Henderson v Smart RV Limited - Reference No. 039/2020 MVD [2020] NZMVDT 134 (19 August 2020)

Last Updated: 17 September 2020

IN THE MOTOR VEHICLE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

I TE RŌPŪ TAKE TAUTOHENGA Ā-WAKA

MVD 039/2020
[2020] NZMVDT 134

BETWEEN SCOTT ASHTON HENDERSON

Purchaser

AND SMART RV LIMITED

Respondent

HEARING on 6 August 2020
MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL

J S McHerron, Barrister – Adjudicator
R C Dixon, Assessor

APPEARANCES

S A Henderson, Purchaser (by VMR)
S Simmonds, Director of Respondent (by phone)

DATE OF DECISION 19 August 2020

___________________________________________________________________

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

___________________________________________________________________

Scott Henderson’s rejection of his Volkswagen T5 is upheld. Smart RV Ltd must pay Mr Henderson $16,444.94 no later than 2 September 2020. Once Smart RV Ltd has paid Mr Henderson in full, he must make the vehicle available for it to collect at its cost, if any. Mr Henderson should inform the Tribunal if Smart RV Ltd does not comply with these orders. In that case the Tribunal will consider whether to take any further steps.

REASONS

Introduction

[1] Scott Henderson has had a series of problems with the 2006 Volkswagen T5 that he purchased on 23 August 2019 for $13,000. These problems culminated in the vehicle breaking down, just before Christmas 2019. It requires significant engine repairs or a replacement engine at a cost that is likely to exceed the purchase price.

The terms of a settlement agreement were not fulfilled

[2] At a telephone conference on 29 May 2020, Lindsey Michael Simmonds (whose involvement in this matter I will shortly outline) offered to pay Mr Henderson $12,000 no later than 30 June 2020. The terms of the offer were that once that sum was paid, Mr Henderson would allow Mr Simmonds to collect the Volkswagen in full settlement of Mr Henderson’s claim against Smart RV Ltd (the company that Mr Henderson claims sold him the vehicle).[1]
[3] Mr Henderson decided to accept Mr Simmonds’ offer, on the condition that if the money was not paid in full by 30 June 2020, he would then continue with his claim against Smart RV Ltd in the Tribunal.
[4] In my Minute dated 8 June 2020, I adjourned Mr Henderson’s application so that the payment and return of the vehicle could take place, as agreed. My Minute stated that if the payment was not made in full by 30 June 2020, then Mr Henderson would be entitled to proceed with his claim in the Tribunal. Smart RV Ltd would then be given an opportunity to inspect the vehicle and it would also need to provide the information about the vehicle that the Tribunal had previously requested. That information included full details of all the repairs on the vehicle that were completed before and after it was sold to Mr Henderson, including the invoices relating to those repairs.
[5] Mr Simmonds did not pay Mr Henderson $12,000 by 30 June 2020 as agreed. Accordingly, as indicated in my Minute, Mr Henderson was entitled to proceed with his claim against Smart RV Ltd. I am satisfied that Mr Henderson gave Smart RV Ltd an opportunity to inspect the vehicle but that it did not take up that opportunity.

Svetlana Simmonds, but not Lindsey Michael Simmonds, attended the hearing

[6] On 5 August 2020, the day before the hearing of this matter, the Tribunal’s service manager contacted Mr Simmonds to remind him of the arrangements for the hearing the next day. Mr Simmonds told the service manager that, as he did not have a laptop or internet capable phone, his appearance at the hearing would need to be by telephone. The service manager made an arrangement to contact Mr Simmonds for the hearing on the number he gave. However, when the Tribunal’s case manager called that number, Svetlana Simmonds, Mr Simmonds’ wife and the sole director of Smart RV Ltd, answered. Ms Simmonds attended the hearing, representing Smart RV Ltd. She advised me that Mr Simmonds had chosen not to attend the hearing
[7] Ms Simmonds’ primary submission at the hearing was that Smart RV Ltd did not sell the vehicle to Mr Henderson and that he had brought his claim in the wrong forum.
[8] Accordingly, a preliminary issue for the Tribunal to determine in this matter is who sold the vehicle to Mr Henderson?

