Private Sale

[Deleted User]

amistupid wrote: »

I agree, this is a private transaction, there is no reason why he should mention he's a police officer.

There is a possibility that it's someone impersonating a police officer and if he does this to make financial gain an offence may have been committed.

See there is a copper around when you need one:D

Joe_Horner

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

The op hasn't actually been threatened.

How is saying you are a police officer and know you rights wrong if he is flyboy?

It's wrong by being a criminal offence under S.90(1) of the Police Act 1996:

90 Impersonation, etc.

(1)Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

Note that "I'm a flyboy" or "knowing your rights" isn't listed as a Statutory defence against that section!

missindecisive

This guy is no policeman, he;s a conman. Tell him he has bought the car off you as sold as seen, be blunt with him and tell him to go away or YOU will call the police as he is harrassing you.

Trebor16

arcon5 wrote: »

Using the police federation to file a vexatious court case is wrong, threatening it is just as bad

They wouldn't be interested as the incident was nothing to do with his duties as a police officer so he would not be entitled to representation from the federation solicitors.

Joe_Horner

(text removed by MSE Forum Team)

If he is a genuine copper then it's probably not an offence but it's almost certainly an internal disciplinary matter to be using his position to put pressure on someone like this - especially as in a private sale the "problems" quoted with the car are basically "tough luck, buyer beware" & all that!

Sgt_Pepper_2

Trebor16 wrote: »

They wouldn't be interested as the incident was nothing to do with his duties as a police officer so he would not be entitled to representation from the federation solicitors.

They would, you are confusing being a member of the Fed and having a friend and legal representation with the additional insurance he may be paying to cover such matters.

Trebor16

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

They would, you are confusing being a member of the Fed and having a friend and legal representation with the additional insurance he may be paying to cover such matters.

You're assuming he may have an additional insurance policy to cover such matters. If he doesn't then they won't get involved in any issues relating to the purchase of the car.

maninthestreet

Police officers receive no training on contract law, or any other civil law issues, AFAIK. It's laughable that he thinks that an exhaust repair to a second hand car purchased privately that he had personally inspected before purchase entitles him to a refund.

paddedjohn

I will stick my neck out here and say that even if the OP was a trader the so called policeman would still have no chance of any recourse.

Flyboy152

paddedjohn wrote: »

I will stick my neck out here and say that even if the OP was a trader the so called policeman would still have no chance of any recourse.

If you are referring to the "sold as seen" element of this, that is not quite correct. If this was a trader to customer transaction, in this context, there is no such thing as "sold as seen."