Trading Standards Prosecute a Trader

legal_updates

Dealer made it clear that it was a private sale.

Author: Roxanne Bradley
Published:
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 6 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

In a recent case Reading BC v Younis [2015] a motor trader was prosecuted by Trading Standards. The Defendant, Younis took a Ford KA for its MOT test and then advertised it for sale on Autotrader. The vehicle was purchased based upon this advertisement from Younis’ home.

The buyer then reported Younis to the local authority’s Trading Standards due to the vehicle having a fault (water leak) they in turn took the case and prosecuted Younis, alleging that Younis was a trader. The allegations against Younis included breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Fraud Act 2006 (he had made a false representation that he was a private seller, whereas he was not).

Younis was then acquitted by the magistrates as there was a uncertainty and therefore did not hold Younis as a trader.

However, the case was appealed and was allowed. This was on the basis of the regular selling of vehicles which was relevant in establishing whether or not a person was a trader. It turned out that Younis has sold 19 vehicle between February 2009 and August 2011.

The evidence on the basis of Younis being a trader – was the receipt provided by Younis in a trading name of a business, the vehicle was registered in the trading name and all the advertisements was also in the same name.

The Defence for Younis stated the business has ceased trading in 2011, Younis did not carry out any repairs himself and he was unemployed and was simply just interested in motor vehicles and liked to change them frequently. Younis also stated that in his meetings and discussions with the buyer, he had made it clear that it was a private sale and that he did not give any three month warranty.

The case will now have a re-hearing to clarify the status of Younis being a trader or not. We will keep you up to date once the hearing has taken place on the verdict of Younis.  

Roxanne Bradley

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.