How to tell if its a trader or private sale?
Discussion
Needs more information...
1. Google the phone number you called - if it comes up regularly, it's quite likely to be a trader;
2. If the seller's name isn't on the V5 then unless he genuinely changed his mind after buying for his own use (i.e., if he didn't buy to make a profit) - he's likely to be a trader;
3. Presumably there's nothing obvious like a lot full of used cars to suggest trader status...
4. What is making you suspicious, presumably after the fact? Why does it matter? If it's a warranty dispute it'll only help to prove if it's a trader if:
a. the trader actually has some liability to you (it's quite specific); and
b. you have some way of enforcing that, e.g., if you can trace him and he has assets.
1. Google the phone number you called - if it comes up regularly, it's quite likely to be a trader;
2. If the seller's name isn't on the V5 then unless he genuinely changed his mind after buying for his own use (i.e., if he didn't buy to make a profit) - he's likely to be a trader;
3. Presumably there's nothing obvious like a lot full of used cars to suggest trader status...
4. What is making you suspicious, presumably after the fact? Why does it matter? If it's a warranty dispute it'll only help to prove if it's a trader if:
a. the trader actually has some liability to you (it's quite specific); and
b. you have some way of enforcing that, e.g., if you can trace him and he has assets.
CYMR0 said:
Needs more information...
1. Google the phone number you called - if it comes up regularly, it's quite likely to be a trader;
2. If the seller's name isn't on the V5 then unless he genuinely changed his mind after buying for his own use (i.e., if he didn't buy to make a profit) - he's likely to be a trader;
3. Presumably there's nothing obvious like a lot full of used cars to suggest trader status...
4. What is making you suspicious, presumably after the fact? Why does it matter? If it's a warranty dispute it'll only help to prove if it's a trader if:
a. the trader actually has some liability to you (it's quite specific); and
b. you have some way of enforcing that, e.g., if you can trace him and he has assets.
Don't want to go into it too much as person could be on here for all I know and going to see solicitor about it. Person is definitely a trader but just wanted to know if there was a way of definitely proving whether a vehicle is sold as trade or private as obviously we have more consumer protection if it was a trade sale. CAB said it would be up to a judge to decide but judge must have some sort of guidelines or boxes to tick to make that decision. 1. Google the phone number you called - if it comes up regularly, it's quite likely to be a trader;
2. If the seller's name isn't on the V5 then unless he genuinely changed his mind after buying for his own use (i.e., if he didn't buy to make a profit) - he's likely to be a trader;
3. Presumably there's nothing obvious like a lot full of used cars to suggest trader status...
4. What is making you suspicious, presumably after the fact? Why does it matter? If it's a warranty dispute it'll only help to prove if it's a trader if:
a. the trader actually has some liability to you (it's quite specific); and
b. you have some way of enforcing that, e.g., if you can trace him and he has assets.
The thing is, this is a question of fact, i.e., a judge will decide based on facts.
The test in the Sale of Goods Act as to whether a person has the trader's liabilities is whether a person "deals in the course of his business."
So, if the car was legitimately bought and sold outside the business, as a question of fact, then there is no SOGA liability other than the usual (i.e., the seller owned the car and that it is as described). Note that the V5 proves nothing with regard to ownership.
Secondly, there is no such thing as a SOGA "warranty" in the sense of an insurance-backed product that covers faults. A car should be of 'satisfactory quality' and 'fit for purpose' as well as being 'as described.' If you could drive home in it then, unless you can show that you described some additional purchase to the seller, it was 'fit for purpose' at the time of sale.
'Satisfactory quality' is much more nebulous. It will vary depending on the age, price and mileage of the car. If you have a 2011, 20k mile car for £12k you might expect everything to work - but if you have a 2001, 200k car for £1000, then if it blows up after two days, the Court might expect you to take it on the chin as effectively the price you pay for not having to spend £12k on the damn thing.
So while the CAB is right in saying that the Judge will decide (ultimately) it is unlikely to go that far because the eventual outcome will be fairly clear from the facts. However, if you won't share with us what those facts are (which is odd, because you'd have to disclose any evidence you do have if/when it does go to Court) then no one can suggest what the findings of fact might be.
The test in the Sale of Goods Act as to whether a person has the trader's liabilities is whether a person "deals in the course of his business."
So, if the car was legitimately bought and sold outside the business, as a question of fact, then there is no SOGA liability other than the usual (i.e., the seller owned the car and that it is as described). Note that the V5 proves nothing with regard to ownership.
Secondly, there is no such thing as a SOGA "warranty" in the sense of an insurance-backed product that covers faults. A car should be of 'satisfactory quality' and 'fit for purpose' as well as being 'as described.' If you could drive home in it then, unless you can show that you described some additional purchase to the seller, it was 'fit for purpose' at the time of sale.
'Satisfactory quality' is much more nebulous. It will vary depending on the age, price and mileage of the car. If you have a 2011, 20k mile car for £12k you might expect everything to work - but if you have a 2001, 200k car for £1000, then if it blows up after two days, the Court might expect you to take it on the chin as effectively the price you pay for not having to spend £12k on the damn thing.
So while the CAB is right in saying that the Judge will decide (ultimately) it is unlikely to go that far because the eventual outcome will be fairly clear from the facts. However, if you won't share with us what those facts are (which is odd, because you'd have to disclose any evidence you do have if/when it does go to Court) then no one can suggest what the findings of fact might be.
If you're thinking of taking someone to small claims court, bear in mind a few things.
1 - they choose which court hears the case, so if they're not local to you, be prepared to travel for the hearing
2 - the judge makes their own mind up based on the presented facts - it's not like 'proper' court, there is no legal background or case guidelines, it's all down to the judge giving both parties 'fair hearing'
3 - if the other party fails to turn-up you may get a judgement in your favour by default but the other party almost certainly then claims they didn't get the summons and they'll get another court-date (when they'll probably not turn-up again) - this can go on for MONTHS
4 - even if you get a judgement (with them there or not) it's a worthless thing in it's own-right - to collect on it, you have to appoint Bailiffs to do so.
Bailiffs cost money and will only serve the court order at the location you supply to the person or persons assigned on the paperwork (and charge you either way). If the stated people are not there, if they aren't 100% sure it's the 'same business' they won't be able to get anything for you, whatsoever - and you can spend £100s on this alone.
A lot of traders are very clever about how they arrange their affairs, making it VERY hard to seize anything from them in particular.
Some will have dozens of outstanding CCJs and still be trading in some form or other.
1 - they choose which court hears the case, so if they're not local to you, be prepared to travel for the hearing
2 - the judge makes their own mind up based on the presented facts - it's not like 'proper' court, there is no legal background or case guidelines, it's all down to the judge giving both parties 'fair hearing'
3 - if the other party fails to turn-up you may get a judgement in your favour by default but the other party almost certainly then claims they didn't get the summons and they'll get another court-date (when they'll probably not turn-up again) - this can go on for MONTHS
4 - even if you get a judgement (with them there or not) it's a worthless thing in it's own-right - to collect on it, you have to appoint Bailiffs to do so.
Bailiffs cost money and will only serve the court order at the location you supply to the person or persons assigned on the paperwork (and charge you either way). If the stated people are not there, if they aren't 100% sure it's the 'same business' they won't be able to get anything for you, whatsoever - and you can spend £100s on this alone.
A lot of traders are very clever about how they arrange their affairs, making it VERY hard to seize anything from them in particular.
Some will have dozens of outstanding CCJs and still be trading in some form or other.
405dogvan said:
the judge makes their own mind up based on the presented facts - it's not like 'proper' court, there is no legal background or case guidelines, it's all down to the judge giving both parties 'fair hearing'
^^^^This is 100% wrong in my recent experience, I was owed £500 and they got out on a legal technicality.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff