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

[advisee]

Look conspiracy up in the dictionary.

I know what the word means, my point was that in English law all the offences I know of are conspiracy to do something "conspiracy to defraud" "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" etc.

 

What offence are you suggesting that such a trader could be guilty of?

 

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.

 

Again, can you suggest precisely what offence could have been committed, and how the dealer could have physically prevented the above happening? What if the seller assured the dealer that the car was going to be driven straight to an MOT centre? I can just imagine you trying to enforce this at your local Arthur Daly yard, or auction house for that matter!

 

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

 

Do you state all the above as a lawyer, or as an enthusiastic amateur? Assuming the latter, then this link has a bit about buying a car privately or from a dealer Car Buyers Guide - Advice : know your rights when buying a new car - The AA that should help other readers.

[gwc1000]

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.

 

Sorry, I disagree. Who is the trader conspiring with? Conspiracy is a very serious issue so please back up these comments with relevant case law.

 

When I sell vehicles there is no legal requirement on me to check whether the purchaser is insured or even has a driving licence. Remember, it is no longer my property and the owner is free to do what he likes with it. If you don't agree please quote relevant law.

[gwc1000]

Statutory conspiracy is defined by section 1 of the criminal law act 1977

Under section 1(1) if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their

intentions, either -

(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or

(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible,

He is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.

Accordingly, it is an offence to agree to commit any criminal offence even one which is tryable only summarily. However, by section 4 a conspiracy to commit a summary only offence can only be prosecuted by or with the consent of the director of public prosecutions.

[MilkTrayMan]

Instead of 'conspiracy'......Try 'aid + abet'?!...

[crash3903]

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

 

Not that you will "EVER" get a prosecuting authority to proceed with such an event.

 

gwc1000 - Given that you sell over 600 vehicles a year I would class you as an established and reputable car dealer. If you were of the "Arthur Daly" type and selling "dodgy motors" then it is likely to be a means to an end

[MilkTrayMan]

gwc1000 - Given that you sell over 600 vehicles a year I would class you as an established and reputable car dealer...

Quantity does NOT equate to Quality!

...Nor does ONE years sale figures equate to past, or future sales performance!...

 

 

...If you were of the "Arthur Daly" type and selling "dodgy motors" then it is likely to be a means to an end

Hypothetically speaking of course, would 600 'Cut + Shunt' motors NOT add up to ONLY 300 (...max!) dodgey sales??...

I once slept with 100 Babes in only ONE evening...Would U care to 'prove' me wrong??...

[gwc1000]

 

gwc1000 - Given that you sell over 600 vehicles a year I would class you as an established and reputable car dealer. If you were of the "Arthur Daly" type and selling "dodgy motors" then it is likely to be a means to an end

 

I just like being able to sleep peacefully at night.

 

JonCris:

Even if it were possible to prosecute a conspiracy case (which I feel would be impossible) the prosecution would not be exclusive to motor traders. It would apply to everyone.

[gwc1000]

Hypothetically speaking of course, would 600 'Cut + Shunt' motors NOT add up to ONLY 300 (...max!) dodgey sales??...

 

 

Hmmmm

[crash3903]

Hypothetically speaking of course, would 600 'Cut + Shunt' motors NOT add up to ONLY 300 (...max!) dodgey sales??...

Hilarious :lol:

 

But I guess the 30 years he has been around helps

 

I just like being able to sleep peacefully at night.

 

JonCris:

Even if it were possible to prosecute a conspiracy case (which I feel would be impossible) the prosecution would not be exclusive to motor traders. It would apply to everyone.

 

Prosecute - Wouldn't even get a crime a number under these circumstances

[gwc1000]

Quantity does NOT equate to Quality!

 

Correction: Quantity does NOT equate to profits. I now earn less than half that I earned in the late eighties and early nineties.

[JonCris]

Statutory conspiracy is defined by section 1 of the criminal law act 1977

Under section 1(1) if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their

intentions, either -

(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or

(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible,

He is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.

Accordingly, it is an offence to agree to commit any criminal offence even one which is tryable only summarily. However, by section 4 a conspiracy to commit a summary only offence can only be prosecuted by or with the consent of the director of public prosecutions.

 

We have car dealers on here admitting that they would allow a purchaser to 'knowingly' drive off in an unroadworthy or unlicenced vehicle.

[make them aktiv runners]

We have car dealers on here admitting that they would allow a purchaser to 'knowingly' drive off in an unroadworthy or unlicenced vehicle.

