Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

bought a car saturday afternoon no tax supplyed are you able to drive it around?


leroist
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5407 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys

Been in the car trade all my life and the main reason i would not tax a car with my trade policy is because the car would then be put in my name so if a car needs taxed then its up to the buyer to tax car Some car dealers will tell you whatever just to get the sale

Not true. With the style of registration document there is now, it is easy to tax a car for a customer using your trade policy if you know how. The vehicle doesn't ever have to be registered to you. I thought everyone in the trade knew that secret. I'm surprised DVLA haven't sussed this little wrinkle yet!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Not true. With the style of registration document there is now, it is easy to tax a car for a customer using your trade policy if you know how. The vehicle doesn't ever have to be registered to you. I thought everyone in the trade knew that secret. I'm surprised DVLA haven't sussed this little wrinkle yet!

 

To be with in the law ? and would i buy a car off a man like you i think not We can all do ilegal things but then thats why true car dealers get a bad name Would you also cover a mate whos cars not insured ? i dont abuse my traders policy for anyone :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be with in the law ? and would i buy a car off a man like you i think not We can all do ilegal things but then thats why true car dealers get a bad name Would you also cover a mate whos cars not insured ? i dont abuse my traders policy for anyone :)

 

Please read my posts before you attack me. I said in an earlier post that I refuse to do it. I just said that it's possible to tax a vehicle without registering it, and a lot of traders do it, and I don't agree with it. My business is run completely within the law, this year I have sold in excess of 600 vehicles and have been operating for nearly thirty years and can assure you I don't have a bad name, but thanks for your concern. Who mentioned anything about insuring a mate? Considering the amount of money insurance costs me per annum I take absoloutley no chances with insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a dealer (any dealer) supplies a vehicle to a customer who then drives it on a public highway when is either unroadworthy, untaxed or uninsured they are as guilty of commiting that offence as the purchaser/driver.

Do you mean ethically or as a point of law? Are you suggesting that when I send vehicles to auction without any documentation at all that if the purchaser chooses to drive the vehicle out of the sale yard on the public highway I and/or the auction company are committing an offence? There is no legislation that insists that I have to ensure a customer is insured before they remove a car from my premises. Also what about private sales? If it is an offence to sell an untaxed or no Motd vehicle that the purchaser drives off in on the highway would you say a private individual is guilty of an offence when selling an untaxed or no MoTd vehicle that the purchaser drives home in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok this is not an attack on anyone

 

Selling a car without a valid V5 is unlawful. This was introduced in 2002 to assist with combating vehicle cloning, ringing and theft. I note your comment GWC1000 about the BCA (British Car Auctions) but to be honest the Police are not really that interested in large scale offences as they have other priorities that do not allow them to do so

 

You are right though about the tax GWC1000. My view is if the customer is not willing to pay for the tax when buying the car then they take the consequences after they drive it away from your forecourt

 

For the record it is not a criminal offence as it is not recordable

 

As I say this is not an attack or criticism of any members here just my 2 cents

 

Regards

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok this is not an attack on anyone

 

Selling a car without a valid V5 is unlawful.

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I buy many vehicles from auction without a V5. In fact I have collected one today from BCA Bedford. I will fill out a V62 obtainable from your post office. On it it says:

 

You should use this form to obtain a Vehicle Registration

Certificate (V5C) if the original has been lost, stolen, defaced or

destroyed, or you have recently acquired the vehicle but did not

receive the V5C

 

If it was unlawful why would it say on the V62: or you have recently acquired the vehicle but did not

receive the V5C ?

I have never had any trouble obtaining a V5 after purchasing a vehicle without one.

I admit DVLA did start running adverts on the tv around about 2002 saying a car isn't legit without a logbook. But they soon dropped that when it was obvious that it wouldn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...If you are in the Bedford area do you sell frontera's at about 2k?
What colour do U what??...:confused:

...I MAY know someone that could help U out?!...;)

 

NO V5 though......+ possibly slight damage to one of the doors/ignition.

 

I could negotiate a small discount for U, if U're interested enough??...:cool:

 

 

...lol...:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

What colour do U what??...:confused:

...I MAY know someone that could help U out?!...;)

 

NO V5 though......+ possibly slight damage to one of the doors/ignition.

 

I could negotiate a small discount for U, if U're interested enough??...:cool:

 

 

...lol...:D

 

Is that the model with keyless go?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buyer Beware!...;)

 

A car dealer cannot hide behind Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) no matter what they might claim or as they sometimes say 'as seen' unless they are selling it for parts/spares which must be made clear at the time of sale.

 

In which case they must not allow the purchaser to drive off in the said vehicle after sale

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, a car must be fit for purpose (whether a private or dealer sale).

 

However, if a dealer is selling a car stipulated as unroadworthy, there is no requirement for the dealer to physically prevent the motorist from leaving their premises in whatever way they choose - do you people actually live in the real world?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Selling a car without a valid V5 is unlawful.

Mark

 

Nonsense.

 

Every time I change my car, I sell the old one without a V5. This is due to the time it takes to get the new V5 after retaining the VRM.

 

The V5 proves absolutely nothing about the vehicle's

ownership, only who is the registered keeper (who may not be the owner or the driver)

 

For the record it is not a criminal offence as it is not recordable

 

This is also nonsense. Just because the conviction is not recordable, does not remove the criminality.

 

Speeding is not recordable, but it is still a crime.

 

As a general rule, if the offence is dealt with (or would be if not FPN) in a Magistrates' Court, it is a criminal offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The V5 proves absolutely nothing about the vehicle's

ownership, only who is the registered keeper (who may not be the owner or the driver)

Fair point - HPI checks would help when buying a car then would you recommend?

 

Every time I change my car, I sell the old one without a V5. This is due to the time it takes to get the new V5 after retaining the VRM.

 

not being able to get one in time is not relevant. How do you and your buyer fill out the tear off slips if you don't have one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

not being able to get one in time is not relevant. How do you and your buyer fill out the tear off slips if you don't have one?

 

You don't have to sign the tear off slips. It will not prevent the new owner getting a new reg doc. He takes the car and fills out a V62 and a new V5 comes to him in the post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, a car must be fit for purpose (whether a private or dealer sale).

 

However, if a dealer is selling a car stipulated as unroadworthy, there is no requirement for the dealer to physically prevent the motorist from leaving their premises in whatever way they choose - do you people actually live in the real world?

 

Yes fraid you don't

 

If a dealer allows a buyer to drive on the public highway with an unroadworthy or unlicenced vehicle that he has sold he commits the offence of conspiracy

 

If the buyer is in an accident caused by that unroadworhyness or is indeed uninsured at the time of leaving the dealer and collides with another they are also guilty of not only the criminal offence of conspiracy but are also liable in civil law for any loss or damage caused by that buyer.

 

Also a private seller does not have the same responsibilities as a trade dealer unless they are specificaly asked "is this car roadworthy and fit for purpose" they have no obligation for it to be so hence the term 'caveat emptor'

 

The purchaser in a private sale would have to prove they were considerably mislead for their claim to succeed

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a dealer allows a buyer to drive on the public highway with an unroadworthy or unlicenced vehicle that he has sold he commits the offence of conspiracy
define what a conspiracy is

 

"IF" there were to be any offences on the part of the dealer it would be use cause or permit - In this case permit. But then you would have to prove that the dealer permitted the new owner to drive on the public highway with an unlicenced/unroadworthy vehicle. I have never heard of such a prosecution but I am sure there will be

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes fraid you don't

 

If a dealer allows a buyer to drive on the public highway with an unroadworthy or unlicenced vehicle that he has sold he commits the offence of conspiracy

 

If the buyer is in an accident caused by that unroadworhyness or is indeed uninsured at the time of leaving the dealer and collides with another they are also guilty of not only the criminal offence of conspiracy but are also liable in civil law for any loss or damage caused by that buyer.

 

Can you back this up with either legislation or case law? Conspiracy to do what exactly?

 

Also a private seller does not have the same responsibilities as a trade dealer unless they are specificaly asked "is this car roadworthy and fit for purpose" they have no obligation for it to be so hence the term 'caveat emptor'

 

The purchaser in a private sale would have to prove they were considerably mislead for their claim to succeed

That is true to a point - buyer beware is always good advice however if something is being sold as "good runner just services 12 months T&T" then I would argue that is an implied term that the vehicle is fit for the purpose of being used as a motor vehicle on the queens highway!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look conspiracy up in the dictionary.

 

The fact of allowing the buyer to drive off knowing that the vehicle is either unroadworthy or unlicenced is sufficient to establish an offence on the part of the dealer.

 

A private seller may, in so many words claim the vehicle is 'fit for purpose' but if it isn't glaringly obvious at the time of purchase that it isn't then there is no liability on the private seller whatsoever.

 

For a claim to succeed the onus would be on the private buyer to prove the private seller knew of the fault.

 

If the buyer is a dealer then they are stuffed no matter what is wrong with the vehicle as they are classed by the Courts as having 'special knowledge' & should have spotted the fault at the time of purchase

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy

 

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act

a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)

a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

The relevant word here is secret -

 


  • not open or public; kept private or not revealed; "a secret formula"; "secret ingredients"; "secret talks"
  • clandestine: conducted with or marked by hidden aims or methods; "clandestine intelligence operations"; "cloak-and-dagger activities behind enemy lines"; "hole-and-corner intrigue"; "secret missions"; "a secret agent"; "secret sales of arms"; "surreptitious mobilization of troops"; "an ...
  • unavowed: not openly made known; "a secret marriage"; "a secret bride"
  • communicated covertly; "their secret signal was a wink"; "secret messages"
  • not expressed; "secret (or private) thoughts"
  • hidden: designed to elude detection; "a hidden room or place of concealment such as a priest hole"; "a secret passage"; "the secret compartment in the desk"
  • privy: hidden from general view or use; "a privy place to rest and think"; "a secluded romantic spot"; "a secret garden"
  • confidential: (of information) given in confidence or in secret; "this arrangement must be kept confidential"; "their secret communications"
  • something that should remain hidden from others (especially information that is not to be passed on); "the combination to the safe was a secret"; "he tried to keep his drinking a secret"
  • indulging only covertly; "a secret alcoholic"
  • information known only to a special group; "the secret of Cajun cooking"
  • mysterious: having an import not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence; beyond ordinary understanding; "mysterious symbols"; "the mystical style of Blake"; "occult lore"; "the secret learning of the ancients"
  • mystery: something that baffles understanding and cannot be explained; "how it got out is a mystery"; "it remains one of nature's secrets"
  • the next to highest level of official classification for documents

 

As it is common knowledge that dealers do this, (argue all you like whether it is lawful or not), it cannot be held to be a secret act

 

I stand by my original suggestion of permit

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...