Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Ouch. I would suggest you check the legality of selling a vehicle in Virginia without a compliance sticker. If thats the case a suggestion that legal action may follow might get some results from Honda USA.
Was your Pilot off lease from Honda or some other leasing company.
Similar to my earlier suggestion that TC extend the implimentation of CMVSS 114 from Sept 01/07 to some later date so they can provide clarity to importers.
It was purchase directly from Honda's leasing division. How could I prove they sold it without the Compliance Sticker? they will likely blame it on the Dealer. I have asked the dealer to look into the other Hondas he has purchased from the same place and see if they also have missing Compliance stickers. May be a story here yet. I suspect selling a Vechicle without a compliance sticker is not illegal anywhere as the only need for them after the vehicle has been sold is to cross the boarder, no one else cares! Ironic thing is that it is a US Safety Compliance sticker, well hello, who cares, because it has to get inspected here in Canada and a new Canadian Compliance sticker will replace it. Go figure, anouther STUPID rule.
have you thought about trading it in? will undoubtedly still take a bath but perhaps not so bad as an ebay sell? just a thought
BTW - when i brought my last vehicle up through sweetgrass, neither US or Canada customs even bothered to look at the vehicle. Didnt verify VIN & didnt check door sticker. That being said, it was in late october. Only person that looked at the label was crappy tire inspection kid.
I spoke to one Dealer in Great Falls, His best trade in deal is $5,000 less than what we paid US, we would take a greater hit in the exchange as we bought it about 6 weeks ago when the CAD was lower, no matter how you look at this we have a huge hassle and a huge $ loss, thanks to Honda, who have forgotten about NAFTA. Funny thing is, our friend brought the same Pilot across 2 weeks before us and he said they did not check his vehicle for the Compliance Label either. Luck of the draw I guess. What are the chances of not having the Label and them checking? about the same as winning the lottery, maybe we should buy a ticket!!
Hey guys, OK, I'm dropping the Highlander SUV idea and moving on to a passenger car. Avalon looks CLEAR on the RIV section. But then I find this. Check out link http://www.riv.ca/english/html/mod_inspect_requirements.html I know this little red 'NEW' as the bottom wasn't there the other day becuase I printed a copy. What do you make of this? and what does GVWR stand for? Geesh!
Actually "friend" I am a US car dealer. One that has sold cars to Canadians, so I am profiting from this loophole. Even so, I recognize it for what it is. It is an exception to the way business is conducted normally.
Chances are, the Canadian Gov't will close this avenue, much like the US gov't did with the Gray Market cars.
The immobilizer standard is an effort to close the loophole. Immobilizers do not contribute to pulic safety or security at all. A professional car thief will simply tow the car away,and defeat the imobilizer at his convenience. An amateur will simply carjack you. The Canadian Gov't, by creating this immobilizer standard, that is different from prior standards is actively aiding the car companies,and the tax renenue of the Canadian gov't as well.
Hi Cannyscot, Yes my understanding is that a 2008 highlander manufactured before sep-01 would be okay to bring over. I would like to hear if people have been successful bringing over and registering any Toyota or Nissan 2008 (built before sep-01).
I am now looking at getting a 2008 Nissan Xterra (i am done with Toyota for a while), and i have some dealer's lined up. I have found some with a pre sep-01 build date but i am still concerned. So if anyone has been successful importing and registering a Nissan or Toyota that was built pre sep-01 i would love to hear about it to ease my mind (after nov 1 would also be important to know).
You know, I give you credit for generally being quite informative on various threads, but on this issue, you have clearly been drinking the manufacturers' Koolaide. You are so off-base, I wouldn't even know where to start, so I'm just going to leave it alone!
This statement, in particular, just blows me away:
"The immobilizer standard is an effort to close the loophole. Immobilizers do not contribute to pulic safety or security at all. "
2008 Toyota Highalnder Sport & Limted models built after sept DO NOT NEED ANY LETTER FOR CMVSS114. Only base models need letters because immobilizer is standard in Sport & limted but optional in base models. Thats why we DO NOT have " See notes" section in front of highlander ltd & sports models. You only have to refer " see notes" columns When it says So.
