MOT requirements for imported German Van Forums

silversurfa

No its not a good Idea to fit one on the other side. 2 look like brake lights in heavy fog.

asprn

kencocamper

asprn-re incorrect and misleading.

I was talking about commen sence not the law,
if you are driving in fog you need a rear fog light on the off side or both sides for your own personal safety whatever country
Ken

asprn

kencocamper

asprn - compulsory legal issue

yes, but you will HAVE TO change the lights back if you want to be safe on a cold foggy night, as I said

Ken

asprn

kencocamper

asprn-<sigh>

when I said he would have to change the lights back I was refering to a post by someone who had adviced him to change the lights over not (what is required for an MOT on import).

Ken

thieawin

asprn

specifically what you said which is dangerous, and is not subject to your alleged contextualisation, was

"Vehicles need only to comply with the Construction & Use regulations of the member state in which they are registered. "

I then set out to demonstrate that whilst strictly true it was not applicable in practice and that you placed yourself and your audience at risk by so advising.

Your audience as they could be prosecuted

You because your audience may be able to sue you

Under the precedent set in Hedley Byrne v Heller a duty of care exists in respect of negligent misstatement if the following criteria exist:

• There is a special relationship between the parties involved.
• A voluntary assumption of responsibility by the party given the advice.
• Reliance by the claimant.

The Special Relationship

• Occurs when party could expect to trust and rely upon the advice given by another party. Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon.
• The absence of a direct relationship between the parties will normally prevent a special relationship occurring Williams and Reid v Natural Health Life Foods and Mistlin.
• This normally only occurs where the advice is given in a business context and not at an informal personal level.
• The concept of the special relationship does extend to information given to employers Spring v Guardian Plc.
• The existence of a contract does not prevent a special relationship arising . Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd.

Voluntary assumption of responsibility

• Occurs when the defendant chooses to give advice to a Third Party when they have the option to stay silent or stress that the information should not be relied upon. Dean v Allen Watts.
• This normally presumes that a disclaimer will preclude both the existence of a duty of care and therefore liability.
• This has now been relaxed somewhat – Smith v Eric Bush, Siddell v Smith Cooper and Partners.

Reliance by the Claimant

• This asserts that the claimant depended on the defendants skills that may have underpinned any advice given. It is not a general reliance on the defendant exercising care.
• In this context the following apply:
a) The claimant must know that the defendant gave that advice. Abbot v Strong.
b) The claimant can only rely on the advice for the purpose it was given. He cannot rely on advice given for a different purpose. Caparo v Dickman.
c) The claimant must be able to establish a causal link between reliance and financial loss. Bristol West Building Society v Mothew.

asprn your advice, indeed any advice on this site will fall in the choosing to give advice when you could have chosen to stay silent.

When I give advise you will note generally if it is not a don't I say they must check or that it is their own decison, that is a disclaimer

In this topic you suggested it would be OK to take the van back across without undoing the modifications because customs and use regulations allow that in the EU but the reality is no one will be taking the van to sit still on a quay side but to use it. There your advice becomes misleading and potentially dangerous if relied upon.

You offer your advice willingly, you know it might be relied on, you have the opportunity to stay silent, you do not qualify your advice with a disclaimer, you are portrayed as a prolific poster, of great experience who is relied on a lot, all those thanks! You are at serous risk. You don't recognise that risk. I have warned you but its up to you to decide for yourself.

Of course I have one thing you do not have I have PI insurance in case I'm wrong.

asprn · Last edited by asprn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:46 pm; edited 5 times in total

Well done for backing up your Case Law assertion. I am familiar with Hedley Byrne v. Heller (1963), and can see that what you've unpacked here about it, is your opinion. I have no intention of entering into what inevitably would be a lengthy (albeit interesting for some) debate over the points contained in the judgement, but I'm personally of the clear opinion that my relationship with others on this leisure forum is not sufficiently proximate to provide me with a defined duty of care. None of us here has a special relationship with anyone else in the generic context of voluntary membership, and to rely without checking on information posted here which may have legal ramifications for the person seeking the information, is foolhardy. Your parallel between that and the relationship between two professional organisations - and particularly their bankers - is in my view, not sustainable when compared with one member's relationship with another on an internet leisure forum, regardless of what other members' perceptions of that person are in terms of his or her knowledge. Quite apart from your other points which I won't go into in response, there is nothing contractual whatsoever in anyone's relationship to anyone else here, apart from the terms of membership between the site owner and the members which is quite another matter.

Here's my opinion on your response, not made in any way rudely. Your references to PI liability, "dangerous" statements, the placing of myself and the "audience" at risk - in fact, serious risk - although probably well-intended, are about 1,000 miles off course. This is a leisure forum, not a service provider, where other than in the generic community sense, members have no Duty Of Care in the liability context to which you refer. Even I in my worse pedantic or paranoid moments do not believe that this forum comes near being under the jurisdiction of what you've said.

Only a professional such as (presumably) yourself needs Professional Indemnity insurance - a red herring therefore.

You say, "You are at serous risk. You don't recognise that risk." You're wrong on the first count in my opinion, which make the second an irrelevance.

"I have warned you but its up to you to decide for yourself"
If as you clearly do, you feel you are in a position to issue warnings, you had better in that case post a new bold and clear thread warning every member of what you consider the serious risk we all carry (and the danger we are all in) by participating in (not staying silent) and posting advice on the forums, which might be relied upon. Do you in fact sell non-professional indemnity insurance? Maybe you could offer that along with the warnings?

Dougie.