Unhappy Car Sale - Interesting Update

NeverEnough

tesuhoha wrote: »

To be honest no. It was advertised for spares or repair. It was also pointed out in bold that the car had no MOT. I am afraid that we did not realise that we had to be that specific. We assumed that the buyer would know that without an MOT they should not drive it.

He has just texted that he will arrange for the car to be towed. It seems a long way, 300 miles on 3 different motorways. We have replied that if we think he is going to drive it we will not sell it to him even if he has travelled 300 miles to collect it.

You didn't have to be any more specific than that. A normal adult would be expected to know that a car advertised as having no MOT and being sold for spares or repairs only, could not be legally driven away from the sellers house, except to a prebooked MOT within reasonable distance (300 miles would not be deemed reasonable, I think)

The only 100% legal way of getting a nonMOTed , uninsured car that distance is to have it trailered or put on a car transporter, unless an MOT has been prebooked in the area and it is insured and taxed, in which case it can be driven to the MOT. It can also be driven directly to the MOT test if it is SORNed and then taxed after the MOT has been passed. If it doesn't pass, then a whole new set of problems arises, or its back to plan A, have it trailered away or put on a transporter, unless it can be repaired at the MOT garage.

I just do not see that anyone else is responsible for someone choosing to break the law. It is not illegal for anyone to sell a car without MOT - provided the buyer is made aware of these deficiencies, it is not the sellers fault what they choose to do with it.

However, I am sure the OP has no wish to have any legal problems, and the easiest get-out clause is simply not to sell the car to the problem buyer.

photome

hartcjhart wrote: »

dont be surprised if he doesnt turn up:D

thats my guess

photome

NeverEnough wrote: »

You didn't have to be any more specific than that. A normal adult would be expected to know that a car advertised as having no MOT and being sold for spares or repairs only, could not be legally driven away from the sellers house, except to a prebooked MOT within reasonable distance (300 miles would not be deemed reasonable, I think)

The only 100% legal way of getting a nonMOTed , uninsured car that distance is to have it trailered or put on a car transporter, unless an MOT has been prebooked in the area and it is insured and taxed, in which case it can be driven to the MOT. It can also be driven directly to the MOT test if it is SORNed and then taxed after the MOT has been passed. If it doesn't pass, then a whole new set of problems arises, or its back to plan A, have it trailered away or put on a transporter, unless it can be repaired at the MOT garage.

I just do not see that anyone else is responsible for someone choosing to break the law. It is not illegal for anyone to sell a car without MOT - provided the buyer is made aware of these deficiencies, it is not the sellers fault what they choose to do with it.

However, I am sure the OP has no wish to have any legal problems, and the easiest get-out clause is simply not to sell the car to the problem buyer.

That all makes perfect sense, anything else means the law is an !!!

tesuhoha

Okay, I think we have it sorted out. My husband has spoken to the buyer this morning. He has said he doesn't want to get us into any kind of trouble, he is just an ordinary person wanting a car.

He is still coming by bus but is booking an MOT locally. As he has AA Relay he has spoken to them and if the car fails the MOT (my husband says it will fail on the headlight.) they have agreed to trailer the car the whole distance. He is arranging insurance on the car today.

We have agreed to this as the guy desperately wants the car and will do what we ask of him.

tesuhoha

pinkteapot wrote: »

OP, most important thing as already mentioned. DO NOT give him the whole V5!!

Only give him the tear off slip for the new owner.

You post the rest to the DVLA and then he receives his new V5 in a couple of weeks.

Definitely.

colino

OP, you are worrying far too much about this. No one is going to charge you with anything. (Plus the AA aren't going to relay a working car for an MOT failure!) Perhaps better to get in touch with a local trader and take the problem off your hands?

tesuhoha

colino wrote: »

OP, you are worrying far too much about this. No one is going to charge you with anything. (Plus the AA aren't going to relay a working car for an MOT failure!) Perhaps better to get in touch with a local trader and take the problem off your hands?

Well, if he drives off to have the car MOTd then its being driven legally away. I don't see that we can be responsible for what happens after that. After all we have warned him of the consequences and told him he will be stopped on the motorway if he tries to drive it.

Last year we sold a van to the local !!!!!!. Everything was above board, they turned up with a delivery truck, paid cash, filled out the V5. It all seems so easy now - wish we hadn't bothered with Ebay.:(

tesuhoha

photome wrote: »

thats my guess

I wish.

I know we could stop the sale but I just don't like backing out of a deal.

Joe_Horner

NeverEnough wrote: »

That's all just your interpretation and not necessarily what a Court would find, as it certainly is not as simplistic as you make it out to be but the OP is obviously scared witless by random postings on a forum rather than taking proper legal advice and will proceed as they wish to do, as is their right.

No it isn't "just my interpretation" and it's exactly what a court has to find in the case of a strictl liability offence - you either did it or you didn't. If you did it you're guilty.

That's the whole pernicious point of strict liability offences (which recent governments seem worryingly fond of) - they remove any question of intent or knowledge from the question of guilt. They streamline the justice system nicely but rely very heavily on the police and CPS using common sense at the charging stage because, once they reaches court, thered's very little chance of defending against them if the event occurred.

In this case the law is quite explicit that selling an unroadworthy car is an offence and the only time you're not guilty is if you have genuine reasons to think it won't be driven on the road.

If you're unclear on that I suggest you go and learn what a strict liability offence means.

What isn't so clear (and what I repeated several times) is that, if it happened, the police may well choose to exercise common sense and ignore the offence, or the CPS may choose not to prosecute even if the police report it.

That would quite likely depend on other circumstances - if the new owner crashed and killed 10 nuns and a polar bear because of faulty brakes they'd probably be more likely to act over the sale than if he just got picked up on ANPR.

But, either way, the OP was entitled to know that there was a risk (however small) there rather than just being told "not your problem once you have the money". That is "random advice" that's been posted.

As for the OP having the right to do as they choose, where did I say otherwise? But they also have the right to be fully aware when they do.

Joe_Horner

photome wrote: »

[...] anything else means the law is an !!!

With the number of strict liability offences on the books now, it is!