Issue one: Who sold the vehicle?

[9] The Tribunal only has jurisdiction if one party, but not both parties, to a claim is a motor vehicle trader.[2] It has no jurisdiction in respect of private sales. Accordingly, for his claim to proceed in the Tribunal, Mr Henderson needs to establish that the vehicle was sold to him by a motor vehicle trader rather than a private seller.
[10] The criteria for ascertaining whether someone is a motor vehicle trader are set out in ss 7-9 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, which provide:

7. Meaning of motor vehicle trader

In this Act, motor vehicle trader—

(a) means any person who carries on the business of motor vehicle trading (whether or not that person carries on any other business); and

(b) includes—

(i) [Repealed]

(ii) an importer:

(iii) a wholesaler:

(iv) a car auctioneer:

(v) a car consultant.

8. Who is treated as motor vehicle trader

(1) A person is treated as carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading for the purposes of this Act if—

(a) the person holds out that the person is carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading; or

(b) in any specified period, the person sells more than 6 motor vehicles, unless that person proves that those motor vehicles were not sold for the primary purpose of gain; or

(c) in any specified period, the person imports more than 3 motor vehicles, unless that person proves that those motor vehicles were not imported to be sold for the primary purpose of gain.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a person holds out that the person is carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading if that person—

(a) advertises or notifies or states that the person carries on the business of motor vehicle trading; or

(b) in any way represents that the person is ready to carry, or is carrying, on the business of motor vehicle trading.

(3) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply to any trustee corporation (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Trustee Act 1956) acting in the capacity of executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, committee, manager, agent, attorney, or liquidator, or in any fiduciary capacity, unless the trustee corporation is acting on behalf of the same person or estate.

9. Who is not treated as motor vehicle trader

(1) A person is not treated as carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading for the purposes of this Act only because that person is—

(a) an employee or an agent of a motor vehicle trader; or

(b) under a contract for services with a motor vehicle trader; or

(c) solicitor who acts in that capacity as an agent for selling any motor vehicle unless that person is remunerated by commission in addition to, or instead of, that person’s professional charges; or

(d) a liquidator of a company that is a motor vehicle trader registered under this Act; or

(e) a manufacturer who sells any motor vehicle to—

(i) the Crown; or

(ii) a motor vehicle trader registered under this Act; or

(iii) any person who is or has been employed by the manufacturer; or

(ea) a car market operator; or

(f) a licensed car wrecker; or

(g) a finance company selling any motor vehicle under a transaction in which a motor vehicle trader acts as an intermediary between the finance company and the buyer (whether or not the motor vehicle trader acts as an agent of the finance company); or

(h) a finance company, an insurance company, a rental car company, a storage provider (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998), or any other person, that sells any motor vehicle as an incidental part of the person’s ordinary business; or

(i) carrying on any other business besides carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading and who, in the course of that other business,—

(i) buys any motor vehicle for use in connection with that business, with or without the intention of reselling it after such use; or
(ii) resells the vehicle after using it in connection with that business.

(2) Subsection (1)(d), (h), and (i) applies only if the person sells motor vehicles through a motor vehicle trader registered under this Act.

Did Smart RV Ltd sell the motor vehicle to Mr Henderson?

