Vehicle found to be non road legal

[Getitdone]

The two acts referred to actually create criminal offences, and your claim is of course civil

Thanks Des-8

Apologies if I came across as inpatient.

Yes, we're aware that a criminal offence has taken place We've told them ( or at least their legal representative) that we're aware.

Do we still mention the Acts?

Have reported to VOSA re the possibility of 4 "dodgy" MOTs. Not really interested as it's in the past and too hard to prove.

Really quite surprised that they didn't just cough up the £1000. From what we can see they seem reputable..
Possibly their mistake was admitting from the beginning that they knew it didn't have a Cat. Not sure how you defend that.

Just to point out that e ANY advert categorically stated that the car didn't have a Cat.
It was as an either / or for the second Cat.

Technically , I think it could still fail an MOT , as originally the vehicle had 2 Cat's , and now it only has one.


A track car can also be road legal and many are as most are driven to the track . If it was a race car then they may have a case. . If they did have the wording track car and they were selling as a non road legal track car they would need to say something like “this vehicle is a track car and is not road legal .

If it was not meant to be driven on the road they would have had to SORN the vehicle as there would be no intention to tax, Mot or insured it.

Thank you, and exactly. As it was ,the term " Track car" wasn't mentioned in any advert we've found. The only place they used the term was on the invoice.


It definitely wasn't SORN.

[Getitdone]

Apologies, that should have said "Just to point out that we haven't seen ANY advert which categorically stated that the car didn't have a Cat.

The wording in an advert ( not all adverts) said the named company who probably carried out the modifications offered an option to EITHER remove the 2nd Cat completely ,OR replace it with a sports cat.

Thanks

[des8]

Certainly mention them, especially the Consumer Regulations as it allows redress against the trader (see part 4A)

Re cat replacement: my understanding is that as long as the car meets the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulation 61a(3)) modification is legal. Government explanation here: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...h-implications

[Getitdone]

Thanks for the link Des-8 . Very useful.

Revised claim wording if you would kindly have a look when you have time.

abc trading as xyz and the claimant was a consumer On 10th March, 2021 the claimant purchased vehicle: make, model and reg for £££'s

• The claimant sought to purchase a vehicle and after seeing the vehicle advertised online contacted the defendant.
• The online advertisement for the vehicle did not state that the car was not road legal.
• Promotional videos sent to the claimant by the defendant demonstrated the vehicle being driven on a public road.
• Prior to entering into the contract, the defendant provided the claimant with a valid MOT certificate for the vehicle.
• In accordance with the Consumer Rights Act (2015) the claimant expected the vehicle to be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described.
• On 24th September, 2021 the vehicle failed an MOT inspection due to

1. Items fitted as standard missing- catalytic converter not present
2. Vehicle emissions test

• As such the vehicle was not road legal and the claimant suffered loss of use, specifically for commuting to statutory professional training.
• The claimant immediately contacted the defendant and requested full reimbursement for the cost of repair, which was refused

• The claimant paid £1,000 for the supply and installation of a suitable catalytic converter and the vehicle passed the MOT re inspection
• The defendant has admitted that the catalytic converter was absent at the time of sale, therefore there is no burden for the claimant to prove that the fault existed at the time of purchase (Consumer Rights Act (2015)
• The defendant breached the implied terms of contract ( CRA 2015) by selling a vehicle which wasn't fit for purpose and failing to disclose the absence of a catalytic converter

• Contrary to The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (Section 6 (1) a),the defendant withheld material information about the (condition of the) vehicle which prevented the claimant from making an informed decision regarding the purchase

[des8]

I would only delete " therefore there is no burden for the claimant to prove that the fault existed at the time of purchase (Consumer Rights Act (2015)"
The burden of proof is still there. Your proof will be his statement and the engineers' reports.

Would move " The defendant has admitted that the catalytic converter was absent at the time of sale," to after

• The claimant immediately contacted the defendant and requested full reimbursement for the cost of repair, which was refused, although

Would also remove the reference to being supplied with a valid MOT certificate at the time of sale.
The trader is likely to defend on the basis that as it had a valid MOT the vehicle was road legal, so no point in prompting him

Delete "specifically for commuting to statutory professional training." unless the defendant knew specifically about that use.

[Ukmicky]

I would only delete " therefore there is no burden for the claimant to prove that the fault existed at the time of purchase (Consumer Rights Act (2015)"
The burden of proof is still there. Your proof will be his statement and the engineers' reports.

Would move " The defendant has admitted that the catalytic converter was absent at the time of sale," to after

• The claimant immediately contacted the defendant and requested full reimbursement for the cost of repair, which was refused, although

Would also remove the reference to being supplied with a valid MOT certificate at the time of sale.
The trader is likely to defend on the basis that as it had a valid MOT the vehicle was road legal, so no point in prompting him

Delete "specifically for commuting to statutory professional training." unless the defendant knew specifically about that use.

Having a valid MOT legally does not make a vehicle road legal if at any time after the MOT test it condition is such that it would fail an MOT

When sold to the claimant the vehicle was not road legal despite it having a valid MOT and it’s not an argument which would win and would only be argued by a qualified defence barrister or solicitor if they didnt know the law.

[des8]

When sold to the claimant the vehicle was not road legal despite it having a valid MOT and it’s not an argument which would win and would only be argued by a qualified defence barrister or solicitor if they didnt know the law.

agreed , but the firm mentioned in post1 is of the sort that throw everything at it, presumably in the hope the judge doesn't know better

[Getitdone]

Thanks Des-8 and Ukmicky .
I (think) we can see both points of view regarding the mention of the MOT.
Essentially, the production of the valid MOT by the defendant pre contract is meaningless now that they've admitted that at the time of entering into the contract the vehicle wouldn't have passed an MOT.
The defendant has admitted that they knew the vehicle wasn't road legal at the time of sale.

As laypeople we (mistakingly)view a valid MOT certificate as some sort of assurance that a vehicle is road legal.

The company mentioned in post 1 haven't said anything about the valid MOT certificate that was presented to the claimant pre contract.
Their only mention of MOT is in the context of a statement noting that the vehicle has since paased the inspection.
We weren't sure what the purpose of it was, as we'd told them that the vehicle had been fitted with a catalytic converter

Do you think their statement is significant?

Re ABC trading as xyz, the invoice has 3 names on it.

A name at the top with another in brackets ( neither are the registered company name)
At the bottom of the invoice it gives the registered company name trading as (one of the names at the top)

regarding xyz , how do we know which one to choose?
Money was paid to an account with the registered name .

The company mentioned above refer to their client as ( the registered company in name with errors Ltd) , trading as xyz.
Would that be what we use ?

Thanks

[Getitdone]

Just looking back over letters/ emails from the mentioned legal company.
Presume this will be their defence

" The attached invoice clearly states the vehicle was a Stage 3 Track car and the advertisement also states that the vehicle was a Stage 3 Track car and the restrictive cats were removed

our member is not liable to pay the cost of a replacement cat as the vehicle has been supplied as described"

Their final letter states

" You seem to have omitted the fact that you were fully aware that the vehicle was described as having the cats removed prior to sale"

So we need to provide evidence that it wasn't described in adverts as a either a Track car, nor as a car that had had the cats removed. in advertisements which had had the cats removed.

[des8]

A stage 3 track car does not necessarily have its cats removed and can still be road legal.
As long as all airbags, sensors seat belts etc (ie all standard safety equipment) are present the car may well be road legal

Now a stage 4 car I would not expect to be road legal.

I see this matter has been rumbling on since last October, so time ti initiate court, or just enjoy driving it before you have to go all quiet and electric!

[Getitdone]

A stage 3 track car does not necessarily have its cats removed and can still be road legal.
As long as all airbags, sensors seat belts etc (ie all standard safety equipment) are present the car may well be road legal

Apart from the Stage 3 modifications/ tuning, the car is no different from the day it was born .
I agree and the well known online car forum/ classifieds site PH have 2 sections for Day track cars. One for road legal and the other for non road legal. The vehicle was advertised on that site, but not in the Track car category.

Recalling that when we contacted the AA and asked if they could provide a copy of the advert , they told me that the defendant uses "click dealer" platform and it's click dealer who then provide the adverts to other sites.

I've only driven it once . It's very smart and quite "special" . Effortless . Strange after you've driven a "non tuned" regular 200 bhp version .

Not sure if you saw this , but
Re ABC trading as xyz, the invoice has 3 names on it.

A name at the top with another in brackets ( neither are the registered company name)
Acant the bottom of the invoice it gives the registered company name trading as (one of the names at the top)

regarding xyz , how do we know which one to choose?
Money was paid to an account with the registered name .

The company mentioned above refer to their client as ( the registered company in name with errors Ltd) , trading as xyz.
Would that be what we use ?

Thanks again.

[des8]

The defendant is essentially the limited company, so I would be naming:
The limited company trading as XYZ &/or ABC

[Getitdone]

Are LD actually solicitors?

[Getitdone]

I'm chuckling
https://www.am-online.com/opinion/20...-reality-check

[des8]

Lawdata is not a firm of solicitors, nor is the author (Graham Jones) of that article registered with SRA, so they will not be making an appearance in court!