I disagree. On the link that someone else posted it says "If the GVWR of this vehicle is less than 10,000 lbs, and the manufacture date after September 1, 2007, it must be equipped with an electronic lock and immobilizer system that meets CMVSS 114. " It also says this on paragraph 9 of the EXPLANATIONS section.
How do they know it meets CMVSS without a letter? I would not try to import anything built after sep-01 right now.
the vehicles which DO NOT have "see notes" section in fonr tof it already have immbolizer system which meets CMVSS114. The easiest way for you is to give call to RIV and you will know what I am talking about. They never intentionally put " See notes" section infront of every single vehicle. Otherwise they dont even need "see notes" section at all. I dont want to go in detail over here.It's up to you whether you want to beleive or not.
You know, I give you credit for generally being quite informative on various threads, but on this issue, you have clearly been drinking the manufacturers' Koolaide. You are so off-base, I wouldn't even know where to start, so I'm just going to leave it alone!
This statement, in particular, just blows me away:
"The immobilizer standard is an effort to close the loophole. Immobilizers do not contribute to pulic safety or security at all. "
I am an informed individual, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that an immobilizer does not make a whit of difference for a professional car thief. It's justa sop to consumers. Cars are stolen primarily to chop up and part out. don't need the ECU for that. For cars that you want to resell in another market, a bright guy w/ a PC can bypass the immobilizer anyway. The problem is that the Canadian Gov't wants the motor companies to provide documentation that these US cars meet this new, useless standard. Naturakky, the motor companies,who don't want their Canadian dealers to lose business, are refusing. So, in essence, you have a standard that does nothing to help consumers,and because of the way the Canadians have chosen to implement it, allows car companies to not cooperate. The fact that car companies chose not to cooperate should not be surprising to anyone. Why should they cost their Canadian operations money? What is in it for them? Its not a question of Kool Aid, its just reality. The REAL reason why you have standards for importing vehicles isn't consumer protection, it is so the gov't can guarantee a monopoly, and the gov't can guarantee its share of revenue from that monopoly.
"...and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that an immobilizer does not make a whit of difference for a professional car thief."
We can debate till the cows come home whether the immobilizer is effective or not. Data suggest that it is, as opposed to alarm systems, which generally are not effective. But it doesn't matter here. My point is that the intent, I repeat, the intent, of the immobilization standard is for public safety and security, not as a tool for manufacturers to stop importation of cars into Canada.
"Why should they cost their Canadian operations money? What is in it for them?"
Are you kidding me?! What's in it for them? Is that what you said? There's everything in it for the manufacturers!! They can artificially keep prices high!! There may actually be very little impact on the dealers if the manufacturers adjust Canadian prices to fall in line with US prices. Lower MSRP, lower invoice cost = similar margin. In fact, I dare say if the manufacturers adjusted Canadian prices, the Canadian dealers will stand to gain, because more people will buy cars in Canada. Almost every dealer in Canada is hurting right now due to the disparity between Canadian & US prices.
GVWR is the Gross Vehicle Weight. If the vehicle is under 10,000 lbs (4,536 kgs) it must comply with the CMVSS 114 standard if built after Aug 2007.
This standard does not apply to vehicles over that weight - mainly trucks and buses. Few consumers use vehicles which have a GVWR over 10,000 lbs.
This advice is not new. I have seen it elsewhere. I think that they may have flagged it NEW for the particular section whereas it may have been included in a general section.
On the VAFUS pdf files which have not recently been posted but is now posted again at this site http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/VAFUS.pdf this data is in paragraph 9 on page 2. Obviously RIV is being given a hard time on this so they have spelled it out in each section to which it applies.
It may be not that easy. My dealer told me that he cannot take my car because the car does not have the title. The car is considered as ‘sold’, the paperwork was done but the car was not registered.The dealer cannot take used vehicle that has MSO, the dealer needs the title.
Did anybody investigate the issue of returning unregistered car to the dealer?
I was planning on getting a Rav4 or CR-V but Toyota and Honda have lost my business due to their actions on this issue. I am now looking at the 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid (we currently have a Camry Hybrid and love the hybrid funtion and economy). The 2008 Escape Hybrid comes standard with an Anti-theft device.
I see that under section 5.3 for vehicles manufactured after Sept 1 2007, the RIV lists under Admissable "2008 All Models" for Ford, however, the Notes says "See explanations section". Does that mean that even though 2008 all models are admissable, I would still need Ford to provide a letter stating that the vehicle comes with an imobilizer that meets CMVSS 114?
