dune Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 My old address, Dune. The parents have since moved. I'm sure the current occupiers will be able to forward him and his baseball bat wielding mates to the new address.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 I don't think I have to worry chap as the guy wont be going through any legal course to get his 500 quid back, will he. He could barely put a sentence together when I met him. Like I said, the V5C is gone, I'm not going to worry about this for another moment. You lot can as much as you like. Right so you broke the law (as shown here) and then think it's OK because you totally ripped off someone with a lower IQ than yourself. Just because you may get away with something doesn't make it morally right or mean that you have broken the law any less. You have just admitted that you aren't bothered that you just committed fraud because you don't think the victim affected has the IQ to get his money back that he is rightfully entitled to. You are worse than I thought.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 My old address, Dune. The parents have since moved. Previous occupants are easily found.
Saint_Jonny Posted 4 November, 2011 Author Posted 4 November, 2011 I'm sure the current occupiers will be able to forward him and his baseball bat wielding mates to the new address. Oh thats it I'm boned. I wont be able to sleep at night now! For the record, I don't feel like I've done anything wrong, the guy took the risk of buying a car without an MOT for 500 quid - how you can feel sorry for him is beyond me - and how I can be lambasted for not knowing every little detail about faults with the car is out of order - YES - I should have used better language in the Ebay article but at the end of the day, he bought an old car and would have known the risks.
buctootim Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 My old address, Dune. The parents have since moved. So you are sending off the V5 today with another bit of false information. Its supposed to contain your current address, not your parents old address. Worth reporting to DVLC imo.
dune Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 Oh thats it I'm boned. I wont be able to sleep at night now! For the record, I don't feel like I've done anything wrong, the guy took the risk of buying a car without an MOT for 500 quid - how you can feel sorry for him is beyond me - and how I can be lambasted for not knowing every little detail about faults with the car is out of order - YES - I should have used better language in the Ebay article but at the end of the day, he bought an old car and would have known the risks. He bought the car based on the false information you gave. You mis sold the car.
Saint_Jonny Posted 4 November, 2011 Author Posted 4 November, 2011 Right so you broke the law (as shown here) and then think it's OK because you totally ripped off someone with a lower IQ than yourself. Just because you may get away with something doesn't make it morally right or mean that you have broken the law any less. You have just admitted that you aren't bothered that you just committed fraud because you don't think the victim affected has the IQ to get his money back that he is rightfully entitled to. You are worse than I thought. This debate is entirely down to personal opinion and if you think I committed "fraud" then thats fine. Wrong, but fine. As I said the matter is now over.
Saint_Jonny Posted 4 November, 2011 Author Posted 4 November, 2011 So you are sending off the V5 today with another bit of false information. Its supposed to contain your current address, not your parents old address. Worth reporting to DVLC imo. It has my current student address on the note I sent with the V5C, if he wants to drive 300 miles then more fool him!
Dimond Geezer Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 My old address, Dune. The parents have since moved. Sounds to me that you've given some thought to covering your tracks.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 Oh thats it I'm boned. I wont be able to sleep at night now! For the record, I don't feel like I've done anything wrong, the guy took the risk of buying a car without an MOT for 500 quid - how you can feel sorry for him is beyond me - and how I can be lambasted for not knowing every little detail about faults with the car is out of order - YES - I should have used better language in the Ebay article but at the end of the day, he bought an old car and would have known the risks. You just admitted that you caused fraud and broke the law (it was just pointed out to you.) What you feel is irrelevant, you broke the law plain and simple and the fact that you won't do anything about it because you think he doesn't have the mental capacity to call you up on it is despicable to be honest. You don't 'feel' you've done anything wrong. Pathetic.
buctootim Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 You cant even keep your story straight for more than 10 minutes.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 This debate is entirely down to personal opinion and if you think I committed "fraud" then thats fine. Wrong, but fine. As I said the matter is now over. No it isn't! What angelman posted is the LAW! This sin't a matter of opinion.
