In an hypothetical case, ?A' sells a car to ?B'. It is a private sale. The car was advertised as "drives perfectly" and is offered with 11 months MOT and nearly 12 months tax. ?A' writes "as seen" on the receipt. No mention is made of the car's roadworthiness and ?B' drives the car away while ?A' watches.
Within seven days so many problems become apparent that ?B' has the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) inspect the car. VOSA finds, among many other things, excessive corrosion that, in their opinion was "beyond all reasonable doubt" present when the MOT was done and the car should have been failed. VOSA reprimands the garage that did the MOT with a written warning and the Nominated Tester is required to undergo a training course.
?B' suspects, but cannot prove, that ?A' knew that the car was un-roadworthy and got the garage to issue the MOT regardless. Perhaps ?A' bought a replacement car from the garage. In any event, the same garage had serviced and MOT'd the car for nearly 10 years so they must have built up a relationship with ?A' over that time. After following up information kindly supplied in various newsgroups I believe that the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended 1991) section 75 (1) covers just this situation and I cannot see that ?A' has any defence to a prosecution. Can anyone here see something that I have missed?
As Trading Standards and the Police have no interest in enforcing this law I feel that I have an obligation to do so and I am considering a Private Prosecution. Any advice will be gratefully received as I cannot afford to engage a solicitor and got nowhere with Citizens Advice.