland driving licence. I rang the Donegal office and they said it is because I had owned the car since late April, that they were imposing a penalty without giving a warning.
> It seems to me a very draconian procedure, to leave someone on the side of the road like that, and is obviously a response to the treasurys coffers being so empty. The fact that I am still waiting on Garda reports to pursue an insurance claim after my last car was written off in an accident, not of my doing, which left me unexpectedly short of funds and repaying two car loans was of no consequence to them. My question is, do I have grounds for an appeal?


----------



## kbie (8 Sep 2008)

Had a friend, also in Monaghan, find 1400 euro by customs. Had to get the money on the spot or car would be seized. Then got 2 days to VRT it. Tried to appeal but no joy. I think if they had not paid the fine they could have negotiated a reduction.


----------



## thewatcher (9 Sep 2008)

I'd say at least a quarter of the people in my estate are driving foreign reg'd vehicles, deserve everything they get and about time.


----------



## D1983 (9 Sep 2008)

I don't really think you have a way out as they have probably seen the car around for the last 2 months.


----------



## briancbyrne (9 Sep 2008)

i had my car siezed while driving it last May in Dublin (english reg) - I paid the vrt next day and collected the car that evening with no fine.


----------



## Iceman732 (9 Sep 2008)

Firstly have how long have you been living in Northern Ireland? There is a VRT exemption whereby somebody has been working abroad  (i.e Northern Ireland) and moves back to Ireland they can register the car and won't be subject to VRT on it. There is a guide to VRT on the Revenue webiste. 

The idea of the mighty Garda Siochana actually seizing your car is also quite a grey area. Your best bet would have been to ask for proof that the Garda was actually insured to drive the car. Naturally the Garda couldn't produce such information on the spot and then you could happily drive back up the north and park it on the outside of the broader and wave!


----------



## RS2K (9 Sep 2008)

thewatcher said:


> I'd say at least a quarter of the people in my estate are driving foreign reg'd vehicles, deserve everything they get and about time.



Ring the Revenue?


----------



## PaulHoughton (9 Sep 2008)

The penalty is negotiable to zero. Aggression will not work. Cars were seized throughout the boom times, not just when the coffers were empty.

unregistered vehicles are seized under section 140 of the finance act 2001
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0007/sec0140.html
The gardai are, of course, insured by their employer, the state, to drive any car in Ireland.


----------



## DelBoy72 (9 Sep 2008)

Take a look here:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=41467

In some peoples opinion, its an illegal tax


----------



## Iceman732 (9 Sep 2008)

PaulHoughton said:


> The penalty is negotiable to zero. Aggression will not work. Cars were seized throughout the boom times, not just when the coffers were empty.
> 
> unregistered vehicles are seized under section 140 of the finance act 2001
> http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0007/sec0140.html
> The gardai are, of course, insured by their employer, the state, to drive any car in Ireland.



I know where the power to seize unregistered cars derives itself from. I was simply stating that whether it was the President of Ireland or a Garda I'd like to see some official documentation from his/her insurance company stating that the individual is fully insured when driving my car. I'm sure that any responsible individual wouldn't let a stranger drive off in their car. 

Unfortunately VRT is not illegal, how I wish it was. I've made an official complaint twice is the past year. Is it possible to attach a PDF document on AAM? I've got a copy of a letter from the European Court of Justice replying to my complaint which I've detailed below: (It's been altered a good bit from the initial letter I wrote!)

*Vehicle Registration Tax (VRT)* deprives the citizen of their EC Law rights under Article 25 of the Treaty of Rome which prohibited customs and excise duty and charges having the equivalent effect, on goods between Member States. By referendum, we acceded to the EU on the 1st. January 1973 and the benefits therewith under the Treaty Articles. Our Government have deviated from their Treaty obligations and deprived the citizen of these benefits by simply charging the prohibited customs duty on cars under a different name (VRT) and applied it under a different criteria, namely first registration of a new or second-hand imported vehicle, and have the arrogance and audacity to call this 'internal taxation'. This is not democracy as the will of the nation has not been given effect to. The abolition of VRT would create cheaper cars, more volume in sales, improve safety on our roads and create a win-win situation for all. 

 I think the most important improvement would be safety on our roads. It is widely known that Irish cars come with the most basic specification, this is to cut the cost of cars down in Ireland. If VRT was abolished in Ireland it would lead to ABS, DSC, Traction- Control etc.. coming as standard on Irish cars. This would clearly improve road safety. 

