Jump to content


Photo

Halseylec in 'Classic & Sports Car'


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#51 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,054 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 February 2012 - 12:15

This sale of the log book relates to selling the cherished number. Somebody wanted "WPK 6" and was prepared to pay for it.

Basically to transfer a number you have always had to own both cars. The interpretation of this varied over the years. It also varied with the local tax office who sometimes were more, shall we say, flexible than others.

At one time the car could be in the scrapyard and as long as you could produce the brown book this was considered sufficient evidence of ownership and you could transfer the number.

If the car had been reported as scrapped and they had cancelled the number then you could apply to have the number re-issued for a small fee. This has been done with some restorations/ re-creations/ fakes.

Since then it has got more complicated by stages. The licensing people got wise and said you had to have the car in the metal. The number dealers got around this by transferring the number from the scrap vehicle to a moped. Officially this happened before the car went to the breakers. The dealer then sold the moped and number to the person with the Porsche who then transferred the number from his moped to his Porsche and scrapped the moped. Somewhere along the line the rules required both vehicles to be taxed so they made more road fund tax. As the work done by local authorities having vehicle licensing departments it is now centralised at the DVLA and all the information is on a computerised database instead of paper files. Any "elasticity" in interpreting the rules that a local taxation authority had has now gone. Small fees, whether official or unofficial, have been replaced by official larger fees, etc.

Advertisement

#52 pilgrimsmaster

pilgrimsmaster
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 10 February 2012 - 12:52

If you study the letter copied in this forum from Mr.Farmer...(C&SC)...he worked at the council tax office that delt with the transfer of the registration number from the Halseylec
in 1975.
so we can assume he is qualified to know the system?.
he states "the rules at the time only required that enough of the vehicle existed to identify it as the car shown on the log book".


#53 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,054 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 11 February 2012 - 12:52

If you study the letter copied in this forum from Mr.Farmer...(C&SC)...he worked at the council tax office that delt with the transfer of the registration number from the Halseylec
in 1975.
so we can assume he is qualified to know the system?.
he states "the rules at the time only required that enough of the vehicle existed to identify it as the car shown on the log book".

I missed that as I didn't open the link. As a generalisation the point I made is valid. The rules varied with time. And they also varied with the taxation office[r?]

Edited by D-Type, 11 February 2012 - 12:54.


#54 michael43

michael43
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 11 February 2012 - 15:20

Please can we get back to the point? The registration mark is neither here nor there as the replica car does not carry it anyway.

What I want to know is how WPK6, the first Halselec car which I destroyed in 1965 should re-appear in 2001, then disappear for another 10 years after I account for its destruction, then re-appear yet again in 2011 with MSA papers in which it is declared to be the Halselec Mk 1.

#55 pilgrimsmaster

pilgrimsmaster
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 11 February 2012 - 21:17

I have to say I think micheal43 has got “the sight before the butt” here?
The point is , the letter referring to the number transfer is probably one of the most compelling pieces of evidence in all of the guff posted here.
It is a reply to Doug Nye’s feature in a previous months Classic and Sports Car….in 1984.
It places not just the registration number(WPK 6) but also the car (Halseylec)…in Wiltshire in 1975.
This letter is from a public servant with no connection to the car , no axe to grind , nothing to be gained , nothing to lose….so there is no reason to doubt its content?
Also , this is 1984…….some fourteen years before the car / the restorer / Mr.McRicthie appear on the horizon.
I have read letter-of-the-month detailing the scrapping of the car a few times over…..it prompted me to post my first reply in this forum……
But ,(as the BBC would say) in taking a balanced view , you must also read the reply to that letter from Ginger Devlin……(a poor copy is posted in here earlier ).
Devlin designed / constructed these cars and other notable marques….is it fair to say he is a motoring luminary of sorts?
There is no getting around the fact that , whilst his tone may be considered a little sarcastic….he does effectively “pour cold water” on Mr.McRicthies memories….and states that the car being restored by Hodges is the Halseylec.…..it’s there in black and white.
Now , if anything , it is the MSA papers that are ” neither here or there” ……….
Red Socks has already posted that when it comes to a cars provenance , they ain’t worth the paper that they are written on…..he is of course , spot-on. …..(see the MSA’s disclaimer.)
This office of MSA are concerned with fair / safe / legal motorsport …..heritage is not their expertise.
The papers identify that a vehicle is technically of the correct type to compete fairly / safely against others……(ie: without an un-fair competitive edge etc).
You have to realise that today there are probably more Lotus type 18’s with papers than there were cars originally built………probably the same for C type Jag’s etc…the list goes on.
Modern historic motorsport is littered with “recreations”…..it has to be that way….the alternative is NO historic motorsport……generally if an old car is very competitive now…..it is probably not original.
Should such a thing as an original racing car exist……it is likely to be unsafe….uncompetitive….in a museum…..or all of these?


