Caravan Blackhorse - Caravan HP problems.refund issues..**WON VIA FOS**

[Crazy Diamond]

Well, this is from the CPUT themselves:

 

PART 4

ENFORCEMENT

 

Duty to enforce

19. — (1) It shall be the duty of every enforcement authority to enforce these Regulations.

 

So it seems pretty clear. I wonder whether the "private cases" may not have been "test cases" where the customer would have been a named party in the proceedings even though the enforcement was carried out by the OFT. Just speculation, obviously, as I said, I'd never heard of private cases being brought under the CPUTs.

 

OT, sorry to OP for hijacking his thread, btw.

[perplexity]

If anybody's taking bets on this, mine is that an eventual response from the OFT will advise that it is not their job to give legal advice, or words to that effect, which is of course correct.

 

In the mean time, it's a remarkable thing to volunteer to do, to cede the decision to the OFT as to whether or not it is possible to prosecute privately, while the chance to appeal was rather supposed to be

 

a useful constitutional safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failure or refusal of those authorities to prosecute offenders against the criminal law.

 

I quote that directly from a legal precedent, if you care to look it up.

 

Does this forum exist in order to empower the consumer, or to empower the criminal?

 

If you would but accept my suggestion to look it up if in doubt, instead of being so deliberately ignorant, you may rather have discovered that the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations implement the EU Directive 2005/29/EC, Article 11 of which is the relevant authority, which the OFT is not.

 

According to part 1 of Article 11

 

 

Enforcement

 

1. Member States shall ensure that adequate and effective means exist to combat unfair commercial practices in order to enforce compliance with the provisions of this Directive in the interest of consumers.

 

Such means shall include legal provisions under which persons or organisations regarded under national law as having a legitimate interest in combating unfair commercial practices, including competitors, may:

 

(a) take legal action against such unfair commercial practices;

 

and/or

 

(b) bring such unfair commercial practices before an administrative authority competent either to decide on complaints or to initiate appropriate legal proceedings.

 

8)

 

My inference is thus that it is the statutory duty of every enforcement authority to enforce on behalf of a person or organisation with a legitimate interest, and in so far as the authority fails to do so the possibility exists to act against an authority in breach of the duty. It should not therefore be so much of a surprise if a private prosecution is a rare event.

 

Instead of begging a permission to be protected by the law intended to protect, a person with the wherewithal to pursue the private prosecution may be better advised to apply for Judicial Review, to give the errant authority a run for its money.

 

That's what I would do, if need be, which is not to expect to have to.

 

Edited November 25, 2010 by perplexity
spelling

[Kraken1]

How would you pay for judicial review?

 

I agree with Crazy D - a consumer cannot enforce the Consumer protection regs themselves.

[Surfer01]

Moving onto an update. A check by a professional has indicated that caravan has some damp, but not serious however it will cost about £110 to rectify. As it has been verified that the individual is a trader posing as a private individual at least I now have the Sale of Goods Act on my side, but whether I will get the money out of him remains a big question. Somehow I doubt it!

In the meantime I have received an email from TS stating that they are now investigating it. BTW the professional inspection also highlighted so points that i had overlooked, i.e. caravan has a water heating tank. This was on the advert but in addition it was stated that the caravan also had a onboard tank. Turns out that it is one and the same but he has it listed as two different items. Unfortuantely thsi is something that cannot be seen physically and I was todl that ther were two seperate tansk in the box but there aren't.

I will push it as far as I can with out lashing out tons of money, just one or two recorded DCA type threatogram letters. Even if he does not give in and offer to repair the damp, at least we will have some good holidays in the caravan. 8-) Actually going to try it out next Wednesday and Thursday locally provided we don't get snowed in! Two dogs, a pussy and my wife.

[Crapstone]

He obviously has the money to buy and sell caravans as he has been doing it on a regualr basis, but a good point anyway. We are having a damp test done tomorrow by a local workshop and if no issue, we will just chase him fo £300 for the stress caused. If he pays, then all is okay, but if not I have to consider the pros and cons of taking it further. However TS will be onto his case and also Inland Revenue.

Don't really need the stress but satisfactoin if TS hound him will be satisfaction. Then again my actions may help stop someone else coming onto this forum with a similar story.

 

I'm glad you followed up my thoughts on him being a 'trader' and not a private sale. Call the newspapers etc. that he's advertising on and tell them too. I disagree with Buzby that traders passing as private sellers means they are in a financial mess, it could be the opposite and tax avoidance or other crimes. TS should keep you updated on what happens but they can't act for you. How did you pay for the caravan? If it was a loan or on a credit credit card you may be able to claim through them for any losses. Check to see if any of your insurance providers have any legal cover you can call upon for advice.

 

Delete your link to his website as it could harm any case made against him by either you or any authority. Keep us updated.

[Surfer01]

The link is not to his website but to the website where he advertised.

[perplexity]

Which part of "(Trade Sale)" was so hard to get?

 

http://www.ukcampsite.co.uk/forsale/v/Coachman-Mirage-V.I.P/5292

 

[Surfer01]

Once again you add a post which does not make sense. Please elaborate.