 As a result of numerous concerns expressed to the Irish Drivers Association and particularly in border counties, in relation to Gardai and Customs Officers dispossessing and attempting to dispossess our citizens' and members' vehicles, it is extremely important that you know and are aware of your fundamental rights. These rights include your Constitutional Law Rights, your EC Law rights, your Human Law Rights and the important European Law Principle of Proportionality. 

Gardai are actually dispossessing and attempting to dispossess citizens' motor vehicles on the grounds related to non-payment of road tax in addition to section 140 of the 1992 Finance Act concerning non-payment of VRT (vehicle registration tax). The Irish Drivers Association is actively pursuing radical reform of these areas of taxation. I believe, as most motorists feel, that VRT is effectively a customs duty in disguise or charge having the equivalent effect which is prohibited by Article 25 of the Treaty of Rome to which Ireland acceded to by referendum held in 1972 and to which The European Communities Act of 1972 amended Article 29.4 of the Irish Constitution to what is now Article 29.4.5o. In relation to road tax, we feel that consideration should now be given by the Government to exploring the possibility of including the road tax in the petrol because of the huge benefits this would bring to the motorist after suitable and effective consultation and agreement by the electorate. If road tax was included in the petrol, each motorist only pays for the road in direct proportion to their use of the road and therefore does not pay for the road when they are stopped or have their car parked in their driveway overnight or otherwise not using their car, there would be no discrimination against motorists who drive 1, 2 or 3 litre cars, it would free up Garda time checking road tax thereby not interfering with citizens freedom of movement, it would free up Court time, it would be environmentally beneficial because trees would not need to be cut down to display a disc on our windscreens for a short limited period, it would reduce the administrative burden by freeing up a building of the road tax office of the urban or county councils and staff deployed to other essential areas of alternative administration or work. These systems exist in Canada, The United States, South Africa, Australia and Poland where the road tax is in the petrol so why not here. What do you think? Even if you agree that Road Tax should be in the petrol is it not already there in the form of 62.5% excise duty on a litre of petrol and in any event have we and our forefathers not already paid for the existing roads to date so that citizens should be able to drive on them without being further taxed, save perhaps for maintenance of the roads? The imposition of excise duty on petrol and diesel and the separate payment of road tax is simply a form of double taxation. Note also that even on payment of road tax, consideration must be given to the statistics that only about 25% or as little as 6% of your road tax is being spent on the road! Why? Where has all the money for infrastructure development gone since we joined the EU on the 1st. January 1973? Also s.1(2)(b)(ii) of the 1952 Finance Act (Excise Duty)(Vehicles) states that a quarter of the year shall mean not exceeding 30%. First of all a quarter of anything as we all know is 25% in terms of a percentage and why was this sentence begun with a fraction and finished with a percentage? Was it done to confuse the Irish citizen? In fact today 3 months road tax amounts to approximately 28.1% of the annual premium thereby discriminating against citizens in endeavouring to obtain 12 months road tax in advance. If a person comes home on the 15th. of the month and want to drive their car and the tax is out, they must backdate it to the 1st. of the month thereby causing further discrimination causing a citizen to pay road tax for a period they were not even in the country. Why can't the road tax issue from any day in the month? Why must it be always from the 1st.day of the calendar month? What do you think? Please let us know your views. These are the kind of questions to which politicians seem reluctant to answer probably because we are reluctant to call them to account. The citizen is the true sovereign power in the Nation and in casting your vote, you assist in the formation of a Government in a democracy, so at the next General Election cast your vote intelligently and don't vote for the same party just because you have always voted for them. Bring back democracy which is supposed to be a Government of the people, for the people and by the people rather than tolerate second best which is effectively citizens being dictated to by Government policies which are not discussed with you nor is your opinion on them sought so that we end up with laws being 'dictated' to us under the disguise of Democracy. 


When dispossessing or attempting to dispossess the vehicle, the Gardai asks, requests or demands from the citizen the keys of their vehicle. By voluntarily handing over your keys, you are in effect permitting, allowing and agreeing to your vehicle to be seized. Do not hand over your keys under any circumstances for this act is in effect no different to that of a common thief and is in fact theft of your vehicle. In order to recover your vehicle from the 'pound' you are asked for €135 to get your own property returned and if you fail to pay, another charge of €25 per day accrues until it is paid. If you fail to pay this money, your vehicle may be sold to recover the expenses of impounding your car! First of all, The Association believes that in impounding the car, the request of €135 is extortion and the demand of an extra €25 per day amounts to blackmail. Furthermore the threatened sale of the car amounts to the tort of conversion which is an act effectively displacing the true owner's rights and if this is done, the State can be sued for intentional interference with the property rights of the owner and may be liable for the full value of the car. 


