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

[crash3903]

I see that the Fire police and ambulance services are not on that list - is that an up to date list?

[MilkTrayMan]

...is that an up to date list?

Methinks U would have to ask the government about that!...

...lol...

[crash3903]

Let me answer it for you

 

The reason why you see these vehicles displaying a tax disc is because, as some have correctly stated, you need to display a disc. But they get it free anyway so why not show it off :lol:

[gwc1000]

This question is specifically for Jon Cris:

An earlier post of yours said that by selling an untaxed vehicle I, as a trader, am guilty of conspiracy. This is now my third request for you to post relevant caselaw to back up your assertion. Please reply.

 

I started selling cars part time in 1976 whilst I was in full time employment and went full time self-employed in 1980 and have sold thousands- not hundreds- since. I have had NOT ONE criminal charge brought against me for any of the vehicles I have sold, and I do think by now I probably know what I am doing. It is easy for someone sitting in their bedroom to post on a forum such as this what they believe the law should be, but they should back it up with some facts. I have sold cars to policemen, policewomen, barristers, magistrates, local councillors, people from all walks of life. I shall continue to operate the way I and many of my colleagues do, it works for me without any hassle whatsoever from the authorities.

Talking of insurance, when you apply for trade plates the LVLO state on their forms that you MUST have relevant motor insurance for motor trade use but they WILL NOT ask you to produce it when you collect the trade plates as they are not required by law to see it.

One thing I have noticed since being in the Motor Trade, for some reason every male, no matter what their profession, aged between eighteen and forty seem to think they are an expert when it comes to car dealing, but sadly they are normally misinformed.

[gwc1000]

I didn't mention ANYTHING about auction sales in MY Post!

...I SPECIFICALLY stated 'garage forecourt'!...

 

U have also 'neglected' to answer my previous questions re: Sales on late Sat afternoon etc....

 

btw...How often do U have to Claim on your 'Traders Policy', for damage/theft relating to cars having already previously been 'PURCHASED' by customers, who have NO insurance themselves at the time??...

 

To be honest in all my time I have only ever had, I think, ten cars stolen over the years six of which have never turned up again. In each case they were still for sale. But as I previously stated if the vehicle had been paid for I would refund the purchaser immediately and then make a claim, what more could I do?

I sell cars up to 8pm on a Saturday, but 99% of the time the buyer leaves a deposit and comes back in the week when they have arranged insurance and then we go and tax it.

Is it me or am I being attacked?

Still being a car dealer you are normally viewed as guilty from the word go.

[gwc1000]

Oh, and by the way , for all of the internet part time "lawyers" on here. The Police send all of their cars to auction and they NEVER sell them with an MoT (even if it has one) as they dont want to imply that the vehicle is roadworthy.

So perhaps they too are guilty of conspiracy.

[crash3903]

 

I would love to see a conspiracy test case. I bet Ken would be more than happy to proceed with it

[gwc1000]

Wrong, even auctions have a duty under the SAGO to ensure the vehicle is as described. Most allow a period of 24 hours during which time you can return it of found not to be the case.

 

JonCris, I am afraid you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Yes, the Sale of Goods Act applies when a vehicle is sold through auction. But, PLEASE read up on law that governs auctioneers of any description. Auctions are NOT required to ensure descriptions offered by vendors are accurate. A description offered by an auctioneer (not the seller) IS NOT legally binding i.e. if an auctioneer declares, for example, at the point of sale that a clock is in working order and it turns out it isn't you are NOT entitled to a refund.

The 24 hours you are talking about is actually normally ONE hour after the sale ends, and this only applies in the case of a vehicle where the vendor has chosen to sell it "with a trial". You have the chance to drive it and if there is a MAJOR fault i.e. engine, gearbox or axle you can possibly have a refund or negotiate a reduced price with the seller. But if the vehicle is Sold as Seen and you buy it and the vehicle has faults which are not dangerous then you own a vehicle with faults.

Please get in touch with BCA and request a copy of their terms and conditions.

[JonCris]

An exempt vehicle does not require VED

 

 

No one & certainly not me has claimed any different.

 

Of course those vehicles which are to be tested can be driven to the nearest testing station, provided they have an appointment but they still have to have valid insurance & should be driven on trade plates if untaxed

[JonCris]

Which is utter nonsense.

 

The requirement does not apply to exempt vehicles. A vehicle travelling to/from a written MoT test appointment is one of the most common exemptions - and it applies whether or not the MoT test is legally required. In theory, you could book a test for a brand new vehicle and it would be an exempt vehicle - daft, but true.

 

 

I don't understand where your coming from when you introduce this argument. Everyone knows or should that a vehicle is exempt from having an MOT can be driven to it's appointed garage.