[perplexity]

The listings on www.ukcampsite.co.uk distinguish between a (Trade Sale) and a (Private Sale); browsing around from one to another the advertisements appear to display themselves as one or the other.

 

One is therefore bewildered by the question:

 

As we bought private and based on the incorrect and misleading advert description do we have any comeback?

 

Because of what did you fear that there would be no comeback, and why, notwithstanding what was pointed out before, does a discussion of this continue?

 

If in any doubt about what would count as a consumer transaction, section 210 of the Enterprise Act serves to clarify the issue:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/40/section/210

[Surfer01]

If you took the time to read through the posts instead of jumping to conclusions, the seller has committed a criminal offence by posing as a private individual when in fact they are a trader having sold at least 11 other caravans previously in less than a year. The seller posted the ad as a private individual as per one of his previous adverts. Click on his name to see what else he has sold and where he specifically maintains he is a private individual and not a trader. Apparently if the same person places the same type of commodity on sale, i.e. caravan on that website , the website automatically defaults to "trader". TS have a strong case against the individual.

[perplexity]

But there is no reason why a private individual could not or would not be a trader. Sole traders exist and operate as individual personalities.

 

If a person of any sort seeks to supply, legitimately, at a price and on his own terms, it must then be construed that the buyer is a consumer, except perhaps for business to business affairs.

 

It is another matter to have "bought private" if the implication of that is that terms were negotiated on a one-off basis, between a buyer and a seller, or if it was the buyer who sought to purchase (perhaps by placing a 'wanted' ad) rather than the seller who sought to supply. When that is the story, legislation especially intended to protect consumers would not apply though it is not so clear if this would or would not be so with regard to the present circumstance, not for as long as on your own admission you "bought private".

 

8)

[Crapstone]

No idea on where perplexity is coming from! If the original ad did not make clear they were a trader, and the goods they were selling were within that remit of their trade they should have declared it. We see this so many times with cars parked on verges and advertised as private sales but it's traders behind it and it's illegal. At the very least it was a mistake or misleading and the consumer should expect it to be rectified and for TS to take the case on and look into their trading. It's up to the individual what route they take to rectify it, but I know what mine would be!

[Crapstone]

But there is no reason why a private individual could not or would not be a trader. Sole traders exist and operate as individual personalities.

 

If a person of any sort seeks to supply, legitimately, at a price and on his own terms, it must then be construed that the buyer is a consumer, except perhaps for business to business affairs.

 

It is another matter to have "bought private" if the implication of that is that terms were negotiated on a one-off basis, between a buyer and a seller, or if it was the buyer who sought to purchase (perhaps by placing a 'wanted' ad) rather than the seller who sought to supply. When that is the story, legislation especially intended to protect consumers would not apply though it is not so clear if this would or would not be so with regard to the present circumstance, not for as long as on your own admission you "bought private".

 

8)

 

Oh so you are implying he is a sole trader and selling as a hobby on private sales now and again? Why didn't I think of that and I could also exclude ' as described' on any sale and leave myself fault free!

[Kraken1]

perpy said, very clearly:

 

blah blah blah, enterprise act, blah blah blah

 

Beyond that, I 'm not sure what he meant.

[Surfer01]

Very true. Biggest load of codswallop I have ever read. I serious think he needs to visit a head doctor!

[perplexity]

No idea on where perplexity is coming from! If the original ad did not make clear they were a trader, and the goods they were selling were within that remit of their trade they should have declared it. We see this so many times with cars parked on verges and advertised as private sales but it's traders behind it and it's illegal. At the very least it was a mistake or misleading and the consumer should expect it to be rectified and for TS to take the case on and look into their trading. It's up to the individual what route they take to rectify it, but I know what mine would be!

 

 

I am assuming that this was the advertisement in question:

 

http://www.ukcampsite.co.uk/forsale/v/Coachman-Mirage-V.I.P/5292

 

It quotes a price and a description that corresponds to the original posting to this thread. Alongside the member's particular identity "(Trade Sale)" is also apparent.

 

Which part of "(Trade Sale)" fails to make clear they were a trader, and the goods they were selling were within that remit?

 

Maybe there is more than that elsewhere, to make a case of and if so it is of some considerable interest to see if a criminal conviction is the eventual result of the anticipated prosecution of the culprit, but I am not going to bet a mortgage on it, are you?

 

There was a case not so long ago, "L'Oreal and others -v- eBay", whereby a part of the judgement was that seven sellers of dodgy goods on eBay had all been trading as businesses but with no declaration of the fact, nor with any attempt on the part of eBay to put a stop to that, nor even so much as an admission from eBay to the effect that these were business sellers notwithstanding several hundreds of completed transactions, per member, all for similar goods.

 

Was there anything then to betray an interest in this on the part of Trading Standards, let alone the prospect of a conviction on the off chance that the OFT were to do the job they're supposed to do?