A significant feature of the 1937 Constitution is that it is, in effect, superior to any other source of law, including statute law. Like the original text of the 1922 Constitution, the 1937 Constitution prohibits the Oireachtas from enacting any law which is repugnant to, or is in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights of the citizen, Article 15.4.1o. A key feature of the Constitution is its entrenched nature. Your Constitutional rights are superior to any Act of Parliament and are known as 'entrenched' fundamental rights, meaning they cannot easily be displaced unless the citizens amend these rights in the form of a referendum and courts are obliged to protect your fundamental rights the moment that they are infringed. Since 1941, Article 46 of the Constitution provides that its provisions may not be amended by ordinary legislation; amendments may only be effected by a referendum of the entire electorate. The Constitution is in effect a 'living and breathing document' and there have been at least 17 amendments to the Constitution so far. 


Article 1 of the 1937 Constitution proclaims a clear declaration of independence and right to self determination:    

The Irish Nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own form of Government, to determine its relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions. 


The Preamble of the Constitution provides, in part, an important 'enacting formula' namely _*We, the people of Eire…Do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution * ._ 


 Article 6.1 states: *All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good *. 


  Article 40.3. provides: 


1o The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. 

2o  The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name and property rights of every citizen. 

Many of the fundamental rights provisions are contained in Articles 40 to 44 in the 1937 Constitution though other Articles also confer important rights such as Articles 15,16,34 & 38 and you should be aware of them. 

From a property point of view Article 43 of the Constitution provides "The right to own property is recognised…" As such, being a Constitutional provision, it cannot be easily interfered with nor the citizen deprived of it without good cause. 

In addition to these rights, Article 40.3 has, since the 1960's proved a source of an additional tranche of rights. Between 1937 and 1963, it was not considered that Article 40.3 contained any additional list of constitutional rights beyond those already contained in the remainder of the constitutional text. This view was radically transformed by the decision in _Ryan v Attorney General_ [1965] IR 294 which marked a watershed in the development of constitutional judicial review. 

Since the _Ryan_ case, the following rights have been recognised as unspecified personal rights:  
*the right to bodily integrity*: _Ryan v Attorney General;_ 
*the right not to be tortured or ill-treated*: _The State (C) v Frawley;_ 
*the right to travel within the State*: _Ryan v Attorney General;  _
*the right to travel outside the State*: _The State (M) v Attorney General;_ 
*the right to communicate*: _Attorney General v Paperlink Ltd;_ 
t*he right to marry*: _Ryan v Attorney General;  _
*the right to marital privacy:* _McGee v Attorney General_; 
*the right to individual privacy*: _Kennedy v Ireland_; 
*the right to procreate*:_Murray v Ireland_; 
*the rights of the unmarried mother concerning her child  *: _G v An Bord Uchtala_; 
*the rights of the child*: _In re the Adoption (No 2) Bill 1987_;
*the right to independent domicile and to maintenance*: _CM v TM (No 2);_ 
*the right of access to the courts  *: _Macauley v Minister for Posts and Telegraphs_; 
*the right to legal representation in certain criminal cases*: _The_ _State (Healy) v Donoghue_; 
*the right to fair procedures*: _In re Haughey;  _
*the right to earn a livelihood:* _Murphy v Stewart_. 

Thus, from a Constitutional point of view, you have a right to own your property by virtue of Article 43 and a right to use that property to travel within and outside the State. It follows, therefore that dispossession of your car are likely to be infringements of your Constitutional rights. A point of 'caution'. It is clear that the unspecified personal rights guaranteed protection by Article 40.3 cover a wide range of matters. However, like many of the rights expressly stated in the constitutional text, they are not absolute, but are to some extent limited by the requirement that the State must respect and defend them 'as far as practicable'. 

Some of our fundamental rights are limited by the phrase 'subject to law'. Consider this. If our rights are subject to 'law' and our Constitutional rights are the highest source of law in the land, does it not make the qualification 'subject to law' a higher source of law than your constitutional rights? Either we have fundamental constitutional rights or we don't! If our right is 'subject to law' then this 'subject to law' now becomes a source of higher law which would make this 'absolute' and this is in effect a contradiction if we refer to the Constitution as the highest source of law in the land. 

