SN member still owes me £100.
Guest
Posts: n/a
you obviously didn't read the link I posted. You have no legal recourse against Boro what so ever you muppet so he has every right to tell you to do one with that suggestion.Plus you said it needed £4k worth of repairs and now you say it will be fixed by the weekend and he can have it back? So you've spent £4k and are going to give it back to him for you to get your £1150 back? What utter bullsh!t.
It's a private sale, sold as seen. You'll be laughed out of court.
And have I understood this? You've spent £4,000 fixing all the problems
( 90% of which would have been spotted by a blind man either on or before the test drive ) and now you want to give the car back, and get your £1150 in return?
This has to be a wind-up surely?
And have I understood this? You've spent £4,000 fixing all the problems
( 90% of which would have been spotted by a blind man either on or before the test drive ) and now you want to give the car back, and get your £1150 in return?

This has to be a wind-up surely?
Depends upon if the car is unroadworthy or not - simple as.
The Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to sell an unroadworthy car. It does not distinguish between private sellers and motor traders.
However, if BORO is a Trader and it would appear to be so, then the Trading Standards would be interested.
The Road Traffic Act 1988 does not give a definition of what is "unroadworthy", but instead makes reference to the following areas that, if not satisfactory, may lead to a vehicle being unroadworthy:-
steering and steering gear,
brakes and braking systems,
tyres,
exhaust systems,
seatbelts and seatbelt anchorages,
general condition (corrosion, suspension etc).
If the Tyres were, indeed, bald then it is unroadworthy - again, end of.
The Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to sell an unroadworthy car. It does not distinguish between private sellers and motor traders.
However, if BORO is a Trader and it would appear to be so, then the Trading Standards would be interested.
The Road Traffic Act 1988 does not give a definition of what is "unroadworthy", but instead makes reference to the following areas that, if not satisfactory, may lead to a vehicle being unroadworthy:-
steering and steering gear,
brakes and braking systems,
tyres,
exhaust systems,
seatbelts and seatbelt anchorages,
general condition (corrosion, suspension etc).
If the Tyres were, indeed, bald then it is unroadworthy - again, end of.
Im not a trader Pete. The car was bought by my GF for the numberplate only. She bought it from a friend of hers, but had to MOT and Tax the car in order to get the numberplate off and on retention.
We owned the car just long enough to remove the plate.
We owned the car just long enough to remove the plate.
in boros defence tho, he did state the tyres were low, but they were more than low lol but end of now the matter is being dealt with privatly (as it should have been in the first place)
When someone buys and sells motors on a fairly regular basis, say half a dozen per year, to typically "do up" and sell. Traders have a lot more legal responsibility after the car is sold than is generally known. Often this is done from a home base.
Inland Revenue and Trading Standards are always keen to stick their noses in.
dl
I have raised this before - there is at least one person on this board who seems to buy and sell cars beyond the measure of the casual private seller. However they do not like the aspertion that they would be subject to scrutiny as a trader.
It makes me laugh when eveyone becomes judge, jury and executioner after hearing one side of the story. That 106 'Dimma' was a POS and hopefully you won't make the same mistake again. For Boro the whole thing seems to have backfired.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The point was legal recourse and as a private sale there was none, it had nothing to do with the car being a 'pos'.
I didn't know it was as few as that
I see that the seller bought and sold the car quickly just so he could get the plate. And why this part exchange - which also went quickly?
There are so many lessons here for both parties. The main one being don't go and get a car privately unless you know your way around a motor or take someone who does.
Plus a deal is a deal IF it was a private sale. Seller shouldn't have let the car go without all the dosh. Only thing buyer could have done was to contact the seller and ask nicely for a small refund because it was so much worse that he had thought. A lot of sellers would be grown up about this unless they live in South London in cardealersville
dl

