# Alan Kerr solicitors letter update.



## 96410 (Sep 30, 2005)

Myself , boyfriend and brother (who is mental handicapped) went to Alan Kerr’s LTD in early 2006 to view and possibly trade in our 1999 Hymer A class. As we were looking at the newer motor homes, the salesman suggested we look at the brand new ones. As my brother is mentally handicapped and we use the van for him, he said that we would be eligible for a brand new van, Vat except (we new nothing about Vat except motor homes) so we decided that a new would work for us.

List price on the new van was approximately £29,000 inc vat and the salesman only wanted £500 to change, provided we were in receipt of full disability living allowance and were blue badge holders and also a wheelchair user, we qualified on all 3. We handed in the paperwork and the van was delivered vat free.

The vehicle was delivered to us with no adaptions what so ever. I had to get these fitted after I took delivery by another dealer.

In 2008 Alan Kerr Ltd has had a vat inspection for 2006, and motor homes which they have sold should not have been vat except and HMRC have asked Alan Kerr Ltd pay the Vat on the motor homes.

Alan Kerr Ltd has now sent several solicitors letters to me asking for the payment of £4350 or I will be taken to court.

When we went to Alan Kerr LTD in 2006 we had no intention of buying a new motor home but the deal we were offered seemed a great deal. I entered this contract in good faith understanding that the dealer knew what they were doing, so we were falsely advised, and now are being harassed for the money.

Sadly my brother is no longer with us and I have a 2 month old baby, so its stress I could do without.

What a great way to treat your customers.

Any ideas how i will get on???


----------



## greenasthegrass (Oct 27, 2007)

Take a look here Subaru this may be your first port of call for free legal advice.

HERE

HTH

Greenie


----------



## some-where-in-oxford (Apr 18, 2006)

I bookmarked this sometime ago in case I ever need it.

http://www.justanswer.com/law/uk


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Hello subaru,
I know of several people with disabled kids buying new American RVs free of VAT and import tax. 
Unless the rules have dramatically changed (I doubt it) then you are quite entitled to have bought the rig tax fee.

It will be the dealer who needs to explain the sale and not you.

I'm sure there will be info online to clarify your position. I think my first step would be to contact 'customs' and explain.

Ray.


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes (Jul 21, 2007)

_*the salesman suggested* we look at the brand new ones. As my brother is mentally handicapped and we use the van for him, *he said* that we would be eligible for a brand new van, Vat except (we new nothing about Vat except motor homes) so we decided that a new would work for us.

List price on the new van was approximately £29,000 inc vat and the salesman only wanted £500 to change, provided we were in receipt of full disability living allowance and were blue badge holders and also a wheelchair user, we qualified on all 3. We handed in the paperwork and the van was delivered vat free._

Hi Su,

I am not a legal expert but from what I read, the saleman promoted the idea, you did not, he stated the terms and that the MH would cost X amount.

The fact that he sold you the MH und*er false pretenses* (and Alan Kerr Ltd has on it would seem a number of others) is their problem, not yours. They should have contacted HM Customs and made sure you were eligible, I am of the opinion that they also broke the VAT regulations by supplying the MH without the modifications that you needed.

You have fullfilled your part of the contract as offered by the salesman.

If on the other hand you went in and said 'we qualify for VAT exempt' then it could be a different story.

Suggest you get some free advice from Citizens Advice Bureau.

Good Luck

Peter


----------



## Annsman (Nov 8, 2007)

From my understanding, and I'm not a solicitor but we did look into this for my mum last year, you have done nothing wrong. You bought the van for the use of your brother, who was in full receipt of the required disability benefits. You handed over the correct paperwork and they then/should have passed these to HMRC when the van was ordered. Paying their VAT is nothing to do with you.

You could write to the solicitors explaining that you bought the van under the VAT exempt rules for use by a disabled person and see what happens. Your local Benefits Agency, Welfare Rights or a Citizens Advice Centre can help you find out the correct wording.

Or if you have a quiet half hour when the babys' in bed you could look on the B.A. web site for VAT Exempt vehicles and find it yourself. The web sites are easy to understand and easy to follow.

As I say I'm not a legal brain but from your side of the story you would appear to have done nothing wrong. Good Luck!


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Check out 
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publication...cationsPolicyAndGuidance/Browsable/DH_5856941

Ray.


----------



## Jezport (Jun 19, 2008)

A quick phonecall to HMRC VAT department, and explain what has happened. Have the companies VAT number to quote them.

The VAT people are generaly good to deal with, as I found out when I had to take over my fathers tax matters after a brain tumour made him too ill to complete his return. They were very understanding.


----------



## 96410 (Sep 30, 2005)

My solicitor has written a letter explaing everything but they are still going to take it to court.

Thanks for the links.


----------



## 96410 (Sep 30, 2005)

Customs are not wanting the money from me they have been paid by Alan Kerr Ltd. Alan kerr Ltd wants me to pay him for the money he has paid custom.


----------



## aultymer (Jun 20, 2006)

As a former VAT registered trader I would suggest that HMRC will have no interest in any correspondence with you. This is not through any fault of HMRC it is just the way they work. 

You don't owe HMRC anything but it looks like the dealer does (through his own lack of knowledge of the rules or his deliberate flouting of them) and is trying it on with you. 

Get some legal or CAB advice and act on that.


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes (Jul 21, 2007)

subaru said:


> My solicitor has written a letter explaing everything but they are still going to take it to court.
> 
> Thanks for the links.