Also, does anyone have experience dealing with Ford on this issue, and/or on US Ford dealers selling to Canadians?
I spoke to the US boarder and we will have to re-import it. As for the title, we have the original title from our dealer. Not sure what has to be done next to resell in US.
I wrote to RIV couple of days ago asking about the requirements for CMVSS114 compliance letter, and I got the response today:
"To import a vehicle from the U.S. the vehicle must be cited as admissible on Transport Canada's List of Vehicles Admissible from the United States. Assuming this vehicle is listed as admissible, the vehicle must also bear a Statement of Compliance label affixed by the Original Equipment Manufacturer stating that "the vehicle as manufactured to comply with all US federal emission, bumper and safety standards on the date of manufacture". Failing that, we will accept a letter from the manufacturer stating the same."
I wrote back and ask them to clarify... if the vehicle bears the statement of compliance label, no letter is required? I'll keep you guys posted.
I also got same letter. You do not need compliance letter if you have compliance label on vehicle. its not something new. This policy was there from day one.
If you've failed to cross once due to this technicality, try and try again. Many posters here including myself went through customs without any physical inspection of the vehicle. Same thing goes for the CT inspection, although you may be dinged with re-inspection fees on that end if you need to try and try again. Regardless, the laws of averages are on your side and the costs are likely to be lower than the loss you will incur to return it.
Not sure, but we think that If you go through Canada Customs with a Vehicle that is not able to get through they may mark your vehicle. ie enter the VIN into the computer and if you try to go through again they will cease your vehicle? Has anyone tried twice? Once we get through customs as approved, you don't need the Compliance label in Canada, it gets a new Canadian Label here.
Sorry friend...you are 100% wrong on this. RIV has confirmed for me 3 times with 2 different agents that this is totally not correct. All Toyota's manufactured after Sept. 1 are effectively now inadmissible because you will never get a 114 compliance letter. Period. This is reality now. RIV wont say they are inadmissible but they are because toyota will never give you the letter they tell you that they need...
I was interpreting things the same way as you but now know how to read the list. Every notes section has the words "See explanation section". These 3 words apply to all cars listed in the admissible column. When you refer to the explanation section it tells you that you need a 114 compliance letter. This is how it is working...
Sucks but true. They need to take all toyotas and list them as inadmissible because they effectively are...
I have no idea when did you last time talked to them. Just to let you know It has been confiermed to me by 4 diff agents in last 4 days. Further to this I have been confirmed on this by TC directly. . Toyota has already sent info about highlander compliance to RIV last week.
Just to go into more detail. If you go and check specs for all vehilces shown as admissible without immobilizer as standard .They carry see notes section. as Highlander base model do. You have to see " safety" column in all vehilce specifications.
Just to clarify over here. After your post I just talked to another agent in last one minute. WE DO NOT NEED LETTER FOR HIGHLANDER SPORT & LIMITED MODLES. Please try to clarify yourself and post right info over here. I am just talking about 2008. highlander sport & highlander limited built after sept 1/07.
has anyone imported a 2008 Cadillac EXT (pre Sept. 1) .... I have bought one and have not brought it to Canada as yet .... border did say the it was admissible
As per Post#2281 - check out the CBC tonight! Harvard Gould is on at 5:30 est. with the business news and the National is of course at 10:00. Robert Lamb is going to be interviewed (who has been in stories featured in the Montreal Gazette and The Globe and Mail). Mr. Lamb also has sent open letters to PM Harper and Finance Minister Flaherty on this issue.
I guess we'll see if the CBC is a friend of the enterprising little guy or the overly anal bureaucratic establishment.
