Im being sued after I sold my car

funkycoldribena

matttye wrote: »

The fact that they are a trader makes no difference - it is an offence for both individuals and traders to sell unroadworthy cars.

The similarity is that they sold a car which was subsequently deemed unroadworthy by an expert. The OP says in post #6 that the claimant has had an expert report commissioned shortly after buying the car which says the car is unroadworthy and dangerous to drive.

The only difference I can see is that I think it would be more likely deemed to be in the public interest to prosecute a trader than a private individual, and likewise it would be more likely to be deemed in the public interest to prosecute someone who knowingly sold an unroadworthy car.

The option would still be available to prosecute an individual who sold an unroadworthy car without any knowledge of it being unroadworthy, though.

Parklife...

BeenThroughItAll

colino wrote: »

Wasn't the Boxer the same commercial (with many disguises) in a different party frock?

No, the Boxer was never sold as a Talbot Express. You're thinking about the Mk1 Sevel van, which was a Fiat Ducato, Talbot Express, and Citroen C25 and Peugeot J5. Lasted until 1994.

The Mk2 was sold as the Peugeot Boxer, Fiat Ducato, and Citroen Jumper/Relay. Sold from 1994-2006. Different range of engines and gearboxes from the Mk1.

Mk3 is sold in the same models as the Mk2, from 2006 to present.

Hoof_Hearted

You really do need to get out more....

BeenThroughItAll

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

You really do need to get out more....

Who, me? Knowledge is power, so they say.

matttye

Hintza wrote: »

Come on then provide a link to this?

I already have, but here - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/75

jimjames wrote: »

It's possible that I could win the lottery or walk on the moon. It's not very likely though. I'd suggest that charges for selling an unroadworthy car are about as likely so not worth considering in this situation.

Of course it's worth considering. Not worth considering whether criminal proceedings will ensue? Maybe not if you're a regular in the courts but I'd be concerned about criminal allegations being made against me if I were the OP.

Dan-Dan wrote: »

Complete and utter balls

give it up troll

I'm not trolling.

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Absolute rubbish.

The only way that you can be classed of being guilty of a criminal offence in the UK is if a criminal court finds you guilty.
If you have not been charged and convicted, you are not guilty of a criminal offence.

I clearly meant that you will have committed an offence.

If you walk up to someone and punch them in the face you have committed battery no matter what happens subsequently.

funkycoldribena wrote: »

Parklife...

What?

Joe_Horner

Dan-Dan wrote: »

Complete and utter balls

give it up troll

Sadly, it''s not "complete and utter balls".

Mattye is right that anyone who sells a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition is guilty of an offence under S.75 of the Road Traffic Act, and it is not necessary for the seller to be aware of the defect for them to be found guilty.

The Act specifies that, for this section, roadworthiness applies only to brake, steering or tyre defects, construction and weight issues, or defects that would involve a danger of injury. So, for example, high exhaust emissions wouldn't be covered.

There are two statutory defences available for private sellers:

(a) That the vehicle is being sold for export (RTA S.75.6(a)) and
(b) That he had "reasonable cause to believe it would not be used on the road [...] until it was put in a condition in which it might lawfully be so used"

For a trader, defence (b) above only applies if they can prove that they took all reasonable steps to ensure the buyer knew they mustn't use it on the road (RTA S.75.6A(a) )

Note that the fact they make specific, and more stringent, rules for traders reinforces that the rest of the section DOES intentionally apply to non-traders (ie: private sellers).

There is absolutely no defence available of "I didn't know" regardless of who the seller is.

None of the above means that the Op has anything at all to worry about because any prosecution would be a police or DVSA matter and, frankly, they have better things to worry about. Even if some jobsworth tried to take it to court, common sense would almost certainly prevail somewhere in the pre-hearing process.

Hermione_Granger

matttye wrote: »

I clearly meant that you will have committed an offence.

If you walk up to someone and punch them in the face you have committed battery no matter what happens subsequently.

Unless of course the punch was in self defence and the person I was hitting had a weapon that a witness didn't see, or perhaps I was on medication and had an adverse reaction that caused me to act strangely.
For battery to have occurred, the attack must have been intentional or reckless and also unlawful.