In my opinion, they will lose as you fulfilled your part of the contract, but please don't rely on just my opinion

By the way, you could always contact BBC Watchdog!
Peter


----------



## zulurita (May 9, 2005)

It would seem to me that Alan Kerr's are the ones at fault. They are wrong for selling the mh without the modifications necessary to comply with the vat exempt status, I would think. Do you still have the receipt for the modification you had done at another dealers?

Also their sales staff should know about the VAT exemption or at least know a member of staff that does so that they do things correctly and DO NOT put their customers in your position.


----------



## CliveMott (Mar 10, 2008)

Its looks simple to me!
Alan Kerr made the supposed mistake.
Alan kerr should pay.
You acted in good faith.

But you must get some professional advice. CAB is a good starting point. I also believe You should also talk to the tax man at the tax office concerned directly so they understand the situation potentially bad advice by a retailer has put you in.

If they say its down to Alan kerr, not you that that should be the end of it I guess.

Good luck

C.


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

Hi Subaru

Do the solicitor's letters state why they are chasing you for the debt? They must be trying to lay the blame on you in some way. What you don't say (or maybe don't know) is why Kerr paid the VAT. Presumably, they supplied a vehicle VAT free which shouldn't have been (and therefore had to stump up the money afterwards). Have the solicitors said why it wasn't exempt? And why you should pay the money?

Have you had a read through :: THIS ::? (It's the HMRC guidelines for claiming zero-rated VAT on the motorhome. In particular, look at section 2.1 "Conditions for zero-rated sales of adapted motor vehicles", and subsequent explanations. It seems to suggest that to be eligible, *it must be supplied already adapted for wheelchair use*, which you state it wasn't. Also read through the previous thread :: HERE ::

I agree with others - you really need to seek professional advice on this. I've no idea whether you are liable for the VAT payment or not.

Good luck.

Gerald


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

This

website could be of use to you.Government funded and under the umbrella of trading standards.

I contacted them recently for help with a problem and was impressed.I received good advice over the phone,and was able to sort it out.


----------



## bigfoot (May 16, 2005)

Subaru, I am sorry to hear of your brothers passing. Adaptations should not be a factor in the exemption of a vehicle from vat. I would sugest that you also make contact with your local disability organisation. They may have an advocate who may be able to assist.
I would strongly think that they are on a hiding to nothing,after all thay have not sent the correct returns to HMRC and are now expecting you to pay for their cockups. Have you contacted the other purchasers? Unity is strength.
Also may I repeat you have done nothing wrong Alan Kerr's have!!


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

From what has been written HMRC are not interested in you at all, but their support that no VAT was due will count considerably in your favour.

As everyone has said get advice, you state that "your solicitor has sent a letter explaining the facts" so it seems to me that you have had advice. In which case collect as much supporting information from e.g. HMRC and the person who did the moficiations and pass all of that to your solicitor.

Resist any attempt to claim from you; they incurred the debt, it is their reponsibility - assuming that you were entitled to a VAT free MH (and I do not know the legalities of that) and gave them proof of the disability benefits registration then I would expect any court claim to fail and for costs to be awarded to you.

But I am not legally trained and we all know that the law can be diffciult to understand. We used to buy things for ambulances, including repairs and spares, and that was VAT free but we had to submit a statement as to why it was VAT free at the time of order.

Use your legal advisor fully, be guided by them and keep a record of everything that you have done, do not respond to letters from them - pass them to your solicitor for action. If you feel harrassed by them then tell your solicitor so that such actions can be stopped.

Do let us know how things progress - it is not easy but from what you have said your actions are clear and the whole issue happened because of the advice and actions from one of their sales team. They initiated the sale, not you.

Good luck, we all hope that it turns out OK and that you do not feel stressed by what is happening.


----------



## 109353 (Jan 20, 2008)

*vat claim*

The price on the order/invoice is the price you needed to pay for the motorhome, if they have made a mistake then their not well enough trained, their lawyer will know this but if he doesn't send the letters he wont get paid, don't worry you wont have to pay them a penny but as everyone has said go through the correct channels. speak to your lawyer to make sure he can claim his fees from them and if not go to CAB.


----------



## Invicta (Feb 9, 2006)

Could I ask Sabaru;

a) Was your brother completely wheelchair dependent?

b) How did you get him and his wheelchair into the M/C?

c) Did he travel in his wheelchair in which case fixing points with a safety harness needed to be provided. (It is not a requirement though to have to sit in the wheelchair when travelling in the M/C)

d) Was there a storage box attached to the M/C in which to store the wheelchair while travelling?

All factors that the saleman should have assessed and been aware of when telling you about the VAT exemption.

As others have said before, it isn't you who is in dispute with the VAT man. As for Allan Kerr now trying to reclaim the VAT from you, let them take you to court I say!

Of course one would expect to pay for such items as wheelchair clamps/safety harnesses and storage boxes at the time of the purchase in fact they must be fitted at the time of the original purchase and not afterwards to be entitled to the VAT exemption.

Very sorry to hear that your brother is no longer with you.


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

FWIW my own opinion is that if the authorities were pursuing you, you would have to pay up; you broke the law.

As Alan Kerr is pursuing you, I would consider carefully the evidence, but on the basis of what you have said I'd want to have my day in court with them.

Dave


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Alan Kerr*

I agree with Dave.

Russell


----------



## china (Sep 21, 2005)

The reason the vat people have picked this up is the vehicle is registered in your name and should have been been registered in your brothers name as he should have been buying the vehicle for his own use.
Peter


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes (Jul 21, 2007)

china said:


> The reason the vat people have picked this up is the vehicle is registered in your name and should have been been registered in your brothers name as he should have been buying the vehicle for his own use.
> Peter


_brother (who is mentally handicapped) _ <<<<<<

He may not be considered capable of understanding and signing a legal contract or filling up forms which require a signature.