_King v Attorney General_ [1981] IR 233 is a good example of an Act being struck down as being in conflict with the Constitution and makes particularly good reading. Here, the plaintiff had been convicted in the District Court of certain offences under s.4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, including the following: that, being a suspected person, he had been loitering on a public road between 8.30 pm and 9.30 pm on a particular date with intent to commit a felony, namely to housebreak and steal; and that, on the same date, and at the same time and place he had in his possession housebreaking implements, namely two screwdrivers, a tyre lever, hacksaw, haversack, shifting spanner and a candle with intent to commit a felony, namely to steal. He sought a declaration that the relevant parts of s.4 of the 1824 Act concerning 'loitering with intent' were invalid on the ground that they were in conflict with various provisions of the Constitution and he also sought a declaration quashing the convictions. The High Court and the Supreme Court held that the 'loitering with intent' offence did not comply with a number of Constitutional provisions. It was in conflict with the right to a fair trial in due course of law in Article 38.1, particularly because evidence of past convictions could be used to convict a person and no evidence of an act involving criminal intent was required. S.4 was in conflict with the right to be held equal before the law in Article 40.1, since a person could be convicted of something which was lawful for another person to do, such as to 'walk slowly, dawdle or stop altogether in a public street'. The courts considered that Article 40.4 requires that a person should only be convicted of an offence if it is established beyond reasonable doubt that he has broken a clearly stated rule and that s.4 failed to meet the requirements of Article 40.4, that a person may only be deprived of liberty in accordance with law, whereas the language of s.4 was so vague and unclear that it conferred an arbitrary and overbroad power to charge and convict a person. In these circumstances, the High Court and the Supreme Court granted a declaration that the 'loitering with intent' elements of s.4 were invalid and also quashed the convictions. This is an example also of the 'principle of proportionality'. This case referred to an 1824 Act but was decided as recently as 1981. It makes us wonder, have we evolved as a human race at all that these Acts are still existing on the Statute Book? 

Your EC law rights however, are now a higher source of law than our own Constitution in terms of Community matters. The four fundamental freedoms under EU law are Free Movement of Persons (Article 39), Free Movement of Goods (Articles 23-31), Freedom of Establishment (Articles 43-48) and to provide services (Articles 49-55) and Freedom of Capital (Articles 56-60). 

Of these, the two which affect us almost every day are the free movement of persons and the free movement of goods and to a greater or lesser extent the freedom to earn a livelihood where motorists use their cars to get to and from work or use their cars to provide services. Therefore, any attempt to dispossess, actually or potentially, your car, are likely to infringe further your EC law rights as above and you should make yourself thoroughly familiar with these Articles and the case law on these as decided by the ECJ (European Court of Justice). A particularly interesting web site is www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/. This lists all the EU cases from 1954. The  _Van Lent_ case is quite interesting on free movement of workers, decided on 2nd October 2003, case C-232/01 and can be viewed on the website at  http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2003/C23201.html and you should familiarise yourself with its contents and the decision. 

After World War II, Ireland and the UK signed the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Notwithstanding this, the convention had no force of law as it was not enacted by means of an Act of the Oireachtas (an Act of Parliament). The UK eventually enacted the Human Rights Act 1998 which came into force in October 2000, and eventually after 53 years, Holy Ireland, the land of Saints and Scholars enacted and gave you, the citizen, your Convention Rights in the Human Rights Act of 2003. Under Article 1 of Protocol 1, the following right is guaranteed namely the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. 

Citizens should also be familiar with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the preamble of which effectively forms a Constitution of Europe. Articles 1-5 concern Dignity. Articles 6-19 concerns Freedoms. Article 17 provides, (1) Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. 

Articles 20-26 provides for Equality. Articles 27-38 provides for Solidarity. Your citizens' Rights are covered in Articles 39-46, Articles 47-50 cover Justice, finishing off with General provisions under Articles 51-54. Article 54 concerns prohibition of abuse of rights as follows: Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein. 

Finally, citizens' should be aware of and familiar with the important European Law Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality which were added as a Protocol to EU Law by the Treaty of Amsterdam.The principle of proportionality simply means that no act can be done which is greater than what is required to achieve a particular objective. You do not crack a nut with a sledgehammer. You crack a nut with a nutcracker! Similarly, if only say €200 of road tax is owed to the State, the state are not entitled to dispossess a motorist of his or her car worth several thousand euro in order to recover that road tax. That act would be disproportionate to what is required to be achieved objectively. Arguably the gardai would be entitled to dispossess only €200 and then to hold it temporarily until the road tax was paid and then to return what was taken. Similarly, if insurance was owing or NCT required, to dispossess a citizen of their car would be a disproportionate act to achieve the objective required when there are clearly lesser means of achieving the same objective, namely to issue a summons. 

In summary therefore, any attempt to dispossess a citizen of their car may have the effect of infringing your Constitutional Law Rights, your EC Law Rights, your Human Law Rights in addition to infringing the important EU Law Principle of Proportionality and we submit that any attempt to do so by any body of the State would be unlawful and that the proper procedure would be to issue a summons. In any event there may well be good reasons why the road tax is out of date, why there is not an NCT on the car or why there is a lack of insurance on the car or there may even be a dispute as to the VRT to be paid on a car/vehicle. There may be mitigating circumstances relating to all of the above. 