If you are so convinced of someone's guilt before a trial or evidence has been produced, I hope that you never get given jury duty

Joe_Horner

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Unless of course the punch was in self defence and the person I was hitting had a weapon that a witness didn't see, or perhaps I was on medication and had an adverse reaction that caused me to act strangely.
For battery to have occurred, the attack must have been intentional or reckless and also unlawful.

If you are so convinced of someone's guilt before a trial or evidence has been produced, I hope that you never get given jury duty

I assume that Mattye's point is that the matter of selling an unroadworthy car is an absolute offence, where provocation, meds, or any other factor that might usually provide a defence don't count. It's a worrying trend in our legal system that mre and more offences are being created that way - you don't even need to know you're committing them to be guilty of them.

Of course, "being guilty" is a far cry from "being found guilty", which requires someone to report it, the authorities to prosecute it, and a court to convict. But, in the case of an absolute offence (including selling an unroadworthy car), all a prosecutor has to prove to secure a conviction is that you did it, whether you knew you had or not!

jimjames

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I assume that Mattye's point is that the matter of selling an unroadworthy car is an absolute offence, where provocation, meds, or any other factor that might usually provide a defence don't count. It's a worrying trend in our legal system that mre and more offences are being created that way - you don't even need to know you're committing them to be guilty of them.

Of course, "being guilty" is a far cry from "being found guilty", which requires someone to report it, the authorities to prosecute it, and a court to convict. But, in the case of an absolute offence (including selling an unroadworthy car), all a prosecutor has to prove to secure a conviction is that you did it, whether you knew you had or not!

As it is a criminal offence, in order to be a prosecution the police need to be involved which they are not.

If you are driving a car with valid MOT, serviced with no advisories and the vehicle has no obvious defects that can be viewed, inspected, purchased and driven for several weeks I cannot see any way that the police would be interested in a prosecution and it will remain a civil matter.

matttye

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Sadly, it''s not "complete and utter balls".

Mattye is right that anyone who sells a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition is guilty of an offence under S.75 of the Road Traffic Act, and it is not necessary for the seller to be aware of the defect for them to be found guilty.

The Act specifies that, for this section, roadworthiness applies only to brake, steering or tyre defects, construction and weight issues, or defects that would involve a danger of injury. So, for example, high exhaust emissions wouldn't be covered.

There are two statutory defences available for private sellers:

(a) That the vehicle is being sold for export (RTA S.75.6(a)) and
(b) That he had "reasonable cause to believe it would not be used on the road [...] until it was put in a condition in which it might lawfully be so used"

For a trader, defence (b) above only applies if they can prove that they took all reasonable steps to ensure the buyer knew they mustn't use it on the road (RTA S.75.6A(a) )

Note that the fact they make specific, and more stringent, rules for traders reinforces that the rest of the section DOES intentionally apply to non-traders (ie: private sellers).

There is absolutely no defence available of "I didn't know" regardless of who the seller is.

None of the above means that the Op has anything at all to worry about because any prosecution would be a police or DVSA matter and, frankly, they have better things to worry about. Even if some jobsworth tried to take it to court, common sense would almost certainly prevail somewhere in the pre-hearing process.

:T

I agree - highly unlikely anything would come of it, just wanted the OP to be aware of the possibility.

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Unless of course the punch was in self defence and the person I was hitting had a weapon that a witness didn't see, or perhaps I was on medication and had an adverse reaction that caused me to act strangely.
For battery to have occurred, the attack must have been intentional or reckless and also unlawful.

If you are so convinced of someone's guilt before a trial or evidence has been produced, I hope that you never get given jury duty

I know this. I advise people on the law at the police station for a living. I'm just trying to keep things simple for discussion purposes. By "walk up and punch someone in the face" I meant unprovoked.

If you're being specific, voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent (of which battery is one), so if you took medication that wasn't prescribed to you, took too much of the medication or took it in conjunction with other substances that you shouldn't have done then you could still be found guilty of battery.

Hence why someone who drinks alcohol to the point of being paralytic can still be guilty of assault/battery.