misold dangerous car

bobbymotors

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

That is totally incorrect.
Unless the legislation in question (In this case it's the Road Traffic act) states that an offence is not committed if the person concerned was not aware of something, then the offence is classed as absolute and lack of knowledge is not enough of a reason for the case to be dismissed.

When selling a vehicle that was unroadworthy when sold, the RTA make no distinction between private and trade sellers, nor does it have any mitigating circumstances that cover the sale apart from those that state it can be sold if advertised as unroadworthy and the seller believes it will not be used on the road until made safe.

I think you'll find that a dealer is expected and supposed to have sufficient knowledge of a car's suitability to be classed as roadworthy and cannot sell an unsafe car unless its for spares and/ or repairs

However a private seller is not deemed to be knowledgeable out cars and can sell a car in any condition they want to as long as they didn't know it was not roadworthy.


I think you are probably right that it should be 'roadworthy' but, strangely it doesn't have to be 'fit for purpose'. I cant see what the difference is to be quite honest. Fit for purpose on a car is surely to get you from A to B in a safe way, the same as roadworthy! A very grey area.
I fully accept though that most private sellers are fully aware of problems even though they may claim otherwise.

And going back to the OPs problem this 'dealer' sounds like a right nasty tool.

shaun_from_Africa

bobbymotors wrote: »

I think you are probably right that it should be 'roadworthy' but, strangely it doesn't have to be 'fit for purpose'. I cant see what the difference is to be quite honest. Fit for purpose on a car is surely to get you from A to B in a safe way, the same as roadworthy!

Roadworthiness of a vehicle covers brakes, tyres and steering and also if the vehicle is in such a bad state that it poses the danger of injury to someone.

A car can be classed as roadworthy under the Road Traffic act if for example the indicators don't work but it wouldn't be fit for purpose on the highway until these had been fixed.

HG is correct in that there is no requirement for a private seller to have knowledge that a vehicle they are selling is unroadworthy for them to be committing an offence as it is indeed classed as an absolute offence. (knowledge or suspicion of a fault is not required for the offence to be committed).
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1994/jan/24/second-hand-vehicles-mileages

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish:
My Lords, the Government are not turning their eyes away from the reality of these problems. That is why there are two laws on the statute book—one which we have addressed in this Question and the other which particularly pertains to unroadworthy vehicles. It is an absolute offence to offer for sale or supply or expose for sale a vehicle deemed to be unroadworthy or altered so as to be rendered unroadworthy.

The RTA 1988 does not differentiate between private and business sellers over this matter.

maddogb

TBH I would not get distracted by the peripheral arguments, see a solicitor.


The main argument here is one I have heard before but as the amount was considerably less, I simply let it go.
The defence they are using is refusing to accept liability on the basis that the person you dealt with was not acting on behalf of the company.
It would easily be dismissed if the dealer is a sole trader or proprietor but he may not be.
A solicitor should know if this has ever been tested in court or dealt with by statute, CAB or TS may know also as a cheaper first port of call.

arcon5

Lrob wrote: »

The invoice is in the name of the garage, and signed by the manager of the garage (the same guy who is now saying it's nothing to do with him.)
I've already gotten a quote from another big national garage, they have also said it's not worth repairing because of the sheer amount of damage to it. They also queried if it had been in an accident but there is no evidence of it having been. It would need a new axle, new suspension, full new break system, airbags and all sorts of major things.
I have now sent the letter as citizens advice suggested, hopefully this will make them get their act together but I am doubtful. Citizens advice have also informed trading standards. Is small claims court the best option if this isn't resolved?

Good - should be beyond impossible to wiggle out of this with their name on the invoice! Idiots.

Can you list the faults?

Tiddlywinks

Have you checked your car details through here?

https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-status

EdGasket

Lrob wrote: »

The airbag light was never on and has never come on, it has been tampered with somehow.

Well there's your fault then. The airbag light must flash for a few seconds and then go out if it is functioning correctly. You'll know for next time.

arcon5

EdGasket wrote: »

Well there's your fault then. The airbag light must flash for a few seconds and then go out if it is functioning correctly. You'll know for next time.

Flash?
No. It'll illuminate then go out but won't be flashing. For somebody I thought worked in this industry you seem to know very little about cars

EdGasket

arcon5 wrote: »

Flash?
No. It'll illuminate then go out but won't be flashing. For somebody I thought worked in this industry you seem to know very little about cars

Flash on then if you must be pedantic and try to score cheap points

Lrob_2

Sorry this has taken ages, lots going on. Trading standards have been out to them, they wouldn't even allow them in the building and they're still saying it was sold on behalf of a private seller but won't give their details -because they don't exist. Police are now involved too, trading standards notified them.
We've been told to take it to small claims court because they don't have a leg to stand on but are doing everything they can to get out of it.
Trading standards have previous reports of them and it seems they do this all the time. They sell the car then when there are problems they say it was private and it ends up going back and forth because nobody can pin down the supposed private seller.

bigjl

Lrob wrote: »

Sorry this has taken ages, lots going on. Trading standards have been out to them, they wouldn't even allow them in the building and they're still saying it was sold on behalf of a private seller but won't give their details -because they don't exist. Police are now involved too, trading standards notified them.
We've been told to take it to small claims court because they don't have a leg to stand on but are doing everything they can to get out of it.
Trading standards have previous reports of them and it seems they do this all the time. They sell the car then when there are problems they say it was private and it ends up going back and forth because nobody can pin down the supposed private seller.

What action are the Police going to take?

It sounds more like a civil case.