For these reasons and others, the Association is actively and will continue to act to represent motorists in endeavouring to reform areas relating to VRT and Road Tax etc. but we need your help. Let us know how you feel. Are you prepared to call the Government and politicians to account to stop 'ripping-off' the Irish motorist once and for all? You have an opportunity at the next General Election, so please cast your vote intelligently but above all make sure you cast your vote, for failure to do so only assists in undermining democracy and allows a 'dictatorship' to develop where we are denied as an electorate from influencing 'punitive taxation' to get taxation in these areas to be fair and reasonable. Get on to your local TD's and Senators. Attend the MEP meetings. Remember, the decisions that are being made today will also affect your children and grandchildren in the future. Remember that everything you think, say and do affect other people. 

The contents of the foregoing, is intended to be for information purposes only and to make you more aware of your rights as a citizen and as a motorist. It is not meant or intended to a definitive statement of the law which is the jurisdiction of the judges in Court and the Association does not take any responsibility whatsoever for any inaccuracies contained in the foregoing information for our members and citizens. We also reserve the right to rectify any deficiencies or inaccuracies as a result of updated or amended legislation or otherwise, concerning the above rights and information. 

Notwithstanding the above disclaimer, we hope that you have found this article interesting and that it has increased your understanding, knowledge and awareness of your rights and to uphold those rights and fundamental freedoms whenever you feel that your rights are being infringed. Do not allow yourself to be placed in fear of having your vehicle dispossessed from you nor allow you to be so paralysed by fear that you cannot move, or express your fundamental rights clearly. You also have freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In any event, remember that fear is just simply an illusion and as such cannot hurt you. F-E-A-R is simply False Evidence Appearing Real. The Government, through certain laws, usually involving money, want you to be fearful of potential consequences if you do not pay money on their terms. Do not allow fear in this way to pervade throughout society. Stand up for your Rights. They are yours. Make sure you know them and that you are consciously aware of your fundamental rights and freedoms. 

In conclusion it might at this stage be appropriate to quote a characteristic flourish from Professor John Kelly who commented in 1967, that, in any event: 

"If they [the people] allow villains into Government, a piece of paper will not protect them from the consequences, nor must they expect a few learned men in wigs and gowns to save the fools from the knaves they have elected". You have been 'warned'. Please cast your vote intelligently and do not be afraid under any circumstances to call the politicians and the Government to account and to make them accountable at all times to the people who are the true Sovereign power in this Nation. Thank you for reading this and we hope that you have found it interesting and beneficial to you. 

Once, I saw a huge mountain (representing your 'entrenched' Constitutional Rights). Slowly, piece by piece, thieves and knaves (The Government) came and began removing stones (Acts of the Oireachtas/Acts of Parliament without consultation or agreement with its people) from the base of the mountain. Over a period of time, more and more stones were being continually removed undermining the foundations of the mountain. When next I looked and said to my friend, "I thought there was a large mountain existing here before, where is it now", to which my friend responded, "The Government took it away, stone by stone, so that it no longer exists". 

Please be on your guard and wary of encroaching laws which eventually undermine, circumvent, or 'get around' your fundamental constitutional rights by these means and methods as to allow them to chip away slowly at your rights by more and more laws so that your constitutional rights exist no more or reduce these constitutional rights to a mere 'declaration of intent' which would render them almost meaningless.  

Recently, the Association held a meeting with senior Gardai at Letterkenny in Co.Donegal to express our concern at the number of dispossessions of citizen's cars and vehicles there. When we notified them of citizens' Constitutional rights and EC law rights we were informed that they did not care about these important rights, and they would do what the Garda Commissioner told them to do and would apply the law in Statutes. We again reaffirmed citizens' rights to own property and the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions etc. We were then informed that your EC law rights have no effect unless enacted by an Act of the Oireachtas to which we responded, a referendum was held in 1972 by the people who agreed to EC membership and that in any event the 1972 European Communities Act gave effect to this by amending the Constitution and made them aware that before considering dispossessing or attempting to dispossess any citizen of their car or vehicle to be well aware of and conscious of citizen's Constitutional Law Rights, their EC Law Rights, their Human Law  Rights under the Act of  2003 and the important EU Law Principle of Proportionality and that in any event there was far less draconian measures available to the Gardai than dispossessing citizen's of  their cars/vehicles and that these measures should be pursued in the alternative and that the contents of our meeting should be communicated to the Garda Commissioner. 

 Surely the EU must take a stand a protect it's citizens. Help us in our plight.


