Pls Help! Towing weight woes!!

[Deleted account DD]

Now you ARE confusing me...what has permitted axle weight got to do with towing weight, other than the extent to which it is influenced by the trailers noseweight?

The combined axle weights are usually greater than the gvw not less because thats what theyve got to support :thumb2

 

[lacroupade]

The combined axle weights are usually greater than the gvw not less because thats what theyve got to support :thumb2

ah with you, I misread your intentions there...damn!

 

[rustic]

http://www.nissanpress.co.uk/press_.../2003/Terrano-engine-data-dimensions_2003.pdf

This states gross trailer weight for automatic is 2000kg
Maximum load on hitch is 120 kg.

What happens to the weight on the rear axle if 120 kg is placed on the hitch, since this is behind the axle, it may increase rear axle load by say 150 kg, and reduce front axle by 30kg. ( leverage effect).

The trailer axle weight(s) will now be 2000kg - 120 kg. = 1880 kg

So if only axle loadings are looked at, there could be an overloading of the rear axle on the vehicle. Do any of us consider this when towing? :nenau

Or is this a reason the law allows a percentage overload before prosecution.

Would the law disconnect the trailer to weigh it or use axle loadings?

If ever you are weighed on a Public weighbridge it must be trade approved and in calibration, check their certificate at the weighbridge.
If not approved they cannot use the weights in court. :thumbs

 

[rustic]

I guess it's all on the Plate.

My 2.7 TD LWB 1995 manual Maverick states the following:-

2580 kg This will be the Gross vehicle weight. (Axle 1 + Axle 2)

5360 kg This is Gross train weight. (Laden car + laden Trailer)

1 1160 kg Maximum permitted axle load of Mav on Front axle

2 1140 kg Maximum permitted axle load of Mav on Rear axle


If you subtract the Gross Vehicle weight from the Gross train weight, you will get the maximum towing weight.


5360 kg - 2580 kg = 2780 kg
My maximum gross weight for my trailer is 2500 kg so my set up is totally legal. :thumbs

Do the maths on your rating plate and see what the result is.

I have read somewhere that the law allow a percentage over load before they actually prosecute, but insurance companies may not if they don't want to pay out.
As long as there is a loop hole they won't pay out. :doh

OOPS TYPO ERROR Sorry, Axle 2 should have been 1450 kg sorry for confusion.

 

[rustic]

Here's what it should have been oopps...

Originally Posted by rustic
I guess it's all on the Plate.

My 2.7 TD LWB 1995 manual Maverick states the following:-

2580 kg This will be the Gross vehicle weight. (Axle 1 + Axle 2)

5360 kg This is Gross train weight. (Laden car + laden Trailer)

1 1160 kg Maximum permitted axle load of Mav on Front axle

2 1450 kg Maximum permitted axle load of Mav on Rear axle


If you subtract the Gross Vehicle weight from the Gross train weight, you will get the maximum towing weight.


5360 kg - 2580 kg = 2780 kg
My maximum gross weight for my trailer is 2500 kg so my set up is totally legal.

Do the maths on your rating plate and see what the result is.

I have read somewhere that the law allow a percentage over load before they actually prosecute, but insurance companies may not if they don't want to pay out.
As long as there is a loop hole they won't pay out.

 

[felixthelogchopper]

With respect, the Esso case was about a duff prediction of future sales volume, as opposed to a statement that a particular criteria would meet a parties specified requirement. Neither was this a 'mutual mistake' IMHO although I see where you are coming from....this is a clear cut case of misrepresentation by the seller (the alleged expert) in respect of a condition specified by the buyer.

And don't rely too heavily on Trading Standards in this case....they will probably advise both parties of what the law says in this situation, but if push came to shove it would still reuire legal action by the buyer to remedy the position.:thumb2

With respect, you miss my point re Esso. My point was that it is distinguished this situation from Bisset v Wilkinson, ie that which could be argued to be an opinion rather than a relied upon fact, per Ormrod LJ. Possibly I should have cited Smith v Land and House Property Corporation instead but I tend to give the most recent precedent where possible.As for 'mutual mistake', surely unless you are claiming the salesman deliberately mislead rather than was just shamefully ill-informed then misrepresentation, which leaves the contract voidable, is not strictly true.Given the confusion from various sources with regard to the towing capabilities of the vehicle, mutual mistake would leave the contract automatically void.

 

[rustic]

Just to add even more confusion, if you have the more recent driver's licence and not pased the additional test, you are not allowed to tow a Gross train weight of more than..... GUESS ! 3500kg Please confirm value..:nenau

 

[cm2581]

Rustic - my vehicle is the older 2.7 TDi SE+ 5d Auto - not the 3.0 stated here.

And I have passed my B+E test - I've even had compliments on my reversing skills from BOYS!!!!!

 

[felixthelogchopper]

Rustic - my vehicle is the older 2.7 TDi SE+ 5d Auto - not the 3.0 stated here.

And I have passed my B+E test - I've even had compliments on my reversing skills from BOYS!!!!!

:lol:lol:lol

 

[(RIP) PLANK]

With respect, you miss my point re Esso. My point was that it is distinguished this situation from Bisset v Wilkinson, ie that which could be argued to be an opinion rather than a relied upon fact, per Ormrod LJ. Possibly I should have cited Smith v Land and House Property Corporation instead but I tend to give the most recent precedent where possible.As for 'mutual mistake', surely unless you are claiming the salesman deliberately mislead rather than was just shamefully ill-informed then misrepresentation, which leaves the contract voidable, is not strictly true.Given the confusion from various sources with regard to the towing capabilities of the vehicle, mutual mistake would leave the contract automatically void.

shut up clever clogs and go and chop some trees :augie :lol

 

[(RIP) PLANK]

Rustic - my vehicle is the older 2.7 TDi SE+ 5d Auto - not the 3.0 stated here.

And I have passed my B+E test - I've even had compliments on my reversing skills from BOYS!!!!!

however this works out, please come back and be a full time member we have enjoyed your thread and your company! :thumbs

 

[Deleted account DD]

OOPS TYPO ERROR Sorry, Axle 2 should have been 1450 kg sorry for confusion.

guessed it was a typo I just didnt know what it should be :thumb2

 

[Deleted account DD]

With respect, you miss my point re Esso. My point was that it is distinguished this situation from Bisset v Wilkinson, ie that which could be argued to be an opinion rather than a relied upon fact, per Ormrod LJ. Possibly I should have cited Smith v Land and House Property Corporation instead but I tend to give the most recent precedent where possible.As for 'mutual mistake', surely unless you are claiming the salesman deliberately mislead rather than was just shamefully ill-informed then misrepresentation, which leaves the contract voidable, is not strictly true.Given the confusion from various sources with regard to the towing capabilities of the vehicle, mutual mistake would leave the contract automatically void.

so irrespective of stated cases it was a **** up :naughty and of course precedents are set as required

 

[lacroupade]

With respect, you miss my point re Esso. My point was that it is distinguished this situation from Bisset v Wilkinson, ie that which could be argued to be an opinion rather than a relied upon fact, per Ormrod LJ. Possibly I should have cited Smith v Land and House Property Corporation instead but I tend to give the most recent precedent where possible.As for 'mutual mistake', surely unless you are claiming the salesman deliberately mislead rather than was just shamefully ill-informed then misrepresentation, which leaves the contract voidable, is not strictly true.Given the confusion from various sources with regard to the towing capabilities of the vehicle, mutual mistake would leave the contract automatically void.

Well firstly the Esso case has no bearing, since it clearly relates to an unsubstantiated prediction, not a factual misrepresentation. Secondly the moor dealer is deemed to be an 'expert' and in this case has clearly not checked his facts properly, even though he only needed to understand a VIN plate properly to know that he was talking bollox. That is not a 'mistake', its professional incompetence at best?

And I'm totally unclear how you think the OP made a 'mistake'? He stated a requirement and the seller confirmed, wrongly, that the requirement was met....last time I looked that was a reasonable definition of being misled....? Regardless of whether the salesman was ill-informed, the reality is he is the professional and is deemed knowledgeable, even if he isn't, otherwise every car dealer would escape from every contract dispute on the grounds that the salesman couldn't be expected to know all the answers. I think not. The simple act is they have the means (in this case a simple 30-second analysis of the VIN plate) to know that they gave the OP incorrect information.

Having qualified in law in one life, and spent quite a few years working with the motor trade in another, I have seen this tested first hand numerous times, always in the buyers favour when is been a material issue.

But lets leave it there before I fall asleep......:lol

 

[Deleted account DD]

wondering whether to answer this one...................

I'd say petrol sales and sheep grazing would be kicked out by a competant solicitor. Ones a prediction and ones an unfounded opinion.

The op was looking for a statment of fact ie it will tow X, no opinion , no hearsay and he could reasonably, as stated above , have expected the salesmanas an informed expert to have located or informed him of the difficulty in obtaining that information.

He did not, the judgement of any reasonable person would have to be that the vehicle itself, not a generic data sheet would yield that information and the vin plate is the source. Or at very least an option worth pursuing.

The salesman by omission, error or stupidity misled and sold a product not fit for the purpose it was intended. Thats giving him the benefit of the doubt with no aspersions cast upon his honesty.

The closest example is the landlord one, even though the effective conclusion was that the contract was void, again it was a decision based primarily upon opinion :nenau

There will be many more modern cases . One in particular would be mrs & dave v's catterick caravans 2008 where the very points regarding fact v's opinon above were argued and won

 

[felixthelogchopper]

There will be many more modern cases . One in particular would be mrs & dave v's catterick caravans 2008 where the very points regarding fact v's opinon above were argued and won

Can't seem to find that one on LexisNexis :naughty:lol:lol

 

[lacroupade]

Can't seem to find that one on LexisNexis :naughty:lol:lol

ooh its a classic trust me! :lol

 

[briggie]

anyway . ... back on track lol .......

if you look under " dimensions " on the following link , it gives some interesting figures

http://www.lestacarcentre.co.uk/used...01050375342294

 

[briggie]

Rustic - my vehicle is the older 2.7 TDi SE+ 5d Auto - not the 3.0 stated here.

And I have passed my B+E test - I've even had compliments on my reversing skills from BOYS!!!!!

no boys on here , only men :augie ( oh and ladies ) .... trouble is its hard to tell the difference sometimes :augie:lol:lol

 

[cm2581]

Oi Oi Oi You LOT!!!!! Stop referring to me as 'he'!! I'm a girlie!! Not a pink fluffy one but definitely a girlie!!! :kissy If 30 is classed as a girlie anyways!!:lol

And thanks so much everyone for your help. I spoke again to VOSA and DVLA and regardless of what anyone or any bit of paper or internet entry says, the plate goes. Law. Fact. If the plate is incorrect (?!) then an application can be made to the local DVLA office to have it changed. And quoting the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as advised by Consumer Direct) and let then know I am holding them in breach of contract as the goods are not fit for the purpose made known at the time of sale and I give them 7 days to rectify the situation.

And hopefully, that will be that! And I will return for advice on where to buy a manual! Idiots guide will be required cos I don't think I want to buy from a dealer again!!! I will go with my folding notes and haggle and barter my way round bloody england (I'm in Edinburgh!) if necessary to get one! Oh maybe not barter - who knows what a private seller might be after!!! I will take scary looking daddy with me me thinks!