He's bought a stolen bike

I agree, and these days that's probably what I'd do. However, were I
in the position of not being able to afford the potential loss, I
think my attitude would differ.

My next-door neighbour bought a (bad) ringer, and took it to Plod.
They couldn't determine the true owner and he got the bike back, but
had to re-register it on a Q plate, thereby rendering it nearly
valueless anyway. But it was at least legal.

I must say I didn't check the engine number. I'm assuming it's been
changed as well.

 

I think the is probably the best course of action. The chances of him
getting the bike back are high because it *is* a good ringing job.

 

Tell the police. Selling it would put him in the same pond as the scum
who stole it in the first place, as he'd potentially be knowingly
stealing whatever he sells it for from the buyer if it gets seized
later.

 

If he did try sell it and the police became involved, they would ask where
he got if from - easy enough to prove where he bought it but they will also
ask about the price paid and if it seemed reasonable for a legit bike. If
his answers suggest that he should have known something wasn't right, or he
says the wrong thing when asked why he's selling it, he could find himself
charged.
If you buy something in good faith, find it's stolen and then sell it on
then you have committed the offence.

What the likelihood of this happening is anyone's guess....

 

How long was he planning on keeping the bike anyway?
If it's something he wanted to run for five or six years anyway then there's
no reason why he can't still get that much use out of it, and if he can't
sell it on at the end then any loss is much smaller.

If he's really lucky it will get stolen [1] at some point and his problems
go away.

[1] No, I'm not suggesting insurance fraud here

 

On other option is, he could buy a new frame-with-v5 and swap everything
else across. Probably only worth it if it's a particularly good example
in other respects.

 

I meant, new to him.

 

Yes but he_hasn't_found_out_it's_a_bit_iffy... has he. ;-)

He can therefore appear to be both shocked and surprised, as well as
very helpful in providing pointers towards who he bought it from,
should the police knock on his door subsequent to him having sold it,
IYSWIM.

 

Of course. (1)

Indeed.

(1) ;-)

 

Really?

He's had the bike more than five minutes... 'Why did you not spot this
at the time of purchase / any time during the fair amount of time
you've had possession of the vehicle, Sir?'

It's not like a car - the VIN tag, engine and frame / chassis numbers
on a bike aren't usually as obscured as they are on one of those,
especially the engine number.

Ok... so how does that fit with mullering the numbers of said 'good
ringing job', should he follow the advice above and go to hand the
bike in?

 

UV flourescence reveals the old numbers under the ringed ones. A
technique that's been around for years. Basically when the original
numbers were stamped in, they indelibly strain the surrounding metal and
to totally grind them out would utterly knacker the frame. That's why
some ringers will weld in a new patch of metal on a car body, so there's
no trace of the old one at all. However, a proper car-theft copper will
spot such things.

 

Arse!

 

Older stuff such as mid 80s Fords / Vauxhalls etc, the chassis number
was stamped into the drivers side front floorpan... so there was a
tendency for toerags to cut the whole panel out and replace it with
one with a different number stamped into it, or alternatively they
used to remove the drivers seat / carpet, and then tack in enough of
the floorpan taken from the 'donor' as it were, so that the ringer had
an authentic chassis number in the right place and with the floorpan
looking visibly untouched unless you wanted to lift the carpet /
drivers seat again.

Anyway, getting back to my point above, if I were considering handing
the bike in, I'd be handing it in as is rather than tampering with the
evidence as it were as suggested above, as the more authentic looking
the dodgy numbers, the more likely it is plod will believe you'd had
no idea up until now rather than having to explain why you'd bought
and held onto something with blatantly illegible and tampered with
numbers, for 18 months plus.

 

Ok... but if the same happened to you, given TOGs (1) friend in this
(1) scenario didn't spot that the numbers were dodgy, what is to say
whoever you'd bought a bike from in similar circumstances would be any
different in this respect; it is possible that whoever sold TOGs (1)
friend the (1) bike in question was as oblivious to the (1) tampering
as the (1) friend in question has been for 18 months and possibly
would have continued to be had TOG not noticed the (1) tampering
concerned.

I don't believe so - might be worth checking with the MIB (2) to see
if they offer any uninsured loss compensation in a scenario like this.

(1) Hypothetical
(2) Motor Insurance Bureau, not 'Men In Black'

 

Your original point is spurious. There is a significant body of data to
indicate that many punters don't check VINs when buying, or if they do they
don't know what to look for. As the bike has got past an MOT inspection
then the renumbering must be fairly convincing.

There would be nothing to explain other than saying, "I asked a mate, an
expert in the used bike trade, to look over the bike as I wanted a
valuation and he spotted the problem."

 

Yes... I agree.

So why deface the good work of whoever rung the bike before presenting
it to plod?

In fact you've just made more of case for not doing that; if the
numbers are that illegible when the bike is presented to them, it then
raises the question 'Did whoever MOT'ed the bike do their job
properly?'.

Indeed... which is why I've argued the corner of 'present it to plod
as is, if you're going down that route', above.

 

Check.

Three out of three )

 

In that case it's a matter of "Is he happy to start again with a different
bike and lose whatever value his current bike has"?

If he is, then he rings plod and tells them of his recent suspicions. If
not, he keeps riding it until it's worth **** all to him and hopes that in
the meantime he doesn't get a tug which could see it end up in the police
pound.

As it's not likely that the original legit owner will either get his bike
back if plod get involved or give a **** about it by now (he'll have been
paid out I imagine) and the insco will only want it back to crush it, I see
the only sensible course of action being to keep it, keep schtumm and keep
riding it.

As for what to do with it when he's finished with it, I've no idea.

 

I reckon there's two chances of that happening. None and **** all.

But would they?

Indeed. Flogging it would (IMO) be a total no-no, but hanging onto it in
blissful ignorance and riding it would be considered. Seriously considered.

 

My attitude would vary according to the amount of disposable in my
bank account. I'm not ashamed to admit that if I found I'd purchased a
ringer and I couldn't take the financial hit I'd either move it on or
break it. I certainly wouldn't go and fess up to plod and risk losing
my money.

These days I'd try and get hold of the person who sold me the bike and
offer them the choice of giving me a refund or copping for a couple of
gallons of unleaded through their letterbox when they were asleep.