----------



## Iceman732 (9 Sep 2008)

Fun reading!


----------



## PaulHoughton (10 Sep 2008)

Iceman732 said:


> I was simply stating that whether it was the President of Ireland or a Garda I'd like to see some official documentation from his/her insurance company stating that the individual is fully insured when driving my car. I'm sure that any responsible individual wouldn't let a stranger drive off in their car.


I don't follow you. Are you worried that a garda driving your car might damage it and leave you with the bill or might cause injury to a third party for which you might be liable?



> I've got a copy of a letter from the European Court of Justice replying to my complaint


I'd love to read it.


----------



## briancbyrne (10 Sep 2008)

PaulHoughton said:


> I don't follow you. Are you worried that a garda driving your car might damage it and leave you with the bill or might cause injury to a third party for which you might be liable?
> 
> I'd love to read it.


 
I think what he is getting at is that it is surely your right to be shown proof (documentation) that the person (guard) is legally insured to drive your car - and that failure to be shown this would entitle you to refuse that person to drive the car (or hand over keys)


----------



## Slash (10 Sep 2008)

You won't get much sympathy here on AAM, where most contributors take the view that if you break the law, you have to be prepared to take the consequences. All this stuff about the EU and VRT being unjust, etc. is irrelevant.

I'm sorry for your predicament, particularly as you need your vehicle for your work, but it seems to be a pretty clear case to me - the vehicle wasn't registered in the South and that's that. 



trevork said:


> It seems to me a very draconian procedure, to leave someone on the side of the road like that, and is obviously a response to the treasurys coffers being so empty.


Not really. It is a response to people breaking the law.

Suck it up, pay the fine, move on.


----------



## PaulHoughton (10 Sep 2008)

briancbyrne said:


> I think what he is getting at is that it is surely your right to be shown proof (documentation) that the person (guard) is legally insured to drive your car - and that failure to be shown this would entitle you to refuse that person to drive the car (or hand over keys)


Do you mean a moral right? There is certainly no legal right. If any damage is done to your vehicle or another person or their property then the gardai will be legally liable. IN theory you sue them and they should pay (good luck suing the gardai). The purpose of insurance is to provide for the situation where the insured cannot afford to pay a claim, but the state can afford to pay any claim.

The gardai have the right to request that a citizen produce proof of 3rd party injury insurance on demand (RTA 1961 sec 69) but there is no obligation for a garda to prove insurance to a citizen except in the case where a citizen is taking a claim against a garda for personal injuries (RTA 1961 sec 73). In this case it will be found that the gardai do not have insurance certificates or discs but instead are self insured by arrangement between the commissioner and the minister. Look at a garda car next time. There is no insurance disc.

Countries do not generally take out insurance policies as they can afford to pay the claims themselves.


----------



## Iceman732 (10 Sep 2008)

PaulHoughton said:


> Do you mean a moral right? There is certainly no legal right. If any damage is done to your vehicle or another person or their property then the gardai will be legally liable. IN theory you sue them and they should pay (good luck suing the gardai). The purpose of insurance is to provide for the situation where the insured cannot afford to pay a claim, but the state can afford to pay any claim.
> 
> The gardai have the right to request that a citizen produce proof of 3rd party injury insurance on demand (RTA 1961 sec 69) but there is no obligation for a garda to prove insurance to a citizen except in the case where a citizen is taking a claim against a garda for personal injuries (RTA 1961 sec 73). In this case it will be found that the gardai do not have insurance certificates or discs but instead are self insured by arrangement between the commissioner and the minister. Look at a garda car next time. There is no insurance disc.
> 
> Countries do not generally take out insurance policies as they can afford to pay the claims themselves.




I don't mean a moral right at all. The property regardless of where it is registered is the individuals and not the Gardai's. If someone, who could potentially be impersonating a Garda, pulls me over and tells me he/she is taking it and impounding it then that individual is entitled to sight proof of identification of the Garda and also proof that the Garda is insured to drive that particular vechile. Would seem only prudent. 

I understand that the Gardai are insured through the Minister but if a Garda is going to drive my car without my consent then I want written proof from the minister and the commissioner stating that the Garda is insured to drive the car. It's only fair. If somebody was letting a stranger drive their car and that stranger turned out to be uninsured the Gardai would be the first to prosectute the uninsured driver. 

The fact of the matter is that VRT is deemed to be a legal tax and unless there is a mass rebellion whereby everyone refuses to pay VRT the law is not going to change. VRT is here to stay. It costs a minimum of €300,000 to bring a case to the ECJ and I'm almost 100% sure that the case would fail in the early stages. 