BigShadow Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 My old address, Dune. The parents have since moved. So you misrepresented the state of the car....you failed to notify DVLA of a change of address....any other offences you wish to have 'taken into consideration' In the OP's defence - he can't be a pikey because the reason he started this thread was so he could file the paperwork correctly. Hardly pikey behaviour.
Saint_Jonny Posted 4 November, 2011 Author Posted 4 November, 2011 I agree this thread is pure gold. All this flapping over a car - bought knowingly to be faulty - for 500 quid. You lot need to get out more The change of full time address occurred since the sale - I am up in H'field with this V5C for a car that isn't mine.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 So you misrepresented the state of the car....you failed to notify DVLA of a change of address....any other offences you wish to have 'taken into consideration' In the OP's defence - he can't be a pikey because the reason he started this thread was so he could file the paperwork correctly. Hardly pikey behaviour. He wanted people to support his side of things when he has actually broken the law. Taking the money since breaking the law and displaying no empathy towards the person they have blatently ripped off is pikey behaviour.
Born In The 80s Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 Just had a browse through the thread. People like Jonny make me ****ing sick. Being ripped off by a cocky little gob****e is the worst feeling in the world - i have been there. The fact you were driving a car like that in the first place says a lot about you anyway. Hope the fella gets his hands on you and gives you a good ****ing kicking.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 I agree this thread is pure gold. All this flapping over a car - bought knowingly to be faulty - for 500 quid. You lot need to get out more The change of full time address occurred since the sale - I am up in H'field with this V5C for a car that isn't mine. As angelman pointed out, with no SORN at the time of sale the car must be roadworthy. It wasn't so you broke the law.
Saint_Jonny Posted 4 November, 2011 Author Posted 4 November, 2011 Just had a browse through the thread. People like Jonny make me ****ing sick. Being ripped off by a cocky little gob****e is the worst feeling in the world - i have been there. The fact you were driving a car like that in the first place says a lot about you anyway. Hope the fella gets his hands on you and gives you a good ****ing kicking. Thanks for the intelligent input, mate.
Saint_Jonny Posted 4 November, 2011 Author Posted 4 November, 2011 As angelman pointed out, with no SORN at the time of sale the car must be roadworthy. It wasn't so you broke the law. A lesson learned, thanks.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 A lesson learned, thanks. It wasn't learnt though, you ripped off the bloke, committed fraud and don't have the decency to offer a refund when this is pointed out to you. You have no moral fibre and would probably do it again to some other poor soul given the chance. People like you make me sick.
Saint_Jonny Posted 4 November, 2011 Author Posted 4 November, 2011 It wasn't learnt though, you ripped off the bloke, committed fraud and don't have the decency to offer a refund when this is pointed out to you. You have no moral fibre and would probably do it again to some other poor soul given the chance. People like you make me sick. LOADS of assumptions about me you are making their Hypo. Amazing. I don't go around making accusations of people I don't know personally so I'd appreciate it if you did the same.
mcjwills Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 Shows how much of an arsole you are in one message your a poor student and later we all getting het up over £500. Well to me £500 is next years season ticket. Seems also once again the value of the car has changed on ebay just over £400 then its £550 now its £500, I think he should get a layer and sue your ass off in court and claim expenses because a layer would make you look the c**k you are.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 LOADS of assumptions about me you are making their Hypo. Amazing. I don't go around making accusations of people I don't know personally so I'd appreciate it if you did the same. OK lets stick to what we know. You committed fraud When this is pointed out to you you stand by your crime and refuse to consider any sort of compensation to the victim of your crime So are you saying that you wouldn't do this again should the opportunity present itself? Removing the assumptions, what you have done is horrible, meanspirited and illegal. Again, you make me sick.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 WIsh I knew who this guy was. I would be very tempted to get him some free legal advice to ensure that justice was done.