#56 hillsprint

hillsprint
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 12 February 2012 - 18:59

Reading the letter of Mr Farmer, the County Council, it is obvious he only dealt with the paperwork and only "presumes" what may have been presented for examination as to be "enough of the vehicle" existing.

Hence the only value in his letter is that it tells us that the WPK 6 reg was transferred it 1975.

What was inspected by Council officials is open to speculation.

It seems in that case hard to discredit the evidence of the last known owner of the Halseylec registered WPK 6, that he cut up the bodywork and chassis and then delivered it to a well known scrapyard in Belfast in 1965.

As to the issue of MSA papers and the current number of Halseylecs in existence, as has been pointed out in the last post, merely a factor of the Historic racing scene and the lengths folk will go in order to have an eligible machine, and not necessarily a piece of history :)




#57 RogerFrench

RogerFrench
  • Member

  • 394 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 12 February 2012 - 19:03

It places not just the registration number(WPK 6) but also the car (Halseylec)…in Wiltshire in 1975.


No it doesn't. It says "presumably the chassis, perhaps some of the bodywork..." etc. No mention of his seeing it, or if anyone confirmed its existence or identity. Mr. Farmer dealt with documents, and even says "Had I known then what I know now I would have enquired about this strangely-named car". I don't doubt the letter or its contents at all - I have read it carefully, you see.
Nor does Ginger Devlin's letter "state" that the car being restored is the Halseylec, he says it's "very likely", but he doesn't claim to know the history nor does he say he has seen the restoration.

Pilgrimsmaster, thou dost protest too much!

#58 pilgrimsmaster

pilgrimsmaster
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 13 February 2012 - 10:32

The last two post have valid points, which I accept……
Rodger French and I interpret Delvin’s words differently I think…..
I think Rodger is seeing: THE CAR BEING REBIULT….. is very likely…etc.
Whereas , because Devlin is replying to the Irishman’s letter , next to a photo of the red car……
I read it as saying: THE IRISH CAR……is very likely to be the one being rebuilt….which sort of infers that he is aware of it…….but as you point out….does not prove that.
Hillsprint’s point is also a fair one…….the very first letter only proves that the number was transferred from the Halseylec..
As the rules at the time required enough of the car to exist…..i assume that any sane person going through the process would have the back-up of something metallic?
As you point out , exactly what was presented , and who inspected it….we will never know.
Note to self: I must be more sceptical…….
The Doomsday book is probably just “a list”……we don’t know who actually counted /measured and recorded what….and with what accuracy do we?
If I ever get to see the Bayer tapestry….i promise to think…Hmm….what am I actually seeing here?
A woven , one-sided account , commissioned and edited by a singular powerful person….a sort of medieval tapestry tycoon?
:)

#59 michael43

michael43
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 13 February 2012 - 11:26

Posted Image

Sorry but these posts have become so hilarious I cannot resist joining in! The Halselec keeps being resurrected even though I drove a hacksaw through its great little heart.

Pilgrimsmaster wrote: The point is , the letter referring to the number transfer is probably one of the most compelling pieces of evidence in all of the guff posted here.

Most of the guff is coming from him, culminating in his latest waffle about the Bayeux Tapestry -- or something. He also thinks the car automatically comes with the registration mark, so I've applied for GGJ** which I once had the pleasure of driving. My humble Golf will thereby be transformed into a Ferrari 275GTB.

He and those involved in production of the replica have failed to address one simple point: THE ORIGINAL WPK6 CAR WAS SCRAPPED. If they want to call me, and some of the most senior figures in motor sport here, a liar then let them do so.

Normally I don't feed trolls but in this case the more hits the Halselec gets the better. The Google-bots have already picked it up, and anyone thinking of buying the car is welcome to contact us. Obviously an Old Master is worth a great deal more than a copy (I won't use the word fake).