[11] Mr Henderson first became aware that the vehicle was for sale from reading a Trade Me listing which he saw on or around 21 August 2019. The Trade Me listing, a copy of which was produced in the Tribunal, gave no indication that the vehicle was being sold by Smart RV Ltd. It named the seller of the vehicle as “fisher1980”. The name associated with that Trade Me account, according to the Trade Me member profile, is “Jennie”, and the location associated with the account is Rotorua.
[12] Mr Henderson contacted the account holder by telephone and spoke to an unidentified woman who told Mr Henderson that she lists vehicles on behalf of the seller. This woman apparently passed Mr Henderson’s details to Mr Simmonds, who contacted Mr Henderson by telephone.
[13] Mr Simmonds told Mr Henderson that he was in the business of buying old Volkswagen vehicles and selling them. He claimed that he was a mechanic who bought vehicles, did them up and on-sold them. Mr Simmonds offered Mr Henderson a “mechanical guarantee” if he bought the Volkswagen T5.
[14] From the information Mr Simmonds gave him, Mr Henderson formed the view that Mr Simmonds was holding himself out as carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading.
[15] I agree that Mr Simmonds’ comments can be construed as him holding out to Mr Henderson that he was carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading, in terms of s 8(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act (above). Motor vehicle trading is defined in s 6(1) of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act as “the sale of motor vehicles by a person (whether or not the person is a principal or agent)”. Thus, it is necessary to consider whether Mr Simmonds was offering to sell the vehicle in his own capacity, or as agent for Smart RV Ltd.
[16] On 21 August 2019, Mr Simmonds brought the vehicle to the TECT All Terrain Park on the Pyes Pa backroad for Mr Henderson to inspect. Happy with what he saw, Mr Henderson paid $1,000 deposit for the vehicle that day. Mr Simmonds gave Mr Henderson a bank account number for payment and told him that the account belonged to Smart RV Ltd. This reassured Mr Henderson that he was purchasing the vehicle from a commercial entity. Mr Henderson included a copy of his own bank statement with his application to the Tribunal. It shows that the deposit was paid to an account holder described as “Smart Ltd”.
[17] Smart RV Ltd’s sole director and shareholder is Lindsey Simmonds’ wife, Svetlana Simmonds. Ms Simmonds confirmed that all the money paid by Mr Henderson to purchase the car, as well as several other payments made subsequently by him for repairs and alterations, were all paid into Smart RV Ltd’s bank account.
[18] Ms Simmonds told the Tribunal that the first time she had any contact with Mr Henderson was at the hearing on 6 August 2020. Ms Simmonds acknowledged that she had accompanied her husband when delivering the vehicle to Mr Henderson. But she said that, for her, this was just part of a family trip. Ms Simmonds told the Tribunal that she had not sent any texts or emails to Mr Henderson and that the vehicle had never been in her name or the company’s name.
[19] Ms Simmonds said that Mr Simmonds is not employed by Smart RV Ltd. However, as mentioned, she accepted that all of the money for the vehicle, both for the purchase price and for repairs, a total of $14,925, was deposited into Smart RV Ltd’s bank account.
[20] Ms Simmonds said that the reason Smart RV Ltd became registered as a motor vehicle trader on 23 September 2019 is because it sells vehicles that it does not need for renting anymore. But she also said that Smart RV Ltd had not sold any vehicles yet. I asked whether Smart RV Ltd had received funds into its bank account in respect of any other vehicle sales (apart from Mr Henderson’s). Ms Simmonds said that she did not know. I asked Ms Simmonds to describe what sort of visibility or control she has over the company’s affairs and she said: “I leave all of that to my husband”. Her admitted lack of visibility over the company’s affairs immediately casts doubt on Ms Simmonds’ assertion that Smart RV Ltd has not sold any vehicles.
[21] Reflecting on Ms Simmonds’ earlier statement that she had never sent any emails to Mr Henderson, I asked her to confirm whether she sent the email to Mr Henderson from the company’s email address [e-mail] on 12 December 2019 at 7.50 pm, which states:

Michael is back from Auckland tomorrow afternoon. He took a silver van for a trial. I think its yours but don’t want to say ... when Michael is back he will call I’m sure, regards Svetlana.

[22] Ms Simmonds said she did not think she had sent this email to Mr Henderson. She confirmed that both she and her husband were the people with access to the Smart RV email account. I asked whether Ms Simmonds thought her husband may have impersonated her in sending this email in her name. She said she did not want to believe he had done so.
[23] Ms Simmonds either sent the email to Mr Henderson (contrary to her recollection as stated to the Tribunal), or this is another example of Mr Simmonds carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading in the guise of Smart RV Ltd, or its director. Either way, it is consistent with Smart RV Ltd’s involvement with this vehicle.
[24] There is minimal documentation associated with the sale of the vehicle to Mr Henderson. In particular, no consumer information notice (CIN) was supplied with the vehicle.[3] Nor was there any written contract for the sale of the vehicle.[4]
[25] Mr Henderson also referred to Mr Simmonds’ offer to settle Mr Henderson’s claim by giving him another vehicle that Mr Henderson later found belonged to Smart RV Ltd. Mr Henderson submitted that this was further evidence that Mr Simmonds was acting at all times as Smart RV Ltd’s agent in respect of his dealings concerning the Volkswagen T5. Mr Henderson also pointed to the large number of emails he has received from Smart RV Ltd’s email account, as well as texts and phone calls from a number belonging to Smart RV Ltd.

