Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Ask RiotACT

Buying or selling? Get the right advice

“No such thing as GIVING someone a trailer in the ACT”

By Threeletteracronym 15 January 2014 44

Just want to sanity check something, please, before I go on and kick up a stink with our friends at Canberra Connect. My mum has given me her trailer. It’s a standard small trailer, from 1978. It probably needs a new floor.  Currently, it’s registered in Victoria.

When I rang to ask about the process for transferring the rego, I was told that I would need to bring the purchase receipt with me. I noted there was no receipt as I hadn’t purchased it. No money has changed hands.

The person I spoke with insisted (quite rudely) that there is “no such thing as giving someone a trailer in the ACT”, and that duty must be paid.

Forgive my ignorance and lack of research, but this seems weird to me. Why is the government asking me to lie in official documents in order to collect probably $18 (at most) in duty?

 

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
44 Responses to
“No such thing as GIVING someone a trailer in the ACT”
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
KB1971 7:55 pm 22 Jan 14

PantsMan said :

Maybe here http://rego.act.gov.au/registrations/regomoveunreg.htm, where it says:
“NO, UNLESS CURRENT ROAD WORTHY INSPECTION REPORT IS PRESENTED. INTERSTATE INSPECTION REPORTS WILL BE ACCEPTED IN THIS SCENARIO.

Oh, and here is says that I don’t need registration at all if it’s only being moved to the purpose of obtaining registration: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_reg/rtrr2000478/s22.html Must have CTP, however, but the ACT Government will only provide you that (for an exorbitant fee) if you buy the entirely redundant UVP too. Then they tell you that what you purchases in not a CTP policy; you just paid a tax to them.

Money for nothing to the ACT Government, yay!

OK, I will concede on the inspection certificate. There has obviously been a change in policy and I missed it. The only time they would accept an interstate inspection when I worked there was when a car was new or near new being purchased interstate. You could by prior arrangement purchase 3 months of registration, take the plates with you and have a registered car. It then had to be inspected at Dickson to confirm what the vehicle was and that it was roadworthy. Or if it was a heavy vehicle working outside the ACT temporarily and it could not get back for its bi-annual inspection.

BUT, despite what they say on the website, I would say that this is not actually set in the Act or the Regs. Acts and Regs (in particular Acts) tend not to be so descriptive in circumstance. What they say on the webpage may only be something they do out of courtesy and they can refuse if its not set in the regulations. There are quite a few government departments who run circulars to administer regulations.

On the UVP, despite what you were “told” it is CTP, it is stated quite clearly that it is. They are not really interested in the registration component because the law says that a vehicle must have CTP to be permitted to drive on the road. By issuing a UVP they are supplying what they legally have to.

Was your vehicle still currently covered by CTP? As it says in the info and section 4 of Reg 22, to be able to drive without “registration provisions” it must still be covered by CTP. No CTP, no driving without a UVP.

You think its revenue raising and money for nothing? How would you go if you had an accident and injured someone? What then?

$22 is cheap insurance and is never meant to be compared to yearly registration.

zorro29 12:24 pm 22 Jan 14

^^^ hehehe, well they /know/ how much you enjoy queuing…we should thank them for allowing us to do so without achieving our goals!

dtc 12:21 pm 22 Jan 14

Rollersk8r said :

Bought a car and wrote my name and my wife’s name as the registered drivers on the form. She forgot to sign the form before I took it in – and so I thought it doesn’t matter, will just cross her name out and I’ll be the only one registered. No! Can’t do that! Once someone’s name is on the form they HAVE TO sign it, no exceptions – go away and come back another day.

I know, its awful when they dont allow you to just change a legal document without the permission of the other people in the document.

You realise that removing her from the form meant that she was being deprived of her share of the asset – you were taking 1/2 the value of the car away from her? Would you try to do that on your next house transfer?

Rollersk8r 11:04 am 22 Jan 14

zorro29 said :

Totally agree with you buddy.

Here’s another nonsense (aka revenue-raising example):
My partner sold his car and we are now sharing a car…so I wanted to have the car in both our names. My name would stay on the rego, just wanted to add his. I was told that was essentially a sale and he would have to pay duty on that…when the car was still worth $40k, there was no way I was coming at that.

Nonsense. Agree with the above….would be interesting to see what would happen with the scenario in #1 and a negative amount.

It just annoys me that they make it so hard/punish people doing the right thing…and we wonder why all the bogans never register anything or bother paying fines. Maybe we’re the crazy ones.

I can beat that.

Bought a car and wrote my name and my wife’s name as the registered drivers on the form. She forgot to sign the form before I took it in – and so I thought it doesn’t matter, will just cross her name out and I’ll be the only one registered. No! Can’t do that! Once someone’s name is on the form they HAVE TO sign it, no exceptions – go away and come back another day.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site