Private car sale - buyer unhappy.

Options
12357

Comments

  • facade
    facade Posts: 7,030 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    I thought there was some sort of legal requirement to do with the registered keeper actually being the keeper, otherwise we could all register our cars to Mrs May at number 10, and forget all about VED, and never see any of those nasty NIPs......
    I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....

    (except air quality and Medical Science ;))
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 7,175 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Photogenic First Post
    Options
    Warwick_Hunt wrote: »
    That will be down to the driver most of the time.

    Yes but as I say the tickets will go to the registered keeper and the registered keeper to prove it wasn't them.
    The registered keeper is something as simple as the person responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle.

    As I said - responsible for the vehicle on the road. You don't need it registered with DVLA if it was used exclusively off road on private land.
  • Warwick_Hunt
    Warwick_Hunt Posts: 1,179 Forumite
    Options
    facade wrote: »
    I thought there was some sort of legal requirement to do with the registered keeper actually being the keeper, otherwise we could all register our cars to Mrs May at number 10, and forget all about VED, and never see any of those nasty NIPs......

    There is but in this case the OP isn’t a victim of fraud.
  • Warwick_Hunt
    Warwick_Hunt Posts: 1,179 Forumite
    Options
    Deleted_User wrote: »
    Yes but as I say the tickets will go to the registered keeper and the registered keeper to prove it wasn't them. Well no, any prosocution would need to prove the guilt of the person on trial



    As I said - responsible for the vehicle on the road. You don't need it registered with DVLA if it was used exclusively off road on private land.But the driver can be the keeper removing any responsibility of the registered keeper.

    ..........
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 7,175 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Photogenic First Post
    Options
    There might not be a signature if you change registered keeper online, but surely there is a statement and/or tick box that you are agreeing that the info you are submitting is correct.

    Fake details = not correct.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 7,175 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Photogenic First Post
    Options
    Warwick_Hunt wrote: »
    ..........

    If you're the registered keeper and you are taken to court over a speeding ticket, and you don't disclose who was driving, the court will be under no unreasonable doubt that it was you.
  • Warwick_Hunt
    Warwick_Hunt Posts: 1,179 Forumite
    Options
    Deleted_User wrote: »
    If you're the registered keeper and you are taken to court over a speeding ticket, and you don't disclose who was driving, the court will be under no unreasonable doubt that it was you.

    You, you’d be prosecuted for failing to name the driver and get six points instead of three. No presumption would be made as to who was driving.
  • Joe_Horner
    Joe_Horner Posts: 4,895 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Warwick_Hunt wrote: »
    There is but in this case the OP isn’t a victim of fraud.

    But the fraud doesn't need to be committed against the OP.

    There's undoubtedly false representation, with the person making it knowing it's false, by notifying someone who doesn't have the car, doesn't know its whereabouts, and doesn't have any valid interest in it, as the keeper.

    By removing themselves as the keeper, by using this false representation, they stand to gain by avoiding the obligation for taxing and insuring their vehicle - because it is their vehicle.

    It would be very hard for them to argue that wasn't at least part of their intent.

    They also expose the OP to the risk of loss by attempting to shift those obligations onto him. In the circumstances, it would be fairly easy to argue convincingly that was part of their intent,

    It's likely (subject to whatever they do next) that this is a step in an attempt to sue for the money paid by claiming to have rejected the car. At that point their self declared intent is to inflict a loss of the purchase price on the OP, and a corresponding gain for themselves.

    So, there's definitely false representation, made knowingly, and at least 3 ways to show intent to either gain themselves or expose the OP to a loss. One of those ways is dependent on what further steps they take, the other two aren't.

    One isn't even dependent on any intent towards the OP at all - simply not wanting to pay the tax, insurance, or potential cost of off-road storage for their car is enough to complete the offence.
  • Warwick_Hunt
    Warwick_Hunt Posts: 1,179 Forumite
    Options
    Joe_Horner wrote: »
    But the fraud doesn't need to be committed against the OP.

    There's undoubtedly false representation, with the person making it knowing it's false, by notifying someone who doesn't have the car, doesn't know its whereabouts, and doesn't have any valid interest in it, as the keeper.

    By removing themselves as the keeper, by using this false representation, they stand to gain by avoiding the obligation for taxing and insuring their vehicle - because it is their vehicle.

    It would be very hard for them to argue that wasn't at least part of their intent.

    They also expose the OP to the risk of loss by attempting to shift those obligations onto him. In the circumstances, it would be fairly easy to argue convincingly that was part of their intent,

    It's likely (subject to whatever they do next) that this is a step in an attempt to sue for the money paid by claiming to have rejected the car. At that point their self declared intent is to inflict a loss of the purchase price on the OP, and a corresponding gain for themselves.

    So, there's definitely false representation, made knowingly, and at least 3 ways to show intent to either gain themselves or expose the OP to a loss. One of those ways is dependent on what further steps they take, the other two aren't.

    One isn't even dependent on any intent towards the OP at all - simply not wanting to pay the tax, insurance, or potential cost of off-road storage for their car is enough to complete the offence.

    But if the car is used on a road they haven’t avoided insurance. It’s all part of their pathetic attempt to reject the vehicle and action fraud will see it as such.
  • Joe_Horner
    Joe_Horner Posts: 4,895 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Warwick_Hunt wrote: »
    But if the car is used on a road they haven’t avoided insurance. It’s all part of their pathetic attempt to reject the vehicle and action fraud will see it as such.

    Thereby causing a loss to the OP of the purchase price.

    So, we have false representation, knowingly made, with the intent of causing loss to the OP.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards