HC Deb 19 April 1967 vol 745 cc542-53

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

I wish to draw attention to the need for greater protection for purchasers of used motor vehicles. The subject of motoring and motorists can arouse deep feelings and perhaps this is a more controversial subject than is normally discussed at morning sittings. It has been suggested that people can be divided into two distinct classes—motorists and the rest. But that may be an exaggeration. Motorists may constitute our largest single criminal class, but they are certainly not guilty of all that they are accused of and are entitled to the same degree of protection as, if not a greater degree than, other sections of the community.

The purpose of this debate is to draw attention to some of the risks that lie in the path of those wishing to move from the quiet uncertainties of pedestrian-ship to the comparative freedom of motor ownership, with all the risks, trials and tribulations involved. It may be that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—a motorist himself, and with knowledge of these affairs—will welcome the opportunity to tell us what the Ministry has done. Indeed, a great deal has been done. I hope that he agrees that this is an appropriate time for the debate because there is something in the spring of the year—the call of the open road, the need for mobility. During the last few sunny days, used car sales have soared, even though there are many hazards ahead.

Here, I should declare my interest, first, as an owner-driver, and, secondly, as the owner of two previously used motor cars. My hon. Friend looks rather surprised. The first is a 1954 Daimler Conquest saloon, which is my pride and joy. The second is a Hillman 1400 c.c. of similar date, acquired during the last few weeks and the perfect example of the kind of vehicle not to acquire—to put it mildly.

Early last autumn, a constituent of mine asked my help about difficulties he had encountered after purchasing a used motor vehicle. There was, unfortunately, little that one could do at the time. Some, but not much, help was available. Since then, I have taken considerable interest in the used car trade.

By inquiry and by experience, I know that the great majority of private vendors, car dealers and auctioneers are honest and reliable and that they value their reputation and give good service. I know this both by report and experience over the last few months, because I have visited dealers on Merseyside, London and other regions. Of course, there are unscrupulous people in any trade or profession and the car trade has no more and no less than any other. Unfortunately, too many potential car owners believe that they can get something for nothing, have a right to a bargain and have a greater mechanical knowledge than they really possess.

Purchases through reputable local dealers rarely present problems and when they do the dealers, who have their reputations to safeguard, will usually go out of their way to be helpful. Car dealers and private vendors advertise extensively in the columns of regional evening newspapers and the motoring magazines. One can choose anything from Two Consuls (breaking for spares) £6 to cars that "need slight attention", or which are "good runners" and "reliable". One progresses also to the three months guarantee for "A.1. guaranteed vehicles". The choice is infinite. So are the dangers.

The third way to become a motorist is through car auctions that are held regularly in the greater centres of population. Some auctions handle high quality, high price, good condition cars. Some divide their sales into two parts, the first for high-quality cars with reserve prices and a guarantee and the second for cars offered without reserve and without warranty.

For a confessed motor enthusiast, car auctions have provided many happy hours and a great deal of experience not only about cars, but about human nature as well. But at times it has been tragic to see unsuspecting people—for example, a man with a young family, looking for the first car, the weekend driver—bidding and overbidding for a vehicle that would be a danger to himself and other people on the road. Such people are not only influenced by the desire to get the car they want, but at an auction, in particular, one can get the feeling, "I want this. That man is bidding more and I do not like to be beaten". I can vouch for how a person can fall for that because that is how I became the owner of my second car, at an auction—partly to provide evidence that dangerous vehicles can be offered for sale and can be sold under the law.

However, I thought that the car I was buying was in a repairable condition. I am not so sure now. The dealer did all that he had to do under the law. He described the car so far as he had to describe it. It was taxed and had a current M.O.T. certificate and he gave the date of expiry of the certificate. The body was rough, but the engine as sweet as a nut. It was not possible to look more closely at the vehicle, because of other cars parked tightly on either side but the bodywork seemed nice. I bought it for 14 guineas. This was more than I had intended to pay, but someone else was offering a little more and I did not want to be beaten. I fell into the trap.

I looked at the form of sale and in small print at the bottom of numerous clauses were the words: This vehicle is sold on the understanding that it will not be used on a road in Great Britain until it has been put in such a condition that it may lawfully be so used. I should have read that small print first, perhaps. But the dealer was right to do as he did. The responsibility was mine, not the dealer's. The test certificate was to expire in a month. After I purchased the car, it was retaxed without difficulty.

I then drove the car to Liverpool, to have it examined by my old friend, Councillor Stewart, Chairman of Liverpool City Council's Consumer Protection Committee. Liverpool has a fine record in the matter of consumer protection. Its transport department runs one of the best testing stations in the North-West. If an hon. Member wants a good check made of his car, that is the place to go. I do not know whether I am allowed a "commercial". But if any hon. Member simply wants a certificate to get a car on the road he should not take it to that test centre.

Councillor Stewart described the car as a death trap. This was confirmed by subsequent independent examination. My status as a good motorist and expert or the mechanical defects or lack of them fell considerably. A report of the incident received some publicity in the local newspaper and in others and I put down some Questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I asked whether she would introduce legislation to place the responsibility for the roadworthiness of the vehicle on the vendor rather than on the purchaser. I was told that it was already an offence to sell or offer for sale a vehicle in such a condition that it would not be legal to use it on the roads. Apparently, there are exceptions because the form of sale I undertook was legal. The law is good, but it can be avoided.

Since then, I have had many examples sent to me in letters from all over the country pointing out difficulties other people have experienced. A man in Southend bought a Jaguar for £289. After 150 miles the gear box failed, the brakes were faulty, the engine casing split and jacking points, which had been filled with cement, broke. He returned to the dealer. He had paid £289 and the dealer offered him £34 to take it off his hands.

A lady in Huyton—my neighbour in this House is aware of the incident—paid £223 for a saloon, with a deposit of £110—a not inconsiderable sum. After one week the clutch failed and the car was in and out of the garage for repairs. An M.O.T. test was failed, and the car was described as being a death trap. But the bill of sale had said quite clearly "sold on merit, as seen, tested and approved". It seems that the lady would have no redress in law, although the company may be able to make some ex gratia payment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he will be aware that it is not open to him in an Adjournment debate to advocate matters that will involve legislation. It is not open to him to advocate changes in the law. I take it that the hon. Member is referring to matters where, he suggests, the existing law ought to be enforced?

Mr. Ogden

Yes, this is so. These are examples which come a little outside the law, but there are ways, without arguing for an extension of the law, although this may be referred to in time, of dealing with this. It could be explained more fully to the public. This is partly the purpose of this debate, so that my hon. Friend will be able to point out some of the dangers and difficulties. These are examples of people, both vendor and purchaser who have conformed to the law as it is. If both sides understood the law a little better they would not get into this difficulty.

A letter from Worcester tells of a 1963 saloon, bought for £440. The man was left with a completely unserviceable car and the dealer offered him half of his purchase price back. From Northern Ireland—and this would be of interest to hon. Members opposite, but the benches are empty; they may have liked to know that sometimes Members, other than those from Northern Ireland receive letters from people living there—comes a letter from a man who bought a 1963 saloon on a Thursday. On the following day he had to leave it in the garage because it refused to go and eventually it was completely written off. The man had traded in his old car for £60, and thought that he had signed a form to purchase the other car for £295. However, he later found that he had signed for a purchase price of £350. These are exceptions to the rule. There are good traders, but there are, unfortunately, too many exceptions.

Government Departments could be an example of honesty in the disposal of motor vehicles. I understand that the Post Office takes great care to ensure that potential buyers are fully aware of the condition of used vehicles offered for sale. It has two methods of disposal, one by open tender and the other at public auctions. The open tender method involves advertisements placed by head postmasters, which draw the attention of prospective buyers to the fact that the vehicles are offered without any guarantee as to roadworthiness. Every advertisement emphasises that the responsibility is on the purchaser and not the vendor.

At the public auction, the Post Office insists that the vehicles are divided into two categories, "non-runners", a very unambiguous description, and "runners". The auctioneer is required to make a condition report for each vehicle, and to ensure that the report is displayed on the windscreen of the vehicle prior to and at the time of the sale.

Further, the auctioneer has the power to move a car or van from the "runner" class to the "non-runner" class if he is not satisfied, after a proper condition test has been made, that the vehicle is really a "runner". Perhaps the Minister could persuade the A.A. and R.A.C. to use their good offices to encourage dealers to voluntarily accept such a condition. The evidence submitted by the R.A.C. to the Misrepresentation Committee and the Law Reform Committee will be well known to my hon. Friend.

I want to put forward a number of suggestions for the consideration of the Minister. First, M.O.T. certificates should cover more than the present basic items. It should be made known that the certificate does not necessarily mean that the vehicle is roadworthy some months after the issue of a certificate. The Ministry might be able to use space in the advertising columns of newspapers and motoring magazines, pointing out some of the dangers inherent in people buying things, willy-nilly, about which they know very little.

Insurance companies should be encouraged to be much more selective in "covering" used cars and vendors should be required to produce a condition report prior to a sale, at the time of sale. In legislation now going through the House, a "think again" Clause could be included to recover the purchase price and cost if the vehicle is said to be in a condition in which it is found not to be after independent examination. These are links between the finance company, the vendor and the purchaser. The responsibility for the condition and roadworthiness of the vehicle should be placed on the vendor, rather than as at present, on the purchaser.

These proposals will do no harm to reputable dealers. Indeed, they may be welcomed by them. They will help to protect purchasers and will do much to prevent the sale of unsafe cars, making the roads safer.

12.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris)

I welcome the opportunity which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has given of telling the House what the Ministry has done and is doing to protect motorists and all road users. My hon. Friend has given a great deal of thought to this subject, as we have come to expect from him when he raises matters. He has been very constructive, and I will deal with some of the points he has raised, and take up others with him in correspondence.

As my hon. Friend said, I am a motorist and I am perhaps a masochist in that I enjoy long-distance motoring. I know a great many of the highways at home and abroad, but I must confess that driving more than 600 miles in 24 hours from abroad to this country, when my children were ill, was an experience that I shall never forget.

I will deal with the existing legal safeguards against the sale of unsafe vehicles to which my hon. Friend has referred. Under the provisions of Section 68 of the Road Traffic Act of 1960, it is an offence, subject to prosecution and penalty, to sell or offer for sale a motor vehicle which it would be unlawful to use on the roads, having regard to the Construction and Use and Lighting Regulations.

This is subject to the proviso that no offence is committed if a vendor can show that he had good cause to believe that the vehicle would not be used on a road before it was made roadworthy. The fine for that offence is one not exceeding £100. As regards the evidence of the extent and seriousness of the problem, we have found little to suggest that the present legislative safeguards are inadequate to control the sale of secondhand vehicles in an unroadworthy condition, to an extent presenting a road safety problem justifying further legislation.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the desirability of taking any reasonable precautions to stop up any loopholes that there may be and we are taking various steps to achieve this end. I would like to tell the House what we are doing. First, motor insurers generally have agreed that as from 1st May, when a total loss payment is made on a seriously damaged vehicle, the registration book will be sent to the appropriate local taxation officer. The book will be endorsed with the words: seriously damaged vehicle, insurance total loss payment". Subsequent and duplicate books will be similarly marked, and if the vehicle is subsequently repaired and offered for sale, a prospective buyer would be aware that it had suffered accident damage, and could if he wished, have the vehicle inspected by a qualified motor engineer before purchasing. He would have been put on warning.

Secondly, arrangements have been made with the Home Office to ensure close co-operation between our traffic area staffs and the police in the enforcement of Section 68. Area mechanical engineers have been asked to ensure that action is taken where warranted to investigate all cases reported to them of vehicles sold in an allegedly defective condition.

During the period January to September, 1966, the latest for which figures are available, 170 cases were investigated, and 105 vehicles were found to be unroadworthy. In a number of cases offenders were prosecuted and convictions obtained. Section 68 is enforced by the police. In 1965, 133 prosecutions were brought, resulting in 101 convictions. In addition, 32 written warnings were given.

For the future, provision is made in the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Randall), which, if enacted, will empower the Ministry's tech- nical officers and police officers, on production of their authority if required, to enter the premises of car dealers and inspect used cars on offer for sale, in order to ascertain that they are roadworthy. An Amendment introduced in Committee makes provision for Ministry inspectors to drive a vehicle for the purpose of road testing it. I will not continue to discuss the provisions of the Bill, because that would be out of order.

We shall continue to explore possible further safeguards. One suggestion which has been considered from time to time is that vehicles should be submitted for test on change of ownership in addition to the annual test. It is a requirement in some countries which have vehicle-testing schemes. But in the absence of evidence to indicate that the present legislative safeguards are inadequate, it would be difficult to justify its introduction here.

I should perhaps point out that the testing work and enforcement make very considerable calls on manpower. Such a requirement would not be easy to enforce, and those who are prepared to disregard the existing provisions and to risk detection and penalty would find means to circumvent it.

In the light of these factors, we feel that the best course is to press on with the extension of vehicle testing schemes by reducing the age limit of vehicles subject to annual test. Since 1st April, 1967, this has applied to vehicles three years old or older.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby referred to the need to ensure that the responsibility for the roadworthiness of a vehicle rests on the vendor instead of, as at present, on the purchaser. In so far as it is an offence to sell a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition, the responsibility rests on the vendor at the time of the sale. But responsibility for the safe condition of a vehicle in use rests, and rightly so, on the user. This is a fact which people too often forget. A vehicle can be a lethal instrument at the best of times. Badly maintained, it is like a gun without a safety catch. This is why it is illegal to use a vehicle on the road unless it or the driver is covered by insurance against third party risks.

The absolute liability placed on a motorist to ensure that his vehicle is roadworthy has existed for a very long time. It has been included in the Construction and Use Regulations since they were introduced in 1931. Motorists are reminded of their liability in the Highway Code to which their attention is drawn each time they complete an application for a new driving licence. Only the user of a car can ensure that it is properly maintained. He can either do it himself or get a garage to do it for him. We know that many people do not do this satisfactorily. It was because it had become apparent that vehicles were not being properly maintained that the vehicle testing scheme was introduced in 1960.

Finally, it is worth emphasising that not the least effective safeguard is in the hands of the public themselves. Any person proposing to purchase a used vehicle in the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend is well advised to have it properly inspected before completing the purchase. Not being mechanically minded, I should hesitate to purchase a second-hand vehicle without having somebody competent to look at it for me. The two motoring organisations, the A.A. and the R.A.C., undertake such inspection at relatively low cost, or similar arrangements can be made with a reputable garage. Before any person purchases a motor vehicle, I recommend him to ensure that he is competent to form a judgment on the vehicle and to realise that the responsibility rests on him when he uses the vehicle on the roads, or to get a competent person to exercise his judgment and to advise him properly.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having given me the opportunity of telling the House what the Minister and the Ministry are doing in this very important matter.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.