Help on a PCN for parking on worn/broken double yellow lines.

[sailor sam]

If it was sold as spares or repair, you shouldn't of allowed it to be driven away anyway. Being a trader, you should know that. The fact that you did allow it to be driven away, makes it a normal sale which means it would be subject to the SOGA. The buyer should have his deposit back if the car was duff!

[Jamberson]

Do you have any paperwork showing that he bought it that day? If so, appeal on the basis that you were not the owner and include a copy.

[The Guv.]

The car was MOT'd for 12 months, taxed for 6 and the fault was relating to the programming of the diesel injectors prompting 'limp home mode'.

 

Once the car is sold, it is up to the new owner how they move the vehicle, I would have no say what so ever. I'm not his mother, I'm not his wife and I'm not the Police.

 

I would love to see the law that states I can prevent the owner of a car from driving their own vehicle, please find me a reference.

[The Guv.]

Yes I have an invoice showing the sale of the car which details the faults with the car and also I have in the footer that the collection and recovery of the vehicle is the responsibility of the purchaser. But the issue is, I took the car back and it was then sold once the issues were sorted out the following month (when I got around to it). So as far as I can see there's no reason for the council to take my invoice as evidence as (a) it would look like I've faked an invoice that shows ownership for around 3 days, and (b) the trader could simply deny ever seeing the car and I felt that would put me in a worse position than I'm currently in! lol.

[Jamberson]

You have two PCNs, right? Have you appealed both?

 

If there is one which has not yet been appealed, I think you should do so. I think you should tell the council exactly what happened, with copies of all the relevant paperwork. They can decide whether to disbelieve you, or they may just transfer liability to the other guy. You are right, they may not believe you and the other guy may deny everything - but you are quite within your rights to attempt this, and if it is refused, you could take your appeal to adjudication.

 

As for the one which has been appealed, and rejected, you can proceed to adjudication but your first appeal was not that good. You should have denied liability because of the ownership issue. You can introduce new evidence at adjudication though, so you can take it forward.

 

If I were you, I would write to the council citing both PCNs and denying liability. See what they come back with.

[sailor sam]

The car was MOT'd for 12 months, taxed for 6 and the fault was relating to the programming of the diesel injectors prompting 'limp home mode'.

 

Once the car is sold, it is up to the new owner how they move the vehicle, I would have no say what so ever. I'm not his mother, I'm not his wife and I'm not the Police.

 

I would love to see the law that states I can prevent the owner of a car from driving their own vehicle, please find me a reference.

 

The fact of the matter is that if you sold the car for spares or repair, you are stating that the car is basically undriveable/not fit for the purpose. As the buyer was able to drive it away, you then can't be selling it as 'spares or repair' can you. I suggest you gen up on the sales of goods act 1979. We get cases like this all the time in the motoring forums of traders trying to off load cars outside of the SOGA. Trust me, it dosn't wash. You can't have it both ways.

[The Guv.]

The fact of the matter is that if you sold the car for spares or repair, you are stating that the car is basically undriveable/not fit for the purpose. As the buyer was able to drive it away, you then can't be selling it as 'spares or repair' can you. I suggest you gen up on the sales of goods act 1979. We get cases like this all the time in the motoring forums of traders trying to off load cars outside of the SOGA. Trust me, it dosn't wash. You can't have it both ways.

 

Are you sure about that, sold through a trade auction to a trader with the faults clearly listed, liability explained etc? I'm fairly sure I can you know.

[sailor sam]

Are you sure about that, sold through a trade auction to a trader with the faults clearly listed, liability explained etc? I'm fairly sure I can you know.

 

We only have your word for that. Even if it is sold in an auction, the vendor (person who enters it) can still be subject to the SOGA. It's strange that another trader buys the car with 'known problems' then returns it because 'he knew nothing about modern diesels'. I wouldn't of thought that of a car dealer.

 

Frankly I think you are trying it on. Why don't you just pay the ticket and consider yourself lucky that the buyer dosn't come after you for his deposit back. If you hadn't of sold a duff car in the first place, we wouldn't be wasting time trying to get you out of paying for a couple of parking tickets.

[The Guv.]

We only have your word for that. Even if it is sold in an auction, the vendor (person who enters it) can still be subject to the SOGA. It's strange that another trader buys the car with 'known problems' then returns it because 'he knew nothing about modern diesels'. I wouldn't of thought that of a car dealer.

 

Frankly I think you are trying it on. Why don't you just pay the ticket and consider yourself lucky that the buyer dosn't come after you for his deposit back. If you hadn't of sold a duff car in the first place, we wouldn't be wasting time trying to get you out of paying for a couple of parking tickets.

 

Trying it on? I sold it legally despite what you think, and most modern diesels are far beyond most 'traders' these days, hell most traders seem to struggle when reading.

 

He won the no-reserve auction for £380, he didn't have a clue how to program injectors, I refunded him and did the work myself and sold the car for £1250 which is well below my usual stock, hence not bother in the first place.

 

I can't see how SOGA comes in to play as it was sold as described (exactly), the faults were known to the buyer (even confirmed over e-mail prior to his bid), he was given the chance to inspect the vehicle prior to the auction (in fact I insisted on it and I have in writing his rejection) and it was sold through an auction to a trader who agreed to the conditions of the sale which stated he was responsible for the collection / recovery of the vehicle.

 

Please let me know if I can use SOGA for my benefit in future when I buy cars as spares/repairs at the auctions and then insist the car is repaired or a refund given once I've discovered the faults.... I think it would be an interesting case if this is so... All car auctions would close up shop immediately!

[Jamberson]

SOGA is completely irrelevent. The only issue we need to discuss here is who owned the car. That person should be held responsible for any PCN issued while he/she was the owner - even if it was a pile of hazardous rust.

 

Guv - my advice remains as in post 30 above.

[paulgmb]

What about his argument that the line has to be solid?

I've seen that advice given on here previously and posts from people who have challenged on those ground and won?

When did that change?

[Jamberson]

It's a common sense matter. If you can see an obvious line, you are unlikely to win an appeal. If there is uncertainty because of a break in the line, you may well win. You can't "trick" the system by finding a minor flaw in the markings.