|
He didn't own the vehicle-he'd not paid for it-only a deposit!
|
He didn't own the vehicle-he'd not paid for it-only a deposit!
who says so?
|
|
|
|
If you did not request to see the document then you are guilty of 'aiding and abetting' an uninsured driver.
surely you have no duty or right to ask the owner of a vehicle to produce their certificate before they give you a lift.
if your statement is true, do your passengers ask you to show them your certificate because otherwise surely they are aiding and abetting you in case you turn out not to be insured?
|
|
Chaps - read LY's post carefully. The story isn't his, it's one he's quoting from another forum as an example of 'how not to do it'.
|
Chaps - read LY's post carefully. The story isn't his, ..
yes i got that.
|
|
Guys - read it even more carefully - it's a "how to do it" - he had the cash, and he'd given the buyer a receipt. Thus it was beyond doubt who owned (and thus who had to insure) the vehicle. Just as well given the events that soon transpired.
|
|
True. I still think I might have taken the bloke's money and gone home - or to the bank with all that cash - by taxi. But then I'm obviously far too much of a worrier to make it in the car-seliing business.
|
|
Yes as long as he had paid for it and signed the receipt before he drove it then there is not a problem. My point was to make people aware of when selling a car how you can get caught out when a 'prospective' owner drives Your car. On re-reading my post it was slightly misleading However, as there was no mention of the new owner ringing his insurance company then either he has an open or trade insurance policy, or he was in fact relying on DOV which would not be valid and is third party only. That's going to hurt a lot. Regards Peter
|
On the question of ownership, then unless the two people involved here expressly agreed otherwise, then ownership changes when the deal is agreed. Money does not even have to change hands, but if it does (as in this case) then that is the best evidence possible that the deal has been agreed.
The sellers position therefore ought to be that he is entitled to the balance of the purchase price, and the damage to the other vehicles and buildings is the buyers problem, not his.
|
Lawman - I think the £1000 was the full consideration.
There was mention in a later post that the new owner confimed after the accident that he had arepviously informed his insurer of the change and was covered for TP at least.
|
Sorry, quite right.
But I don't get the point of this thread. The car was sold and the money was paid. Everything is the buyer's problem now.
Is the point of the post that you shouldn't travel in a car with someone who is driving it for the first time? Apart from that, what?
|
.. But I don't get the point of this thread. The car was sold and the money was paid ..
:: ;-) :: agree. it is pointless. exactly what i tried to say politely in my first reply above! :: ;-) ::
Apart from that, what?
maybe just that you should make sure your car is insured before you drive it. but, again, nothing new in that!
|
|
The point was, that even if selling a car for cash, for a small sum, do the paperwork, so it's clear who owns the car.
|
|
Did the driver have a valid certificate of insurance and did you view it prior to him driving. If you did not request to see the document then you are guilty of 'aiding and abetting' an uninsured driver.
You are not. It is not "aiding and abetting". If you tell the driver that they may drive "as long as they have the appropriate insurance" that is a sufficient defence.
|
|
I know I made the assumption that he 'Test ' drove the vehicle where it appears he did not. Regards Peter
|
"If you did not request to see the document then you are guilty of 'aiding and abetting' an uninsured driver"
No.
|
|
|
|
