Car Seller Is Not The Owner

efunc

fwor wrote: »

The suggestion that he has no idea about a vehicle-specific diagnostic tool (in this case VCDS) is ridiculous, given his history.

I would not be at all surprised if you find that two wires have been disconnected on the back of the OBD port.

No, not so. I just went back and ran VCDS again, this time successfully. He watched nervously as I ran through a whole suite of tests, concerned that I might be hacking into his car or something. I read of a whole bunch of logged errors knowing full well they were minor things and historic, but it shows that he did not have the knowledge to do this himself and then clear the faults. I cleared all the faults myself so that I could run clean diagnostics. Either he's a superb actor or he's genuinely unable stay on top of his scam.

I also got hold of the V5 and service book and took a picture of them. That freaked him out a bit. But at least I have the name of the named keeper now, so hopefully I can get more details out of him if I can track him down. Audi couldn't supply me the service history based on the current Reg number for some reason, so at least I now have the full VIN so will be able to uncover the full history.

[Deleted User]

He might not have a forecourt somewhere stocked with cars for sale, but he certainly is a buyer and seller of cars.

Herzlos

Has it had a different plate on it?

loskie

I think when you look at the history on Cazana and it says "something has occurred in this timeline" that may well be a no plate change

DUTR

loskie wrote: »

I think when you look at the history on Cazana and it says "something has occurred in this timeline" that may well be a no plate change

It's a change of ownership.

efunc

Herzlos wrote: »

Has it had a different plate on it?

I suspect it has, which is why I've scanned the chassis number from the ECU. TTS often have private plates slapped on. When I called Audi last week to verify the service record they didn't recognise the current plate (which is curious because it would have been the original registration), however I will check again and quote the VIN this time.

efunc

Anyone able to comment on the following: I took a look at the V5C and managed to get a photo of the second page with the vehicle and Registered keeper details. But I only managed to glance at the first page with the No of Former Keepers.

What I recall however is that the name and address on page 1, section 1 was different to the name and address of page 2, section 5, both of which are supposed to be the Registered keeper and ought to be the same, right? In what circumstances might they be different?

motorguy

efunc wrote: »

Anyone able to comment on the following: I took a look at the V5C and managed to get a photo of the second page with the vehicle and Registered keeper details. But I only managed to glance at the first page with the No of Former Keepers.

What I recall however is that the name and address on page 1, section 1 was different to the name and address of page 2, section 5, both of which are supposed to be the Registered keeper and ought to be the same, right? In what circumstances might they be different?

Were the two pages attached by the perforations?

efunc

motorguy wrote: »

Were the two pages attached by the perforations?

Just one sheet judging from my photo. Page 1 on one side with sections 1, 2 and 3, and then on the flip side page 2 with sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The second sheet with page 3 and 4 was not attached by the perforations as I recall, but was present as a second detached sheet. I could upload the photo, but would want to blank out the keeper's name/address obviously.

efunc

Hmmm, section 1 is on the reverse of the page I took a picture of. I'm going to put it in photoshop to enhance and reverse the image to see if the address on the front is visible..