 

Anyway in my case the need for an MOT didn't apply as the vehicles I refer to where new

[JonCris]

Wrong, even auctions have a duty under the SAGO to ensure the vehicle is as described. Most allow a period of 24 hours during which time you can return it of found not to be the case.

 

JonCris, I am afraid you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Yes, the Sale of Goods Act applies when a vehicle is sold through auction. But, PLEASE read up on law that governs auctioneers of any description. Auctions are NOT required to ensure descriptions offered by vendors are accurate. A description offered by an auctioneer (not the seller) IS NOT legally binding i.e. if an auctioneer declares, for example, at the point of sale that a clock is in working order and it turns out it isn't you are NOT entitled to a refund.

The 24 hours you are talking about is actually normally ONE hour after the sale ends, and this only applies in the case of a vehicle where the vendor has chosen to sell it "with a trial". You have the chance to drive it and if there is a MAJOR fault i.e. engine, gearbox or axle you can possibly have a refund or negotiate a reduced price with the seller. But if the vehicle is Sold as Seen and you buy it and the vehicle has faults which are not dangerous then you own a vehicle with faults.

Please get in touch with BCA and request a copy of their terms and conditions.

 

Wrong & heres why: I've underlined the really relevant bits

 

Conditions of Sale 14(1)

OFT

1(b) Exclusion/restriction of liability for breaches of cont :

1(b) Term excluded the auctioneer's liability for mis described lots. Reg 7 Buyers are unlikely to understand the statement "all conditions and warranties, express implied or statutory are hereby excluded"

Scope of the term narrowed so that auctioneer's opinion of the lot will be honestly and reasonably held and liability is accepted for any opinion about a lot given negligently or fraudulently. "conditions and warranties" - meaning expressed in plainer language

 

High Court

London's High Court in 1990: the catalogue entry read 'J.M.W.Turner RA. A watercolour of moorland, stream, bridge and people; unframed 6" x 9'". Sold at £400, it subsequently turned out to be worthless. Despite a lengthy disclaimer at the front of the catalogue (ie Terms & Conditions), the auctioneers were found guilty.

Sellers, buyers, and auctioneers, beware.

[crash3903]

JC what you have quoted with the high court is case law. You have not quoted statutory regulation or a statutory instrument

 

Case law is there for the Judge or Magistrate to refer to if they consider it to be relevant. It is not there to determine the final judgment

 

Case law can be and very often is reversed on its head, where the circumstances of the case are so individual case law is worthless

Case law can be, and very often is, either excluded or not used.

 

What I am saying is that case law is a reference for the decision makers but they cannot change the statutes. Hence appeal courts.

 

To your credit your research excels you, have you thought about becoming qualified?

[patdavies]

No one & certainly not me has claimed any different.

 

Yes you did - in post #94

 

they said they couldn't release the vehicle until it was taxed as it was illegal to drive a vehicle on the public road whilst not displaying a valid excise licence which of course is correct.

 

Of course those vehicles which are to be tested can be driven to the nearest testing station, provided they have an appointment but they still have to have valid insurance & should be driven on trade plates if untaxed

The highlighted part is simply bollox.

 

Anybody can drive a car to/from an MoT test appointment without MoT, VED or even VRM. All that is required is insurance (and you can insure a vehicle on the VIN rather than the VRM).

[patdavies]

Here U go...

Exemptions from paying vehicle tax : Directgov - Motoring

 

 

 

...

 

The underlying statute is the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act. Schedule 2 lists exempt vehicles - the exemption for Mot Test or SVA test is S.22

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by patdavies

An exempt vehicle does not require VED

No one & certainly not me has claimed any different.

 

Of course those vehicles which are to be tested can be driven to the nearest testing station, provided they have an appointment but they still have to have valid insurance & should be driven on trade plates if untaxed

 

This is contradictory anyway as VED is what is commonly referred to at tax

[gwc1000]

Wrong & heres why: I've underlined the really relevant bits

 

Conditions of Sale 14(1)

OFT

 

1(b) Exclusion/restriction of liability for breaches of cont :

1(b) Term excluded the auctioneer's liability for mis described lots. Reg 7 Buyers are unlikely to understand the statement "all conditions and warranties, express implied or statutory are hereby excluded"

Scope of the term narrowed so that auctioneer's opinion of the lot will be honestly and reasonably held and liability is accepted for any opinion about a lot given negligently or fraudulently. "conditions and warranties" - meaning expressed in plainer language

 

 

High Court

 

London's High Court in 1990: the catalogue entry read 'J.M.W.Turner RA. A watercolour of moorland, stream, bridge and people; unframed 6" x 9'". Sold at £400, it subsequently turned out to be worthless. Despite a lengthy disclaimer at the front of the catalogue (ie Terms & Conditions), the auctioneers were found guilty.

 

Sellers, buyers, and auctioneers, beware.