How about people refuse to vote in the European elections until the Irish Government remove the horrible tax. 

Anyone who is importing a car should appeal the Open Market Selling Price as put on the vechile by Revenue. The figures Revenue are using are completely inaccurate. VRT may be legal but we can limit the amount of it we pay over. Only something like 6-9% of VRT is invested in our road systems, likewise with Motor Tax. 

If anyone has €300,000 to spare let me know!!!


----------



## Iceman732 (10 Sep 2008)

As for the initial post I suppose you could contact a solicitor and make sure that all technicalities were in order when the Garda took the vechile off you. 

You might get off the fine but I doubt it.

To everyone out there who is driving a northern reg, I salute you!


----------



## dereko1969 (11 Sep 2008)

Iceman732 said:


> To everyone out there who is driving a northern reg, I salute you!


 
what other laws are you in favour of us all breaking? what sort of income tax rate do you want? you do realise that the money raised from VRT is used to fund the state and has to come from somewhere, right?


----------



## Iceman732 (11 Sep 2008)

dereko1969 said:


> what other laws are you in favour of us all breaking? what sort of income tax rate do you want? you do realise that the money raised from VRT is used to fund the state and has to come from somewhere, right?


----------



## briancbyrne (11 Sep 2008)

dereko1969 said:


> what other laws are you in favour of us all breaking? what sort of income tax rate do you want? you do realise that the money raised from VRT is used to fund the state and has to come from somewhere, right?


 
just as well Rosa Parks didnt have such an attitude in Montgomery all those years ago and decided to question a law she felt was unfair  ;-)


its a poor day when someone cant question the fairness and legitamacy(is Vehicle Registration TAXATION a form of double taxation of a product when it already been taxed when first been brought into the E.U ? - some might say so... ) of a law that is in place. Afterall they are doing it not just on behalf of themselves but on behalf of everybody.


----------



## bertson (11 Sep 2008)

Yes - why should I pay VRT, while you drive around in a northern car without paying the VRT?

VRT is a nonsense, but is the law, and I have little sympathy for you


----------



## briancbyrne (11 Sep 2008)

PaulHoughton said:


> Do you mean a moral right? There is certainly no legal right. If any damage is done to your vehicle or another person or their property then the gardai will be legally liable.


 
Do you under the law not have a legal responsibility to only allow drivers who are insured to drive your vehicle, to do so?

By asking for this proof are you not upholding your legal responsibility?


----------



## sse (11 Sep 2008)

briancbyrne said:


> just as well Rosa Parks didnt have such an attitude in Montgomery all those years ago and decided to question a law she felt was unfair ;-)
> 
> 
> its a poor day when someone cant question the fairness and legitamacy(is Vehicle Registration TAXATION a form of double taxation of a product when it already been taxed when first been brought into the E.U ? - some might say so... ) of a law that is in place. Afterall they are doing it not just on behalf of themselves but on behalf of everybody.


 
Equating a tax with the civil rights movement, way to go, maybe try and have a sense of proportion?

If VRT was abolished tomorrow everybody would be on here complaining about how their second hand cars weren't worth as much now.

I'd rather have VRT than the shortfall made up on income tax.

SSE


----------



## briancbyrne (11 Sep 2008)

sse said:


> Equating a tax with the civil rights movement, way to go, maybe try and have a sense of proportion?


 
Well perhaps you can tell me at what point does one  decide something is important enough to question the legitamacy & fairness of a law ? - I think the principal of the arguement holds thru -just making the point that everyone (thank god) in this country has a right to question the laws of society. I for one am glad we have this luxury.


----------



## Caveat (11 Sep 2008)

Questioning the law is one thing but advocating breaking the law (as another poster has seemingly done) is just irresponsible and silly.

Your other example was arguably a human rights issue - "unfair" taxes most certainly is not.


----------



## sse (11 Sep 2008)

briancbyrne said:


> Well perhaps you can tell me at what point does one decide something is important enough to question the legitamacy & fairness of a law ? - I think the principal of the arguement holds thru -just making the point that everyone (thank god) in this country has a right to question the laws of society. I for one am glad we have this luxury.


 
I'm not even remotely challenging your right to question the government's fiscal policy. The simple fact is that VRT brings in a great deal of revenue and this would have to come from somewhere else - the obvious one being income tax - and I for one don't believe this redistribution would be remotely "fair".

On a practical note I would have thought that a case on VRT would already have happened if it had even a remote chance of succeeding.

SSE


----------



## Iceman732 (11 Sep 2008)

Caveat said:


> Questioning the law is one thing but advocating breaking the law (as another poster has seemingly done) is just irresponsible and silly.
> 
> Your other example was arguably a human rights issue - "unfair" taxes most certainly is not.



