I paid my money to LTSA or whatever they currently call themselves to apply for the current owner of the first car my son owned which he would quite like to get back. Answer; "Not in the public interest, we can not process this request", so I wrote back, and asked if it were possible that they contact the current owner to see if they would be prepared to release their details. "As previously advised due to the privacy interest of the individual concerned I am uanble to comply with your request." Any ideas! The vehicle has just become not on the current registration hold.
friendly_prawn,
Jul 30, 2:21am
could try posting the number plate and see where that lead for you!
3wheelnut,
Jul 30, 2:21am
74 Moke
bellky,
Jul 30, 2:43am
Great suggestion. (Sarcasm)
3wheelnut,
Jul 30, 2:44am
See message 3, that's the number.
bellky,
Jul 30, 2:44am
From what I understand you can get the current owner's details confirmed for you if you pay a fee at the Post Office (LTSA Agent) I think. But you have to have the current owner's details first.
3wheelnut,
Jul 30, 2:48am
Hi Belky, if you read my first post you will see what LTSA have come back with, on 2 separate occasions. Fee paid etc which you don't get back, it's just a fee for asking.
bellky,
Jul 30, 3:05am
Ok, I get ya.
tgray,
Jul 30, 3:31am
As frustrating as this system appears, you must remember the reason for the changes. Previously, someone could see a car they wish to steal and simply look up the address of the owner for a $2.25 fee at the post shop. I had friends purposely using wrong addresses to register their high end cars for this very reason. Alternatively, someone could see a 'pretty girl' drive by, and find out her name and address the same way. Or perhaps your involved in some road rage and the guy wants to hunt you down and vandalise your car or even worse, attack you. It was a crazy system and had to change.
3wheelnut,
Jul 30, 3:39am
tgray I agree that it had to change, it was too easy. In this case when I first asked, you have to fill in a "reasons for your request" which I did with details of when he owned it etc. When I was refused, I asked if they had a system where the authority could contact the owner and ask for approval for their details to be passed on. The one line answer is glib and shows that they have no intention of trying. This is what frustrates me, either say there is no way details can be passed on, so we will not take a fee, or make an effort comensurate with the fee, ie 15 minutes work at $60 per hour charge out. The lady who replied would have taken fewer seconds than that.
tgray,
Jul 30, 3:48am
I hear you. Just before the law changed, I looked up my old 1971 mustang I imported in 1991 for the very same reason. From a post shop search, I found out the car was in Hamilton and obtained the guys phone number from directory assistance, by giving his full name and address. Gave him a call and low and behold, my car was for sale! I went down there, but alas, it was a bit of a mess condition wise and itdidn't feel right buying it back off him. He only wanted $8500 but needed a lot of work. I have since seen it on Trademe last year for $30,000 all tidied up.
smac,
Jul 30, 3:48am
Yeah or they could do something as simple as follow the car/person home.oh wait.
I agree the system should have been changed (actually, should never have existed) however I disagree when people say we're all safer for it.
Here's the flip side: some US agency put a GPS tracker on a suspects car without a warrant. The evidence they gathered was challenged on the basis of no warrant. The challenge was thrown out on the basis they agents could have just followed the suspect and got the same intell. SO they were lazy, yes, but did not breach privacy.
I'd like to see one scrap of evidence that removing access to owner details has made one iota of difference to car theft, stalking, home invasion, or whatever else the privacy nazi's thought they were protecting us from.
bellky,
Jul 30, 3:52am
^ "I agree the system should have been changed (actually, should never have existed) however I disagree when people say we're all safer for it."
With respect; so what! What is your point then!
smac,
Jul 30, 3:54am
Which bit didn't you get!
bellky,
Jul 30, 3:56am
The bit I pointed out. Forget it if you've got no answer - I can't be bothered. Usually you say quite good stuff, but this time it's drivel.
3wheelnut,
Jul 30, 3:56am
Please guys, we don't need another round of the personals. I can wait till the Mrs gets home for a bit of that.
pico42,
Jul 30, 4:23am
Does your insurance company have access to the info!
smac,
Jul 30, 4:31am
What I was meaning was that I did not agree with the system as it was: a person should not have been able to obtain ownership details without at least positively identifying themselves. I'd actually go one step further and say the owner should be told who has obtained their details.
So yes, it should have been changed. But has it made anyone (or their car) safer! Not in any material way that I can see.
buyme3,
Jul 30, 6:32am
Go into post shop. Pay ten bucks to change ownership into your name an report it stolen. Easy. Then when details come out laugh about it together over a couple of cold ones.
buyme3,
Jul 30, 6:35am
Then if nz new you could ring said dealer and ask for key code for said vehicle and get one cut. Pick car up as legal owner with get of keys. Is it theft! Possession is nine tenths of the law
buyme3,
Jul 30, 6:41am
Incidentally if would mean you were the current owner so you wouldn't have to search for said person any longer
modie61,
Jul 30, 7:21am
3wheel nut if youre a policeman,you can find out easy !
modie61,
Jul 30, 7:35am
3wheel nut Do you txt ! Just asking.
3wheelnut,
Jul 31, 4:50am
Modie, rarely, I don't really like it, but if there is something I should know.
steve312,
Jul 31, 4:57am
Car yards can access the owners information online.
I'm sure Kaz would know more details about what it involves.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.