Saint_Jonny Posted 4 November, 2011 Author Posted 4 November, 2011 I'm ganna stop replying to this thread now because you lot clearly don't know what you are talking about. I feel bad for the guy, it was unfortunate. However my concious is clean so what you internet warriors may think means nothing to me.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 I'm ganna stop replying to this thread now because you lot clearly don't know what you are talking about. Ironic! Your lack of self awareness is amazing. Angelman points out clearly that you have broken the law. How do we not know what we are talking about when you are the one who admits to committing criminal acts? I feel bad for the guy, it was unfortunate. Not so bad that you will give him the money back that he is legally entitled to. However my concious is clean so what you internet warriors may think means nothing to me. How is it? You broke the law you little sh*t.
buctootim Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 He was a total mug for paying £550 for it, I'm happy to say that. I feel bad for the guy, it was unfortunate. However my concious is clean so what you internet warriors may think means nothing to me. You are full of **** and will say whatever you think will get you your own way. You sound remarkably immature, not to mention repellant .
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 Look, according to the seller this trade was not made through Ebay so that description does not apply. All that matters is what took place at the time of the sale/purchase. Earlier descriptions of the vehicle are out of date. It is up to the buyer to satisfy himself as to the condition of the goods that he is buying. This is a private trade between two individuals so consumer law does not apply. After the latest MOT the vehicle has been found to be unroadworthy, but according to the statements above it was never described as such. The only dispute that I can see is to the amount that would need to be spent in order to make the vehicle roadworthy again, and that will be what was discussed at the time of the sale. Any earlier descriptions on Ebay are out of date irrelevant. As I said above, the law says 'caveat emptor' - 'let the buyer beware' - which is a basic principle in commerce where anything is sold without a warranty. (All in my humble opinion, of course.)
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 How is it? You broke the law you little sh*t. What law would that be, exactly?
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 Look, according to the seller this trade was not made through Ebay so that description does not apply. All that matters is what took place at the time of the sale/purchase. Earlier descriptions of the vehicle are out of date. It is up to the buyer to satisfy himself as to the condition of the goods that he is buying. This is a private trade between two individuals so consumer law does not apply. After the latest MOT the vehicle has been found to be unroadworthy, but according to the statements above it was never described as such. The only dispute that I can see is to the amount that would need to be spent in order to make the vehicle roadworthy again, and that will be what was discussed at the time of the sale. Any earlier descriptions on Ebay are out of date irrelevant. As I said above, the law says 'caveat emptor' - 'let the buyer beware' - which is a basic principle in commerce where anything is sold without a warranty. (All in my humble opinion, of course.) He says himself he sold it without a SORN which means that legally it must be roadworthy. It wasn't so he has broken the law.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 What law would that be, exactly? To add to the above.... as the car wasn't sold without a SORN then it must be considered to be roadworthy, whether you said it was for spares or not. As it had no SORN then it has to be roadworthy. That it has 6 months MOT left is irrelevant - MOT does not give carte blanche to drive a car in an unroadworthy condition. It is merely a statement that the car passed on the day of the test and it is up to the owner to keep the car in a roadworthy condition. You are stuffed and potentially a criminal.
Saint_Jonny Posted 4 November, 2011 Author Posted 4 November, 2011 To add to the above.... as the car wasn't sold without a SORN then it must be considered to be roadworthy, whether you said it was for spares or not. As it had no SORN then it has to be roadworthy. That it has 6 months MOT left is irrelevant - MOT does not give carte blanche to drive a car in an unroadworthy condition. It is merely a statement that the car passed on the day of the test and it is up to the owner to keep the car in a roadworthy condition. You are stuffed and potentially a criminal. You are living in a dream land if you think I am "stuffed" Hypo. If you had a bit of steering wheel wobble would you rush home, jump online and declare the car SORN? Errr no, you wouldn't. Wake up mate, the world doesn't work like that.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 You are living in a dream land if you think I am "stuffed" Hypo. If you had a bit of steering wheel wobble would you rush home, jump online and declare the car SORN? Errr no, you wouldn't. Wake up mate, the world doesn't work like that. My post was just a copy and paste of what angelman wrote. Was the car roadworthy when you sold it? Yes or no?
