Another thing is that there must be either CCTV footage or a still image of the incident. You should be able to request to view this.

You mention school ID card... wouldn't this been suffice proof that your daughter was entitled to travel for child/half fare? In any event, there are a few points to note here. Speaking as an ex-bus driver myself, you would be amazed at what the bus driver sees every day. "Children" attempting to board the bus after putting a fag out and then attempting to pay half fare, boarding with an open tin of lager and attempting to pay half fare, attempting to pay half fare even though they have tattoo's and my favorite; "single moms" trying to pay half fare then expecting their baby to travel for free! Having said the above, I agree that while wearing school uniform should be sufficient proof for the driver to allow the young person to travel as half fare, believe it or not up until 2006, full fare was charged at 14 on the Isle of Wight buses. But lets no forget, we don't know the driver's side of this particular case... it can differ dramatically from what the child's version is.

This is what the highway code says about it; User-operated gates or barriers 269. Some crossings have 'Stop' signs and small red and green lights. You MUST NOT cross when the red light is showing, only cross if the green light is on. If crossing with a vehicle, you should open the gates or barriers on both sides of the crossing check that the green light is still on and cross quickly close the gates or barriers when you are clear of the crossing Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10 270. If there are no lights, follow the procedure in Rule 269. Stop, look both ways and listen before you cross. If there is a railway telephone, always use it to contact the signal operator to make sure it is safe to cross. Inform the signal operator again when you are clear of the crossing. This signs in your images seem to be present and at the point where you open the gate. So it would be hard to argue that you didn't notice them. At this stage you should follow the instructions on the NIP and see what happens. The BTP may offer you the opportunity to provide an explanation... it's possible you may just get a warning.

Once you have taken your pictures, perhaps you can post them up so we can see what the crossing is like. Please include shots of any signage. In the meantime, can you give us the location please.

This surely is the potential flaw in his policy. I don't think you can legally sell a car as "spares or repair" to a member of the public when it can be driven away AND satisfy the SOGA. Surely by allowing test drives, it contradicts the fact that the vehicle is being sold as "spares or repair". For a vehicle to be driven on a public road, it has to be in a road worthy condition, covered by insurance and taxed. I would be interested to hear what TS's opinion would be on this.

Just to clarify the above, it either has to be taxed/insured or SORNd. This applies to it being kept on private land also (however it dosn't have to be taxed/insured as long as it is kept permanently on private land BUT it must be SORNd). You can check the vehicle status here; https://www.taxdisc.direct.gov.uk/EvlPortalApp/app/enquiry?execution=e1s2

Not sure that the seller can allow a test drive unless the car has insurance relating to it and it is taxed (unless it's on trade plates and the trader is present in the car). Also. providing the seller is a trader, online auctions are subject to similar conditions under the SOGA as buying normally. However, normal auctions (where as the auction house isn't the actual vendor of the vehicle) don't. Unless the rules have totally changed from when the last time I checked, it is still illegal to remove (or attempt to remove) a consumer's statutory rights, meaning the terms such as "no refunds, sold as seen or no comebacks" would be considered as doing just that, in my opinion. Selling a car to a member of the public for "spares or repair only" would suggest to me that the car is being sold as "non drive-able" meaning that it would not be legal to drive it away at the point of sale. In those circumstances, I can't see how it would be legal to advertise that the car can be test driven as that surely implies the car is being sold as "fit for the purpose" if it can be driven. Having said all that, I too agree on one hand that the trader here is being completely open and frank about what he is selling which is obviously better than hiding the fact the cars have defects, BUT that dosn't necessarily mean that he is fully complying with consumer law when selling in this way to the general public.

First of all, take pictures of the repaired area of you car as soon as possible. Secondly write a formal letter to the garage owner saying that you are not satisfied with the work and as such require him to either put it right or you will take it elsewhere to have it done and will present him with the bill. Furthermore, you hold him responsible for the loss of your keys and as such require him to either find or replace them. Provide the details of the local dealership for the garage to acquire a replacement key if necessary. Give a period of 7 working days for a response otherwise you will arrange to rectify both issues yourself and then will require reimbursement of your costs incurred. Send your letter by recorded delivery and keep a copy. Come back and let us know what happens.