In any event it has been proven to be a sales ploy to sell a new MH instead of a used one and there appear to be a number of other occurences of this practice of supplying VAT free MH's to other people.


----------



## NEV3 (Feb 7, 2007)

Hi subaru

No the vehicle does not have to have been registered in your late brothers name. It can be registered in anyones name provided it is used solely for the disabled person in question.
This is a different issue and is all about whether the vehicle was modified or not. If it was not modified then it sounds like you didn't qualify for the VAT exemption, but in my opinion it was up to the dealer to both modify and charge the correct VAT. The dealer would appear to culpable.
As many of the other contributors to this thread have said, "get legal advice".

NEV3


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

We used to have my wife's car registered as hers but solely for the benefit of our disabled daughter so the registration should not have been an issue.

I also believe that sometimes vehicles are not supplied with all modifications and yet are still VAT free - my knowledge comes from ambulance work where the original supplier could not always do all of the modifications and it was taken to a specialist company.

Without knowing all of the details it is not clear whether you SHOULD have been able to purchase the vehicle VAT free or whether the error occurred at that point and the HMRC inspection of the records from nearly 3 years ago now shows gaps which should have been filled at that time, e.g. beneifts registration numbers etc.

In my opinion (as a non-legal person), the fault lies with the dealer and his staff and they are the ones trying to recover their costs. Whether their costs SHOULD have been incurred or whether they are simply trying to reduce their VAT bill by claiming some from you (and others?) is not clear, and only extensive study of the paperwork that they have and that you have (including the disability entitlement registration) can show where the fault happened.

In the end though you have paid the bill that they submitted to you in it's entirety and the fact that it did not have VAT is down to their processes not yours.


----------



## arvy (May 9, 2005)

Motor vehicles
If you are a wheelchair or stretcher user, you should not have to pay VAT when you buy a motor vehicle that has been substantially and permanently adapted for your personal use. A wheelchair user is defined as anyone who has to use a wheelchair - powered or manual - in order to be mobile.

Any adaptation work that is done on an unadapted vehicle to make it suitable for a disabled person's condition, whether or not that person is a wheelchair user, is also eligible for zero-rating. However, there is no VAT relief on the purchase of an unadapted vehicle

How VAT reliefs work
*Before you pay for any product or service, check that it qualifies for zero-rating and that the supplier is registered for VAT.*

When you buy a zero-rated product or service, you may have to sign a form declaring that you have a chronic illness or disability and what it is. You must also declare that the product or service is for your own 'personal or domestic use'. The supplier should have copies of this form.

You can then buy the product or service at a price that excludes VAT. You don't have to pay VAT and then reclaim it from the government - it will be taken off the purchase price before you pay

The above is taken from the Directgov web site (sorry cant do links) its very informative and easy to follow we`ve been through this with our daughter and found it straight forward enough, we signed a declaration and had the adaptions done before delivery. The vehicle is in my name not my daughters.

One dealer we went to wanted a picture of my daughter as proof of her disability but we said no and went some where else, we found the process of buying VAT free straight foreword it seems to me that the Alan Kerr dealership had no idea what they were doing.

Good Luck!

Alan.


----------



## pauwilson (May 24, 2005)

I got a good deal on my van as I found out it was registered disabled before I got it - when looking around it I found six 6mm holes under the rear carpet, the sales guys said that was for the wheel chair carrier which *they* had to fit for the VAT exemption, and if people chose to remove it after it left the showroom that was their choice, but *they* had to fit it.

It sounds like they are at fault for not ensuring the mods were done before you got delivery, and they did not know what they were doing.


----------



## Rainbow-Chasers (Sep 2, 2008)

What it looks like from my angle is that the dealers has been boosting his sales by promoting VAT exempt new vehicle sales.

He has not converted the vans beforehand, which on his recent investigation (for which there would be a reason why they would hold and investigation) It has been noticed that he holds no receipts from cobnverters.

HMRC will then look to him and say, these did not qualify for VAT exemption, therefore we demand from the company, the difference.

The dealer has then 'tried it on' by contacting owners to make them pay the VAT that he should have paid. His mistake originally, but will save him X thousands for every person whom pays up to avoid legal action.

Contractually nothing has been done wrongfully by the purchasers. In fact the opposite...you could probably claim back the cost of conversion from him! lol! In fact, if they were to refund that then it would be tax exempt without question. Talk to the dealer and see what is cheaper for him!

Bear in mind he has to pay for the VAT inspection, which can take years and be very expensive indeed!


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Letter*

Well keep us up to date with this. I wonder how many other people have received a similar letter.

Russell


----------



## aultymer (Jun 20, 2006)

> Bear in mind he has to pay for the VAT inspection


Having had the pleasure of a VAT inspection a couple of years ago, I have to say that it cost me nothing except bringing a lot of paperwork up to date.


----------



## TJ101 (Oct 12, 2008)

Rainbow-Chasers said:


> He has not converted the vans beforehand, which on his recent investigation (*for which there would be a reason why they would hold and investigation*) It has been noticed that he holds no receipts from cobnverters.
> 
> HMRC will then look to him and say, these did not qualify for VAT exemption, therefore we demand from the company, the difference.


Standard practice for all vat registered people, to get regular inspections, Had one myself last year, the first for about 9/10 years, and went away all happy

Guess what has happened here, is the supplying dealer has not done all the paperwork etc correctly, for the sale to comply with the Vat exempt rules,, and now has to paid the back tax,, 
The fact that he got it wrong, and did not charge the customer, is down to them, not the purchaser !!!


