Well what a sad day for justice. Today was the Court Hearing, within 3 minutes of myself and my wife's arrival in the room the District Judge said that he had read the submissions from all parties, it was his judgement that ebay was an "auction" site and therefore by concequence when the "hammer fell" the claimant (we are the defendent) was oblidged to pay and that was "english law". In the same breath he also admitted that he had never used the site and was not knowledgable about its content but mentioned that his son had used it! He then went on to say, that despite our recieving a reply from the claimant after sending our invoice, stating that he had no intension to pay for our vehicle until he had inspected the vehicle upon his return from holiday some two weeks later, we should have contacted the buyer to request payment for the goods PRIOR to offering the vehicle to the next highest bidder!!! In such a circumstance, the District Judge then ruled our defence inadmissable!! During the hearing he asked very little questions of my wife and myself, did not allow us to ask any questions other than to occassionally correct him with any inaccurate factual evidence spoke from his lips (and having to reffer him to our submissions sat in front of him), however he did allow the claimant to interrupt, and allowed him to talk and even at one point the claimant introduce "hearsay" evidence, unsubstantiated and with no factual evidence to back it up. The Judge did not request to see any factual evidence from the claimant regards any receipts for payment made by him, no evidence that he infact owned the car, nor any advertsing from the Main dealership he bought our old car from to substantiate the price the car was advertised at by the garage. He was extremely rude and arrogant towards my wife, when my wife did want to ask anything or say anything he would simply talk over her or would not make eye contact or acknowledge that she was even in the room. The only point that I was able to put forward to him with any reasonable agreement was that the claimant had paid £2000 more for our old car from a Main Franachised dealer and in doing so would have benefitted from a 12 months unlimited mileage warranty, 12 months RAC cover, Pre-delivery Inspections, Full Valet. Not knowing what value such attractions would have cost the dealership and in the absence of any documentary evidence to give some indication, him simply admitted that he had no idea and explained "it was like putting a pin in" and then deducted £495 from the original claimants award!!! (no request for evidence to be sort). He also made it very clear from the outset when he said that he "wanted to hear the case today". So to recap, the judge applied english auction law to a non-auction means of disposal, ignored the fact that the buyer materially wanted to change the terms of the sale in response to our request for payment, sought no confirmation from the claimant what he actually paid for the car and whether he was the registered keeper, ignored the fact that the claimant demanded £1922 from us when he was infact out of the country and had a) not seen/inspected the car at the franchised dealers b) was not the legal owner of the car c) and never provided us with any copy invoice for the purchase of the car in any subsequent demands made by him for money us and only provided a photocopy of a vehicle order form confirming he had paid a £250 deposit at the time which was included in the allocation questionaire some 5 months later, ignore the constant forcefull and very threatning letters he had sent on 6 different occassions with a few days of the car being sold to someone else, when my wife expressed her anquish and genuine concern for the actions at the time by the claimants constant harrassment, he then pooh pooh her saying that "we all come from different worlds and I dont believe that they were intended to do that as I read these things all the time" in such a condicending manner I was all for walking out! The judge did not allow us to put our side of the events, nor did he do the same for the claimant, had made a decision prior to the hearing commencing that our evidence was inadmissable, allowed the claimant to introduce "hearsay" in to the proceedings, allowed claimant to put forward his points, made a reduction in the claimants demand for compensation without any factual basis of its true worth, then awarded the claimant 8% interest on the loan when the claimant requested it against what the judge initially thought was 6%. So they you have it, a complete travisty of justice in my opinion, never come up an ex-head of mergers and aqusitions from Price Waterhouse Copper, Birmingham!!!!

Hi all, many thanks for your replies, the car was sold to an independent trader, who in turn then sold it to a main dealership network, I have a copy of a very brief email (which I have checked out) comunication between bidder 1 and the main dealer confirming that some deal had been brokered, but of course does not confirm that any money had been handed over (either as a deposit) or when the final balance had been paid, which of course was our main reason for going with an alternative buyer - bidder 1 wanted to wait until his return from holiday to pay, seemed to think that as the highest bidder on the day, he was bidding to view rather than bidding to buy. As for the issue of whether this is a [problem] or not, this claimant is throwing an endless amount of money at this "for the principle" of it as he is a former partner of PWC! (as my own investigations suggest/directors search). Unfortunately, I am not in such a priviledged position and infact was selling the car in order to provide some financial cushion, I hasten to add the car was sold for what I'd paid for it 11 months earlier and was only a japaneese 4x4 less than 7k in value! Clearly this appears to be someone who is being spitefull, just wants to show what he thinks is his superiority over the small man. As far as we were concerned, the matter had been dealt with, he'd not given any money over when asked, wanted to materially change the contract of the sale to suit his own wishes, then went off and bought the car at £XXXX more and would appear to have a legal team who are happy to bill him £X per hour charge spent in telling him what he wants to hear. As for this being a [problem], think not, but perhaps you could enlighten me as to who "ts" is and how I get in touch?

Story so far: Offered our family car via a well known auction site. Prior to listing, sought advise as to its potential value via a free online valuation service. Listed our vehicle accordingly with a sensible reserve. All fine, under terms of sale, put an inspection welcome or personal visit to inspect prior to bidding. Last day of auction (by which time bidding was over reserve), got a call from an interested party asking could he bid but could I hold on to the car for his return some two weeks later from holiday- agreed so long as he paid for it. 10 seconds prior to close of auction, new bidder who offered £100 more than previous bidder. Invoice sent along with paypal details same day coupled with a mail inviting him to collect said car and asking payment method. Email reply from winning bidder now saying he was the one who telephoned, away on holiday, wants to see the car now in person before paying any money when he comes back from holiday. Car offered to next bidder for less, prior to which original bidder was mailed confirming car no longer available due to the time delay and unwillingness to fulfill the contract of the sale till his inspection some two weeks later. Original bidder then plagues me and spouse over next 24 hours with emails and telephone calls demanding that we sell to him and that we have a contract (no money paid by buyer in part or full). Third day then recieve "without prejudice" headed email demanding that we pay him £XXX claiming he has bought our former car from a main dealership (whilst on holiday abroad when he could have paid for it from us when he was asked to do so, no proof of purchase/ownership offered, so suspect he may have only paid some kind of deposit prior to seeing the car on his return) and threatening court action should we not heed his demand and pay him by the day he returns from his vacation (letter signed by him but written by someone with legal approach). Next three letters via email over the following days and only three to four days after the auction finished, all with "without prejudice" on them, none replied to by us, things go quite for about a month or so. Then recorded letter arrived pre-empted by yet again another email copy with "without prejudice" on it. Recorded delivery letter rejected, two days or so later, CC summons arrives claiming "loss of bargin" in effect, plus costs. Facts 1) Original bidder failed to adhere to our terms of sale 2) Original bidder failed to pay in part or full when presented with an invoice to do 3) Car sold to next bidder for less due to the above 4) Valuation of vehicle was from a reputable source 5) Actual buyer (bidder 2) turned out to be a "independent dealer" who then sold it on to the main dealer who then must have offered it on some kind of manufacturers website, where bidder 1 must have seen it in his pursuit for what would have been an alternative car whilst on his holiday 6) Only letters of communications received demanding financial recompense or face legal action have the "without prejudice" on them, only one from him without the phrase claiming that have to sell to him due to a contractual obligation under the method of disposal of the webiste. Allocation questionaire submitted along with us now counter suing for the difference, court date now set in our local court for early next year, looking for some backbone to our written replies/witness statements. thanks sorry mods if posted in the wrong section, new comer and all that, great site,