That's the point i'm trying to make. If it could be proven (which I very much doubt) that a cover was missing at the point of sale, then surely the OP may have a case with or without the warranty. However, Helio seems to be also struggling with the aux belt being the primary cause and that maybe it's a design fault on this particular car. If that was the case, the OP should research the fact and present a case to the manufacturer. In any event, a failure of this magnitude on a relevantly new-ish car and given the purchase price, is pretty shambolic IMHO.

I also think we are going round in circles. What needs to be established is how the auxiliary belt failing, caused the timing belt to fail resulting in the catastrophic damage to the engine. My aux belt failed on my Punto hgt at around 60 mph a couple of years ago... but it didn't result in the destruction of the engine.

I think you are clutching at straws. As has already been pointed out, the process was within the time scale (NIP issued within 7 days, NTO issued requesting further info etc). So basically all that has happened is that the "clock" has been paused to obtain the details of the driver. So now the offence will be failing to disclose the driver's details. Not knowing who it was, isn't a defence and the RK of the car will now face prosecution for that offence.

It's not for the "SOGA brigade" to define what is road worthy or not though is it? The scenario that the OP has presented puts the seller in the position of deciding for himself (as a responsible and knowledgeable trader) whether or not he is about to retail, a potentially un-roadworthy car or not. The consequences of such a sale could lead to a criminal prosecution which is outside the remit of the SOGA. Therefore ultimately, only a duly qualified police officer (one who can issue prohibition notices) could actually make that assessment. And it would be the seller (in this particular instance) who would be guilty of an offence IF the car was found to be un-roadworthy at the point of sale (assuming the car was sold that it could be driven off the sellers premises). Point being that if the seller has reason to suspect or believe that the car is un-roadworthy, he should not be selling it as "drive-able" to a member of the public.

I think that the VW "goodwill" option would be a non-starter then. I think it will boil down to the warranty and how the fact it can be established that indeed the auxiliary belt WAS the cause. Personally, I very much doubt it although I have to admit that it wouldn't be impossible. As I say, not knowing the engine, it would depend on whether there is any overlap/conflict in the "routes" the auxiliary and timing belts actually take. I would of thought in most engines, this should be factored at the engineering design stage thus making it highly un-likely to occur.

Ah, here she is! Normally Linzi manages to get things moving so fingers crossed!

Nah, I don't buy this "the auxiliary belt breaking affected the timing belt" diagnosis. Now I don't know much about VW engines so I could of course be wrong but I would find it very surprising if indeed this was the case, especially resulting in destroying the engine. So according to you then, the car hasn't been serviced by a VW dealer? And has the car already been repaired or what is the state of play there? I think we need to hear from Linzi on this!

Hello and welcome to CAG. We happen to have a resident Customer service rep for Carcraft on the site called Linzi. I'm struggling to understand how an alternator (or auxiliary) belt could cause a massive engine failure. What were the symptoms of the breakdown?

Thanks for the update.

What? How so?? Please Note The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only. I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action. Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Few questions; When it broke down at "60 miles", where was it taken to... was it recovered to a nearby garage? If so, how did it get back to the seller? Also, how much did you pay for it and when exactly did you buy it? Finally whats the make/model/age/mileage? Please Note The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only. I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action. Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Maybe a letter to you local rag would be in order? Maybe others in your position could do the same as you!

Good news BUT strange explanation. If they say that "A contravention occured and that had been correctly issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004." and "To confirm this Notice has been cancelled on this occasion only as a gesture of good willi", why are they going to the expense of putting a "No Left Turn" sign in place? Just didn't want the risk of loosing at the adjudicator!

This is one of the problems. The thing is that most of the laws applying to cyclists were made a long time ago and unlike for cars, havn't kept up with today's traffic environments. For example, there isn't an offence of death by dangerous or careless cycling but yet there have been a couple of fatalities over the last few years. So cyclist will always get a lessor penalty than a motorist because the law is outdated. No deterrent you see.

So it's all inaccurate then? Or are you speaking as a cyclist yourself? The article comes as no surprise to me as I see this all the time where I live. Plus I recently was almost knocked over myself on a paved area in Great Yarmouth by a cyclist even though there were "cycling prohibited" signs in place.

Hi and welcome to CAG. I would assume that the hire car would of been provided under the same terms as your own insurance schedule. As such, I'm not sure that the questions need to be answered. BUT before doing anything, I would speak to either your own insurers or the claims company that you used.