Advertisement

#60 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,713 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:07

So, you never sold the car. The car now exists. So therefore it must be your car. (even if it is a zombie car)
You should claim it back. :drunk:


#61 pilgrimsmaster

pilgrimsmaster
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 14 February 2012 - 11:32


Ahh……..but , he did sell the car , all above board and legal-like….he informed the authorities in
Ormeau Ave. that he did.
This point brought me to this forum , and I will stand by it until someone can prove me wrong here , at which point I will apologise and shut-up.
No UK log book has ever had a section that you can complete where it states…”do you wish to sell just the identity only of this vehicle?”…..you sign to say that you have sold the car , that’s it…..the car and number are registered in England after his ownership.
Following earlier guidance from Hillsprint , i’m now a turbo-sceptic …..doubting everything!
There is no actual proof here that anyone owned the car is there?.......names recorded on log books refer to “a registered keeper” , or sum-such.
You could say none of us own anything as far as log books are concerned…..it’s a free for all!
This leaves me wondering if those “cult-types” have been right all along?
(phew , that was close…..thank feck for spell-check eh!)
:drunk:

#62 hillsprint

hillsprint
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 14 February 2012 - 15:40

No he didn't sell a car, he sold an identity.

Somebody then used that identity on another chassis, of as yet an undetermined make, to then transfer the WPK 6 number plate to another car.

Now you can start getting into aged racing Bentley style discussions as to what constitutes the continuous history of a car, but I don't think anyone has ever claimed that a log book represents a car. In fact you don't need a log book to sell a car, and even owning the log book doesn't give you title to a car.

The car was destroyed in 1965.

The registration number lives on.

Edited by hillsprint, 14 February 2012 - 15:41.


#63 bradbury west

bradbury west
  • Member

  • 4,589 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 February 2012 - 16:51

I have no real desire to get embroiled in this, but, based on a report in last Saturday's Telegraph Motoring Section, page M5, and assuming that the law has not changed over the years, it is very pertinent whether the owner who scrapped the remains not sold on did actually inform the Licensing people that it had been written off.
Roger Lund

#64 Sharman

Sharman
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 14 February 2012 - 21:47

Just try and sell it at auction as an Halseylec.

By the by 774RW was on several works Jaguars, it is currently on a D Type but prior to its sale by the DVLC it was sought by Duncan Hamilton for his C type which also wore it to travel to Le Mans. When it was worn by these two cars it was, however, white lettering on a red background.
Registration numbers are specious.

#65 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 15 February 2012 - 10:24

By the by 774RW was on several works Jaguars, it is currently on a D Type but prior to its sale by the DVLC it was sought by Duncan Hamilton for his C type which also wore it to travel to Le Mans. When it was worn by these two cars it was, however, white lettering on a red background.
Registration numbers are specious.

774RW was a Jaguar trade plate, so using the same combination was just a vanity thing.
When it was on the 1953 Le Mans C type and the 1955 D type it was red on white so a limited trade plate. Most of my mates in the trade would have worried about using such a plate for much less than racing on foreign soil!

Edited by Allan Lupton, 15 February 2012 - 10:25.


#66 Sharman

Sharman
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 15 February 2012 - 11:35

774RW was a Jaguar trade plate, so using the same combination was just a vanity thing.
When it was on the 1953 Le Mans C type and the 1955 D type it was red on white so a limited trade plate. Most of my mates in the trade would have worried about using such a plate for much less than racing on foreign soil!

You will note that I described it as "white on red" that being a general trade plate, "red on white" is a specific trade plate only useable for declared journeys so that to crib Belloc we may not "go to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head" using a specific unless we have said that we are going that way. If it was red on white presumably the proper jouney chit was filled out and said Coventry/Le Mans via ///. The police dictum was "Red on White Stop on Sight" "White on Red. Straight Ahead" But I was commenting on number plates in general, just think of all the cars that wore PMO200 for example.

Edited by Sharman, 15 February 2012 - 11:41.


#67 MartinC

MartinC
  • New Member

  • 2 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 15 February 2012 - 13:21

774RW was a Jaguar trade plate, so using the same combination was just a vanity thing.
When it was on the 1953 Le Mans C type and the 1955 D type it was red on white so a limited trade plate. Most of my mates in the trade would have worried about using such a plate for much less than racing on foreign soil!


This is all very interesting regarding Jaguars and trade plates but getting back to the Halseylec surely it is illegal now and was illegal then for the owner to sell the logbook ie identity without any of the remains of the car.