Pancake Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 As it had no SORN then it has to be roadworthy. Err... what now? That's an interesting way to read the taxation and MOT rules.
Saint_Jonny Posted 4 November, 2011 Author Posted 4 November, 2011 My post was just a copy and paste of what angelman wrote. Was the car roadworthy when you sold it? Yes or no? It turned out not to be, no. If I have broken this particular law then by god, surely, I am not the only one. One bald tyre, one leaky gasket, and BOOM, we all need to be SORN.
Doctoroncall Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 Sorry, I'm getting confused where this six months MOT has come from, I thought the car didn't have one, expiring in May - Saint Jonny can you clarify?
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 Err... what now? That's an interesting way to read the taxation and MOT rules. Take it up with angelman not me.
Saint_Jonny Posted 4 November, 2011 Author Posted 4 November, 2011 Sorry, I'm getting confused where this six months MOT has come from, I thought the car didn't have one, expiring in May - Saint Jonny can you clarify? The MOT expired just before the end of the auction end date. This SORN thing is a bit silly really. Hypo is just jumping on top of something so he go on a bit more...
badgerx16 Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 A car has to be taxed or have a SORN, unless being kept off the road and untaxed for less than 14 days, it is nothing to do with being in a roadworthy condition. A car with a current SORN cannot be driven on the road except to a prearranged MOT test - provided valid insurance is in place. In this case it had tax,- but was not 'roadworthy' as it's MOT had expired.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 Far enough. I detract that comment but you are still an a*se for what you have done.
angelman Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 The MOT expired just before the end of the auction end date. This SORN thing is a bit silly really. Hypo is just jumping on top of something so he go on a bit more... So you sold a car without an MOT or SORN, which is illegal, not the selling but the fact that the car's status was. The buyer should have checked and refused to drive it away, so he too broke the law as it had no MOT and therefore very doubtful any insurance.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 So you sold a car without an MOT or SORN, which is illegal, not the selling but the fact that the car's status was. The buyer should have checked and refused to drive it away, so he too broke the law as it had no MOT and therefore very doubtful any insurance. Thanks for the clarification. I detract my previous detraction.
Dimond Geezer Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 So you sold a car without an MOT or SORN, which is illegal, not the selling but the fact that the car's status was. The buyer should have checked and refused to drive it away, so he too broke the law as it had no MOT and therefore very doubtful any insurance. I can't see how selling a car without MOT or SORN is illegal. Driving one may be, that is down to the buyer to check.
hypochondriac Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 Now I am confused. Can we have a definitive answer on whether this is illegal or not?
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 I can't see how selling a car without MOT or SORN is illegal. Driving one may be, that is down to the buyer to check. I fully agree.
badgerx16 Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 So you sold a car without an MOT or SORN, which is illegal, not the selling but the fact that the car's status was. Genuine question, is it really illegal to have a car that has neither MOT or SORN ? I know it is illegal to have a car with neither tax or SORN, and it is illegal to drive a car without valid insurance, and to drive a car without a valid MOT unless to a retest; but if a car is otherwise stationary, and displays a valid tax disc, is this not perfectly legal ?
angelman Posted 4 November, 2011 Posted 4 November, 2011 I can't see how selling a car without MOT or SORN is illegal. Driving one may be, that is down to the buyer to check. To clear it up as I might not have been clear (even to myself ). The law recently changed to say that your car either has to be taxed or on a SORN. You can't leave an unroadworthy car off the road. In order to be taxed, a valid MOT and insurance has to be in place. The MOT certificate The MOT certificate confirms that at the time of the test, without dismantling it, the vehicle met the minimum acceptable environmental and road safety standards required by law. It doesn’t mean that the vehicle is roadworthy for the length of time the certificate is valid. The MOT certificate is also no guarantee of the general mechanical condition of your vehicle. The test doesn’t cover the condition of the engine, clutch or gearbox. From Directgov. He knowingly sold an unroadworthy car.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now