Judge Rinder Hands Out An Incorrect Ruling!

Wednesday, 12. April 2017

Hi, Graham Hill here, thank you so much for visiting my blog, I hope you learn a lot and as a result end up driving a great car. In order to do so you can get all the information you need by buying my book, An Insider Guide To Car Finance or use me to finance your next car. Happy driving.

Shock horror, could Judge Rinder have got it wrong? As often happens, when anyone I know sees anything on TV that is mildly motor finance related they alert me to it so on Monday when the camp Judge Rinder, with an even stranger sense of humour than me, presided over the sale of a van, I forced myself to watch whilst he patronised those who were ushered into his ‘court’.

I was about to turn it off when John and Frank appeared. It seems that Frank has a building company and runs a fleet of vans. His old friend John, who is a painter and decorator, needed a van and agreed to buy an ex company van personally from Frank’s company for £1,000. The van was what’s known as a Combo so it had rear seats, the sort of vehicle that can be used for business and as private transport.

Everything said so far indicated a private purchase. All good so far but within 4-5 weeks John experienced some major problems with the van. Firstly he had problems with the windscreen wipers, then the diesel pump failed followed by a very dangerous fault with the steering. Clearly for the vehicle to go faulty so soon after buying it suggests that the faults pre-existed.

Frank’s case wasn’t helped when he explained that the van only had 3 months MOT left on the vehicle and it had no service history. Judge Rinder suggested that as the van still had 3 months MOT on it that this proved that the vehicle was roadworthy –  what planet does this twat live on? And the vehicle was sold without any service history but Frank gave John assurances that the van was sound (a northern word – means working OK – I can be just as patronising).

Anyway, moving on, John gave back the van to Frank who had the van repaired but charged John the £400 it cost to repair – I’ll deal with this in a moment but Judge Dopeynuts then asked John if the van was now driving OK? He said he didn’t want to drive it as it no longer felt safe to drive and lights had appeared on the dashboard, to which the ‘Judge’ responded by asking why he wasn’t driving the van as it was now repaired.

Had he arranged for an independent inspection that resulted in John being told not to drive it? No was the answer but whilst asking the question they showed a picture of the dashboard which displayed two warning lights. One was orange and the other red. Now if the Judge knew the slightest thing about cars and vans he would know that if an orange light comes on it is a warning, washer fluid is low – that sort of thing, but if a red light comes on you stop the car immediately and don’t drive it till the fault has been investigated so John was right not to drive the car – Judge Twat!

Our good friend Judge Rinder then makes a complete arse of himself by challenging John about whose responsibility it was that the vehicle was faulty. I agree that the John could have been more careful and the fact that the van only had 3 months MOT on it and no service history should have caused him to at least have the vehicle inspected but that isn’t required in law.

Rinder (notice how I’m now referring to him as Rinder – total disdain) pointed out a piece of law called in Latin, Caveat Emptor which means buyer beware. This applies to a purchase from another private individual, NOT to a purchase from a Limited Company. Now I should add at this point that he kept referring to John buying the van from Frank but at the start of this item Frank went to lengths to explain that this was one of a fleet of white vans that he runs in the business. So one can assume this was sold to John by the company.

This being the case under European Law, the Sale Of Goods Act and the Consumer Rights Act the same protection is provided to a consumer as if he had bought the vehicle from a car dealer. Rinder went on to point out that Frank wasn’t a specialist in vehicle sales and he even went on to say that the documents were in order to prove that the vehicle was safe. How ridiculous, there was no service history and a 9 month old MOT.

John was relying upon the word of his friend and therefore the company from whom he bought the vehicle. Clearly Rinder has no knowledge of the European 2 year unconditional guarantee that everyone must provide, unless the seller is a private individual, on all new and second hand goods. Over and above that our own Consumer Rights Act gives you similar rights.

Even if the van was sold as a private sale the seller is not allowed to misrepresent the goods. Frank told John that the van was in good condition even though he wasn’t qualified to make that statement but the fact that the van was sold as faultless under the Misrepresentations Act 1967 John would have a claim against the seller as a result of false or fraudulent claims.

But that is if the vehicle was sold privately, which it wasn’t. When summing up Rinder pointed out, quite incorrectly, that as John had bought the van from a friend who wasn’t a specialist seller of vans, he bought the van as seen. That my friend is simply not the law! If your local estate agent managed to buy a batch of TV sets and sold them through his shop and the TV set you bought proved to be faulty would you expect to have no consumer rights against the seller as he was not a specialist TV seller?

Ridiculous. John not only paid £1,000 for the van but also a further £400 for repairs to be left with an undriveable van! To add to the pain the so called Judge found against John who should now be seeking a solution through a proper court. Good grief! By Graham Hill

Share My Blogs With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • MisterWong
  • Y!GG
  • Webnews
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Alltagz
  • Ask
  • Bloglines
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • TwitThis
  • Squidoo
  • MyShare
  • YahooBuzz
  • De.lirio.us
  • Wikio UK
  • Print
  • Socializer
  • blogmarks

One Response to “Judge Rinder Hands Out An Incorrect Ruling!”

  1. Brian Causton Says:

    I had a situation very similar to your final example of the TV sets being sold by an estate agent. Me and my wife went to buy some pet food from my local pet shop, and in the window he had a very nice looking old motor-scooter. We went in, and as well as pet food, bought the scooter. I had been a customer of the pet shop for a while, and trusted the owner who said it had been completely refurbished. I couldn’t test ride it because it was after a liquid lunch! Anyway, it proved to be a dangerous heap of s**t. I arranged for it to go into a scooter specialist to be looked at, but on the way, the clutch expired, and I was thrown off the bike, the wife following in the Merc nearly ran me over. Anyway, I took him to the small claims court, and won because he had taken my payment through the pet shops card machine. His defence was caveat emptor as it was a private sale. However, the judge only awarded the cost of the mechanical repairs, not the crash damage, as i shouldn’t have tried to ride it to the repairer knowing it was faulty. I’m barred from the pet shop!

Leave a Reply