I accept that but I thought the idea here is to post advice for all and sundry to have reference to?

Cheers for all the input guys. Much appreciated and all passed on to A***. What I was trying to say in the confusing post is that just because something has an engine and may be looked upon by its owner as a vehicle, it doesn't necessarily need to be registered unless it's for use on a road.

By the way, sorry if my use of the word 'vehicle' misled you. I specifically avoided the use of the term 'motor vehicle', which it is not, as well as the usual term for a PWC. For clarification, one could buy, say, a trials motorbike, which would fall under the definition of a motor vehicle, and which is designed purely for jumping over barrels and logs, but unless it was to be used on a road, there would be no requirement to register it as a roadgoing vehicle. Unless it was registered and MOTed etc in order to enable the rider to cross a road into a different field, there would be no way that DVLC could record the machine on their system. Certainly the Police National Computer would not recognise it without a registration mark. Plant machinery etc with such things as engine numbers can have a record created on the PNC but only usually as a result of their having been stolen in the first place and not as a routine registration process. Once recovered, they are cancelled and fall off the system. For any future reference you may have need of; one good turn deserves another ATB

Thanks for the swift reply. A*** has been totally honest in the way he described his machine (which is in no way a vehicle as it is a waterborne craft - a PWC in official maritime terminology) and has owned it from new. He has as much title to it as he does to his TV/lawnmower/camera/anything else which has no requirement to be registered to an owner as he bought it and has owned it from new. He was bemused when the guy started going on about wanting to see papers as in all his years as a user of this equipment he has never heard of this, and he is on his second machine himself. The other guy only mentioned the lack of papers as some sort of bargaining tool after A*** turned down the cash he pulled out of his pocket which did not add up to the agreed balance after the deposit had been taken into account. Ultimately, this was not an ebay sale. It began as an ebay auction, but IMHO it turned into a private sale under the circs - the ebay auction was ceased and the sale took place between two individuals with no go-between. I suspect that ebay would be in no position to reveal A***'s address under the circs for fear of faling foul of Data protection issues. It seems to me that the German guy (who from his appearance and attitude plus the shape and size of his 'friend' - luckily A*** had one too!) had always intended to default and was relying on A*** seeing the cash and folding. A*** was completely open and transparent and was never asked about any paperwork or proof of legal title until the meeting, at which point he answered truthfully and left. Thanks again for the swift reply, what an excellent site this is. I have bookmarked it should I ever have any problems myself. All the best!

However this may be a moot point right now because you proably won't find a force that is recruiting for the forseeable future. Many already have a 2 or 3 year backlog of successful applicants who are not being given start dates due to the recent budgetary cuts. Good luck all the same. Source - me, old bill for over 20 years and a nationally qualified recruit assessor

Neither are convictions. A conviction is when you plead guilty, or are found guilty, during a court hearing.

Hello there, I am unsure as to whether or not this is the correct forum for this type of problem, if not sorry, if so, hopefully somebody can advise. My friend A*** advertised an offroad vehicle on fleabay and was contacted by a German offering a low price for him to pull the auction and sell to him. A*** said no and let the auction run. People were bidding. Then the German comes in with a cash offer good enough for A*** to sell at that price but wats to buy there and then, and for A*** to pull it off fleabay. A*** agrees on condition that the German pays a deposit of around 15% into his bank account by bank transfer. The German does this, and the arrangments were then for A**** to meet him near the ferry port to hand over the machine and collect the outstanding 85% in cash. The meet goes ahead and the German offers only 70% of the already agreed price on account of the fact that there are no papers with the machine (not something that had ever been raised until that point). A**** says no deal, and the two part company. The German then emails A*** demanding his deposit back. A*** says ''no, we agreed the transaction, I cancelled the auction as a result, I lost UK bidders who were presumably genuine, incurred inconvenience and costs in order to meet you'', and gave him 14 days to transfer the balance and then arrange to collect the machine, or else forfeit the deposit plus the right to purchase machine and that at that point he would readvertise it for sale as it is the height of the season here and he needs shot of it. He also pointed out that under English law their is no requirement for the machine in question to be registered as it is not a roadgoing vehicle and there have never been any registration papers for it in the same way that a lawnmower or a generator have no papers despite them both having a petrol engine driving them. Shortly before the 14 days was up, he received an email from a man purporting to be a lawyer representing the German, demanding the deposit back less a small amount for A***'s time and effort, and stating that it was a reasonable presumption for his client to have made that the machine would have had papers as it was advertised by A*** as having been owned by him from new. He also pointed out that he is empowered by his client to take whatever legal steps are necessary to recoup his client's loss by way of the deposit paid to A***. Am I right in thinking that: a) in any sale transacted here, English law must prevail b) A*** has acted reasonably and properly and within the law c) if the German wants to sue A*** for the disputed money he must do so in a local court d) unless he has A***'s actual physical address rather than simply an email address, he will find it impossible to serve a summons on him in any case e) the lawyer is simply stating the bleeding obvious in an attempt to railroad A*** into refunding his client through fear of being sued As I said, if this is not the right place to discuss such a matter, sorry for the hassle, but I have read some of the advice in cases on here and it looks like a very knowledgable starting point for A*** to glean some information, through me, who is better versed than him in the art of composing written work All the best SpokesT