#68 Sharman

Sharman
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 15 February 2012 - 13:38

This is all very interesting regarding Jaguars and trade plates but getting back to the Halseylec surely it is illegal now and was illegal then for the owner to sell the logbook ie identity without any of the remains of the car.

Then there appear to be a fair number of people performing illegal acts if the advertisments are anything to go by.

#69 bill p

bill p
  • Member

  • 366 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 15 February 2012 - 14:07

This is all very interesting regarding Jaguars and trade plates but getting back to the Halseylec surely it is illegal now and was illegal then for the owner to sell the logbook ie identity without any of the remains of the car.


If my memory serves me correct, by far the easiest way to transfer numbers in the 60s was by use of the vehicle registration number Retention Certificate. The number from the tax book was simply transferred at the Local Office to the Retention Certificate which could then be "sold" to a dealer or private purchaser.

The whole process became more complicated and onerous in the 70s/80s when the personalised numbers trade became quite a moneyspinner.



#70 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 15 February 2012 - 16:26

You will note that I described it as "white on red" that being a general trade plate, "red on white" is a specific trade plate only useable for declared journeys so that to crib Belloc we may not "go to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head" using a specific unless we have said that we are going that way. If it was red on white presumably the proper jouney chit was filled out and said Coventry/Le Mans via ///. The police dictum was "Red on White Stop on Sight" "White on Red. Straight Ahead" But I was commenting on number plates in general, just think of all the cars that wore PMO200 for example.

Sorry to continue the diversion, but it was the fact that you described 774RW as white on red when I remembered it as a "red on white, stop on sight" plate (and photos of two Le Mans winners show it so, as I noted) that drew me to write what I did. The idea of declaring a journey to, round and back from Le Mans was improbable enough, but IIRC it had to be driven on that journey by a member of the company's staff.

#71 Sharman

Sharman
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 15 February 2012 - 16:46

Sorry to continue the diversion, but it was the fact that you described 774RW as white on red when I remembered it as a "red on white, stop on sight" plate (and photos of two Le Mans winners show it so, as I noted) that drew me to write what I did. The idea of declaring a journey to, round and back from Le Mans was improbable enough, but IIRC it had to be driven on that journey by a member of the company's staff.

Diversions are permitted if you have a general plate :rolleyes:

#72 Ted Walker

Ted Walker
  • Member

  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 15 February 2012 - 16:48

I have to day printed 3 photos of both cars, Ist picture taken in Goodwood paddock Easter 55 E Brandon Reg No WPK6. 2nd photo taken April 63 Brands A Newton Halseylec with head rest reg no 7BPA driven by a .Newton. 3rd photo taken at Silverstone in April1985 same reg as 2 driver Tony Whithers. I will give these prints to Alan Cox at rece retro for him to post on my behalf(if you are going Alan ?????)

#73 Alan Cox

Alan Cox
  • Member

  • 7,705 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 February 2012 - 18:04

I will give these prints to Alan Cox at rece retro for him to post on my behalf(if you are going Alan ?????)

:up:

#74 Red Socks

Red Socks
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 15 February 2012 - 20:21

Hmmm, what an interesting story.
We seem to have a car which has been transformed from a pile of unidentified scrap into a significant sports racing car.However we now apparently know that the car it claims to be it cannot be-even on the restoration from a gear knob principal.
The registration number from the scrap has not come forward from the scrap and the car now bears another number. Does it have a DVLA V5 and what is it described as? Who obtained the V5 if there is one and on what basis ? Given the above does it have HSCC and or MSA/FIA papers and what is it described as on those ?
Who in the sequence of ownership after Richard Disbrow decided it was a Halseylec and on what evidence ?
Given it has an HTP who decided at MSA level and FIA level that the specification is/was period correct.Did they compare it with the other car?
A lot of questions here-what chance an answer?

So three months after my post above not a single one on the above questions is answered.
We seem to have established that the registration number of the original car and the original car became totally separated after the original car's destruction-by fair means or foul- and that is all.

#75 hillsprint

hillsprint
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 15 February 2012 - 21:02

Correct, but then no one after Richard's sighting of a bundle of tubes, has contributed to the discussion (as far as we know !!).

The MSA inspection is an interesting point, as we know from Ginger Devlin's remarks the second car varied significantly in the chassis construction from the first, so chassis comparison wouldn't actually be conclusive.