I see that the seller bought and sold the car quickly just so he could get the plate. And why this part exchange - which also went quickly?
There are so many lessons here for both parties. The main one being don't go and get a car privately unless you know your way around a motor or take someone who does.
Plus a deal is a deal IF it was a private sale. Seller shouldn't have let the car go without all the dosh. Only thing buyer could have done was to contact the seller and ask nicely for a small refund because it was so much worse that he had thought. A lot of sellers would be grown up about this unless they live in South London in cardealersville

dl
Last edited by David Lock; Jan 2, 2010 at 10:04 AM.
Motor Car Traders Act 1986 - SECT 54 Obligations of motor car trader
I think this is for UK but it doesn't say so?
dl
I think this is for UK but it doesn't say so?
dl
I have first had experience of going to court and assertaining trader status..
When i went to court in the mid 90's,you had to SELL 6 vehicles a year to be classed as a trader.Of course it may have changed over the years.
Im glad it all sorted for you guys...
Looks to me that both people were a bit underhanded..A dog was sold to a numb seller.
Wont be the first or the last i suspect.
When i went to court in the mid 90's,you had to SELL 6 vehicles a year to be classed as a trader.Of course it may have changed over the years.
Im glad it all sorted for you guys...
Looks to me that both people were a bit underhanded..A dog was sold to a numb seller.
Wont be the first or the last i suspect.
I have first had experience of going to court and assertaining trader status..
When i went to court in the mid 90's,you had to SELL 6 vehicles a year to be classed as a trader.Of course it may have changed over the years.
Im glad it all sorted for you guys...
Looks to me that both people were a bit underhanded..A dog was sold to a numb seller.
Wont be the first or the last i suspect.
When i went to court in the mid 90's,you had to SELL 6 vehicles a year to be classed as a trader.Of course it may have changed over the years.
Im glad it all sorted for you guys...
Looks to me that both people were a bit underhanded..A dog was sold to a numb seller.
Wont be the first or the last i suspect.
From what i see ,,,, someone who had no intention of paying the full amount turned up to buy a car £200 short..... and after getting £100 was allowed to take the car..... and after the seller making a fuss about the other £100 hes owed the buyer is now trying to weasle his way out of looking a dishonest buyer ... even to the point of calling into question the integrity of ( lets not forget ) the guy that allowed him to take car on trust
Its easy to come to that conclusion....
If the car was full of faults then its a lemon...
The OP was glad to get rid of it,thats probably why he met a guy 70 miles from home and let him drive off in the car without paying for it in full..For what other reason would you do that ?
A good car will always sell,you dont have to jump through hoops to do it.A sh!tter on the other hand needs a bit of work to shove onto someone else.
If the car was full of faults then its a lemon...
The OP was glad to get rid of it,thats probably why he met a guy 70 miles from home and let him drive off in the car without paying for it in full..For what other reason would you do that ?
A good car will always sell,you dont have to jump through hoops to do it.A sh!tter on the other hand needs a bit of work to shove onto someone else.
Last edited by fatscoobfella1; Jan 2, 2010 at 04:18 PM.
i questioned him about the mot wen he wanted to take the action to court, i said an investigation would be made into the station as the car as it stood was in no way mot-able! so either £5 for the blind eye was paid or you know some peaple,
any way i dont know why this is any ones problem but mine and boro's, ive paid half as problems are on both half ( car not as described, and me not checking it properly) there for £50 is more than fair,
or im happy to take the car back in full working order! how can i be more fair!?
any way i dont know why this is any ones problem but mine and boro's, ive paid half as problems are on both half ( car not as described, and me not checking it properly) there for £50 is more than fair,
or im happy to take the car back in full working order! how can i be more fair!?
But i bet a fair bit of time has elapsed between then and now, i coud easily make 4 tyres bald in 400 miles on a car i know i'm getting rid of at the first opportunity, not to mention thrashing the **** out of it everyday(not that i'm saying the seller has done this) but it'd be very difficult for any action against the mot station IMO.