Here is my story. On November 2nd I purchased a 2008 Sienna LE. Before purchasing, I phoned RIV because I couldn't find it on the lists of admissibility. I was told that this vehicle was admissible, so I made the purchase. On Nov. 9th I picked it up at the daeler in Fargo and made it to the Pembina border at 4:15 p.m. After having presented my papers I was refused entry. I felt sick. They told me the october manufacturing date was the problem with my vehicle. I was unable to contact anyone at RIV or Transport Canada and it was the start of a long weekend. I had to turn back and leave the vehicle in Pembina where it remains. A 12 hour day had now turned into a nightmare with many more to come. The following week, after numerous phone calls and emails to RIV and TC, I have not made any progress. I was told that the change of admissibility was made on Nov. 1st. I argued that I was given the wrong information by an agent at RIV and they had put me in this predicament. I have been told about this announcement coming, but it sounds like only vehicles purchased before Nov 1st will be allowed in. These vehicles manufactured after Sept.1st have an engine imobilizer and not an anti theft engine imobilizer required in Canada. Toyota probably did this to prevent dealerships to sell to Canada. RIV and TC insist that Toyota is calling the shots. They are the ones who decide what is admissible according to Canadian standards. I was also told by an imobilizer installer in Manitoba that he can make this vehicle conform to standard for only 250.00$. The Toyota dealership meanwhile said it would cost thousands of dollars if they did it. On Nov. 16th I went to check on my vehicle and changed the temporary permit. When I re-entered at the border, a guard told me I could take the vehicle in, but I would probably have to export it after TC makes it's announcement. Being alone and not wanting to add miles to the vehicle, I left it there. I am at a loss as to what to do. Temporary insurance is only good for 30 days. I now have what is considered a used vehicle. I will probably have to trade it on another vehicle in the States (more time and money) and lose out on the trade. I am stressed out over this. If anyone has suggestions or ideas, please write them here. Thanks
I have a lot of suggestions but most of them would be illegal.
You cannot trust that the beaurocrats or the minister of transportation will act in your best interests so I think you are wise to leave your vehicle on the US side until we get a clear, concise and definitive ruling from TC.
I bought an inadmissible vehicle on October 18 based on the advice of two different RIV agents.(I always phone at least twice) When I told an RIV agent last week that I had been told in early October it was OK she said there is no way an agent would have told me that and if I didn't have a file number tough. I said since you are calling me a liar I need your name and a file number.
As of today my vehicle is still inadmissible and another call to TC remains unanswered. I did get an e mail from RIV confirming my vehicle is inadmisible and telling me all the files relating to vehicles purchased before Nov 01 are now inaccesible to RIV
How reliable is the RIV statement that letters of recall for Honda are not needed because Honda is "not cooperating". Do you have it in writing.
If that is RIV's corporate position, then why can't that reasoning/principle be extended to other areas where the manufacturer is "not cooperating" - i.e. the CMVSS 114 thing.
It sounds great but if it came verbally from RIV, I'd be weary of relying on it.
Sorry to hear about your situation. I just about made a deal on a vehicle in Fargo as well, I'm glad that I came across this website first. RIV told me the vehicle was ok to import on my first call. The second call they told me to contact the manufacturer. Of course the manufacturer told me to contact TC and RIV. Anyway I hope you documented your call to RIV (name of agent, date). RIV has taken my name when I have made queries. Maybe time to put your MP to work or maybe a loudmouth like Gordon Sinclair, Richard Cloutier or Pat Martin needs to hear your story. Good luck.
Most of us on this board (potential importers/importers that have been blind-sided) are concerned citizens too. Not just for our own cause, but for others. That's why we take the time to read, give our experiences and advice to help others.
We are concerned citizens because: - a lawful process established by our country is being manipulated and hijacked such that the lawful process which is our right, is being voided
We are concerned citizens because: - we are not standing by and letting the manufacturers roll over us (likely with the vehicles we bought but can't register!)
We are concerned citizens because: - we are using all lawful means at our disposal to correct the travesty that is taking place by trying to persuade our elected officials to ensure Canadian rules, regulations and policies are instituted, implemented and enforced for the benefit of Canadians, not corporations engaged in a fleecing exercise
We are concerned citizens because: - enough is enough
Does anyone really think the sudden parity pricing initiatives we now see in Canada would have occurred, had it not been for the importers
Unfortunately, TC has neither the manpower or the budget to have TC conducting all actual inspections for vehicles manufactured for the Canadian market. Thus they rely on certification to come from the manufacturers. I believe the manufacturers are telling them that the immobilizer is built right into the core of each automobile's electronics and as such they cannot and apparently will not certify anything other than that which they have included in manufacturing. It appears that what used to be a money-saving, labour-saving process is now working against consumers.
Your right, It was a verbal statement from RIV, although I have read quite a few notes here on this forum where people have gotten through with the Honda owners link letter of recall.
