Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About minus-millions

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Exactly so whats the point in laws ? my fella says just get the Karhouse fella to court so he knows what he looks like ad he will see justice done . That was what i hoped to avoid in the first place !
  2. All commercial fishing boat owners are vat registered or else they would go bankrupt trying to pay for fuel .
  3. The Office of Fiar Trading sent me a letter today saying "though we made considerable efforts to to help you with this matter the seller ignored us so you will have to take him to court yourself" . So i have to assume the office of fair trading actual exists to assist rogue traders break the law .
  4. A friend bought a commercial fishing boat which will continue to be used in a business venture . The year old boat was advertised at 150k so he phoned to ask if that was the full price or is there vat to be paid . 150k covered everything he was told . All the correct paperwork from the vessel registery and departments of fishing etc were duly signed by both seller and buyer (a process that took months posting forms that needed both to sign back and forth) . But now he's told by the vat office he could claim vat back if he had an invoice and the sellers vat number . He has niether . T
  5. Well just had an email from fair trading , apparently they've sent him a final letter saying make me an offer or it will go to a small claims court . I don't want an "offer" i want my money back ! . By the looks of things i should have just gone straight to the courts myself . On the bright side i suppose the fact karhouse has completely ignored the office of fair trading makes the case i was bound to win anyway even more solid .
  6. OFT told me DSR definitely does apply in this case and if anyone should know they should . Regardless of the DSR law and the courts act on a simple bases of common sense (regardless how hard as it is to believe sometimes !) . I paid for an item then decided i didn't want it , i didn't touch the item before purchase , didn't even look at it . I didn't remove it from the shop and i certainly did not de-value it in any way whatsoever . In law this is a no brainer the money should be returned full stop . I'm not sure what , if any , powers of punishment a court can set down in cases like this
  7. Warning Champix is more likely to kill you than smoking . It was released in America years ago but has now been banned because there are hundreds of libel cases because it is claimed the drug turned perfectly happy people suicidal . There are cases where people have murdered loved ones and all sorts . This is a mind altering drug which works in a very similar way to anti-depressants . When i gave up smoking after 30 years my GP prescribed Champix . I couldn't explain how it changed my personality as while using the drug i was not aware of any change . Thankfully my partner felt som
  8. Thanks for that Conniff . The OFT phoned me yesterday it seems karhouse claim the £350 the kept was for leather repairs of some kind which i supposedly requested before the car was delivered . Fortunately i have the original advert all printed off to prove the car had no leather in it , and ironically i have since bought the only KZJ90 in the UK with leather seats from new . The owners manual states quite clearly Toyota did not supply the leather and it was outsourced to the buyers specification when the car was supplied new . Please note to prevent confusion the landcruiser 90 is a sho
  9. Sequenci you are correct the cartoon car is on their website . And Coniff i am inclined to think you may be correct but in the current financial climate this is exactly the sort of thing the gov wants to stop and hide as they may , all websites and vehicles MUST be registered to somebody . So i very much doubt it would take much resourcefulness to track down those responsible .
  10. He has so far failed to respond at all to myself or the OFT . The OFT is in contact with his local authorities and have commented on the professional appearance of the Karhouse website . Its seems possible "Rus" (the only name i've been given by the seller) at Karhouse has pretty much offered himself up to be put under a Government microscope as far as his finances are concerned . I doubt i will have much more to report until after christmas but please be assured i appreciate all the advice given and will be sure to keep you all informed .
  11. No response from anyone so i decided court is my only option . I phoned the office of fair trading just to let them know and was asked NOT to issue proceedings as investigation has begun and there is no question i will be refunded in full when the investigation is concluded . By the looks of things Karhouse might well have put his whole business at risk for the sake of £350 !
  12. Hello again . I got a letter yesterday from trading standards stating they had written to the seller to explain why i am entitled to a FULL refund and that is all i have to report as yet . It seems there has been a fair amount of hypothetical debate since i last looked which i read with some interest . I have to say i feel it EXTREMELY unlikely any court would question the DSR and how it is applied in this case as the vast majority of monies has already been returned in reply to the DSR . Hence the regs and the duty they impose have been accepted by the seller . As far as i'm concerned th
  13. Thanks Conniff but i told him i will continue to Court for the full amount regardless of the part refund . Trading Standards have only just got involved and at my request they have not "yet" made my complaint official . When they call him today they will simply explain the DSR to him and let him know they are keen to investigate his entire business dealings if i ask . From some of the comments i've read on here i expect a full investigation will be something he is very keen to avoid so i hope to have all my money back soon .
  14. OK so i got a refund minus £350 which the seller says Trading Standards and his solicitor advised is a fair charge for his inconvienience . This has become almost a joke , when he told me he was keeping the 350 i replied that i would have to get advice as i believe theft is a criminal offence and so that makes it a police matter . His response "call me a thief again and i will sue you for defamation of character" . I nearly wet myself laughing ! . I wonder what he will have to say to tomorrow when Trading Standards call him on his personal mobile phone ?
  • Create New...