Tribunal’s assessment

[26] On the basis of the evidence described above, I find that Smart RV Ltd sold the Volkswagen T5 to Mr Henderson. Mr Simmonds was the individual most closely involved in the sale of the vehicle. But, in my assessment, he was acting as Smart RV Ltd’s agent in selling the car to Mr Henderson. Mr Simmonds tried to obscure the identity of the seller, including by using the fisher1980 Trade Me account, and through the lack of documentation recording the sale. Mr Simmonds’ decision not to attend the Tribunal hearing to explain his role in the sale, and Ms Simmonds’ approach in the hearing of denying Smart RV Ltd’s involvement in the sale (despite it receiving all the proceeds of the sale) are also consistent with this strategy of obfuscation.
[27] The combination of the funds relating to the vehicle being paid into Smart RV Ltd’s bank account, the close association between Mr Simmonds and Svetlana Simmonds, and the fact that the communications in respect of the vehicle came from telephone and email addresses associated with Smart RV Ltd all point to Mr and Ms Simmonds being jointly involved in an attempt to obscure who sold this vehicle. This was apparently designed to discourage Mr Henderson from pursuing his consumer rights against Smart RV Ltd.
[28] I accept Mr Henderson’s submission that Mr Simmonds held himself out as carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading, by telling Mr Henderson that he was involved in the business of buying old Volkswagen vehicles and on-selling them. I find that Mr Simmonds told Mr Henderson these things as the agent of Smart RV Ltd.
[29] Smart RV Ltd was only registered as a motor vehicle trader from 23 September 2019, one month after this vehicle was sold to Mr Henderson. There was no evidence of how many vehicles Smart RV Ltd had sold prior to (or indeed after) that date.
[30] However, through the agency of Mr Simmonds, Smart RV Ltd held out to Mr Henderson that it was carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading in terms of s 8 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. In that way, Smart RV Ltd is treated as a motor vehicle trader under s 8 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act, even though it was not yet registered.[5]

Conclusion

[31] I find that Smart RV Ltd sold the Volkswagen to Mr Henderson and that it was carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading when it did so.

Issue two: Did the vehicle fail to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality?

[32] Section 6(1) of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (the CGA) provides that “where goods are supplied to a consumer there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality”. According to s 2 of the CGA, “goods” includes vehicles.
[33] “Acceptable quality” is defined in s 7 of the CGA (as far as is relevant) as follows:

7. Meaning of acceptable quality

(1) For the purposes of section 6, goods are of acceptable quality if they are as—

(a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of the type in question are commonly supplied; and

(b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and

(c) free from minor defects; and

(d) safe; and

(e) durable,—

as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods, including any hidden defects, would regard as acceptable, having regard to—

(f) the nature of the goods:

(g) the price (where relevant):

(h) any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods:

(ha) the nature of the supplier and the context in which the supplier supplies the goods:

(i) any representation made about the goods by the supplier or the manufacturer:

(j) all other relevant circumstances of the supply of the goods.

...