It's been a very productive day. We thank you for all the e-mails and it is producing results. You all saw the piece in the Globe & Mail today, interviews with several of our team. We are also had several CBC Radio TV interviews todathis across the country. Great job - media team. Here is another solid advancement - thanks to lighting speed efforts from George Favvas and Callum Macdonald from Reflexity, we have a brand new secure web site made for you. There is still work to do on the site, but we will be asking you to go and log your story with data, name, car model, dates etc. We want to gather data that we will use with the media, RIV, governments.
1st goal - get plates for everybody who is in Canada and victim of RIV flipflops. 2nd goal - solve immobiliser issue for all and then ....we'll see. maybe princing?
P.S. First story on the CBC the National tonight great job Bon Lamb and the team.
Keep up the pressure - write MP.s - Minister Cannon, check the new web site. :P
Lets be real this is about you and not the thousands of current Honda owners whose resale value is dropping as a result of your own personal motives. Enjoy for Ford!
Wajinder: It is nice if u don't need a compliance letter...........but did the same not apply to Camry 2008...............i was told by the RIV agents when i called two different times , today and last week to have a compliance letter from Toyota USA I called immediately Toyota USA second time and today the reply from Toyota USA was............. 2008 Camry is not admissible in Canada and they refuse to issue compliance letter.
Any chance you would be willing to provide a copy of the amnesty letter? I bought a 2008 SIenna in mid-October and imported it on the 9th of November, based on the assurance RIV provided that all purchases prior to November 1st would be admissable. Turns out the folks at RIV have amnesia and refuse to send my Form 2.
I was able to register my Sienna without my Form 2, further proof that none of these agencies have a clue what is going on (provincial, federal or CBSA).
Thanks for replying. I was told the same thing by an RIV agent - that they wouldn't have told me it was admissible, but they are lying. Just saw the CBC National news segment. Law suits are happening. A government minister said he would do something to solve this mess. Wonder how long it will take?
Comments
Was your Pilot off lease from Honda or some other leasing company.
BTW - when i brought my last vehicle up through sweetgrass, neither US or Canada customs even bothered to look at the vehicle. Didnt verify VIN & didnt check door sticker. That being said, it was in late october. Only person that looked at the label was crappy tire inspection kid.
OK, I'm dropping the Highlander SUV idea and moving on to a passenger car. Avalon looks CLEAR on the RIV section. But then I find this.
Check out link http://www.riv.ca/english/html/mod_inspect_requirements.html
I know this little red 'NEW' as the bottom wasn't there the other day becuase I printed a copy. What do you make of this? and what does GVWR stand for?
Geesh!
I am thinking of a possible way to help you out.
Was your dealer an Authorized Honda USA Dealer?
One that has sold cars to Canadians, so I am profiting from this loophole.
Even so, I recognize it for what it is.
It is an exception to the way business is conducted normally.
Chances are, the Canadian Gov't will close this avenue, much like the US gov't did with the Gray Market cars.
The immobilizer standard is an effort to close the loophole.
Immobilizers do not contribute to pulic safety or security at all.
A professional car thief will simply tow the car away,and defeat the imobilizer at his convenience.
An amateur will simply carjack you.
The Canadian Gov't, by creating this immobilizer standard, that is different from prior standards is actively aiding the car companies,and the tax renenue of the Canadian gov't as well.
Unless you are an importer, buying a car is a purely doemestic concern.
I am now looking at getting a 2008 Nissan Xterra (i am done with Toyota for a while), and i have some dealer's lined up. I have found some with a pre sep-01 build date but i am still concerned. So if anyone has been successful importing and registering a Nissan or Toyota that was built pre sep-01 i would love to hear about it to ease my mind (after nov 1 would also be important to know).
This statement, in particular, just blows me away:
"The immobilizer standard is an effort to close the loophole.
Immobilizers do not contribute to pulic safety or security at all. "
"If the GVWR of this vehicle is less than 10,000 lbs, and the manufacture date after September 1, 2007, it must be equipped with an electronic lock and immobilizer system that meets CMVSS 114. "
It also says this on paragraph 9 of the EXPLANATIONS section.
How do they know it meets CMVSS without a letter?
I would not try to import anything built after sep-01 right now.
http://www.riv.ca/english/html/mod_inspect_requirements.html
This statement, in particular, just blows me away:
"The immobilizer standard is an effort to close the loophole.
Immobilizers do not contribute to pulic safety or security at all. "
I am an informed individual, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that an immobilizer does not make a whit of difference for a professional car thief.
It's justa sop to consumers.
Cars are stolen primarily to chop up and part out. don't need the ECU for that.
For cars that you want to resell in another market, a bright guy w/ a PC can bypass the immobilizer anyway.
The problem is that the Canadian Gov't wants the motor companies to provide documentation that these US cars meet this new, useless standard.
Naturakky, the motor companies,who don't want their Canadian dealers to lose business, are refusing.
So, in essence, you have a standard that does nothing to help consumers,and because of the way the Canadians have chosen to implement it, allows car companies to not cooperate.
The fact that car companies chose not to cooperate should not be surprising to anyone. Why should they cost their Canadian operations money?
What is in it for them?
Its not a question of Kool Aid, its just reality.
The REAL reason why you have standards for importing vehicles isn't consumer protection, it is so the gov't can guarantee a monopoly, and the gov't can guarantee its share of revenue from that monopoly.
We can debate till the cows come home whether the immobilizer is effective or not. Data suggest that it is, as opposed to alarm systems, which generally are not effective. But it doesn't matter here. My point is that the intent, I repeat, the intent, of the immobilization standard is for public safety and security, not as a tool for manufacturers to stop importation of cars into Canada.
"Why should they cost their Canadian operations money?
What is in it for them?"
Are you kidding me?! What's in it for them? Is that what you said? There's everything in it for the manufacturers!! They can artificially keep prices high!! There may actually be very little impact on the dealers if the manufacturers adjust Canadian prices to fall in line with US prices. Lower MSRP, lower invoice cost = similar margin. In fact, I dare say if the manufacturers adjusted Canadian prices, the Canadian dealers will stand to gain, because more people will buy cars in Canada. Almost every dealer in Canada is hurting right now due to the disparity between Canadian & US prices.
You are so out to lunch on this one.
This standard does not apply to vehicles over that weight - mainly trucks and buses. Few consumers use vehicles which have a GVWR over 10,000 lbs.
This advice is not new. I have seen it elsewhere. I think that they may have flagged it NEW for the particular section whereas it may have been included in a general section.
On the VAFUS pdf files which have not recently been posted but is now posted again at this site
http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/VAFUS.pdf
this data is in paragraph 9 on page 2. Obviously RIV is being given a hard time on this so they have spelled it out in each section to which it applies.
My dealer told me that he cannot take my car because the car does not have the title. The car is considered as ‘sold’, the paperwork was done but the car was not registered.The dealer cannot take used vehicle that has MSO, the dealer needs the title.
Did anybody investigate the issue of returning unregistered car to the dealer?
I see that under section 5.3 for vehicles manufactured after Sept 1 2007, the RIV lists under Admissable "2008 All Models" for Ford, however, the Notes says "See explanations section". Does that mean that even though 2008 all models are admissable, I would still need Ford to provide a letter stating that the vehicle comes with an imobilizer that meets CMVSS 114?
Also, does anyone have experience dealing with Ford on this issue, and/or on US Ford dealers selling to Canadians?
"To import a vehicle from the U.S. the vehicle must be cited as admissible on Transport Canada's List of Vehicles Admissible from the United States. Assuming this vehicle is listed as admissible, the vehicle must also bear a Statement of Compliance label affixed by the Original Equipment Manufacturer stating that "the vehicle as manufactured to comply with all US federal emission, bumper and safety standards on the date of manufacture". Failing that, we will accept a letter from the manufacturer stating the same."
I wrote back and ask them to clarify... if the vehicle bears the statement of compliance label, no letter is required? I'll keep you guys posted.
Cheers.
If you've failed to cross once due to this technicality, try and try again. Many posters here including myself went through customs without any physical inspection of the vehicle. Same thing goes for the CT inspection, although you may be dinged with re-inspection fees on that end if you need to try and try again. Regardless, the laws of averages are on your side and the costs are likely to be lower than the loss you will incur to return it.
Best of luck.
netdog
"Assuming this vehicle is listed as admissible,..."