I suppose the WPK 6 car is one of those fabulous Historic race cars, in that it was unique and the original was destroyed, so only the designer and original owners could give any authenticity to a "restored" car. Unfortunately for the constructor of the current car, the last owner of the original is still alive, kicking and able to type !!!



#76 Ted Walker

Ted Walker
  • Member

  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:57

Im confused !!!! Where does 283 XUM come into all this ?????

#77 bill p

bill p
  • Member

  • 366 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:06

Im confused !!!! Where does 283 XUM come into all this ?????


283 XUM is the Bryn Ives car that started the whole discussion. Also, it's worth reading Bryn Ives's letter in December 2011 Classic & Sports Car

WPK 6 would be termed the Halseylec Mk 1 and 7 BPA the Halseylec Mk2

Edited by bill p, 16 February 2012 - 09:07.


#78 michael43

michael43
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:24

Red Socks has summed it up: not one of his questions, or mine, have been answered.

For the record, the regn mark WPK6 was sold/transferred to someone in England and the only thing that went with it was the original log book with Eric Brandon as first owner. I'm a law abiding person and signed whatever forms were needed at the local licensing office. They did not want to view the scrap remains of the car although they did if it was to be remade, this was the era of the Ford Special. From memory, and it was almost half a century ago, the procedure was "Transfer of cherished number" or something like that. Even then I realised that if one doesn't notify the authority one can expect consequences if the new holder of the regn mark commits any offences!

All this waffle about registration marks is not relevant. How did the car which I totally destroyed apart from the bits in the posted photo manage to re-appear 35 years later as the original, then disappear for almost a decade after I repudiate its provenance, then pop up yet again with a full set of papers and purporting to be the Halselec?



#79 Sharman

Sharman
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 16 February 2012 - 14:19

Red Socks has summed it up: not one of his questions, or mine, have been answered.

For the record, the regn mark WPK6 was sold/transferred to someone in England and the only thing that went with it was the original log book with Eric Brandon as first owner. I'm a law abiding person and signed whatever forms were needed at the local licensing office. They did not want to view the scrap remains of the car although they did if it was to be remade, this was the era of the Ford Special. From memory, and it was almost half a century ago, the procedure was "Transfer of cherished number" or something like that. Even then I realised that if one doesn't notify the authority one can expect consequences if the new holder of the regn mark commits any offences!

All this waffle about registration marks is not relevant. How did the car which I totally destroyed apart from the bits in the posted photo manage to re-appear 35 years later as the original, then disappear for almost a decade after I repudiate its provenance, then pop up yet again with a full set of papers and purporting to be the Halselec?

M43
I think that, with an obvious exception, you have no need to argue your point further, most of us here are in agreement with you.

Advertisement

#80 pilgrimsmaster

pilgrimsmaster
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 16 February 2012 - 20:16

[Picture the scene: a Tax office , Ormeau Ave , Belfast….1965.
Man walks up to the counter…….
“morning Mary”
morning M43 , are you well?”
“I’m grand , so I am , I have found some idjut on the mainland who is prepared to pay me a kings-ransom for this!”
fair play to ya’ M43…..how did you find him?”
“I don’t know”
okay so , on with the forms……what’s his name?”
“I can’t remember”
and his address?”
“I never asked”
you are not giving me much here……but you sold him the car anyway?”
“car?....what car?.....i never mentioned a car…..Mary , I object to all this interrogation!......just work away will you”
This is of course pure fiction , but we are being asked to believe it was probably just as easy……..it was not.
There seems to be many people posting here who do not understand log books and their relevance ……
On three separate occasions (once here – twice in magazines) M43 writes…”I scrapped the car – then sold the log book and registration”……he is in no doubt.
You don’t sell a log book…..you can’t sell a log book….it does not belong to you….it belongs to the government.
When you return a log book…..you simply have just two options open to you…..
Option 1) you state you have scrapped or exported the car……the results is that the reg. number / the log book and the car effectively all disappear…..you now have nothing to sell.
Option 2)…(your only other option)……you say that you have sold the car to someone else.
For those of you who have not grasped it yet…..this was never a cherished number transfer.
At this stage , the number did not move from the Halseylec to anything else…….not even a retention form.
(retention forms did not exist until many years later)….The number and the Halseylec are still together, registered in England after this man’s ownership….the number is removed from the Halseylec in 1975.
For this to have been a cherished transfer….someone would have bought the number off a Halseylec in N.I. - to put it on another Halseylec in England……I can’t imagine anything more unlikely.
As the car was lying in a scrap yard….he should have chosen option 1……but he chose option 2 …the incentive being considerable financial reward.