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes (Jul 21, 2007)

Rainbow-Chasers said:


> What it looks like from my angle is that the dealers has been boosting his sales by promoting VAT exempt new vehicle sales.
> Bear in mind he has to pay for the VAT inspection, which can take years and be very expensive indeed!


Tend to agree with you on above apart from that VAT inspections cost a trader nothing unless they find errors.

VAT inspections are done randomly and not neccessarily on suspicion of fraud or incorrect trading, one can go six years or more without seeing hide nor hair of them, normally a trader can expect one every three years or so.

In some cases they are triggered by late payment of VAT or abnormal trading figures.

Peter


----------



## 1happy (Jun 15, 2005)

*Letter*

Hi Subaru 
I am sorry you have to deal with this on top of losing your brother  
I was about to post a similar comment to Rainbow-Chasers 


> you could probably claim back the cost of conversion from him! lol! In fact, if they were to refund that then it would be tax exempt without question. Talk to the dealer and see what is cheaper for him!


Except I think this would be a question for your Solicitor. 
Who could write a letter to the trader or his solicitor. 
You should not be hassled in this way and in this case 'offence could be the best defence'......If they insist on proceeding, counterclaim for the adaptations. 
Good luck & enjoy your new baby 8) 
Regards Catherine


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS (Jul 24, 2006)

Hi subaru, 
If i have read everything correctly, it was sugested to you that you coud purchase a new vehicle vat free.

Simple you took the advice of the salesman who you took to be competant at his job.
However i feel that as you have only had this vehicle for 2-3 years you may have to pay a percentage of the vat back to customs, due to your brothers sad departure.
This hapened to my brother. He was advised to register for vat when he started in business and bought a van.
After 3 years he de registeed and had to pay a nominal fee back.


Dave P


----------



## 96410 (Sep 30, 2005)

Hi all,

Thank you very much for the time you have spent responding to my post.

Our Solicitor has advised that if it goes to a small claims court then the cost for using their services would be approximately £2500, so even if we win we can not claim that money back.

He has also said that we will most likely win, but that will still leave us £2500 out of pocket. He also has also said that we can not get legal aid for the small claims court.

If we use a Solicitor, at best it will cost £2500, but if we lose it will cost us £7000.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

CliveMott said:


> Its looks simple to me! Alan Kerr made the supposed mistake. Alan kerr should pay. You acted in good faith.


It usually does look simple, but usually isn't. Some years ago, I experienced a similar situation to this, and it came down to whether I could reasonably be expected to have no knowledge of the other party's mistake (in other words, did I know or suspect there was an error in my favour, but did nothing about it).

I recall the laws of Tort came into it too, but I'm no expert.  I just remember the result.

Dougie.


----------



## cater_racer (May 1, 2005)

Subaru,

You have no case to answer, your transaction has been completed.

Speak to the CAB, but I would suggest

Don't bother with a solicitor, tell AK you will defend the action yourself.

The court should find in your favour, but even if they did not, you could appeal, and you could also ignore the result. 

I have been awarded compensation under the criminal injuries scheme, the perportrator ignored the court, and I never got a penny.

When I asked the court why, they stated , "It's not their job to enforce such payments".

Tell AK to take a running jump.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

cater_racer said:


> Don't bother with a solicitor, tell AK you will defend the action yourself. The court should find in your favour, but even if they did not, you could appeal, and you could also ignore the result.


I don't mean this rudely, but I think this is rather reckless advice. At the very least, getting initial advice from someone who actually knows what they're talking about, will allow him to assess the situation far more clearly than simply taking a punt, which will undoubtedly bring loads of aggravation and probably expense.

Dougie.


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes (Jul 21, 2007)

Hi Su,

The small claims court is very informal, you sit round a table, you on one side, the other party on the other and the District Judge at the head of the table.

The Judges are normally very helpfull to members of the public who represent themselves!!

You do NOT require legal representation, you simply state your side of the case to the Judge who is in plain clothes.

You may claim reasonable expenses if you win, I believe that you could also claim solicitors costs.

If AK take it to court, you will have the opportunity to state your side of the case in writing by responding to the Summons, you could also counterclaim for the modifications.

From what you say, I would believe that you are entitled to exemption anyway.

You can also insist that it be heard at your local Court.

Stick to your guns

Regards

Peter


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

The facts of the case are relatively straightforward to establish, even if this thread hasn't teased them out. Liability then lies according to which responsibilities each side upheld. Let me say this is not a black and white case, because the responsibilities apply jointly to dealer and customer.

The dealer can zero rate the sale of an adapted motor vehicle when the following conditions are met:
1) The vehicle seating no more than 12 people must be supplied to a disabled person who normally uses a wheelchair or stretcher to be mobile. 
[For the purposes of this relief a wheelchair user is anyone who has to use a wheelchair (electrically powered or otherwise) in order to be mobile. A disabled person with a degenerative condition, such as multiple sclerosis, who does not need to use a wheelchair all the time, but only when the condition requires it, also qualifies as a wheelchair user. A person who only occasionally uses a wheelchair such as when visiting a shopping centre or gardens; or temporarily because he has a broken leg is not considered to normally use a wheelchair and is not eligible for the relief.]
2) The vehicle must be adapted to enable the disabled wheelchair (or stretcher) user to enter, drive or otherwise travel in the vehicle.
3) The adapted vehicle must be for the domestic or personal use of the disabled wheelchair or stretcher use.
4) You hold documents to show eligibility.

My understanding is that if any one of these conditions is not met, HMRC will as a minimum recover the unpaid VAT from the dealer, though the dealer is liable to further penalties if HMRC so decides.

Now the wheelchair user (or the family member on their behalf provided the vehicle is for the personal use of the wheelchair user) has to claim eligibility for VAT relief. *There are penalties for making false declarations (or indeed not paying VAT when no declaration has been made).* A suggested form of declaration is:

_Customer
If you are in any doubt as to whether you are eligible to receive a motor vehicle or services zero-rated for VAT you should consult VAT Notice 701/59 Motor vehicles for disabled people or contact the National Advice Service on 0845 010 9000 before signing the declaration. *(My words - and of course if you then receive an unadapted vehicle you will know it is NOT eligible for VAT relief)*
I (full name)
of (address)
declare that
I am chronically sick or have a disabling condition by reason of: (give full and specific description of your condition)
the adapted vehicle is for my personal use
I usually use a wheelchair or stretcher to be mobile.
and I claim relief from value added tax.
………………………………………………………......……..(Signature)
……………………………………...……………………………..…(Date)_

Caveat Emptor applies, as does ignorance of the law is no defence.Without re-reading this thread, I think the vehicle was not adapted. What I don't recall was whether the disabled person was indeed eligible under the above definition, and whether VAT relief was claimed by such a declaration or merely the VAT was not paid "because the dealer said it would be alright". If the latter, it sounds horribly like the infamous case for an RV supplied by a dealer being too wide for UK use. The purchaser claimed ignorance "because it was the dealer's job to point out the law", but lost.

This is why, in contrast to the commendably supportive and reassuring posts on this thread, I was rather more blunt with "you broke the law", but in your position I would certainly want to put my side of the case in apportioning blame with Alan Kerr.

I hope this helps.

Dave


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes (Jul 21, 2007)

BUT did she sign such a declaration and was it on the promting of the salesman!

She went in to buy a used MH and the salesman *TOLD* her she was eligible.

Had he not done that she would not have thought about a new MH. It was only the reduction in price as promoted by the salesman that persuaded her to go down that route.

Yes or no?


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

Yes, the salesman obviously had a vested interest and
No, I wouldn't have trusted him.

So what did she sign? If it was the HMRC proforma did she read 701/59 or phone the National Advice Service on 0845 010 9000 before signing?

If a salesman sells me a fast, expensive sports car and assures me I can enjoy its speed to the full in Britain can I happily go over 100mph and sue him if I get caught?

Dave


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes (Jul 21, 2007)

Dave,

She would not have had a clue about HMRC as she did not go there with the intention of buying a new VAT free MH, that is my point.

The contract she entered into was at the instigation of the salesman, an employee of the dealer who at the end of the day is responsible for making sure that the regulations are complied with.

It is all very well skating on thin ice, something that I have commented on before, but when you are a member of the general public you will not have any knowledge and it is up to the 'tradesmen' to know, give correct advice and comply with the regulations.

By looks of it, they did not and now have been caught out, the honourable thing to do in this case is to swallow the punishment, pay the VAT out of the profit they made out of the new MH in the first place.

If they had not offered the bait of VAT free, they would not have sold it to her, end of story.


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

DABurleigh said:


> If a salesman sells me a fast, expensive sports car and assures me I can enjoy its speed to the full in Britain can I happily go over 100mph and sue him if I get caught?


Interesting analogy. However, in this case, the dealer has underpaid the VAT due on the motorhome, and the HMRC have (presumably) recovered this from AK. And now, AK are trying to recover that money from the purchaser. What we haven't been told iis under what circumstances AK (or the solicitor) have made the purchaser liable for this sum. Neither have we been told why the HMRC have recovered the VAT, and why AK was liable for this. Presumably, HMRC have ruled that the VAT free allowance was inadmissable. It would be interesting to know why.

As is usually the case with legal cases aired on public forums, there is an awful lot which isn't revealed (for whatever reason), and we are encouraged to give support and advice without knowing the full details of the case.

Gerald


----------



## Invicta (Feb 9, 2006)

Presumably the later brother was in receipt of the mobility component of the Disabled Living Allowance in which case exemption to pay the vehicle's licence could have applied. To do so the form DLA404 would have been required by the salesman as presumably he registered and taxed the new vehicle.

Regarding the registering of the vehicle's taxation class, I wonder if that was 'Disabled' and who did the registering and taxing? Whenever I have bought a new vehicle it has always been the salesman who has both registered and taxed it.

If in this case it was the salesman, surely this is more proof that he should have been familiar with VAT exemptions for permanent wheelchair users?


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

JohnsCrossMotorHomes said:


> BUT did she sign such a declaration and was it on the promting of the salesman!
> 
> She went in to buy a used MH and the salesman *TOLD* her she was eligible.
> 
> ...


Well I've just read this thread this morning while monitoring road conditions on my commute (if I can get out onto salted roads, which is looking decidedly tricky) and:

1) I see no reference to suburu posting that she signed a declaration claiming VAT exemption.
2) As Invicta observes "Presumably the later brother was in receipt of the mobility component of the Disabled Living Allowance in which case exemption to pay the vehicle's licence could have applied". I note and agree with "could"; this allowance doesn't actually state a wheelchair is needed in order to be mobile and suburu hasn't stated this, merely that a wheelchair is used.
3) Was an adapted vehicle contracted and paid for or not?
4) I am dismayed by how many well-meaning advisory posts are simply wrong. Why are people so confident of their facts yet simultaneously wrong?
5) Gerald is spot-on with "we are encouraged to give support and advice without knowing the full details of the case." I have stated the material issues; ball in suburu's court.

Dave


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Good posts Gerald and Dave I too am amazed at the way posts support this or that action without being party to the facts one person makes an assumption and before you know it others are debating the pros and cons of the case with the assumption factored in. 

No doubt the couple who purchased their too wide RV got similar well intentioned encouragement.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Hi Frank, Dave and Gerald

It's human nature to want to help and support . . . well, here on MHF anyway.  

It's rather nice I think, so long as nobody (especially the original poster) takes any of it too seriously. :wink: :roll: 

The best way is to think of it much the same as a booze -enhanced argument in the pub - in the nicest possible way of course!!   

That way nobody is under too many illusions about its veracity.  

Dave


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

Dave,

suburu is stressed, having to decide whether to pay thousands or go to court, and asked for advice.

IMHO sympathy and empathy are fine; any informed advice can only be "well it depends"; hence my attempt to establish on what, in the face of much MHF speculation as fact.

Dave


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

JohnsCrossMotorHomes said:


> She went in to buy a used MH and the salesman *TOLD* her she was eligible.
> Had he not done that she would not have thought about a new MH. It was only the reduction in price as promoted by the salesman that persuaded her to go down that route.Yes or no?


Excuse my naivety but this potential purchaser of a second-hand motor home went along to the dealer totally unaware of any vat reduction. 
Is it commonplace for the salesman to check family links for this benefit?

I have known a few who have tried and failed to get this reduction and one that succeeded but not come across this particular scenario before.


----------



## autostratus (May 9, 2005)

buttons said:


> JohnsCrossMotorHomes said:
> 
> 
> > She went in to buy a used MH and the salesman *TOLD* her she was eligible.
> ...


From suburu's first post it seems that the salesman saw the disabled family member.


> Myself , boyfriend and brother (who is mental handicapped) went to Alan Kerr's LTD in early 2006 to view and possibly trade in our 1999 Hymer A class.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

DABurleigh said:


> Dave,
> 
> suburu is stressed, having to decide whether to pay thousands or go to court, and asked for advice.
> 
> ...


I was/am in perfect agreement Dave. 

Didn't it come across that way? :? 

Lots of people want to offer sympathy/empathy, and that's very nice, but in the harsh light of day it's pretty useless for all practical purposes.

Can be downright misleading too if taken too literally. 8O

Dave


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

geraldandannie said:


> As is usually the case with legal cases aired on public forums, there is an awful lot which isn't revealed (for whatever reason), and we are encouraged to give support and advice without knowing the full details of the case


Well said- that's the truth - which is precisely why he should *take legal advice* at least to the extent of having a qualified opinion on whether to proceed on his own in the Small Claims Court, or whatever.

I'll guarantee it'll be the best £100 he can spend at this juncture, instead of being told loads of different things by us armchair generals and presumably becoming more & more confused.

Dougie.


----------



## loughrigg (Nov 10, 2008)

Standing back a little from the detail of this case, an underlying issue is where the responsibility to understand complex regulation actually lies.

Although not adviseable, it is the case that many people, when faced with complex regulations, can tend to rely upon the confident assertions of others, be they friends, family, club members or salesmen, when undertaking substantial financial and other transactions. I have probably done exactly that from time to time.

Sadly, there are also many instances where poor advice has led to outcomes that prove to be costly.

Zebedee's point is well made. By all means seek advice from people who may have experience of a similar situation *but* treat that advice with due caution and also consult a suitably qualified person if in any doubt. Solicitors, accountants etc. may appear expensive but they do have professsional indemnity insurance.

Without seeking to give professional advice but based upon a good few years experience at director level in a major retail organisation, if the circumstances are as presented on this thead I would be surprised if the dealer had any chance at all of winning a court action.
Unless there is evidence that the purchaser sought to obtain the VAT exemption by deception or fraudulently completed an exemption form, I would expect the court to hold the view that the dealer should have been conversant with the VAT regulations; that the dealer should have ensured that all appropriate documentation was completed at the time of the transaction and that the dealer should have supplied the vehicle in a state of conversion that complied with the exemption regulations.

The argument "...it will cost you more if you go to court and lose..." is, sadly, a familiar tactic employed by many large companies. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is a standard "frightener".

Mike


----------



## carolgavin (May 9, 2005)

Please check your house insurance some have legal cover attached and you may well be able to take advantage of this and it will not cost you!


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

I'd go along with Mike's last 2 paras.

Regarding taking legal advice, just to put the other side of the coin, you are dependent on your legal adviser understanding all the relevant law that applies, and I wonder the cover really provided by their professional indemnity insurance. The infamous RV width case I referred to above by means of analogy is an example in point. 

I could not have been alone in wondering why the heck the case was argued on the Sale of Goods Act, where things come down to judgements of merchantable quality (the vehicle was deemed insurable and tradeable ). The customer lost, whereas the undisputed fact was that the dealer sold a vehicle that was too wide under UK and European law, and that is an offence under the Road Traffic Act. On a point of law, I wonder if anyone can be definitive over whether an individual can pursue a suit on this basis in the civil courts and if not, how does one get the authorities to do so when the issue is a no-brainer and one is suffering loss or at risk as a result?

Dave


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

autostratus said:


> From suburu's first post it seems that the salesman saw the disabled family member.
> 
> Must apologise for being a bit of a cynic autostratus its just that Matt's version in 2006 at the time of purchase didn't quite gel with the story that the site is being asked to sympathise with now.
> 
> ...


----------



## dragstar (Jun 26, 2006)

The only comment that i would make is that the price you paid also covered the fitting of the adaptions, I note that you had another dealer carry out these works,did you contact the supplying dealer to inform him that the adaptions had not been carried out because it would have all come to light then i would of thought.


----------



## loughrigg (Nov 10, 2008)

DABurleigh said:


> I'd go along with Mike's last 2 paras.
> 
> Regarding taking legal advice, just to put the other side of the coin, you are dependent on your legal adviser understanding all the relevant law that applies, and I wonder the cover really provided by their professional indemnity insurance.
> 
> Dave


Typically, professional indemnity insurance for a solicitor would provide cover for any mistake in the professional services provided to a client specifically including negligence - advising a client in an area where appropriate training in or knowledge of that area is absent would, I think, count as a negligent act. Liability for consequential damages suffered by the client would also generally be covered as would the cost involved in correcting the situation.

To hold a practicing certificate, a solicitor must have PII that meets minimum standards set by the Solitors Regulatory Authority.

However, rather than rely entirely upon PII, the key phrase " a suitably qualified person" is the best starting point. If you have a question about VAT, don't consult a solicitor whose main business is writing wills. After all, you wouldn't go to a plumber to fix your electrics.

Mike


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

subaru said:


> Myself , boyfriend and brother (who is mental handicapped) went to Alan Kerr's LTD in early 2006 to view and possibly trade in our 1999 Hymer A class. As we were looking at the newer motor homes, the salesman suggested we look at the brand new ones. As my brother is mentally handicapped and we use the van for him, he said that we would be eligible for a brand new van, Vat except (we new nothing about Vat except motor homes) so we decided that a new would work for us.
> 
> List price on the new van was approximately £29,000 inc vat and the salesman only wanted £500 to change, provided we were in receipt of full disability living allowance and were blue badge holders and also a wheelchair user, we qualified on all 3. We handed in the paperwork and the van was delivered vat free.
> 
> ...





subaru said:


> But i only have my Van's for about 3 months then change. Its a real shame cos the salesman i deal with (Nigel) is a real good bloke and looked after me and thats why i want to deal with him and not some man who thinks he's God. This is the second motorhome i have bought from them.


Sorry if I appear a bit negative Matt but I think that this particular deal could have gone sour. If you are asking for my advice I would say, pay up before the costs goes up. 
I can't help asking why do you only keep the vans for 3 months? ...have you found a way not to lose money on them?


----------



## 96410 (Sep 30, 2005)

buttons,
The other vans we bought were second hand, the salesman suggested we buy new from you, if you are looking through old post, why not look at the one saying we wanted a second hand 590


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

Matt (subaru),

I'm not sure if you have registered my recent posts. If you want sympathy, you have mine and fine. If you want informed, impartial, cheap advice, then it would help MHF members if you answered the questions I listed as to material facts, because otherwise we might be tempted to guess, get it wrong, and confuse or offer bad advice.

Dave


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

DABurleigh said:


> If you want sympathy, you have mine . . .
> Dave


I wonder if your sympathy is well placed Dave. :?

Subaru is systematically editing and deleting his/her old posts, way back to November 2006.

I will refrain from comment. 8O 8O 8O

Members can come to their own conclusions I am sure. 8O

Dave


----------



## 96410 (Sep 30, 2005)

There are no more facts on this you now know as much as i do.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Zebedee said:


> Subaru is systematically editing and deleting his/her old posts, way back to November 2006


Why do you think this is?

I too noticed this (such things always get my attention ).

Dougie.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

asprn said:


> Why do you think this is?
> I too noticed this (such things always get my attention ).
> Dougie.


Hi Dougie

I couldn't begin to speculate.

Funny though, how the words "hide" "something" and "to" keep springing to mind!!

I'm also wondering how efficient Nuke is at his e-housekeeping . . . if you get my meaning. 8) 8) 8)

Dave


----------



## 96410 (Sep 30, 2005)

reason for deleting posts was purely to hide personal information that my boyfriend had written in the past (there were such thing as phone numbers and address), and i did not know these could be reposted.


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

subaru said:


> There are no more facts on this you now know as much as i do.


Matt's girlfriend (subaru),

OK, we don't know:

1) whether a customer declaration was signed claiming VAT exemption;
2) An adapted van was ordered and paid for;
3) The disability was eligible for VAT exemption under the HMRC requirements and guidelines published in this thread;
4) Why HMRC decided VAT exemption was not allowed;
5) On what grounds Alan Kerr intends to take you to court if you don't pay forthwith;

and so on.

Are you really saying you haven't the foggiest on any of those either? I find that bizarre.

Dave


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

subaru said:


> reason for deleting posts was purely to hide personal information that my boyfriend had written in the past (there were such thing as phone numbers and address), and i did not know these could be reposted.


Hmmmmm.

He seems to have posted very little *other *than phone numbers and addresses then, if that's all you removed???

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-176979.html#176979
This one reads, "HI all,"

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-474739.html#474739
This one says, "Got excited today [marq=right]"

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-483661.html#483661
"Hi, "

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-471390.html#471390
"not happy"

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-284608.html#284608
"Hi, 
I"

Just the first five I came to, and this is all that is left when phone numbers and addresses have been deleted??

I too find this rather bizarre. 8O

_(Edited for clarity)_


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

bigfoot said:


> The selling on of such vehicles IS an offence as VAT must be repaid.


I have absolutely zero knowledge on the subject or the qualifying period but could this be grounds to reclaim the VAT on your van Matt?.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

I really have no idea why this thread has progressed this far. Advice has been asked for, advice has been given. surely it is about time we laid this to rest and await a FINAL posting about the result.Otherwise more than ego's will be maligned.

cabby


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes (Jul 21, 2007)

bigfoot said:


> The selling on of such vehicles IS an offence as VAT must be repaid.


Actually incorrect, on the resale of a VAT exempt vehicle, VAT is NOT payable by the original owner if they are not VAT registered.

VAT is only payable by a registered trader when the vehicle has been used in his business e.g a a hire vehicle and then on the second hand sale price.

Peter


----------



## nukeadmin (Oct 10, 2003)

> I'm also wondering how efficient Nuke is at his e-housekeeping . . . if you get my meaning


well if do you mean do i have a backup copy of all those posts should the need arise then the answer is yes


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

Hmmm,the plot thickens :?

The initial post from subaru was asking for help and advice about Alan Kerr's claim on him/her regarding court proceedings.

My first thoughts were that they were the victims of an unreasonable dealer,some sharp practice and I was sympathetic.

However as the thread had progressed my opinion has changed,subaru has not answered the questions put by DAB ;-

*1) whether a customer declaration was signed claiming VAT exemption; 
2) An adapted van was ordered and paid for; 
3) The disability was eligible for VAT exemption under the HMRC requirements and guidelines published in this thread; 
4) Why HMRC decided VAT exemption was not allowed; 
5) On what grounds Alan Kerr intends to take you to court if you don't pay forthwith; *

Subaru has now deleted his/her old posts,why??have they something to hide as Zeb intimates??

The flimsy excuse about deleting phone no.s and contact details doesn't ring true-big slabs of their earlier posts have gone as well as contact details.

I tend to agree with Judge Judy

_''if you are economical with the truth once,then I have difficulty believing anything you say''_


----------



## carol (May 9, 2005)

Personally I think it stinks - whatever the outcome is - we seem to have been given a one sided story - and it would be really nice if Alan Kerr could comment on this - 

I hate it when people lead us up the proverbial garden path - and I sincerely hope Dave that any back-ups are safe and sound and don't get overwritten - just in case they are needed.

As to not realising that they could be reposted, I think is totally wrong - subaru has been a member here long enough to see reposting of replies in all threads....

If she had a case, fine, but she in my eyes has just blotted her copy book in editing all posts - Hi all - as Zebedee says - not just addresses and phone numbers...

Carol


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

carol said:


> Personally I think it stinks - whatever the outcome is - we seem to have been given a one sided story - and it would be really nice if Alan Kerr could comment on this
> Carol


Hi Carol

They are too canny to comment when legal action is on the cards, but you can bet your life they have been monitoring the forum very closely. :wink:

Nuke will not be the only one with a complete set of backup files!! 8) 8)

A salutary lesson for anyone else who thinks of "using" the forum for their own devious purposes. 8O

Dave


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Zebedee said:


> A salutary lesson for anyone else who thinks of "using" the forum for their own ****** purposes. 8O


Reminds me of a garden wall, somehow. 8O

Dougie.


----------



## Chascass (May 10, 2007)

carol wrote: ‹ Select › 
Personally I think it stinks - whatever the outcome is - we seem to have been given a one sided story - and it would be really nice if Alan Kerr could comment on this - 


With the grilling anyone suspect gets on here, they don't need to comment.

Charlie


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Chascass said:


> With the grilling anyone suspect gets on here, they don't need to comment


A fair point. I think the trouble starts with such threads when the original poster (OP) invites comment and advice, and then fails to respond to questions raised by people who've taken the trouble to answer. At the very least, it can be irritating, but can also - as now - develop into people's suspicions being aroused as to the "full story". In this case, editing old posts when the going got tough, appears not to have endeared the OP to his audience. :roll:

Dougie.


----------



## bigfoot (May 16, 2005)

JohnsCrossMotorHomes said:


> bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > The selling on of such vehicles IS an offence as VAT must be repaid.
> ...


I astand correected. However some time ago I was informed by our local vat office of the following;'if a vehicle is purchased under VAT exemption,by a registered disabled person and then resolde after a period the remaining calculated VAT is payable by the registered keeper'
It was some time ago so the rules may have changed,or was the VAT office wrong?


----------



## Invicta (Feb 9, 2006)

Whenever there are misuses of facilities for disabled people including blue badges and VAT exemptions, my blood boils as honest law abiding disabled people can suffer.

I am not suggestion that this has happened in the case being discussed here, I sincerely hope it hasn't. I do feel however that there is a need for some tightening up by certain dealers.

A while back on this site I think someone criticised a dealer who wished to see the person for whom the VAT exemption was being requested. I cannot see anything wrong with that. Better for the dealer to be as sure as possible that the VAT exemption is applicable to the disabled person requesting it.


----------



## citroennut (May 16, 2005)

wasn't going to post on this topic as i don't have enough knowledge on the op, but on this i fully agree.



Invicta said:


> Whenever there are misuses of facilities for disabled people including blue badges and VAT exemptions, my blood boils as honest law abiding disabled people can suffer


i have in the past worked in a resource centre for adults with learning difficulties and most if not all were entitled to a mobility car. every morning and night the clents were uplifted and dropped off in the bus supplied by the council. 
one young teenager had never been in any of the mobility cars owned by the parent. father was a painter and decorator and i will leave it to you to figure out to what use the car was put. my oh worked as an sen a a secondary school and a pupil in a wheelchair was brought to school by taxi, paid for by the council, as the mobility car purchased by the parents did not take a wheelchair. the taxi was followed to the school by the mother in the mobility car as the younger daughter was not entitled to travel in the taxi as she was not disabled.

so not only is it the law abiding disabled people who suffer but also the law abiding taxpayers, of which there are sadly fewer and fewer.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

I could have a real rant here as my wife, her two sisters and brother in law all drove 'disabled' busses for the local council over 15 years.
As you say Citroennut the parents all got a mobility allowance of varying amounts. 
They used and abused the system provided and complained when busses were late due to snow or traffic but often kept the bus waiting because they had overslept.

OK some of the kids were wheelchair bound and needed the service. But after taking these kids to special schools the busses were then pressed into service taking just plain disruptive kids to special educational centres where they learnt gambling, drugs and spitting.

Keep paying yer taxes.

Ray.


----------