Watch your acquisitions. It's irresponsible and silly to be suggesting that other posters are advocating breaking the law. 

I simply said to all those driving Northern Reg cars I salute you. 

Caveat are you telling me it's illegal to drive a Northern Reg car in southern Ireland? You'd clearly be wrong, so please don't refer to me as either irresponsible or silly.


----------



## Iceman732 (11 Sep 2008)

sse said:


> I'm not even remotely challenging your right to question the government's fiscal policy. The simple fact is that VRT brings in a great deal of revenue and this would have to come from somewhere else - the obvious one being income tax - and I for one don't believe this redistribution would be remotely "fair".
> 
> On a practical note I would have thought that a case on VRT would already have happened if it had even a remote chance of succeeding.
> 
> SSE



I mentioned that it costs a minimum of €300,000 to take a case to the ECJ, now how many individuals pay over €300,000 in VRT in a life time? If you assumed an individual was paying €12,000 VRT a vehicle then would be 25 cars. 

There was a group of people who almost were successful in bringing a case to the ECJ but unfortunately they ran into financial problems. 

I would remind posters that this forum is meant to be from a motorists perspective not from a taxation point of view.


----------



## Iceman732 (11 Sep 2008)

briancbyrne said:


> just as well Rosa Parks didnt have such an attitude in Montgomery all those years ago and decided to question a law she felt was unfair  ;-)
> 
> 
> its a poor day when someone cant question the fairness and legitamacy(is Vehicle Registration TAXATION a form of double taxation of a product when it already been taxed when first been brought into the E.U ? - some might say so... ) of a law that is in place. Afterall they are doing it not just on behalf of themselves but on behalf of everybody.



Agreed!



briancbyrne said:


> Do you under the law not have a legal responsibility to only allow drivers who are insured to drive your vehicle, to do so?
> 
> By asking for this proof are you not upholding your legal responsibility?



Agreed!


----------



## Caveat (12 Sep 2008)

Iceman732 said:


> Watch your *acquisitions*.


 
Er...ok will do...thanks 



> I simply said to all those driving Northern Reg cars I salute you.


 
Indeed. Well apologies if I have offended your sensibilities (and note I said *seemingly *in my post) but dereko1969 already challenged this statement and since the only response you gave was: 

  

...when you had the chance to refute or explain - what else am I to infer? 

So maybe in the interests of clarity could you explain what you meant and exactly why you "salute" those driving northern reg cars?


----------



## Iceman732 (12 Sep 2008)

Caveat said:


> Er...ok will do...thanks
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I love the colour of the reg plates. Doesn't the yellow make the back of the car look so much better. I also love the fact that people don't know how old the car is!

Personally I feel anyone who thinks VRT is a reasonable tax is completes nuts. The idea of someone living in, say, the border who has to pay about €5000 more for a family sized car just because they put an Irish plate on the car is complete madness. 

What I think is just a complete joke is the fact that somebody who imports a car and pays the VRT on it doesn't even get number plates! Somes pays through the teeth to register the car and they don't get the bloody plates!


----------



## briancbyrne (12 Sep 2008)

my bone of contention is not the fact that you have to pay a registration fee.... fair enough you get nothing for nothing in this world. My problem is that the open market selling price is not a true reflection of market conditions. We have been constantly told that we are in an open european market yet this only seems true when it suits the powers that be and doesnt offend the pockets of the power brokers in society( garage owners, publicans etc) who hold sway over our politicians pockets.

Im just glad that these garage owners are being hit where it hurts more and more as indicated in this article as they have obviously been ripping off the irish consumer over the past years. 
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/usedcar-imports-soar-in-crippling-blow-to-dealers-1472798.html

given that people are still importing cars in thier droves despite the high rates of VRT proves that garages in Ireland are charging above the odds for a product whic is below the standard offered in the UK market (in terms of extras, interiors, milegae, condition etc)


----------



## dereko1969 (12 Sep 2008)

Iceman732 said:


> The idea of someone living in, say, the border who has to pay about €5000 more for a family sized car just because they put an Irish plate on the car is complete madness.


 
but the person on the northern side of the border will be (more than likely) paying higher income tax, higher corporation tax, higher capital gains tax etc..

i don't agree with VRT either, it is anti-competitive and some of the OMSPs are suspect i would actually prefer a higher income tax as sales taxes such as VAT and VRT affect all equally regardless of income, BUT if i have to pay it i expect everyone to pay it and am glad to see some enforcement of it, and please no more quoting of rosa parks or the boston tea party it actually totally belittles your side of the discussion comparing the two.


----------