 

 

If you took the time to read through the posts instead of jumping to conclusions, the seller has committed a criminal offence by posing as a private individual when in fact they are a trader having sold at least 11 other caravans previously in less than a year. The seller posted the ad as a private individual as per one of his previous adverts. Click on his name to see what else he has sold and where he specifically maintains he is a private individual and not a trader. Apparently if the same person places the same type of commodity on sale, i.e. caravan on that website , the website automatically defaults to "trader". TS have a strong case against the individual.

 

I did that.

 

I registered with the site, clicked on the member name, discovered a total of 12 listings, all for similar items, every one of which is apparently declared as a "(Trade Sale)".

 

Do let us know how it goes should you decide to pursue a private prosecution.

 

Edited December 10, 2010 by perplexity

[Surfer01]

Obviously you then need to go to Specsavers as in one of the ads he clearly states that he is a private individual selling the caravan or did you miss that bit. Also I did mentioned that the site actually defaults to trader when the same person tries to sell the same commodity in a short space of time.

He also placed other ads on other websites claiming to be a private individual. I asked him to his face whether he was a trader as per the website and he stated he was not a trader! It is a criminal offence for a trader to pose as a private individual to avoid their responsibilities.

Failing that if you put on your specs and read my posts he sold us a 1990 caravan when the caravan was advertised as a 1992 caravan and this is in addition to other false descriptions or did you miss that also?

If we are so wrong why is Trading Standards now pursuing it and looking for a conviction? It seems you seldom post helpful information as most of your posts tend to be garbled with incorrect information. Can I suggest you read up on the relevant law before putting your foot in your mouth? I did law several years ago as part of a degree but obviously I cannot recall all that much after all this however I do try and check the relevance before posting and offering advice.

[perplexity]

Obviously you then need to go to Specsavers as in one of the ads he clearly states that he is a private individual selling the caravan or did you miss that bit. Also I did mentioned that the site actually defaults to trader when the same person tries to sell the same commodity in a short space of time.

He also placed other ads on other websites claiming to be a private individual. I asked him to his face whether he was a trader as per the website and he stated he was not a trader! It is a criminal offence for a trader to pose as a private individual to avoid their responsibilities.

Failing that if you put on your specs and read my posts he sold us a 1990 caravan when the caravan was advertised as a 1992 caravan and this is in addition to other false descriptions or did you miss that also?

If we are so wrong why is Trading Standards now pursuing it and looking for a conviction? It seems you seldom post helpful information as most of your posts tend to be garbled with incorrect information. Can I suggest you read up on the relevant law before putting your foot in your mouth? I did law several years ago as part of a degree but obviously I cannot recall all that much after all this however I do try and check the relevance before posting and offering advice.

 

 

I posted the link to (22) of Schedule 1 of the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

Were you aware that before I did?

 

In view of this I presume that the answer is "no":

 

As we bought private and based on the incorrect and misleading advert description do we have any comeback?

 

I am sorry now to have bothered. To Hell with you.

 

[Surfer01]

Excellent best news I have had all day!

[Kraken1]

Again, the question was whether 'we' had any comeback.

 

CPUTR's don't help. I'm sorry you bothered, too.

[Crapstone]

'To Hell with you.'

 

All positive and very helpful I see.

[silverfox1961]

Could we please keep this thread on topic and not let it degenerate into a slanging match. If it carries on then posts will be moderated.

[perplexity]

"CPUTR's don't help", is that the positive comment that Trading Standards had to make?

 

Do please let us know the relevant law they intend to cite, looking for a conviction, if the CPTURs are not the correct information.

 

Too much of the story makes no sense to me. This for instance:

 

... Turns out also that he has changed the mobile phone number for contact 5 times in less than a year so obviously shady and knows that he is on dodgy ground. ...

 

 

It was not before I registered with the site in order to peruse the seller's previous listings that I realised how easy it would be for a dodgy individual with the intention of posing as "private" to register again under a different identity, to cover his tracks, on each occasion that he lists an item to sell.

 

Did those who commented about it so much as bother to study the original advertisement to see the stated terms for themselves, or would this rather betray the fact that they don't?

 

Delete your link to his website as it could harm any case made against him by either you or any authority. Keep us updated.

 

 

A little bit of common sense goes a long way.

 

If your need is to buy with no eventual worries about it, buy from a trader with an established reputation to show for himself, be willing to pay the full going rate and study the record of previous sales, to verify the facts of the matter before you buy, not after.

 

If your choice was rather to take a risk because you'd thought the seller was daft to sell at the price you've yourself to blame for that and the sundry consequence of buying from a devious idiot because the choice was made, and if you find that a judge eventually takes the same view of it, you were warned of the possibility.

 

Edited December 11, 2010 by perplexity
"an" replaces "a"

[Crazy Diamond]

Excellent best news I have had all day!

and so say all of us!!!

[Crazy Diamond]

Could we please keep this thread on topic and not let it degenerate into a slanging match. If it carries on then posts will be moderated.

With respect, it's not a slanging match at all. Perpex has been asked time and again to stop quoting his utter nonsense which is completely unhelpful, he said he would (unfortunately only managed it for less than 24 hours), that's all!