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.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks