Trading Standards : Waste of space?

[Ian V]

Following my long legal battle with Brundle TVR (ex now) for selling me a 'ringed' car which turned out to be stolen, (see earlier posts), I reported this to my local Trading Standards office. This is the final response I received this morning.

' I write in connection with the complaint you made to this office concerning your dealings with John Brundle (Motors) Ltd.

The matter has been thoroughly investigated and the company has been formally interviewed, and a report has been submitted on their activities. We have considered the matter very carefully and it has been decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute them.'

What evidence do they require I wonder? Brundle's have settled the claim I brought against them, so therefore must admit that the car was a stolen one. This makes me so mad! It appears yet again the guilty get off with a smack on the wrist. Or is it maybe to do with his name. I wonder.

[Graham]

did you get the car sorted in the end though and keep it and get it re-registered ?

[Ian V]

Hi Graham,

Yeap car is now fully restamped (correct numbers) and re-registered. Work was carried out back at the factory in October. Must say they were brilliant throughout the whole saga. Don't believe the true ID would ever have been found without the factorys, and in particular, Mike Day's help.

[anonymous-user]

I used to run the UK end of a large sportswear brand and we had terrible trouble with counterfeiting. Apart from very costly civil actions (Anton Pillars cost a small fortune) our main line of defence were the TSO's. I have to say for the most part they were absolutely brilliant. The only time we ever found them less than helpful was where there was a very left wing council in place. Having been on a few raids with some of the guys I can also confirm that they are often pretty brave, particularly when you consider they are paid bugger all. Hence the best ones end up being snapped up by the private sector to run anti-counterfeiting departments.

Like everyone else I guess they are at the mercy of the CPS which is probably why they didn't go ahead in your case.

>> Edited by paul-b on Tuesday 28th January 11:19

[angusfaldo]

Brundle's have settled the claim I brought against them, so therefore must admit that the car was a stolen one.

I have every sympathy. I followed the last posts - sorry you had to experience TVR ownership this way. But I think in your statement lies TSO's problem. Just because they settled does not mean they admit liability. In fact I'd bet that their offer to you to settle was made "without prejudice" and therefore without any admission of liability. I guess as with the police, it is very difficult to prove intent.

Doesn't stop you feeling angry that you got ripped off though

[tonybav]

Ian you must also remember a civil case for damages is settled on the balance of probabilities, i.e. 51 to 49 wins it. A TSO prosecution is I think a criminal matter so beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. 99 to 1 to win it.