The buyer that bought a bus and brought it back - Part 2

Mandles

code-a-holic wrote:

Its great to see that evreyone in the world see's it the same as i do!!! :j

The police say it is a offence to sell something as roadworthy and it isnt.

Dont know but legally i think it may make a difference.You didnt "sell" it , you auctioned it...seem to think i read that it made a difference. we are all behind you.
Silly man!

hjb123

code-a-holic wrote:

The owner of the vehicle (my dad) is a bus mechanic!!!!! But for obvious reasons the police have to have a report from a non biased mechanic!

But what does your Dad say about it? I guess he will know when the imbalance can have occured!

You must be having a right old nightmare with this lot!

MrsTinks

the imbalance could have happened at any time, how they hope to prove it was prior to purchase (and subsequent crash) I really don't know... after all the brake calipers could have seized whilst ti was stood AFTER the crash (if it was them that caused it) or the wheels could be out of allignment as a result of the crash (bumping your wheel up a curb has been known to knock alligment) so I will be very interested to hear what the mechanics have to say (btw OH used to be an HGV mechanic and I used to drive lanrovers off road competitively so I think between us we have a fair idea about this :rotfl:)

meerustar

There wasn't a MR BUMP cup in the bus was there?????????

(see [email="Baz@rr's"]Baz@rr's[/email] thread, lol)

Jerry_Maguire_2

Its possible many different things could go wrong, brake cams, expanders, warped drum worn pivot pin bushes etc to cause an imbalance. The bottom line is that nowhere on the ebay listing does it say that the vehicle is roadworthy and would pass an MOT. The only thing stated is that the current MOT expires June 06. Even a perished diapragm in one of the actuators or dirt in the air system is possible. I work in a bus garage and know from experience that things can fail with no warning and a bus that has been MOT'd on a Wednesday has then been pulled for a roadside check on a Friday and been ordered of the road with a brake problem.
I am amazed that the police are even getting involved. Is your crime rate so low in Wales that they are getting into cases that have no relevence to them, except that the clown failed to report an accident.

1jim

I thought it was buyer beware, if it was a private sale surely its his repsonsibility to ensure its safe to drive before he drives it!, only different if its a trade sale.

I remember reading a story in the paper about a year ago, a man hired a rental car from a well known chain (cant remember which), he was pulled over by the police and the tyre treads were below minimum and he got a fine for it as it was his responsibility to check before driving the vehicle,
anyway my point is,,, can you suggest to the police that if the other guy is complaining that the vehicle was unsafe perhaps that he shuld be done for driving an unsafe veihcle on the highway

good luck with it
jim

code-a-holic

Thanks all,
From your opinions and from what i have found out elsewhere a imbalance can be caused by anything and suddenly. Prooving the timing would be virtually impossible. I feel confident the police will find there was nothing we could have done ,as sellers, differently.
Buyer beware, drivers responsibily for safety, sold with MOT, no claims for roadworthynes. All these phrases proof the buyer is a complete ******!!!! (cant think of an apropriate word but im sure you can all imagine something along the right lines!!) :rotfl:

jenniferpa

May I just say that I'm amazed that you're retaining your sense of humour over this - by now I would be screaming and pulling my hair out.

Jennifer

MyUserNamesTaken

I think the police are involved due to the damage to the bridge. The buyer is claiming that he was not responsible for crashing into the bridge, as the vehicle was faulty. Either way, it still shouldn't be the seller's responsibility, as the buyer bought the bus in an auction. It would have been the buyer's responsibility to get the bus checked before he took it on the road. Still, the police probably need to check it out before doing the pillock for dangerous driving, etc.

notagain_3

It is actually against the law to supply an unroadworthy car

Supply and possession for supply of dangerous products, contrary to the General Product Safety Regulations 1994.

Also,

Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. :-

"75.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section no person shall supply a motor vehicle or trailer in an unroadworthy condition.

(2) In this section references to supply include—

(a) sell,

(b) offer to sell or supply, and

(c) expose for sale.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a motor vehicle or trailer is in an unroadworthy condition if—

(a) it is in such a condition that the use of it on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section 41 of this Act as respects—
(i) brakes, steering gear or tyres, or
(ii) the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles, or
(iii) the maintenance of vehicles, their parts and accessories in such a condition that no danger is or is likely to be caused, or

(b) it is in such a condition, as respects lighting equipment or reflectors or their maintenance, that it is not capable of being used on a road during the hours of darkness without contravention of the requirements imposed by law as to obligatory lamps or reflectors.

(4) Subject to the provisions of this section no person shall alter a motor vehicle or trailer so as to render its condition such that the use of it on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made as respects the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles by regulations under section 41.

(5) A person who supplies or alters a motor vehicle or trailer in contravention of this section, or causes or permits it to be so supplied or altered, is guilty of an offence.

(6) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the supply or alteration of a motor vehicle or trailer if he proves—

(a) that it was supplied or altered, as the case may be, for export from Great Britain, or

(b) that he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or trailer would not be used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used, or

(c) in the case of a vehicle or trailer the supply of which is alleged to be unlawful by reason of its condition as respects lighting equipment or reflectors or their maintenance, that he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or trailer would not be used on a road in Great Britain during the hours of darkness until it had been put into a condition in which it might be so used during those hours without contravention of the requirements imposed by law as to obligatory lamps or reflectors.

(7) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall affect the validity of a contract or any rights arising under a contract.

(8) In this section "obligatory lamps or reflectors" means, in relation to a motor vehicle or trailer, the lamps or reflectors required by law to be carried on it while it is on a road—

(a) during the hours of darkness, and

(b) when it is neither drawing nor being drawn by another vehicle,

except that the expression does not, in the case of a trailer, include any lamps showing a white light to the front."

Info also available here PDF file from a trading standards site

However, as the vehicle was involved in an accident after it was sold, the damage could be reasonable expected to have occured as a result of the accident, especially if the damage is on the same wheel as hit the curb. Which is probably why they're having it tested now.

IMO, its buyer beware though and I hope you win on this one.

Footnotes:- If it gets further down the line of Notice of Intended Prosecution, check the regulations on the amount of time between sale of the vehicle, and the Police Engineers inspection. This may have had to be done in a 4 week period after the sale - NOT 3 months down the line
I can't beleive the Crown Prosecution Service or Trading Standards would bother to prosecute.
A magistrate should find in your favour due to the accident.