Park n Sell type sales?

stevo2, Apr 10, 6:54pm
I was asked the other day whether places like Easy Sell, Park n Sell or U Sell etc need to comply with the Consumer Guarantees Act etc as they may be RMT's (stating their number on the advert) but are selling the cars on the owners behalf or may be just acting as an advertising agent?
Secondly, do they have to guarantee ownership/ no finance the way a dealer does.
I was asked these questions but didnt actually know the answers.
Cheers Stevo
kazbanz, Apr 10, 7:27pm
if it looks like fish,smells like fish and tasted like fish.
If it is a car that they own themselves then you have the same cover as with any other dealer
The reality is that they do everything they can to wriggle out of cover under the CGA etc. Always claiming that the vehicle is the property of the mysterious mr X who is a "private individual".
You then need to establish if mr X is a trader or is acting as a trader.
Is mr X actually the owner of the park n sell place etc etc
So it gets very murkey very quickly
stevo2, Apr 10, 7:31pm
Thanks Kaz, and what about guaranteed title?
kazbanz, Apr 10, 7:54pm
They can SAY whatever they want. But reality is theres nothing stopping a private or "private" seller with money owing putting a car on their lot.
When push comes to shove they point to the sign saying "park n sell" and deny any responsibility.
Keep in mind too that a backyarder could rebuild a wrecked (say) Suzuki swift and put it on the park n sell lot.
I must say I'm VERY biased because a number of my customers have been bitten in various ways.
secca2, Apr 10, 8:53pm
franc123, Apr 10, 9:16pm
As far as legalities are concerned theres no difference to a private sale, if anything I would be even more wary. I would put it to anyone considering a vehicle from one of these operations, have you ever heard of anyone getting a good deal for what they paid from one of these places? You are far better off dealing with a conventional motor dealer than these strange go-betweens that really havent been a successful trading model in the scheme of things.
toenail, Apr 10, 9:42pm
its just a car park for people to dump their cars in and put an asking price for it.

you don't have any relationship with park and sell, its between you and the seller.
kazbanz, Apr 10, 9:48pm
The longer version showed there was no "link" to a private seller.
The "dealership" concerned doesn't say "park and sell" and were well known for selling piles of crud to tourists calling them "camper vans"
They would sell them and offer to buy back at the end of the trip.
-They are fairly close physically to us
kazbanz, Apr 10, 9:54pm
UNLESS you dig really deep and find a direct link from the car to the Park n sell.
franc123, Apr 10, 10:24pm
Youd think that the trader involved in the above case would have known better. The guy who bought the van was dead lucky he was able to prove that a third party did not appear to exist. You would also think that being asked to sign that crudely worded waiver on a $12k vehicle would have rung alarm bells and at best prompted an independent PPI, the seller knew damn well there was problems with it.
kazbanz, Apr 11, 12:12am
The guy that bought the van frankly should buy a lotto ticket.
The wheel could have come off at speed
The wheel could NOT have come off so there would have been no reason to get a post purchase inspection.
There COULD have been a private seller involved.
kazbanz, Apr 11, 12:15am
A very good reason why car sales people or at the very least dealer principles should need to pass an exam PROVING knowledge of the law before being given their first "dealers licence"
franc123, Apr 11, 12:16am
He certainly got lucky. In all honesty its difficult to decide in this particular case who the bluntest tool in the shed was.
franc123, Apr 11, 12:19am
Yer the other structural problems with it may not have been picked up until it was submitted for another WoF which of course would have most likely been at least 11 months after the sale date.
franc123, Apr 11, 12:22am
Agree wholeheartedly. In fact, DT case studies should be the primary study material lol.
curlcrown, Apr 11, 12:50am
They don't even call it a licence. It's nothing more than revenue gathering. Pay the fee and sign a from and Bob's your uncle. You don't have to know a thing about the law to get it,
kazbanz, Apr 11, 1:21am
Sorry mate I was being a bit obtuse. You have hit nail on the head. I'm saying you should have to pass a test not simply be given the trader registration.
curlcrown, Apr 11, 1:52am
Yes I agree, at least know how to full in a CIN form and know basic requirements.
hotelcarpet, Apr 11, 2:50am
You can get a good variety at park n sell and by same token a bad deal. I texted a number plate once to see if money was owing. the seller was gonna pocket my cash and not pay the loan of with it so tata.
curlcrown, Apr 11, 3:19am
Did you ask the seller about it? I've bought plenty of cars with "money owning" but it often takes days for the finance company to remove the security, sometimes a week or more and a few phone calls. or the seller could have provided the settelemnt figure upon agrement of sale for the buyer to pay to the finance company.
kazbanz, Apr 13, 1:19am
OR they are bang on correct and the seller would have pocketed the coin
kazbanz, Apr 14, 11:35pm
The FULL version of the story is a bit different.
It wasn't a "park n sell lot"
The seller is a dealer. The vehicle owner of record was coincidently also a dealer.
BUT not ever mentioned was that the dealer had offered to refund the sale price of the vehicle in full if the vehicle was returned to the dealership.
http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZMVDT/2021/26.html?query=2021
kazbanz, Aug 22, 7:57pm
Issue 2: Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine this claim?

[7] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is set out in s 89 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 (the MVSA). Under that section the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear any application or claim relating to the sale of any motor vehicle under the CGA, the Fair Trading Act 1986 and certain provisions of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017.
[8] There are limits to that jurisdiction. Relevant to this case, under s 90(1) of the MVSA, the Tribunal only has jurisdiction where one of the parties to a claim is a motor vehicle trader, as that term is defined in ss 7, 8 and 9 of the MVSA.
[9] A person who is a “car market operator” is not a motor vehicle trader.[2] Car market operator is defined in s 6 of the MVSA as a person who carries on the business of providing any premises or place for a market for the sale by other persons of used motor vehicles (whether or not the vehicles are subject to a bailment to the operator).
[10] Mr XXX says that, although he is a registered motor vehicle trader, he also operates a park and sell business, where he provides premises that are used by others to sell used motor vehicles. Mr XXX says that he sold this vehicle on behalf of a friend called Y, , who is associated with at least one company that is a registered motor vehicle trader. Although he did not express his defence in precisely this way, Mr MX’s claim that he is a park and sell operator means that I must consider whether Mr XX is a car market operator, and therefore exempt from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.