#81 hillsprint

hillsprint
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 16 February 2012 - 21:53

OK pilgrimsmaster, I'll ask a question.

What knowledge do you have of the Halseylec registered WPK 6 after Michael43's ownership?

And to cover all the bases, what knowledge do you have of the car that currently claims to be the restoration of that car?

#82 Red Socks

Red Socks
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 16 February 2012 - 23:03

[Picture the scene: a Tax office , Ormeau Ave , Belfast….1965.
Man walks up to the counter…….
“morning Mary”
morning M43 , are you well?”
“I’m grand , so I am , I have found some idjut on the mainland who is prepared to pay me a kings-ransom for this!”
fair play to ya’ M43…..how did you find him?”
“I don’t know”
okay so , on with the forms……what’s his name?”
“I can’t remember”
and his address?”
“I never asked”
you are not giving me much here……but you sold him the car anyway?”
“car?....what car?.....i never mentioned a car…..Mary , I object to all this interrogation!......just work away will you”
This is of course pure fiction , but we are being asked to believe it was probably just as easy……..it was not.
There seems to be many people posting here who do not understand log books and their relevance ……
On three separate occasions (once here – twice in magazines) M43 writes…”I scrapped the car – then sold the log book and registration”……he is in no doubt.
You don’t sell a log book…..you can’t sell a log book….it does not belong to you….it belongs to the government.
When you return a log book…..you simply have just two options open to you…..
Option 1) you state you have scrapped or exported the car……the results is that the reg. number / the log book and the car effectively all disappear…..you now have nothing to sell.
Option 2)…(your only other option)……you say that you have sold the car to someone else.
For those of you who have not grasped it yet…..this was never a cherished number transfer.
At this stage , the number did not move from the Halseylec to anything else…….not even a retention form.
(retention forms did not exist until many years later)….The number and the Halseylec are still together, registered in England after this man’s ownership….the number is removed from the Halseylec in 1975.
For this to have been a cherished transfer….someone would have bought the number off a Halseylec in N.I. - to put it on another Halseylec in England……I can’t imagine anything more unlikely.
As the car was lying in a scrap yard….he should have chosen option 1……but he chose option 2 …the incentive being considerable financial reward.

So at what point do you think the number and the car were separated exactly- the later it was the more the DVLA would have been involved and needed evidence of the existence of all the salient points.
Moderator I think the time has come to step in here.

#83 Jagjon

Jagjon
  • Member

  • 89 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 16 February 2012 - 23:28

So at what point do you think the number and the car were separated exactly- the later it was the more the DVLA would have been involved and needed evidence of the existence of all the salient points.
Moderator I think the time has come to step in here.

I believe Northern Ireland was one of the places where they would do a transfer of number with out inspection of an actual vehicle and by coincidence or not Wiltshire was a location of one of the number dealers.
Lots of numbers got transferred with cloned vehicles or motorcycles. when the government set up the DVLA it was open season for claiming back numbers that had disappeared for decades and there are many vehicles around that have decidedly dodgy numbers if you investigated.
DVLA attitude was that who ever was first to transfer & it was confirmed then that person/vehicle held the number, I only know of one case where a person got involved enough to recover the number from his vehicle which hadn't moved since 1946! Someone else had produced a vehicle with it.
V5's still get sold many ex imported vehicles then converted to RHD covet a UK "original" v5, you'll find them on TR's Healey's XK, Etypes lotii etc & what about aged vintage cars that re appear?
regarding replicating some old race cars - it's been going on for years & will continue to do so both here & just about every other country that stocks round wheels!

#84 Ted Walker

Ted Walker
  • Member

  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 17 February 2012 - 08:00

So which of these cars is carrying the Reg NoWPK 6 To day ?????

#85 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,414 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 February 2012 - 08:12

Neither of them. As Pete Taylor noted in post 48:

Out of interest: registration WPK6 is currently gracing a Mercedes-Benz CLC180 Komp Sport, blue, 1796cc, 143 bhp, Coupe, 01/03/2009.

According to the registration gizmo on my iPhone.



