Spotted On The Daily Mail Site

Not that I'm admitting to reading such crap.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ok-change.html

Guy

Caveat Emptor, as they say.

I think he’s trying his luck! Pissed at having to pay Road Tax for years to come!

I'm not too sure. Just had a read myself and I would say if the DVLA were aware of a problem over the details on the V5 they should have acted on it straight away. They dish out fines for us not to keep the details up to date. If there is a compulsion for one side of the contract (ie. us) to make sure the info is up to date and accurate on the V5, then they (DVLA -acting as a Government agency) have a compulsion to divulge if they even suspect that information to be wrong. At the very least they should be putting a marker on the cars records to show there may be a problem so that potential new owners can see that.
Waiting for five months after a change of ownership to spring the surprise is a little out of order.
If the seller had been made aware of the problem by the DVLA then for sure he has culpability too.
If not I'd say the DVLA have a case to answer and that is exactly what's happening.
Who knows what's in the Judges mind though. It often happens in cases like this where it is adjourned for deliberation. Did we ever find out what the actual result of the Hrablek case was? The Court proceedings were reported, as here, but the actual result of the judgment often goes unreported. We should be asking ourselves why.

It's all a bit fishy because any original '64 Cobra would have been worth substantially more than £250k in 2014, on top of which there is the question of the chassis number which is fairly easy to research in the internet age. I surmise from this that he must have known that it was not an original car and would not have been built in period, therefore the registration as a '64 car was dubious at best. Why isn't he suing the vendor rather than the DVLA?