Jump to content

glider3560

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About glider3560

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. The laptop was listed as "for parts or not working" in the condition field. In the description, I said the laptop switched on but overheated so was selling the whole thing for parts or not working only. Buyer complained the battery was at the end of it's life (although still working) and created a PayPal dispute.
  2. I am in England and sold an item on ebay to a buyer in Scotland. Payment was by PayPal and delivery was made by a courier. The buyer is now unhappy (as they didn't read the description properly) that the laptop they bought is broken. The listing described the problems perfectly and said the laptop was "for parts or not working". Therefore I have no issues about defending this, should it go to court. However, the issue is which law applies: England and Wales or Scotland? I am not acting in the course of a business.
  3. The SOGA saga is still ongoing. We had the first court hearing. It was just a session in front of a DJ to discuss a possible resolution. The claimant made no offer. We made an offer which was immediately refused. The judge emphasised that it was up to the claimant to prove her case, not for us to disprove her case. The actual hearing is now scheduled for late next month. We've now both exchanged witness statements and evidence. This included the "engineers report". This is basically a hand written quotation on headed paper. No price is given, just a comment about the pote
  4. Finally been sent directions from the court. Don't have them with me, but this is a summary of what they said. Can't remember the exact wording but we're having a 15 minute hearing in early August, followed by an "up to 1 hour" hearing in September. Both before a district judge. Although it wasn't called as such, my understanding is that preliminary hearings are only used when: 1. Special directions are to be given 2. The case is to be struck out 3. Either the claimant has no claim or the defendant has no defence The claimant must also pay a hearing fee of £25 by a certa
  5. No, we don't. Are we entitled to see this now or only after the court hearing date has been provided?
  6. Just a quick update from me. The defence was filed promptly. The Norhampton County Court issued an allocation questionnaire, which we returned immediately. We asked for the case to be transferred to our local county court. It's now just a case of waiting for the court date to come through......
  7. It sounds very much like you have been convicted of something in your absence. Without knowing what offence, it is not possible to say whether you will get a criminal record or not. Contact the court immediately and tell them the situation. They may offer a retrial or they may not.
  8. Note that £20 is a penalty fare, not a fine. Penalty fares are used for genuine mistakes, such as your case, where there is no intent to avoid payment and a prosecution would be unlikely. Get onto the Oyster helpline to get the maximum fare refunded. I seriously don't think any Penalty Fare appeal will be successful as it was a mistake and dealt with as such.
  9. A lot depends of which offence is being prosecuted. Byelaw offences are strict liability, whereas a Regulation of Railways Act offence needs to have intent. Without knowing what is written in the letter, it is difficult for us to give any further help.
  10. Section 13 (item must be as described) applies to all sales, not just trade. Section 14 (fit for purpose) only applies to trade sales. The buyer is claiming about SOGA in her particulars of claim.
  11. The tyres were fairly new. We replaced them just before Christmas with Michelin branded tyres. I believe in their second letter, they said something like "the only part in good condition is the frame". This is obviously not the case as we had replaced the tyres recently. I think we'll be hold on until the buyer submits the mechanic's report, then see what that says.
  12. Bang!, I have PMed the bike's make and model to you.
  13. Thank you for all your help so far, been very helpful. I'd rather not publish full details of the bike until after the court case. The price we paid for the bike was >£240 in 2010 (so bike is about 18 months old). We have said about the inspection being complete and thorough. They tried to knock a tenner of the price for no reason other than haggling, we said no. They then asked to see and keep the original purchase receipt. We allowed them to see it (just to prove it wasn't stolen or anything), but didn't allow them to keep it for obvious reasons (including it contained
  14. I'm afraid they didn't explain what was wrong in any detail. The only example they gave was that the front suspension failed after they got the bike home (they word after was used in one of their letters). They said the mechanic thought the bike was unroadworthy. The suspension was working when they tested the bicycle as it was ridden over the curb outside our house. They sent two letters before going to court. First one said the bike was not fit for purpose, under the SOGA (they used the template on the Which website). We responded stating that section 14 didn't apply for private s
  15. No, we have not received a copy of the report. We haven't yet got to the allocation stage. I understand these documents will be requested by the court after this stage. The issue is that we don't want to invest a huge amount of time as the value of the bicycle is obviously very low. The easy solution would be to ask them to return the bike, but then who knows what they've done to it after purchase? Thank you for your help so far.
×
×
  • Create New...