 

At least 2 dealers (if memory of earlier posts is correct). Personally I have bought cars, or been with some-one else buying a car, with the full range of dealers and never have I seen a dealer allow the car to be taken without valid tax, insurance and MOT.

 

I certainly would not buy any car from a dealer who did not insist on MOT/Tax/Insurance as I would seriously wonder about the state of the car itself.

 

The DVLA are getting more strict on untaxed vehicles, and as a matter of fact the easiest prosecution is always going to be a dealer. Yes it may not happen now but how long is that really going to last?

[gwc1000]

We have car dealers on here admitting that they would allow a purchaser to 'knowingly' drive off in an unroadworthy or unlicenced vehicle.

 

Where in any of my posts did I say I was willing to sell an unroadworthy vehicle? I never mentioned anything about unroadworthy cars. I agree as a trader I am committing an offence if I sell an unroadworthy car. In fact I am even committing an offence even if I were just to display a car with a bald tyre for sale. The point I am making is if after I have taken the money for a roadworthy car the property is the purchaser's and I cannot be held liable for what he does with it. Otherwise, when does my responsibility end? In an hour, tomorrow or next week or even next year? But as I questioned earlier, why would an offence only be restricted to a sale from a trader? Are you saying if you yourself sold a vehicle that had no RFL you are exempt? Road tax laws apply to us all.

You also have not answered my points about your assertion that I would be guilty of conspiracy. A conspiracy has to be two or more. Perhaps people who buy cars should take responsibility for their own actions.

[crash3903]

I do like a good legal argument

 

So on that basis why don't we do a mock case

 

The prosecution make a case for a conspiracy

 

The defence make out a case for the trial

 

Then we can see some legal arguments and where it could go

 

This is only for fun but may have a good learning curve attached to it and some case law may come out in the process ;-)

 

What do you think?

[gwc1000]

At least 2 dealers (if memory of earlier posts is correct).

Well, I think your memory serves you incorrectly. I haven't seen any motor trader post that he is willing to sell an unroadworthy vehicle.

 

I find these comments insinuating it is unthinkable that a trader would sell a vehicle without a current RFL an attempt to win an argument by slurring the other party as opposed to putting forward concrete evidence. It isn't unlawful.

If you yourself went to a Motor Car Auction today and purchased a vehicle which had no V5, MoT or tax, the auction company would NOT enquire if you had insurance or how you intended to move the vehicle. The onus is on you. I can assure you British Car Auctions have their own legal team and they operate strictly within the law. Checking their stock list today they are holding 12,982 vehicles for sale and I don't think they would take the risk of thousands of Court cases.

As I invited earlier, if you could quote any case law,please post it.

[gwc1000]

 

I certainly would not buy any car from a dealer who did not insist on MOT/Tax/Insurance as I would seriously wonder about the state of the car itself.

 

So, if a customer of mine himself chooses to break the law by driving an untaxed vehicle, my cars must be rubbish? I am at fault, not him? I give up.

[JonCris]

So, if a customer of mine himself chooses to break the law by driving an untaxed vehicle, my cars must be rubbish? I am at fault, not him? I give up.

 

You may not in so many words be saying that you sell unroadworthy vehicles but you have implied you will as you state that once the money is taken the vehicle is the buyers responsibility to do with what they which.

 

Also any insurer will class an unlicenced vehicle as unroadworthy even if there are no actual mechanical defaults & as a consquence will only pay for 3rd party damage

 

If you don't think you have a 'duty of care' after releasing a sold vehicle, you know at the time, is unlicened or uninsured then I'm afraid one day your in for a shock when things go wrong for your recent purchaser who has an accident not long after leaving your premises

 

Or worse gets his very recent purchase snatched & crushed by the police.

 

If in doubt and intend to continue to act as you have indicated I strongly suggest your consult your solicitor

[MilkTrayMan]

...Also any insurer will class an unlicenced vehicle as unroadworthy even if there are no actual mechanical defaults & as a consquence will only pay for 3rd party damage...

That is what I was inferring when another Poster stated that it was an 'Urban Myth'...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1295293.html

[make them aktiv runners]

So, if a customer of mine himself chooses to break the law by driving an untaxed vehicle, my cars must be rubbish? I am at fault, not him? I give up.