 

JonCris, I have known about that case for years, but with respect has nothing to do with your argument. That case centred around the auction house's catalogue description of the painting. Catalogue descriptions of auction lots are descriptions offered by the auctionhouse and MUST be accurate or else the buyer may be entitled to a refund if found to be inaccurate. However, that isn't what you posted. You stated that an auctionhouse must check if a VENDOR'S description is accurate. This just isn't the case. For example: when you sell a vehicle at auction the vendor must fill out an entry form with all the particulars of the car on it. Some auctions ask if the vehicle has ever been a taxi or owned by the police and you either tick the yes or no boxes. The auction WILL NOT check the vehicle history to see if your statements are accurate. That will be down to any successful purchaser. If he subsequently finds out the vendor missold the car he may be entitled to a refund. In this case the auction will not pay out the vendor but will charge him lost commission before he can remove the vehicle. But at no point is the auction obliged to check the vendor's description for accuracy.

Although catalogue descriptions must be correct anything stated by an auctioneer at the point of sale must be ignored. In my clock example I posted before: if the catalogue stated simply "Victorian grandfather clock c1880" that is the description you use to buy. If at the point of sale the auctioneer were to state "I saw this working earlier" That statement must be ignored because if untrue you would not be entitled to a refund.

 

Am I to persume as you haven't offered evidence that your conspiracy theory has been laid to rest?

 

patdavies is right: You only need a chassis number (VIN)

[JonCris]

JC what you have quoted with the high court is case law. You have not quoted statutory regulation or a statutory instrument

 

Case law is there for the Judge or Magistrate to refer to if they consider it to be relevant. It is not there to determine the final judgment. Suggest you read it a again as its not all case law some of it relates to Unfair Contract Terms legislation & anyway it's quite clear that in a civil action then the auctioneer can be held liable

 

Case law can be and very often is reversed on its head, where the circumstances of the case are so individual case law is worthless

Case law can be, and very often is, either excluded or not used.

 

What I am saying is that case law is a reference for the decision makers but they cannot change the statutes Clearly you have had little to do with the County Courts. Using their very wide discretion they ignore statute all the time. Hence appeal courts.

 

To your credit your research excels you, have you thought about becoming qualified?

What you mean like you are?

[crash3903]

let me make this quite clear to you JonCris - I was paying you a compliment on your research but it seems to have backfired

 

What you mean like you are?

Having practiced law for the last 23 years, I think I am well qualified in most areas to comment. Especially criminal law and procedures

[JonCris]

Then you will know that, contrary to popular opinion, the law is a moving feast & doesn't stand still.

 

So are you saying you are on the Roll

[crash3903]

Then you will know that, contrary to popular opinion, the law is a moving feast & doesn't stand still

 

Hungry?

 

Moving fast is what makes the world go round and creates case law all the time - that sometimes goes against previous case law - Agreed?

[advisee]

The last time (& at least 2 times previously) I purchased a vehicle from a reputable franchised dealer I had to produce an insurance cover note (a copy of which my broker 1st faxed, then delivered) & they said they couldn't release the vehicle until it was taxed as it was illegal to drive a vehicle on the public road whilst not displaying a valid excise licence which of course is correct.

 

Like I said if any dealers here have any doubt as to my statements then consult a competent solicitor

 

Others have pointed out the errors of your ways, but can I politely suggest that you don't post unless you are sure of your facts first - or at least include the words "i think" or "i'm not sure".

 

If a dealer tried to get me (as a consumer) to mess around like that, I'd tell them I was going to take my business elsewhere.

[advisee]

Oh, and by the way , for all of the internet part time "lawyers" on here. The Police send all of their cars to auction and they NEVER sell them with an MoT (even if it has one) as they dont want to imply that the vehicle is roadworthy.

So perhaps they too are guilty of conspiracy.

 

Heres a question - with the new computerised MOT system, can an MOT be 'deleted' from it?

 

I'm thinking of either ex police vehicles, or category C salvage. Whilst an MOT could previously be shredded, it might not be that easy with the computerised MOT system?

[crash3903]

Oh, and by the way , for all of the internet part time "lawyers" on here. The Police send all of their cars to auction and they NEVER sell them with an MoT (even if it has one) as they dont want to imply that the vehicle is roadworthy.

So perhaps they too are guilty of conspiracy.

 

I'm interested to know how this conspiracy case is going - Anyone shed any light on it?

[JonCris]

Others have pointed out the errors of your ways, but can I politely suggest that you don't post unless you are sure of your facts first - or at least include the words "i think" or "i'm not sure".

 

If a dealer tried to get me (as a consumer) to mess around like that, I'd tell them I was going to take my business elsewhere.

 

I don't have to 'think' about it.........what I say is a fact.........It's what happened on more than one occassion

[crash3903]

I don't have to 'think' about it.........what I say is a fact.........It's what happened on more than one occassion

 

that doesn't answer my question