I was interpreting things the same way as you but now know how to read the list. Every notes section has the words "See explanation section". These 3 words apply to all cars listed in the admissible column. When you refer to the explanation section it tells you that you need a 114 compliance letter. This is how it is working...
Sucks but true. They need to take all toyotas and list them as inadmissible because they effectively are...
Cheers
Just to go into more detail. If you go and check specs for all vehilces shown as admissible without immobilizer as standard .They carry see notes section. as Highlander base model do. You have to see " safety" column in all vehilce specifications.
Just curious if anyone has imported one ....
Thanks!
I guess we'll see if the CBC is a friend of the enterprising little guy or the overly anal bureaucratic establishment.
I have been told about this announcement coming, but it sounds like only vehicles purchased before Nov 1st will be allowed in. These vehicles manufactured after Sept.1st have an engine imobilizer and not an anti theft engine imobilizer required in Canada. Toyota probably did this to prevent dealerships to sell to Canada. RIV and TC insist that Toyota is calling the shots. They are the ones who decide what is admissible according to Canadian standards. I was also told by an imobilizer installer in Manitoba that he can make this vehicle conform to standard for only 250.00$. The Toyota dealership meanwhile said it would cost thousands of dollars if they did it.
On Nov. 16th I went to check on my vehicle and changed the temporary permit. When I re-entered at the border, a guard told me I could take the vehicle in, but I would probably have to export it after TC makes it's announcement. Being alone and not wanting to add miles to the vehicle, I left it there.
I am at a loss as to what to do. Temporary insurance is only good for 30 days. I now have what is considered a used vehicle. I will probably have to trade it on another vehicle in the States (more time and money) and lose out on the trade. I am stressed out over this. If anyone has suggestions or ideas, please write them here.
Thanks
You cannot trust that the beaurocrats or the minister of transportation will act in your best interests so I think you are wise to leave your vehicle on the US side until we get a clear, concise and definitive ruling from TC.
I bought an inadmissible vehicle on October 18 based on the advice of two different RIV agents.(I always phone at least twice) When I told an RIV agent last week that I had been told in early October it was OK she said there is no way an agent would have told me that and if I didn't have a file number tough. I said since you are calling me a liar I need your name and a file number.
As of today my vehicle is still inadmissible and another call to TC remains unanswered. I did get an e mail from RIV confirming my vehicle is inadmisible and telling me all the files relating to vehicles purchased before Nov 01 are now inaccesible to RIV
How reliable is the RIV statement that letters of recall for Honda are not needed because Honda is "not cooperating". Do you have it in writing.
If that is RIV's corporate position, then why can't that reasoning/principle be extended to other areas where the manufacturer is "not cooperating" - i.e. the CMVSS 114 thing.
It sounds great but if it came verbally from RIV, I'd be weary of relying on it.
We are concerned citizens because:
- a lawful process established by our country is being manipulated and hijacked such that the lawful process which is our right, is being voided
We are concerned citizens because:
- we are not standing by and letting the manufacturers roll over us (likely with the vehicles we bought but can't register!)
We are concerned citizens because:
- we are using all lawful means at our disposal to correct the travesty that is taking place by trying to persuade our elected officials to ensure Canadian rules, regulations and policies are instituted, implemented and enforced for the benefit of Canadians, not corporations engaged in a fleecing exercise
We are concerned citizens because:
- enough is enough
Does anyone really think the sudden parity pricing initiatives we now see in Canada would have occurred, had it not been for the importers
Lead Story, and a very good one at that.
Finally, Cannon speaks.
Kudos to Mr. Brar and Mr. Lamb.
1st goal - get plates for everybody who is in Canada and victim of RIV flipflops.
2nd goal - solve immobiliser issue for all and then ....we'll see. maybe princing?
P.S. First story on the CBC the National tonight great job Bon Lamb and the team.
Keep up the pressure - write MP.s - Minister Cannon, check the new web site. :P
www.carswithoutborders.com
www.autossansfrontieres.com
The CBC report was excellent in making it clear that RIV kept changing their lists and also got Minister Cannon to make a statement
I hope that applies to the HV models as well coz that's what I'm interested in.
Thanks for the clarification.
I was able to register my Sienna without my Form 2, further proof that none of these agencies have a clue what is going on (provincial, federal or CBSA).