Latest news

« »

Saturday, 31 December 2016

The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2016 (SI No. 2016/1193)

The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2016 came into effect on 31 December 2016. They increase the minimum mandatory insurance cover for motor insurance policies in Great Britain relating to property to £1.2 million for any one accident, replacing the previous minimum which stood at £1 million. The minimum derives from the Motor Insurance Directive (Directive 2009/103/EC of the Euiropean Parliament and of the Council of 16th September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability). Article 9(1) sets the minimum, and Article 9(2) provides for it to be index-linked and adjusted every five years, hence the present regulations.

'via Blog this'

Monday, 19 December 2016

Car dealer ordered to pay £1,500 after duping 'naive' customer - Car Dealer Magazine

Car Dealer Magazine reports that a dealer from Reading who sold a Ford Ka without telling the buyer that it had been previously damaged was given a 12-month conditional discharge as well as being ordered to pay £500 compensation and £1,000 costs (which seems to attach  more importance to legal fees than to the damage done to the consumer, but perhaps we should not be surprised at that).

At first, the magistrates were not convinced that the offender, an individual, should be treated as a trader  for the purposes of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 - notwithstanding that he had sold 19 cars in the two years leading up to the offence (in 2011). On appeal, Deputy District Judge Khan said that there was 'compelling evidence' that he was a car trader because of the regularity of the deals. In addition, his account with Auto Trader had a trade discount and he used a trade name in advertisements and on the receipt (which incidentally also bore the legend 'sold as seen', which wouldn't get him very far - indeed, could possibly even have got him prosecuted for another offence if it was seen as an attempt to exclude statutory warranties).

'via Blog this'