PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Could this be classed as Fraud / Illegal
!nsomniak
post Sat, 14 Jul 2012 - 09:37
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,986



Hi,

I bought a car second hand from someone recently, I paid in cash. I bought the car on 14/06/12 and everything was fine, I completed the logbook kept the "new keeper" slip and he said he would send it off to the DVLA. I received the new V5 in my name a few weeks later.

Then recently I received a PCN from Newham Council for an contravention that took place on 30/05/12 and then another for 01/06/2012. I then checked my V5 to find that it states the date I acquired the vehicle was 14/05/2012. (a whole month earlier than the true date) - Newham want £130 per PCN.

I contacted the DVLA to explain and they said to send back the V5 with a cover note etc. Luckily I have some evidence as I insured the car the same day I bought it (14/06/12) and my bank statements also show cash withdrawals to the value of £800 (the car was £850) on the same date and the original "new keeper slip". I have also sent letters to Newham Council explaining I was not the owner and forwarded copies of my evidence.

I have since received a further private PCN for another £120, that occurred on 10/06/12 so again I have written to them.

I now believe that the previous owner was fully aware of these charges before the sale of the car and was probably the reason he wanted to sell the car. I therefore believe that he has changed the date on the V5 to 14/05/2012 before sending it off to the DVLA. I am hoping the DVLA will be able to see that the V5 was altered in some way, or that the weight of my evidence backs up the fact I did not buy the car until 14/06/12.

Does anyone know if this can constitute fraud and if the police would do anything if I informed them?

I am not to worried about the fines as I will not be paying them and will go all the way to court if necessary.

Any help will be appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 8)
Advertisement
post Sat, 14 Jul 2012 - 09:37
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 14 Jul 2012 - 10:58
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,917
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Based on what you say, clearly the person who sold you the car has falsified the date of sale on the return of the V5 to the DVLA, so has broken the law.

However, in your rush to buy the car, you seem to have ignored the first bullet point on Section 10 New Keeper's Details which is to make sure Section 6 has been filled in correctly. Section 6, Item 13 is the date of sale or transfer, and at the bottom of the page in Section 8, both parties must sign and date the from before it is sent off. In particular, the new keepr, (you) signs that the date in section 6 is correct.

So what has gone wrong here ? Did you just not sign the V5 at the time, or was the right date entered and the previous owner has altered the date after you departed ? If you followed the correct procedure, and the date was correct the last time you saw it, then an offence has been committed, and you are not liable for the parking and other fines. However, you are going to be busy setting matters to rights because the legal machine, especially the CPE regime tends to grind on and on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 14 Jul 2012 - 12:34
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Proving that they broke the law may be a difficult matter... after all, can it be proved to beyond a reasonable doubt that them writing "05" instead of "06" was deliberate?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
!nsomniak
post Sat, 14 Jul 2012 - 13:15
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,986



I was willing to believe that a simple mistake had been made with regards to the date, and I know that I definitely signed the V5 as the the new keeper, I am pretty certain I would have dated it aswell.
However the fact that the most recent contravention had taken place on 10/06/12 and he would have been sent an initial letter with a discounted offer of a lower payment if made within 7 days, I never received this so it would have been sent to him and he has then told them he sold the car on "14/05/12" as the "Notice To Owner" has now come to me asking for the the full £120.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clark_kent
post Sat, 14 Jul 2012 - 15:17
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,964
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
From: Brighton
Member No.: 13,358



QUOTE (!nsomniak @ Sat, 14 Jul 2012 - 14:15) *
I was willing to believe that a simple mistake had been made with regards to the date, and I know that I definitely signed the V5 as the the new keeper, I am pretty certain I would have dated it aswell.
However the fact that the most recent contravention had taken place on 10/06/12 and he would have been sent an initial letter with a discounted offer of a lower payment if made within 7 days, I never received this so it would have been sent to him and he has then told them he sold the car on "14/05/12" as the "Notice To Owner" has now come to me asking for the the full £120.



The NTO contains a section that you can fill in stating you were not the owner at the time of the contravention. Fill that in and provide any additional evidence such as a bank statement showing the withdrawl of the cash to buy the car.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Sat, 14 Jul 2012 - 15:22
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



was there a Bill of Sale ?
(bit late for this case but you should always get a dated signed Bill of Sale when buying or selling a car)


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 14 Jul 2012 - 19:52
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,917
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Clarke Kent is bang on there, but you'll need to prove the sale date in some way. Try to obtain two pieces of evidence;Bill of Sale, and bank withdrawal should be OK. If you need to go to adjudication, you will have to lay out the whole sad tale in some detail, but I suspect the council will withdraw before then.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
!nsomniak
post Mon, 16 Jul 2012 - 21:49
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,986



Thanks for replies, I got my V5 and a letter back from DVLA today they have amended it to now read that I acquired vehicle on 14th June 2012. So if the council refuse to listen to my initial letters I can always show them my a copy of my new V5.

I hope the previous owner enjoys his surprise when he gets them back through his door!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
horationelson
post Tue, 17 Jul 2012 - 11:25
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Member No.: 55,664



Although it looks like we've now gone past the point of whether it's fraud or not, see s.2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (offence of fraud by misrepresentation): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

It is certainly a false representation. The only issue which others have raised above is proving, beyond reasonable doubt, it was "dishonest" and that the person making the representation intended to cause loss or expose you to loss (2(1)(a) and (b) respectively).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:18
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here