 

I did not say your cars are rubbish, what I was saying is that your service to me and other roadusers is sub-standard to what I have encountered before (ie you are stating you are unconcerned with tax/insurance) so I would be wary over your attention to the cars for sale, which ultimately would lose you a sale. Also as a customer, I would expect a valid MOT to come with the car.

[gwc1000]

You may not in so many words be saying that you sell unroadworthy vehicles but you have implied you will as you state that once the money is taken the vehicle is the buyers responsibility to do with what they which.

 

Also any insurer will class an unlicenced vehicle as unroadworthy even if there are no actual mechanical defaults & as a consquence will only pay for 3rd party damage

 

If you don't think you have a 'duty of care' after releasing a sold vehicle, you know at the time, is unlicened or uninsured then I'm afraid one day your in for a shock when things go wrong for your recent purchaser who has an accident not long after leaving your premises

 

Or worse gets his very recent purchase snatched & crushed by the police.

 

If in doubt and intend to continue to act as you have indicated I strongly suggest your consult your solicitor

 

At no point have I implied I am willing to sell an unroadworthy vehicle. You said it not me. All of my cars are checked thoroughly (including those I send to auction) so I have no worries there. So, now (according to you) an untaxed car is unroadworthy? So anybody driving an untaxed car could be prosecuted for using an unroadworthy vehicle? Worse still if it is one of mine I could be prosecuted not only for an unroadworthy car but also go to prison for conspiracy for conspiring with myself?

I see you have totally ignored my comments about BCA, are you suggesting they are guilty of selling thousands of unroadworthy vehicles each week? Please reply. I also note you have gone particularly quiet about your view I am guilty of conspiracy. Could you please post your legal reasoning for the conspiracy charge?

I suggest you consult a solicitor, so you might start to understand where you are going wrong.

[gwc1000]

I did not say your cars are rubbish, what I was saying is that your service to me and other roadusers is sub-standard to what I have encountered before (ie you are stating you are unconcerned with tax/insurance) so I would be wary over your attention to the cars for sale, which ultimately would lose you a sale. Also as a customer, I would expect a valid MOT to come with the car.

 

Oh, dear. I feel you are missing my point. I AM concerned about tax and insurance, which is why more often than not I will not tax a vehicle for a customer using my insurance if I feel that he will not eventually insure the vehicle himself. I try to get all customers to have the vehicle taxed before they take the car, and 99% of the time they do. But the point I am making is, it is not illegal for me to sell an untaxed vehicle. If you feel otherwise then please post relevent case law.

[make them aktiv runners]

I AM concerned about tax and insurance, which is why more often than not I will not tax a vehicle for a customer using my insurance if I feel that he will not eventually insure the vehicle himself.

 

You are clearly stating above that you will let an uninsured vehicle on the road, which is a disregard to innocent roadusers.

 

I do not know of any caselaw. What I have said though is that if after being driven away from say your garage, the vehicle was involved in an accident killing an innocent party, then the police will probably find something to prosecute you under. Taken in proportion, the chances of such event happening are probably remote but it is still a risk.

 

Also I have said that it is only a matter of time before the DLVA start on easy targets over road tax (legislation can soon be amended if necessary).

[gwc1000]

You are clearly stating above that you will let an uninsured vehicle on the road, which is a disregard to innocent roadusers.

No, I am not. If I refuse to tax a car for someone (normally because I have formed an opinion of him/her and the likelihood of them actually getting insurance ) normally what happens they go and get the relevant paperwork and tax it themselves then collect the car. That way I know that the car is insured. But, I keep coming back to this, I am not legally obliged to ensure a customer has insurance. Ethically possibly, legally no. Consider this, I have a taxed vehicle for sale, full mot. somebody comes in off the street and buys it and wants to drive it away telling me they are covered by their insurance, should I stop them?

And as for being guilty of conspiracy, hmmmm.

[MilkTrayMan]

gwc1000...

Out of curiosity (...whilst also trying to drag the Thread back ON Topic),

how often/many cars would U sell to 'Mr Average Joe Public' on an average late Sat afternoon, when U KNEW it would be extremely difficult for them to be able to Tax the vehicle that U were selling them??...

Do U have a cut-off time, for instance??...

[make them aktiv runners]

I do not know enough to say there is/is not a legal obligation, there certainly is a moral one though.

 

Apart from the once where I had was taken to the PO, I always have had to produce insurance before the dealer taxed the car (same for others I have gone with when they were buying). There is no problem getting insurance as the companies are so geared towards getting customers they will make sure the dealer is aware of the policy (vast majority have done via fax).