Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • BlackyPFC
    • By BlackyPFC 28th Dec 17, 9:38 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 2Thanks
    BlackyPFC
    Private car sale - buyer unhappy.
    • #1
    • 28th Dec 17, 9:38 PM
    Private car sale - buyer unhappy. 28th Dec 17 at 9:38 PM
    So, first post on here, hope you can help put my mind at ease.

    I sold my Clio 5 days ago online. I reduced the price from £500 to £450 after negotiating with the buyer. I sold to a 22 year old girl who I believe it was her 2nd car as she mentioned in text messages that she had crashed her first one.

    She went ahead and insured the car before i could even tell her where the car was located to cone view it. I thought this was odd but if she wasnt bothered about viewing it, well that is up to her. She taxed the car prior to arriving to pick the vehicle up.

    She paid in cash, a reciept was written including sold as seen. Which we both signed. We both have a copy.

    The advert for the car stated that the wing mirror cover was broken and that the car although it has 8 months MOT, it did have advisories. (I didnt specify, however the certificate was in the car should she wish to view it.)

    Anyway, so the car is sold and a day later I recieve a message saying that there are advisories on the car and did I know about them. I obviously said yes and stated that the advert said there were advisories, however she never asked me what they were. She never replied to this message although my phone tells me she read it.

    4 days pass and i think thats the end of it.

    Tonight I recieve this message:

    The car u sold me j have had nothing but problems with it, the gears won't work properly won't go into reverse now or first gear I would like some money back to get it sorted as it's unsafe for my daughter

    So I have replied with this:

    Evening,

    I can assure you that the car had no problems with the gears when it was sold to you. In order to get it onto the driveway it had to be reversed. In order for you to drive the car away you would have had to have put the car into first gear. You purchased the car 5 days ago, and only now you are reporting issues with it. I do not know how you have been driving the car and the standard of your driving. The car was sold as seen, which is stated on the reciept that you signed. You could have taken the car for a test drive when you arrived. However you decided to buy the car without even viewing it first. I understand that you are worried about your daughter however there were no issues with the gears when it was sold to you.

    When buying a private car the responsibility is on the buyer to ask questions and check the car over if they wish.

    The car was in a good state when sold to you. Has 8 months MOT. I reduced the price for you out of good will. I will not be refunding any money as I believe the money recieved was a fair price for the car.


    So I just wanted to check where I am from a legal point of view, and also if anyone believes that I am beong unreasonable, if so why?

    Many thanks

    DB
Page 4
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 13th Jan 18, 7:30 PM
    • 4,380 Posts
    • 3,850 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    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.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    I think you'll find the law disagrees with you there...

    2 Fraud by false representation

    (1)A person is in breach of this section if he!!!8212;
    (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
    (b)intends, by making the representation!!!8212;
    (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
    (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
    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.
    • arcon5
    • By arcon5 13th Jan 18, 8:28 PM
    • 13,582 Posts
    • 8,625 Thanks
    arcon5
    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.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    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.
    Originally posted by Joe Horner

    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
    • By Joe Horner 13th Jan 18, 9:11 PM
    • 4,380 Posts
    • 3,850 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    You've both basically said the exact same thing. You both say op has to be exposed to a loss .
    Originally posted by arcon5
    No, I say (and the Fraud Act agrees) that the seller only has to [i]intend[i] 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
    • By kh904 19th Jan 18, 2:47 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    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
    Last edited by kh904; 19-01-2018 at 2:56 PM.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 19th Jan 18, 5:12 PM
    • 1,153 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    No, I say (and the Fraud Act agrees) that the seller only has to [i]intend[i] 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 wasnít 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.
    Originally posted by Joe Horner
    There is no risk of loss due to the car being put back in the OPís. 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 thereís other legislation to cover that.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 19th Jan 18, 5:37 PM
    • 17,602 Posts
    • 15,968 Thanks
    AdrianC
    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
    Originally posted by Joe Horner
    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
    • By Herzlos 19th Jan 18, 8:51 PM
    • 7,348 Posts
    • 6,634 Thanks
    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?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,914Posts Today

6,771Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ah these care free days of watching #ENG score 5 goals in the first half of a World Cup match. It reminds me of... Never.

  • Then it should be. It's not some accident. It's deliberate grappling https://t.co/UxVTuUSNio

  • Penalty yes but time someone was sent off for these wrestling moves #WorldCup

  • Follow Martin