Datsun B110 chassis no Id

[Herby]

Am still trying to sort out our chassis no woes!
Our April 1974 Sedan is recorded on the ownership papers with the Chassis No B110 033711
BUT the chassis no stamped on the id plate reads B110 A03930
This stamped no was covered with an old red dynatape style sticker reading the B110 033711 no
There is a pic of this our plate posted on the net under, Datsun 1200 chassis no id, posted on 09/05/2010 by ddgonzal.
The engine no A12 623132 stamped on the plate matches the engine ok.
Land transport has ordered the vehicle off the road until we provide then with an explanation.
We have been in contact with Nissan NZ who are unable to help us as they claim all there old Datsun
microfish records pre 1990 have been destroyed.
Also Ltsa has also informed us that the chassis no B110 A03930 has never been allocated to a vehicle.
Can anyone please help us with this. Thanks Darryl and Adam.

[stirlingmac]

There should also be a number stamped into the firewall on the passenger side firewall or possibly on the passenger side strut tower... It annoys me how anal the inspectors are getting about numbers..especially on old cars..

[classicdat]

There should also be a number stamped into the firewall on the passenger side firewall or possibly on the passenger side strut tower... It annoys me how anal the inspectors are getting about numbers..especially on old cars..

Adam I am taking it this is a 1200 Sedan, which will be NZ assembled and therefore no number stamped on the body shell.
The B110 then A.. series of numbers don't sound right to me, (Should just be Numbers no letter) which suggests a fault at the initial registration.
How long have you had the car and what is it's registration status?

[Herby]

Yes it is a NZ assembled four door sedan,we have owned it for two years now.
It has a current Wof and Rego but has been pink stickered !
We applied to have it revinned but were rejected for insufficient info supplied.
We also have the orig bill of sale and ownership papers showing the B110-033711 chassis no.
Have also had a good look at the Id plate under a magnifying glass and it appears to have not been restamped or tampered with .We are applying to Ltsa ,alternative documents division,for any helpfull info but are not hopefull.

[classicdat]

Orginal Bill of sale with Chassis Number is for the Plates you have, but not for the body tag you have??
Could you get a new Body tag and fit it, or will that lust look like you have a new body tag made to match plates, thus not the car that matches? Have they told you what they want?? 'A' number doesn't sound like an original factory number.

[Herby]

Yes the A in the chassis no is very strange,everyone inc Nissan claims there should be only six numbers
after the B110 ??
We cannot replace the plate now as the vehicle was in the Hewletts road AA centre in Tauranga having a puncture repaired and the DICK who owns the place tore the red tag off the plate to reveal the
A03930 stamped no underneath .He then called the police who have now viewed and photographed the plate !
Ltsa is saying it is up to us to provide some sort of proof /explanation before they will consider allowing the vehicle back on the road.

[_smp_]

woah Herby,

so you're saying that the car was legal for 40+ years and one as*shole takes it upon himself to accuse you of some dodgy dealings?!

Assuming it all checks out, and there isn't some dodginess some years back, you may want to consider recording all the time and $ spent sorting this out. I'm not a huge fan of legal processes, however I would consider seeking advice on your recourse with this guy and his business for your costs. I can't see how he had the right to do this. Were you seeking a WOF at the time, or replacing a tyre for a WOF?

NZTA (the old LTSA rego side of the business), should be able to access all the old ownership records...surely that's a starter.
You might get lucky and track down a few of the old owners - then get written statements from them on their ownership/ rego plates etc...

Seek the advice from the Police/NZTA, there is likely a formal process, and a process for a hearing or appeal if you're not happy with the outcome.

sounds like a right royal PITO...good luck man!

[_smp_]

btw - black plates?

if so, surely that helps??

[Herby]

Yes it is on its orig black plates-HA6296
Are going down the Alternative Documents track with Land Transport next week to hopefully find some helpfull info.
It was only in the AA centre for a puncture !

[blitzballa]

Yes it is on its orig black plates-HA6296
Are going down the Alternative Documents track with Land Transport next week to hopefully find some helpfull info.
It was only in the AA centre for a puncture !

Hi there Herby

After doing some digging have found that the A... lettering in your ID tag is due to the fact that you have one of very few New Zealand assembled complete knock down cars. This means that the car was actually manufactured in Japan with the majority of the car (chassis, suspension, motor etc) shipped to Australia/NZ where they then used local parts for the interior and trim etc to finish the car off. Don't quote me on this but from what I am aware the A designation is due to a compliance check done in Australia in order to verify the Japanese manufactured parts meet the Aus/NZ standards. It seems that in order to keep continuity with ID numbers in NZ whoever first registered in the car here put the sticker over top to match the other ID plates of vehicles that were most likely finished or manufactured here.

There are not a lot of cases/pictures around on the internet but the 1200 forum does have one picture of an A... ID stamped car which I attached for you.

22381.jpg

As for the dickhead at your local AA centre. I am 100% confident that under no circumstances during a puncture repair would you ever need to lift the bonnet of a vehicle and you could, if you could acquire enough evidence of the legitimacy of your vehicle, take him to court over the loss of money and time for his false claims against you and your vehicle. It would be an uphill battle but you could possibly argue that he breached a verbal contract between two parties by acting outside of the designated and agreed upon work.

Hope that helps anyway.