Jump to content

Motorist seeks court order to renew 5-year COE


andrewyewkc
 Share

Recommended Posts

Most likely is a High End Car.....He still love very much.....anyway this Guy waste time,if He Win,there are many People will follow & do the same in the Future.

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Hosaybo said:

I guess the logic is to take out the speculative component where people just renew 5 years to wait out and see. If in 2014, he renewed and waited till now to renew again, he will have save money compared to someone who renewed 10years in 2014. 

The reverse is also true. If coe went up, he may not have wanted to renew. 

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Macrosszero said:

Actually this 5 year non-renewal rule has no logic - its merely pro-rated to 50% of the 10 year PQP. The fact that he had initially accepted this condition at renewal should not affect judgement whether the rule makes sense.

Even if nothing else comes of it and he loses his request, he would have forced the LTA to explain their rationale for such an odd condition. 

The logic is very simple, assuming 5 years ago PQP was 100k, one could renew 5 year COE for 50k, then wait for 5 year later when PQP drops, he will renew 5 more year at a lower price . And if PQP goes up higher than 5 years ago, one may then say I will want to renew 5 more year at the 5 years ago price. To cut all the craps, LTA makes it no renewable for 5 years.

On a lighter note, some people said COE cars would not last for 10 years, he is creating this publicity to prove them wrong maybe😅😅.

Edited by Ct3833
  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Twincharged
24 minutes ago, Hosaybo said:

I guess the logic is to take out the speculative component where people just renew 5 years to wait out and see. If in 2014, he renewed and waited till now to renew again, he will have save money compared to someone who renewed 10years in 2014. 

If so, then they should not have allowed 5year coe renewals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

Ever heard of parliament is/being supreme? In this case, lta is making a secondary legislation and is also considered supreme. Courts are in no position to challenge or change. So i suggest he suck it up....

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, awhtc said:

A lost cause as the rules are clearly stated and it is a common knowledge.

Yes but the car owner is attempting a legal challenge against that rule. Meaning he is trying to convince the courts that the rule doesn't make sense and should be thrown out. So in the unlikely event the court rules in his favour.. who knows? Maybe when my own 5 year extended COE expires in 2023.. can go another round.

  • Praise 2
  • Haha! 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I read correctly, he is open to paying for the full 10-year COE based on the COE price at his point of renewal i.e Nov 2014. This eliminates the profiteering or speculative intention that he is trying to exploit current lower PQP. WIth this in mind, I think his request is not unreasonable.

To prevent exploitation, it can always be set that any of such case has to pay for the 10-year based either on COE PQP at point of first renewal or second 5-year renewal, whichever is higher. Some people just geniunely wanted to keep their car.

Edited by Alfc
  • Praise 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

If he is willing to pay the November 2014 rate which was $71,800 just to extend his car for another 5 years then I think he should be allowed.

Provided he pays the full interest on the balance of the $71,800 as if the government would have been paid the full $71,800 in Nov 2014 and a penalty of say $5,000.

A Mercedes is so well built it can last 30 years especially the older ones like the ones before 2003 the W124 and the ones after 2010 the W212.

:grin:

Edited by Jamesc
  • Praise 1
  • Haha! 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost to build a new car say a Prius is a tremendous cost in terms of the environment.

The lithium for the batteries are mine in South America and shipped to Japan and the ships carrying the raw materials are pumping a lot of pollution into the air.

The making of the car used a lot of electricity to make the body work and engine and that also pumps a lot of pollution into the air.

The ships carrying the car from Japan to the country of sale also pumps a lot of  pollution into the air.

The making of the car uses thousands of gallons of clean water and that's also a big cost to the environment.

The extra pollution made by keeping an old on the road is a fraction of the cost of building a new car.

:grin:

Its more green to keep driving older can cars than just keep buying new ones and scrapping all the time.

Edited by Jamesc
  • Praise 6
  • Haha! 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Twincharged
30 minutes ago, Jamesc said:

If he is willing to pay the November 2014 rate which was $71,800 just to extend his car for another 5 years then I think he should be allowed.

Provided he pays the full interest on the balance of the $71,800 as if the government would have been paid the full $71,800 in Nov 2014 and a penalty of say $5,000.

A Mercedes is so well built it can last 30 years especially the older ones like the ones before 2003 the W124 and the ones after 2010 the W212.

:grin:

Since lta also pay interest for converted OPC vs OPC registered from day 1. I think he should pay interest. 

  • Haha! 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Macrosszero said:

Laws should continually need to remain current and relevant else it would still be legal in the UK for a pregnant woman to take a piss in a police officer’s hat 

No doubt laws should remain current, But that is the parliament’s prerogative.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ER-3682 said:

Most likely is a High End Car.....He still love very much.....anyway this Guy waste time,if He Win,there are many People will follow & do the same in the Future.

Unlikely. Exotics (real supercars) and even collector's cars (like the Skyline or Silvia) are pretty much always renewed for 10 years. This is in order to preserve the chance of renewing indefinitely. 

The only exception I can think of where a 5 year renewal makes sense is when it's a collectible without significant PARF (so not an exotic or already renewed once before) or just a BnB that's working well *and* the owner has firm plans to migrate within a 5 year timeframe. 

In that scenario, an exotic would not be renewed at all - it would likely be exported (perhaps even to his destination country) to collect the PARF, which may be a hundred grand or thereabouts.

Only non-exotic collectibles (with no significant PARF) value or just simple BnB cars that are working well are worth renewing and keeping around for the remaining few years in-country. 

So it's possible this guy's migration plans could've fallen through.

The fact that he's suing means it's likely he regrets losing collectible residual value of a collectible non-exotic. Non-collectible, non-exotic BnB cars aren't worth suing over, obviously.

That's assuming he's at least a semi-rational actor.

The alternative is that he was (and still is) a massive idiot.

 

Edited by Turboflat4
  • Praise 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged
6 hours ago, Ct3833 said:

The logic is very simple, assuming 5 years ago PQP was 100k, one could renew 5 year COE for 50k, then wait for 5 year later when PQP drops, he will renew 5 more year at a lower price . And if PQP goes up higher than 5 years ago, one may then say I will want to renew 5 more year at the 5 years ago price. To cut all the craps, LTA makes it no renewable for 5 years.

 

It would have been illogical if PQP goes up and the owner request for the PQP that is 5 years ago. If this can happen, nobody would want to renew 10 years.

But the law should allow the 5 years owner a choice to renew at the PQP rate at the end of the 5 years. If the PQP is lower than 5 years ago, then good for the owner. If higher, then the owner should just pay for it or scrap the car. Sometimes people may not have enough money to pay 10 years one shot, but wants to see how is their income level after 5 years to decide again. It actually encourages financial prudence  among car owners.

 

 

 

Edited by Icedbs
  • Praise 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged
13 hours ago, Turboflat4 said:

For all you know, this may motivate LTA to "review" things and "decide" to do away with 5 year renewals entirely.

Actually, to me a more pressing question would be: why is PARF completely lost on renewal? Why not just continue PARF attrition on the same schedule as for the first 10 years of vehicular life?

to encourage you to get rid of your "old" car based on rationale that newer cars are less pollutive, safer, etc

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...