Im being sued after I sold my car

matttye

lovinituk wrote: »

Are you just making this nonsense up or can you link to some facts to back it up?

Is everyone supposed to be psychic and tell prospective buyers of future faults??!!!

Marktheshark wrote: »

I think he must be the bloke who bought the Mini ?
Can you think of any other reason for spouting this.

It's strict liability - that means that it doesn't require knowledge. The mere fact that the act has been committed is enough to commit the offence.

There are other strict liability offences in law, e.g. drink driving. If your soft drink is spiked with alcohol and you are above the limit, you are still guilty of drink driving. You would enter a guilty plea and then argue that there are special reasons not to disqualify.

Another strict liability offence is possession of a firearm. If you are in possession of a firearm contrary to Section 5 of the Firearms Act then you're guilty of the offence whether you know it was a firearm or not. Firearms container cases are extremely harsh. If you accept possession of a container and you know that there is something in the container, but you don't know what it is, and it happens to be a firearm, you're guilty of possession of a firearm.

There's the case of Bradish (1990) 90 Cr App R 271, where even though the court accepted that he did not know that a container contained C.S. Gas, he was nevertheless guilty of possession of a firearm because he had accepted possession of the container.

So if the law is so harsh in other areas, why do you find it so hard to believe that someone could be guilty of selling a car which contained faults they didn't know about?

Strict liability is harsh but it's well established in law.

The prosecution could still make a decision not to prosecute an offence on the basis that it's not in the public interest - but that doesn't mean no offence has been committed.

I'm not talking about warning buyers of future problems, which is clearly impossible. If an expert report was conducted shortly after buying a vehicle (it depends what 'soon afterwards' means - days would obviously be stronger than weeks/months) then it could go some way towards showing that the vehicle was unroadworthy at the time of sale - although far from conclusive.

Marktheshark

Your point has absolutely zero reference to the question asked by the OP.
Nobody has been charged with an offence, nor shall they be so.
A Di**head bought a second hand car, thrashed it, broke it and now thinks the OP should pay for it fixing or they will sue.
Luckily the law as in case law has already sorted this point out.
It will be a civil court, there is no criminal case to answer or will there ever be so.

lovinituk

Yep, he's just making nonsense up!! !!!!!! have firearms got to do with the psychic ability to predict future vehicle faults?!

matttye

Marktheshark wrote: »

Your point has absolutely zero reference to the question asked by the OP.
Nobody has been charged with an offence, nor shall they be so.
A Di**head bought a second hand car, thrashed it, broke it and now thinks the OP should pay for it fixing or they will sue.
Luckily the law as in case law has already sorted this point out.
It will be a civil court, there is no criminal case to answer or will there ever be so.

The law creates an offence of selling an unroadworthy car.

Are you suggesting that the only time someone would ever be convicted of the offence is if a police officer is stood there and witnesses the sale being made and can confirm that the car is in an unroadworthy condition at the time of sale? :rotfl:

That's nonsense.

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/extra/news-item.cfm/newsid/1316

Car bought by undercover Trading Standards officers, subsequently tested by an independent expert and found to be unroadworthy. Trading Standards brought a successful prosecution against the company that sold it.

Not dissimilar to this scenario you might say.

Edit: before you say it, I know that they pleaded guilty.

matttye

lovinituk wrote: »

Yep, he's just making nonsense up!! !!!!!! have firearms got to do with the psychic ability to predict future vehicle faults?!

I can't help it if you don't understand. Let me know if you want me to explain anything in more detail.

I was citing other areas of law where knowledge isn't required to commit an offence.

matttye

Another case:

http://news.warwickshire.gov.uk/blog/2013/05/29/unroadworthy-car-sold-for-400-cost-garage-owner-10000/

Car examined by independent expert one week after purchasing. Found to be unroadworthy. This time the seller pleaded not guilty and was found guilty after trial.

jimjames

matttye wrote: »

Apart from the expert report saying its unsafe to drive you mean?

Being prosecuted for a S75 unroadworthy vehicle is totally separate to a Small Claims court process. One will not lead to the other.

Muddling the two up doesn't really help much.

jimjames

matttye wrote: »

Another case:

http://news.warwickshire.gov.uk/blog/2013/05/29/unroadworthy-car-sold-for-400-cost-garage-owner-10000/

Car examined by independent expert one week after purchasing. Found to be unroadworthy. This time the seller pleaded not guilty and was found guilty after trial.

Did you note the key difference?

Mr Akmal Riaz of Astley Lane Bedworth, trading as A R Motors

lovinituk

matttye wrote: »

I can't help it if you don't understand. Let me know if you want me to explain anything in more detail.

I was citing other areas of law where knowledge isn't required to commit an offence.

Oh I understand perfectly that you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks anyway!

matttye

jimjames wrote: »

Being prosecuted for a S75 unroadworthy vehicle is totally separate to a Small Claims court process. One will not lead to the other.

Muddling the two up doesn't really help much.

The OP brought up the subject of the criminal offence in post #6. I explained in post #97 that the criminal offence wouldn't affect the civil contract.

I'm not muddling anything up.

jimjames wrote: »

Did you note the key difference?

Mr Akmal Riaz of Astley Lane Bedworth, trading as A R Motors

The law doesn't differentiate between traders and individual sellers in S75, except to say that someone who sells vehicles in the course of a business to someone who they understand will not be using it on the road, has to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the buyer is made aware of the fact that it would be illegal to drive the vehicle on the road in its unroadworthy state.

An individual only has to have a reasonable belief that it won't be used on the road. They don't have a duty to inform the other person it would be illegal to drive.

That's the only difference that I can make out from reading the statute.

If you were simply saying that Trading Standards wouldn't bring a prosecution against an individual, I agree. That doesn't mean that an individual couldn't bring a private prosecution or that the CPS couldn't prosecute.