Restored body shells. Legal?

[V Mad]

What do you think of this then?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Triumph-Stag-Restored-Bodyshell-/120999484250?pt=UK_CarsParts_Vehicles_CarParts_SM&hash=item1c2c219b5a

[Andrew S]

Interesting

What happens when you buy a new Heritage shell say for a TR6? It must be the same scenario

[stag-phil]

I lot of cars have had considerable expenditure on the mechanical side only to be let down by the bodywork

If you can transfer all the oily bits from the old car into a restored shell then it must be a cost effective way to restore your own car.

Legal? Don’t see why not, otherwise manufacturers would not produce and sell body shells to repair cars that would otherwise be written off. And of course there are Heritage cars and companies such as Martin Robey producing shells for E-Types.

Long may it last!

Phil

[Kevin Garrod]

The difference is that these aren't new shells. I'm not suggesting that there is anything dodgy going on, but we don't know their origin.

[stag-phil]

The difference is that these aren't new shells. I'm not suggesting that there is anything dodgy going on, but we don't know their origin.

Agreed but what is the difference between buying a restored shell and having a car restored in a professional bodyshop?

I would say nothing.

If you have the space and time and are able to swap the bits over then it is probably a cheap way of restoring your own car.

Also, with a bare shell there is no hidding place for badly welded patches, everything is on view.

Phil

[Kevin Garrod]

The difference, I was suggesting, is that there is no way of knowing that shell isn't stolen.
But assuming it isn't, it would be a good way to speed up a resto.

[flying farmer]

Unfortunately when you buy any Stag there is little guarantee that it hasn't been nicked and ringed in the past. my accountant had two nicked inside a year, and the second one was imobilised in a locked garage.
OK, this was twenty odd years ago but this sort of thing was one reason I bought a TR back then, they were less prone to disappearing.
IIRC someone on here recently commented the "late" shell they were restoring had the very early king sills............
Hmmmm, wonder how that happened
Neil

[Stag therapy]

Hasn't something like this come up before? I thought someone in the South West, (Bath or Exeter comes to mind for some reason) was doing something similar and I thought the person concerned in the SW was a forum member.

As someone with a shell in their garage, which has had a lot of work carried out on it and still needs more, including a respray, had I known about this before I started, a legit shell in this condition may have been an attractive option.

Edit- Composed but not posted before Neil posted.

[73stagman]

There has been a posting about these shells before recently. The guy maintains there is a valid V5 and correct documentation with each one. (I dont know how you can proove authenticity though) There is a reply on his Ebay ad regarding this question

[72BLUE]

At the end of the day, if it keeps a Stag on the road I see little wrong. You buy a restored shell and give your rotten one to the restorer in part exchange. He then repairs your rotten shell and eventually sell it on to someone else and so on. If the 'shells' that he sells have V5's then they are surely not stolen?

Also, with the totting up of originality points, if a shell is the only thing changed and all other major components are original, are the DVLA not kept happy, or have I misunderstood this ruling?


Cheers
Keith

[73stagman]

With the DVLA there is a distinct difference between rebuilding...ie new shell and a donor vehicle and restoration where a car uses pretty much all of its original parts but they may be repaired. The grey area is not so grey with the ebay ad. These shells are not new. They are being repaired and sold with V5. They are restorations not rebuilds.

Its the likes of us that mix it up because we use the term restoration and rebuild to mean the same thing.

[V Mad]

I think the seller seems a perfectly honest guy, and I cant see any reason for him to be otherwise. Also he is answering the questions asked of him. It certainly seems a very effective way to get a rebuilt shell.

But, as a buyer who will surely be putting a lot of money into using one of these shells, then subesquently building a freshly restored car, you would want reassurance of the legal position of the finished article. I think some questions are posed by this process.

I found this post on a mini forum (they do a lot of reshelling):

OK. The current law says that if you re-shell a car you must use a brand new shell from the original manufacturer and have a receipt to prove it. However, if you choose to use a rust-free or fully restored 2nd hand shell, it's best not to talk about it on here, or on anywhere really, then you will probably have no problems. There is a petition to gov't to allow re-shelling for classic cars which it is hoped will regularise the situation. The cautionary note must be that if you re-shell with a 2nd hand shell and are found out, then the car will be crushed (at worst).
I hope that answers the question. It is probably best to re-build the shell if it is rusty with as many new panels are necessary, even using a body jig if necessary.

[brian0443]

Is it really a matter of which registration number you use with the finished product? If I buy a car, strip it back to the shell, and put all my bits and pieces into it, the car I finish up with is the one I bought, not my original one. The guy says the shells come with a V5, so no problem if you use that registration, notifying engine change etc. I think you would possibly have to show scrappage or something similar before you could re-use your original registration.(forgetting for the moment about 'personal' regs.
Brian

[73stagman]

I think the seller seems a perfectly honest guy, and I cant see any reason for him to be otherwise. Also he is answering the questions asked of him. It certainly seems a very effective way to get a rebuilt shell.

But, as a buyer who will surely be putting a lot of money into using one of these shells, then subesquently building a freshly restored car, you would want reassurance of the legal position of the finished article. I think some questions are posed by this process.

I found this post on a mini forum (they do a lot of reshelling):

OK. The current law says that if you re-shell a car you must use a brand new shell from the original manufacturer and have a receipt to prove it. However, if you choose to use a rust-free or fully restored 2nd hand shell, it's best not to talk about it on here, or on anywhere really, then you will probably have no problems. There is a petition to gov't to allow re-shelling for classic cars which it is hoped will regularise the situation. The cautionary note must be that if you re-shell with a 2nd hand shell and are found out, then the car will be crushed (at worst).
I hope that answers the question. It is probably best to re-build the shell if it is rusty with as many new panels are necessary, even using a body jig if necessary.

The problem is that the second hand shell already has a VIN number! If the VIN number off the rotten shell is then swapped to the "Used" replacement shell then that would be considered to be an Identity swap and is illegal. If the second shell is useable then you can just restore that car by keeping its VIN number and using all the running gear off the car you initially wanted to restore! Its a bit crazy but you can legally use a "used good" shell as a panel donor for a rotten shell. You could even swap the door pillar (on a Stag) from one shell to another and fix your old VIN plate to it without falling foul of the law!!

[Rubce]

Can't see what all the fuss is about. The advert says the shells come with a V5 so you simply use that registration and identify for the finished car which is totally legal.

If however, you are wanting to retain your old rusty mk1 tax exempt ID and put it onto a refurbished non tax exempt shell then yes you are breaking the law and risk having your car crushed for the sake of trying to save £220 per year.

Cheers

Bruce