#86 pilgrimsmaster

pilgrimsmaster
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 17 February 2012 - 09:42

[quote name='Red Socks' date='Feb 16 2012, 23:03' post='5532788']
So at what point do you think the number and the car were separated exactly- the later it was the more the DVLA would have been involved and needed evidence of the existence of all the salient points.

redsocks .....please read the first early letter from Mr. Farmer......it is here somewhere early-on......but you need to open a link to see it.

people are missing the point thanks to it not being"on full view" as it were.

anyway , it states that the number was separated from the Halseylec in 1975.

#87 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,414 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 February 2012 - 10:17

To avoid further confusion, here are the relevant sections from C.J. Farmer's letter:

The registration WPK6 was transferred from the Halseylec to another vehicle early in 1975, though the rules at that time only required that enough of the vehicle existed to identify it as the one shown on the logbook. Presumably the chassis, perhaps some of the bodywork, and even the engine may have survived until then. The Halseylec was then given the registration 111EWV, which was itself later transferred to another vehicle, the Halseylec becoming 158EWV.

Soon after this, the rules about transfer changed, and vehicles had to be registered to effect transfers. Obviously, the Halseylec was not in a condition to be easily restored or licensed, and nothing was heard from it again.

How do I know about all this? In 1975 I worked for a County Council dealing with motor tax, and the documents for the Halseylec were dealt with by me. Had I known then what I know now, I would have enquired about this strangely named car.



#88 bill p

bill p
  • Member

  • 366 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 17 February 2012 - 14:12

OK pilgrimsmaster, I'll ask a question.

What knowledge do you have of the Halseylec registered WPK 6 after Michael43's ownership?

And to cover all the bases, what knowledge do you have of the car that currently claims to be the restoration of that car?


Pilgrimsmaster, we await your response to Hillsprint's questions



#89 Red Socks

Red Socks
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 17 February 2012 - 15:46

To avoid further confusion, here are the relevant sections from C.J. Farmer's letter:


QUOTE
''The registration WPK6 was transferred from the Halseylec to another vehicle early in 1975, though the rules at that time only required that enough of the vehicle existed to identify it as the one shown on the logbook. Presumably the chassis, perhaps some of the bodywork, and even the engine may have survived until then. The Halseylec was then given the registration 111EWV, which was itself later transferred to another vehicle, the Halseylec becoming 158EWV.

Soon after this, the rules about transfer changed, and vehicles had to be registered to effect transfers. Obviously, the Halseylec was not in a condition to be easily restored or licensed, and nothing was heard from it again.

How do I know about all this? In 1975 I worked for a County Council dealing with motor tax, and the documents for the Halseylec were dealt with by me. Had I known then what I know now, I would have enquired about this strangely named car.''




But the best thing to do was to present a current MOT certificate, then you didn't need to have a car, and MOT garges willing to provide certificates with no car were plentiful.
Bobs your uncle.


#90 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 13,235 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 17 February 2012 - 20:14

M43
I think that, with an obvious exception, you have no need to argue your point further, most of us here are in agreement with you.

:up: :up: I do find it interesting that the obvious excepition appears to have joined TNF solely to cast doubt in this thread. Maybe said obvious exception has a vested interest in muddying the waters ...

Neil

#91 bill p

bill p
  • Member

  • 366 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 18 February 2012 - 13:22

OK pilgrimsmaster, I'll ask a question.

What knowledge do you have of the Halseylec registered WPK 6 after Michael43's ownership?

And to cover all the bases, what knowledge do you have of the car that currently claims to be the restoration of that car?


Pilgrimsmaster, Pilgrimsmaster! Wherefore art thou Pilgrimsmaster?



Edited by bill p, 18 February 2012 - 13:23.


#92 Sharman

Sharman
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 18 February 2012 - 14:26

Pilgrimsmaster, Pilgrimsmaster! Wherefore art thou Pilgrimsmaster?


Yes, that's curious handle. Why do you call yourself Pilgrimsmaster? I can think of a quote from "Hassan" to whit:-
"We are the pilgrims Master,
Always we must go a little further
It may be beyond that last blue mountain barred with snow
Across that angry or that glimmering sea
White on a throne, or guarded in a cave
There lives a prophet who can understand
Why men were born"

Does that fit? Or pretensions to the Regiment?

