Car Dealers Claim Police Inaction

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31992, 20 May 1969, Page 16

Car Dealers Claim Police Inaction

The police would not act on even documented complaints of persons dealing in used cars when they were not licensed motor-vehicle dealers, the annual meeting of the New Zealand Licensed Motor-Vehicle Dealers’ Association (Canterbury) was told last evening.

Mr M. D. Ormandy said that after the association had raised a documented case with a senior police officer in Christchurch a detective sergeant had gone to the secretary (Miss C. J. Bradley) to discuss the matter. His opening words were “I can give you two minutes.”

In another case when the association’s representatives had made an appointment, the detective concerned could not even find the association’s file for 20 minutes, he said.

Miss Bradley said that the association had been unable to get the police to act in cases it had taken to them. “We have been happy to help the police, but we were regarded as interfering,” she said.

What was the value of licensing dealers if unlicensed dealers could operate without the police taking any action? speakers asked from the floor.

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 1958, should be suggested to the Secretary of Justice, the meeting agreed. The section of the act which concerned unlicensed dealers spoke of a person who “. . . holds himself out as a motor-vehicle dealer.”

The phrase, perhaps meant to be all-embracing, appeared to leave the police in doubt as to whether they could successfully bring a charge and they seemed reluctant to do so. Miss Bradley said. CASE GIVEN The police had recently been told of a person who had advertised 11 different vehicles in 41 days. The police had said no proof could be established that the person was buying or selling other than for his own use.

If such a person became financially involved because of such dealings the public would not be protected, the meeting was told. The maximum fine for offences should be set at $5OO instead of the present $lOO, it was said.

At present no charge could , be brought against a licensed dealer if an indictable offence took place more than six months before it was detected or the charge made, Miss (Bradley said. Two years 'would be a more appropriate i time. ! Provision should be made

for the receiver to control trading when a company was placed in the hands of a receiver, and the act should clarify the action necessary by a member of the public to claim on a dealer’s bond, Miss Bradley said. The dealer should only be given his trading licence back when he could substantiate to a magistrate that he was financially sound again.