[34] Whether a vehicle is of acceptable quality is considered from the point of view of a reasonable consumer who is fully acquainted with the state and condition of the vehicle, including any hidden defects.
[35] The vehicle appears to have been beset with mechanical problems almost immediately after Mr Henderson purchased it. Mr Henderson reported that on 24 August 2019, the day after he took delivery of the vehicle, its oil light came on. Mr Simmonds carried out various repairs on the vehicle between August 2019 and December 2019, presumably as part of the “mechanical guarantee” that he provided. Notwithstanding that “mechanical guarantee”, Mr Henderson had to pay Smart RV Ltd for some of the repairs that Mr Simmonds carried out. Mr Henderson indicated that the vehicle’s oil cooler was replaced and its turbo was rebuilt. In addition, it appears that Mr Henderson paid Smart RV Ltd to carry out paint and panel beating repairs, as well as a repair to a van vent. Despite requesting Smart RV Ltd and Mr Simmonds to provide invoices for, and further details of, these repairs, the requested information was not forthcoming.
[36] At some time around December 2019, the vehicle’s engine appears to have seized and Mr Simmonds claims to have rebuilt the engine. However, this repair did not fix the problem and, just before Christmas, the vehicle broke down. Mr Henderson had to arrange for an emergency rental car to allow him to complete his Christmas and New Year’s travel plans.
[37] Mr Henderson rejected the Volkswagen on or around 28 December 2019. He did not trust Mr Simmonds to carry out any further mechanical repairs on the vehicle.
[38] The vehicle is not currently driveable. The last time it operated it was in limp mode. A report from Tauranga Diesel Specialists confirmed a loud knocking noise in the top of the engine, apparently in the top of the head. Further inspection is required to confirm the diagnosis but Tauranga Diesel Specialists points to the following possible causes:

A broken rocker, broken camshaft, broken unit injector, cracked piston, or worn damaged big end bearing.

[39] The Tribunal’s Assessor, Mr Dixon, said that based on this evidence it was not possible to be conclusive, but it appears likely that the engine will need to be rebuilt or replaced.
[40] Mr Simmonds requested an opportunity to inspect the vehicle’s engine. I am satisfied that Mr Henderson gave him an opportunity to do so before the hearing, but that Mr Simmonds did not take up that opportunity.
[41] On the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, which strongly suggests that the vehicle’s engine will need to be rebuilt or replaced at significant cost, I am satisfied that the vehicle did not comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality. Mr Henderson has had very limited use of this vehicle since purchasing it. It appears from the odometer reading that he has only been able to drive the vehicle approximately 700 km. It has had numerous mechanical failures over the short period that Mr Henderson owned it before rejecting it approximately four months after purchase.
[42] In addition, I consider that the vehicle’s mechanical failures, resulting in a likely diagnosis that Mr Henderson will need to rebuild or replace his vehicle’s engine at an expected cost higher than the purchase price of $13,000, amount to a failure of a substantial character in terms of s 21 of the CGA. In particular I do not consider that this vehicle would have been acquired by a reasonable consumer who was fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failures that have occurred. As well, I consider this vehicle is substantially unfit for the usual purpose for which vehicles of this kind are commonly supplied, namely to be driven.

Conclusion

[43] I conclude that the vehicle did not comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality. The failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality is a failure of a substantial character.

Issue three: What remedy (if any) is Mr Henderson entitled to?

[44] The remedies available to a consumer where a vehicle has failed to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality are set out in s 18 of the CGA, which provides:

18. Options against suppliers where goods do not comply with guarantees

(1) Where a consumer has a right of redress against the supplier in accordance with this Part in respect of the failure of any goods to comply with a guarantee, the consumer may exercise the following remedies.

(2) Where the failure can be remedied, the consumer may—

(a) require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time in accordance with section 19:

(b) where a supplier who has been required to remedy a failure refuses or neglects to do so, or does not succeed in doing so within a reasonable time,—

(i) have the failure remedied elsewhere and obtain from the supplier all reasonable costs incurred in having the failure remedied; or

(ii) subject to section 20, reject the goods in accordance with section 22.

(3) Where the failure cannot be remedied or is of a substantial character within the meaning of section 21, the consumer may—

(a) subject to section 20, reject the goods in accordance with section 22; or

(b) obtain from the supplier damages in compensation for any reduction in value of the goods below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the goods.

(4) In addition to the remedies set out in subsection (2) and subsection (3), the consumer may obtain from the supplier damages for any loss or damage to the consumer resulting from the failure (other than loss or damage through reduction in value of the goods) which was reasonably foreseeable as liable to result from the failure.

[45] Initially, when this vehicle began to have mechanical problems, Mr Henderson exercised his right under s 18(2)(a) (above) to require Smart RV Ltd to remedy the failure. This led to Smart RV Ltd, through its agent Mr Simmonds, apparently rebuilding the engine in December 2019.
[46] However, the breakdown of the vehicle on Christmas Eve 2019, followed by the diagnosis of a harsh metallic knocking in the top of the engine, with a likely recommended repair involving a further rebuild or replacement of the engine, signifies quite clearly in Mr Dixon’s and my view that Smart RV Ltd has not succeeded in remedying this vehicle’s mechanical defects. Mr Henderson is therefore entitled to reject the vehicle under s 18(2)(b)(ii) of the CGA.
[47] The fact that the failures experienced by Mr Henderson amount to failures of a substantial character provides an additional basis for him to reject the vehicle, under s 18(3)(a) of the CGA.
[48] At the initial telephone conference, Mr Simmonds asked whether changes made by Mr Henderson to the vehicle after purchase might disentitle him from being able to reject the vehicle. A person loses the right to reject goods if those goods have been damaged after delivery for reasons not related to their state or condition at the time of supply.[6] Mr Henderson has removed the vehicle’s seats and has installed a new plywood floor in the vehicle. However, Mr Henderson explained in the hearing that the seats were removed at Mr Simmonds’ request when the vehicle was sold, because Mr Simmonds wanted to sell the seats to another buyer.
[49] I am not persuaded that the installation of a new floor in the van amounts to damage in terms of s 20(1)(c) of the CGA. Rather, this is a mere minor modification which is likely to be able to be restored to its original condition if Smart RV Ltd wants to do so.
[50] I have concluded that:

• (a) this vehicle failed to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality;
• (b) the failure was of a substantial character;
• (c) Smart RV Ltd did not succeed in remedying the failure; and
• (d) there are no reasons why Mr Henderson has lost his right to reject the vehicle.

[51] Accordingly, I will uphold Mr Henderson’s rejection of the vehicle. I order Smart RV Ltd to refund Mr Henderson the purchase price of $13,000.
[52] In addition, I order Smart RV Ltd to refund Mr Henderson all of the other amounts that he paid it in respect of the various repairs carried on the vehicle since purchase. These additional amounts total $1,925 and, as I understand it, reflect a small contribution in respect of the engine rebuild carried out before Christmas 2019, repairs to the turbo, paint and panel beating, some unspecified parts and repairs to a van vent. Mr Henderson is entitled to recover these amounts as well under s 18(4) of the CGA.
[53] In addition, I order Smart RV Ltd to reimburse Mr Henderson $1,116 in respect of his emergency rental vehicle around Christmas/New Year 2019, $311.94 for the mechanical assessment carried out by Tauranga Diesel Specialists and $92 for towing the vehicle from Tauranga Diesel Specialists to the place where it is currently stored.

Conclusion

[54] In total, Smart RV Ltd must pay Mr Henderson $16,444.94 no later than 2 September 2020. I confirm that I will not allow Mr Henderson to recover the $200 for the new plywood floor, the $750 he paid for new tyres for the vehicle or the $50 Tribunal fee. All of these amounts are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for what it can award him under s 18(4) of the CGA in this case because they are not losses that are consequential on the vehicle’s failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality.
[55] Once Smart RV Ltd has paid Mr Henderson in full, he must make the vehicle available for it to collect at its cost, if any.

J S McHerron
Adjudicator

---

[1] Smart RV Ltd should not be confused with Smart Motorhome and Caravan Sales Ltd, which trades as “SmartRV” and is an unrelated entity.

[2] Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, s 90(1)(a).

[3] If the vehicle was sold by a motor vehicle trader, this is contrary to Consumer Information Standards (Used Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2008, reg 6(1), which requires the CIN to be “firmly attached to the motor vehicle in a prominent position” and s 28(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

[4] If the vehicle was sold by a motor vehicle trader, this is contrary to Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, s 21 and Motor Vehicle Sales Regulations 2003, reg 4.

[5] It is an offence to carry on the business of motor vehicle trading or to hold out that a person is a motor vehicle trader without being registered as a motor vehicle trader: Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, s 95.

[6] Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, s 20(1)(c).