#93 michael43

michael43
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 18 February 2012 - 18:17

WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO PILGRIMSMASTER POST 80 ......
[Picture the scene: a car restorer, somewhere in England, 1999.
Man walks up to the counter…….
“morning Rupert”
“morning Reggie , is one well?”
“I’m good , I have an idea to rake in a kings-ransom !”
“Ai say, Reggie, do tell”
“Well, dontchaknow, remember the Kerbcruncher I built back in 1954?"
“Ai do indeed, good little car, wasn't it wrecked by some Paddy?”
"It was. But I still have the drawings. How about we build another one?"
"Ai suppose one could, but where would thet get one? One might sell a replica for £25k but one would not make much profit".
“replica?....what replica?.....i never mentioned a replica….. Rupert , I object to all this interrogation!......just work away will you? All we need to do is say we found bits of the Kerbcruncher in a garden somewhere, get the papers, the MSA won't care as long as they get their money. Who's going to know the difference?"
"Ow Reggie, one is such a rescel. One does realise that the genuine car restored might fetch, one might say, £58,000".

This is of course pure fiction , but we are being asked to believe it was probably just as easy……..it was not.

[Picture the scene: a car restorer, somewhere in England, 2001.
Man walks up to the counter…….
“morning Rupert”
“morning Reggie , is one well?”
"I'm not. The magazine ran our story about our wonderful restoration of the pile of scrap we didn't find in an old barn, and would you believe the last owner has popped up to say he cut up the Kerbcruncher for scrap, and what's more he has witnesses?"
"Oh s**t. Let's hide the bloody thing for a few years and they'll all forget about it, or better still die. Then we'll wheel it out again."

This is of course pure fiction , but we are being asked to believe it was probably just as easy……..it was not.

[Picture the scene: a car restorer, somewhere in England, 2011.
Man walks up to the counter…….
“morning Rupert”
“morning Reggie , is one well?”
"I'm not. The magazine ran our story about our wonderful Kerbcruncher restoration and would you believe the original owner has popped up yet again and is stirring up all sorts of s**t?"
"But one has sold the Kerbcruncher for lots of moolah, where does one go now?"

WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO PILGRIMSMASTER POST 49 ......

As is the case today , selling on a vehicle with the intent of deceiving the purchaser would be a serious offence by the vendor.
A plea of ignorance would not really wash would it?……not in view of the sum of monies that exchanged hands.


WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO M'LEARNED FRIEND ......

No it would not. Selling a copy as the original article is a criminal offence, though normally applied to works of art.






#94 larryd

larryd
  • Member

  • 654 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 18 February 2012 - 18:52

Mr McRitchie, you are going well, as they say.

Keep sticking it to the Brit crooks!

:clap: :clap: :clap:


#95 bradbury west

bradbury west
  • Member

  • 4,589 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 18 February 2012 - 19:43

I have always thought it disappointing when people who restore cars fail or omit to show exactly what it was that they restored, and show proof that the derelict car or pile of scrap in any photographs was actually their pile of scrap. The measure of the restoration or recreation can then be assessed objectively. Nothing to hide should mean nothing not to show.
Roger Lund

Edited by bradbury west, 18 February 2012 - 19:46.


#96 hillsprint

hillsprint
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 20 February 2012 - 16:41

So I think that's conclusive :)

The Halseylec originally registered WPK 6 was crashed in 1964, the chassis & bodywork scrapped, the engine and gearbox were sold as seperate items at that time and the only person we know who has any original parts of the car is Michael McRitchie, who has the steering wheel and part of the nose......The End :wave:


Now Michael, when will you build the "continuation" car using all the known available original parts? I'm sure there's a man in Japan/Germany/England who might like to buy it !! ........................................Dives for cover :lol:

#97 Sharman

Sharman
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 20 February 2012 - 22:09

Mr McRitchie, you are going well, as they say.

Keep sticking it to the Brit crooks!

:clap: :clap: :clap:


Don't know where you come from (or care) but please don't use this forum to slag off people of British nationality. Most of the people who have voiced opposition to the attempt to regenerate the Halseylec are British.

#98 Alan Cox

Alan Cox
  • Member

  • 7,705 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:45

Three fine Halseylec photos posted on behalf of Ted Walker
Posted Image
Eric Brandon's WPK 6 taken at Goodwood Easter 1955
Posted Image
A Newton 7 BPA Brands Hatch 1963
Posted Image
Tony Whitehead 7 BPA at Silverstone 1985

#99 michael43

michael43
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:31

Three fine photos indeed. Many thanks Ted and Alan, the top one WPK6 will join my treasures! I wonder is 7BPA still around?

Advertisement

#100 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:53

And I wonder if WPK6 is still around :lol: