Trying it on? I sold it legally despite what you think, and most modern diesels are far beyond most 'traders' these days, hell most traders seem to struggle when reading. He won the no-reserve auction for £380, he didn't have a clue how to program injectors, I refunded him and did the work myself and sold the car for £1250 which is well below my usual stock, hence not bother in the first place. I can't see how SOGA comes in to play as it was sold as described (exactly), the faults were known to the buyer (even confirmed over e-mail prior to his bid), he was given the chance to inspect the vehicle prior to the auction (in fact I insisted on it and I have in writing his rejection) and it was sold through an auction to a trader who agreed to the conditions of the sale which stated he was responsible for the collection / recovery of the vehicle. Please let me know if I can use SOGA for my benefit in future when I buy cars as spares/repairs at the auctions and then insist the car is repaired or a refund given once I've discovered the faults.... I think it would be an interesting case if this is so... All car auctions would close up shop immediately!

Are you sure about that, sold through a trade auction to a trader with the faults clearly listed, liability explained etc? I'm fairly sure I can you know.

Yes I have an invoice showing the sale of the car which details the faults with the car and also I have in the footer that the collection and recovery of the vehicle is the responsibility of the purchaser. But the issue is, I took the car back and it was then sold once the issues were sorted out the following month (when I got around to it). So as far as I can see there's no reason for the council to take my invoice as evidence as (a) it would look like I've faked an invoice that shows ownership for around 3 days, and (b) the trader could simply deny ever seeing the car and I felt that would put me in a worse position than I'm currently in! lol.

The car was MOT'd for 12 months, taxed for 6 and the fault was relating to the programming of the diesel injectors prompting 'limp home mode'. Once the car is sold, it is up to the new owner how they move the vehicle, I would have no say what so ever. I'm not his mother, I'm not his wife and I'm not the Police. I would love to see the law that states I can prevent the owner of a car from driving their own vehicle, please find me a reference.

Not really lol... I took the car in as trade, sold it on to a customer 'sold as seen/spares or repair' (who happened to be another trader). He underestimated the condition of the car and felt unable to drive it on the M20 so left it on the street. He then got in touch asking if we wouldn't mind returning his money and taking the car back in providing we kept the deposit he had originally paid. Basically he bought the car online without viewing first, tried to drive it home and didn't get to the end of the block before he had trouble with it cutting out. After an attempt to fix it on the side of the road he gave up and realised that he knew nothing about modern diesels. I could have said 'its yours now mate', but I'm not like that, so gave him the money, he returned the V5 and docs and walked away a happy man.

Well, as a trader I'm not registered as a keeper by the DVLA but the previous owner who hadn't informed the DVLA that he has sold it to the trade passed on my details to the council. And I sold it on in the trade but as I said, I then agreed to have the vehicle returned so as far as the council will believe, I'm the keeper at the time.

It won't cost me any extra to do that will it? No matter what the out come at least I can say I tried lol. It's just annoying as I pay for a useless permit on a street that you can hardly ever park on as they sell 100 permits to a single household! And I had sold the car to a customer who had trouble driving it away and didn't want to risk the M20... Hence it being parked up over night. I was aware of the 2nd PCN as we had to park it up due to having no reverse but the 1st I wasn't aware of until I got a NTO. Such is life! lol

Yes it is a double, or at least it is meant to be a double.... But as far as I can tell a double line is required to be clear, consistant and most importantly, solid? I know it's getting technical but if they kept the lines on the road in a reasonable condition I wouldn't be posting about it here. Furthermore there is no reason for someone to get out of their car to look for a plate as you face the road at the junction and it's obvious the only sign is for the parking bays. All I'm asking is, technically, do I have a case here?

Two photos as if you were travelling the direction he was as he parked.

There's no plates as it is a double yellow, and I live on the street so know it is a double yellow anyway, but unfortunately I didn't park the car there or realise thats where it was parked until it was too late. The car was actually sold so technically no longer in my ownership but I agreed to take the car back minus the deposit as he didn't fully understand that the car was not 100% functional (despite it clearly being advertised as faulty). I was under the impression that if the line is not clear and solid then it is invalid, is this not the case? Many thanks. Oh and the car was parked at around 11.30pm and it's a badly lit road so I can't really place blame on the driver at the time (not that it would do me any good anyway).

It looks clearer in the photos as it's a much higher angle which you wouldn't have sitting in a car. When sitting in a car, turning on to the road it appears as a single yellow line with the camber of the road etc so I can see why he left it there, unfortunately I didn't realise it wasn't in the bay until it was obviously too late.

Hello everyone, I have a PCN for a car that I owned under trade but didn't actually park (a trade customer parked it as it wasn't running correctly). The previous owner provided the council with my details and I have had a NTO sent to me. I went directly in to the offices to explain the situation and they were very very unhelpful indeed! So I decided I will have to appeal due to the state of the lines which are badly warn and when it's raining are completely submerged. Although my response was simply pointing out that as can be seen in their own photographs the lines are badly warn along the length of the vehicle. To which they have rejected. My first thoughts were, it's the length of the entire car, not exactly a small area. The entire length of the lines are about 4 cars long. I am about to make an appeal against their decision but want to make sure I have a good chance and to get some advise if possible. The images are as follows: Any advise is very welcome, unfortunately I actually have two PCNs for the same spot as the car failed to engage reverse meaning it couldn't be parked in to a bay safely (which I had permits for). Thanks in advance!

Well, a deposit/Stage 1 payment was made of 2k, then a 2nd stage payment was made of 4k a final payment is £700 was due at the end of the job but these payments weren't associated directly with the work carried out, rather as a percentage to lessen the burden for the client (as they requested). The only thing he could say wasn't done was laying a patio but this wasn't done due to the structural issues and our costs had increased due to us having to use buckets rather than barrows through the house which he was aware of. So the way I see it, it's a wash and I'm already out of pocket before considering any negotiation of a refund. But surely it's out of the question considering he didn't offer fair warning that he was appointing another contractor, simply an e-mail stating he has one that's due to finish up in a couple of days! I'm really annoyed at all of this as I actually cut it so close on price for his benefit in the first place and now hes pulling a fast one on me. What are his options in terms of demanding a refund? Would he have to go to a small claims court? And if so, what would they conclude worse case? I have no money remaining from the project and I can easily support this. Thanks in advance.

Hi there, I am self employed and was doing some landscaping work for a client. Unfortunately during the project we discovered that there was structural issues with the property that prevented me completing the project on time. The client decided to take things in their own hands in terms of repairing the structural damage after I had spent a fair amount of time and money arranging inspections, quotations and scheduling etc. Even seeking advise on his building survey which failed to identify the issue, building insurances and working out which resident is liable for repairs etc. On top of that, although the client informed us that it is possible to use barrows to dispose of waste through the house, it turned out this wasn't the case and we were forced to use buckets which increased labour dramatically- he was informed that this would increase costs before agreeing on the project. And we had a lot more waste than expected as the landscape was contaminated with metal railings, car parts, huge piles of bricks and even a iron bed frame etc. Furthermore he decided that we couldn't introduce new topsoil and that we had to use the existing soil and make good of it which took a lot of time. I held off other jobs for about 2 weeks, but couldn't wait any longer. I was in the middle of another project when the client phoned to say that the works had been done (bodged) and I could come back to site to complete. I explained that I was unable to drop my current projects to return to site as he demanded and he would have to wait until these were complete. He was ok with this. I then dropped a couple of clients to make time to restart the project for this, tried to contact the client but was unsuccessful via e-mail and phone. Then a couple of weeks later I get an e-mail telling me that he has gone with a different contractor (paying them a lot more than I was charging for the entire job) and that he wanted a full refund despite me doing 80% of the job! Plus having to work extra time resolving the issues. What should I do? I have since stopped trading within the industry and this project was one of the causes for this and I can't afford to repay anything as I already made a loss on what I had been paid (which wasn't the full amount). He wanted over £4k, then agreed he would accept £2k but I still can't afford this and as I said, it cost me more overall as it is! What are his grounds for this? Should I wait for it to go legal? I really would have liked to have resolved this and completed the project but unfortunately I feel I wasn't given a fair chance to do so. Also he still has some of my tools etc on site worth around £500 (unless they've been taken by this other contractor). Really at a loss as to what I should and can do about all of this. The money I have been paid doesn't cover the work and extra time involved... Any advice would be appreciated greatly. Thanks.

I was stationary in traffic at a set of traffic lights, PHS Wastetech vehicle to my left. Lights change, my lane remains stationary and the PHS Wastech vehicle swings in to my lane hitting the left hand side of my vehicle from the rear to the passenger door mirror. They intended to drive off despite other drivers sounding their horns and flashing, unfortunately for them they got caught up in traffic and I pulled the driver from the cab. They admitted liability at the site and gave me their details. They appologised for the accident and said they hadn't realised they hit me until they had already pulled away. Impossible as it was a very noisey collision and my van was pushed against the curb sideways! I then got a letter from 'corclaim' stating that I had driven in to the rear of their clients vehicle damaging 6 tail lights! (Quite impressive considering their vehicle only has 2, one on either side and they're caged in! EVEN if I did run in to the back of them, I would only be able to damage one of them as the space between them is wider than my vehicle! More to the point, it's impossible that I hit them from behind as I was in a different lane, they were to my side, and most importantly, there's no damage to the front of my vehicle! The damage starts from the back of my van, pulling up to the passenger door mirror. The wing was not damaged, nor any of the front panels. I took detailed photos at the scene which showed things like glass scatter directly below my van and not spread as it would do if I was not stationary. Also the metal work and B pillar of my van was pulled and twisted FORWARD not backward as it would have been if I had driven in to them! The only damage to their vehicle was the waste management control unit which is mounted on the side of their vehicle. This was on the floor next to my wing mirror. They are claiming for half a day's loss of use, however apparently their vehicle was repaired in June 2010! The accident was in March 2009! And the 6 rear tail lights were ordered in March 2009 as well. There's holes all over their claims and Performance/Crusader Assistance are unable to settle this claim with my best interests at heart. They're informing me that I am unlikely to get anything more than a 50/50 settlement. I simply cannot believe that this would stand up in court, the phyical evidence photographed at the scene and assoicated damage to my vehicle clearly identifies a false claim from the 3rd party! I am looking at writing to my insurance company expressing my disapointment and need your help to get my claim settled as quickly as possible. I'm open to any ideas and input, caselaw and regs etc will be very helpful! I couldn't use the van until it was repaired as the passenger door and load door was damaged in such a way they could not be opened. Since the rear doors were kitted out as tool areas we could not access the load area. The passenger window was also broken and my insurance company did not call a glass fitter to secure so we had to park it in a secure garage while repairs were being arranged. Please help if you can as I'm talking to a brick wall at the moment. All they're saying is that neither of us have a witness as they admitted liability on site I didn't think twice about it! And that being the case, the best it can go down as is 50/50. But I believe the physical evidence is enough, plus the fact it puts thier claim firmly in dispute.

You can request that they only contact you in writing and all other communications will be considered as harrasment from here after. It's worked for me previously while I was disputing fines.

So it'll never end up in court? Any idea what I can do to try to resolve this better? Can I tell eBay to f-o and remove the debt on the account?

Hi all, I've got a bit of an issue with eBay and a company called Iqor which I understand most here will have heard of! lol Background: I have 3 eBay accounts, one personal, one business and another I used when I forgot my login details and needed to buy something urgently. I sold a car bumper for £225 on eBay some time ago, and due to a mixup with the courier company the buyer didn't get the item for 2 weeks and I had to deliver it myself. After the first 7 days the buyer raised a dispute, and rightly so, but after I had delivered the item to a site he was working on I came back to find that eBay had refunded him! I now can't prove that the item was delivered, the buyer doesn't respond to calls or e-mails and as I only had a site address where he was working on (and no longer is) I'm stuffed! I've refused to pay these fees- not formally mind. And continued to use my other accounts. They caught on to this and banned one of the accounts which was at the same address but I still have the other business account which remains active. Iqor are now on my case saying that I have to pay the £225 or they will take me to court. I said it was in dispute and they told me that I cannot dispute it! They also told me that I am 'not allowed' to contact eBay over this! As I told them I would contact eBay anyway as it was in dispute the last I heard, they informed me that they will put in the notes that I refuse to pay and will pass it on to the courts! What do you think I should do? I've recently moved, but sadly they now have my new address otherwise I'd have let it disappear! Thanks in advance.

Filed. Thanks

Got my NTO through; should I return the back saying I'm the owner but not the driver. I understand I don't need to provide any further details other than that. Thanks!

Off the road in terms of being on private land and it was a 'non-runner'. Sorry if I added confusion, it had road tax otherwise I wouldn't have been able to tow it or let the buyer drive it away. Thanks.

I hardly consider my response aggressive at all, you make assumptions and I'll put you straight. Another assumption? You really need to stop doing that. And it's not what you consider a performance mod now is it. It's already been agreed that there are no performance modifications that invalidate my insurance policy, so their statement is untrue or they're changing their minds and are now ignoring the underwriters and engineers- which they can't do. And if, as you believe, they are not qualified to determine if there are performance modifications, why would RSA insist that they carried out the inspection? Either you're missing something here, or everyone else is. As I have already stated, the manufacturer have confirmed that my warranty has been invalidated- RSA have noted this confirmation as it was the RSA engineer that asked the for this confirmation. Also I am referring to Fords paint and bodywork warranty. So you're barking up the wrong tree. I'll repeat myself, I informed all those involved of my plans well in advance and this has been confirmed as it's in material evidence including e-mails, calls and claim notes. I was not offered a loan car nor have I refused a loan car, in fact, as material evidence shows, I was constantly requesting for a loan car and raised a complaint that one had not been provided from the word go. Quit making assumptions. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn... I personally think you've miss read or misinterpreted my posts. At my own cost, I've had to chase this claim on a daily basis, only to be been lied to, ignored and messed around by RSA/Morethan for 6 months, do you really think I'll let them get away with it? IF this was the case then the RSA engineers who deal with these apparently non-exisitant cases wouldn't be as busy as they are, now would they. The original RSA engineer who left the company half way through my claim told me in a discussion with Ford and I that unfortunately this isn't an uncommon case. Ford also commented on the number of reworks they are getting now is heading towards being on par to the number of customer jobs they are processing. However they did say this is the first time they have had to deal with DWS Bodyworks, but then again they're not in the same areas. Thank you for your input.

In the PE3: In the PE2: Sound alright?

Yeah I understand that, and I understand that they are assuming the registered keeper was the owner. As it's simply not possible it was the same car, and it seems to be completely impossible to make out any detail of the photographic evidence other than a glowing number plate, I can't see that they have much of a case? Especially as it's beyond the 28 day deadline, no?

When I do an out of time appeal, should I bother stating that it's not possible I was the driver of the car or that it was not the same car? Or should I just say, it was over the 28 day period allowed and set out in such and such policy therefore bugger off?