Private car sale - buyer unhappy.

arcon5

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

No, the has to be a loss or the op needs to be exposed to a risk of loss. In this case there is no risk.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I think you'll find the law disagrees with you there...



https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

It's the intent that creates the offence, not the fact of loss or exposure. Any actual loss or exposure is immaterial in determining guilt but may be relevant during sentencing.

Effectively, an attempt to defraud is treated as fraud just as if it had been successful.

You've both basically said the exact same thing. You both say op has to be exposed to a loss .

But the point is... What loss has op been exposed to? The buyer sought a refund, that's not a loss it's a refund. On goods op has sold as working order when in reality was faulty.

I personally think it's more than likely op got rid of his lemon before it finally caved in. In which case is fortunate in that this cannot be proven as it would otherwise be misrepresentation on ops part.


This whole threads been exhausted though so maybe time to draw it to a close

Joe_Horner

arcon5 wrote: »

You've both basically said the exact same thing. You both say op has to be exposed to a loss .

No, I say (and the Fraud Act agrees) that the seller only has to intend to expose him, not that he actually needs to be exposed.

If I invite you to invest in my latest Ponzi scheme then I'm committing fraud whether you invest - and are therefore exposed to loss - or not. Because my intent to expose you is sufficient for the offence.

But the point is... What loss has op been exposed to? The buyer sought a refund, that's not a loss it's a refund.

No, it would be a loss, just as Hunt would have lost his TV in the scenario I offered him last night regardless of anything I left him with in its place.

There are also several other "losses" which the buyer could be intending:

• penalties for no tax, as the tax lapses on change of keeper
• penalties for no insurance assuming the buyer isn't continuing to insure a car he's changed the keeper on
• any speeding, parking or other ticketed penalties that attach to the car and will be directed to the OP.

The OP was undoubtedly exposed to the risk of those losses and, if the buyer is still using the car, it would be fair to conclude that was an intent.

Fortunately the OP's taken prompt steps to mitigate the risk, but that doesn't negate the fact of the exposure.


eta: incidentally, I broadly agree with your conclusions but that's an entirely separate matter to the actions of the buyer.

kh904

Plus the registered keeper is liable to pay the VED!


Edit:


Joe Horner's post above has explained the risk of the fraud on the OP

Warwick_Hunt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, I say (and the Fraud Act agrees) that the seller only has to intend to expose him, not that he actually needs to be exposed.

If I invite you to invest in my latest Ponzi scheme then I'm committing fraud whether you invest - and are therefore exposed to loss - or not. Because my intent to expose you is sufficient for the offence.



No, it would be a loss, just as Hunt would have lost his TV in the scenario I offered him last night regardless of anything I left him with in its place.

There are also several other "losses" which the buyer could be intending:

• penalties for no tax, as the tax lapses on change of keeper How? It would be dropped as soon as the OP recieved a summons.
• penalties for no insurance assuming the buyer isn't continuing to insure a car he's changed the keeper on How? If it wasn’t picked up when the log book arrived. The same would happen when a summons arrived.
• any speeding, parking or other ticketed penalties that attach to the car and will be directed to the OP. Any NIP/172 would stop the process.

The OP was undoubtedly exposed to the risk of those losses and, if the buyer is still using the car, it would be fair to conclude that was an intent.

Fortunately the OP's taken prompt steps to mitigate the risk, but that doesn't negate the fact of the exposure.


eta: incidentally, I broadly agree with your conclusions but that's an entirely separate matter to the actions of the buyer.

There is no risk of loss due to the car being put back in the OP’s. Everything you have suggested is a conviction or a government penalty/fine. It is not a risk of loss under the fraud act if you are convicted in court.

Or are you actually suggesting the OP would have been found guilty of any offences. If you are then there’s other legislation to cover that.

AdrianC

Joe_Horner wrote: »

There are also several other "losses" which the buyer could be intending:

• penalties for no tax, as the tax lapses on change of keeper
• penalties for no insurance assuming the buyer isn't continuing to insure a car he's changed the keeper on

As you say, it'd be untaxed, so there's no continuous insurance offence being committed.

• any speeding, parking or other ticketed penalties that attach to the car and will be directed to the OP.

Who will reply to the s172 request to identify the driver, saying they have no way of identifying them, since they do not possess the vehicle, and haven't done since they sold it on <date> to <buyer>, who later changed the RK back into their name without their foreknowledge.

Herzlos

I'm curious; if the car was sold on to a 3rd party, wouldn't they want to register it to themselves rather than registering it back to the OP?