Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. UPDATE: Ok, I have no idea what the row with indigovivien is about - don't really want it in my thread though. I could not comment further as there was a development as mentioned. That development was that as we approached the deadline for issuing the summons, the trader decided to make an out of court offer by way of a 'gesture of goodwill'. Whilst this did not reimburse me fully, it seemed reasonable and avoided the court system. So, in summary, I have received a partial refund which was a reasonable solution. Case closed.
  2. And that is exactly why some traders get away with things. The fact he didn't check if the car was roadworthy is not something I am going to just 'move on' from at all. There has today been a development and in the interests of the case I will now close this discussion until I am able to publish the outcome.
  3. You didn't read the initial post. I went 25 tmiles o see the car. Did not drive the car myself. Returned home and bid on the car on ebay. The trader delivered the car to me. The very first time I drove the car was after it had been delivered and I was then 25 miles from the trader. It was immediately obvious that the rear brakes were binding. have no doubt whatsoever that the trader must have been aware of the binding rear brakes when he drove the car to me. With respect guys, I seem to be spending most of my posts clarifying things that others have not read! It seems that people are very eager to try and trip me up. I am the good guy here! Not exactly encouraging to keep having to brush of what seems to be attacks on my judgement as a consumer. This trader had the gift of the gab, The fact I qualified as a machic over 30 years ago is irrelevant in regard to the actual purchase. It is only relevant in that I am suitablly skilled to carry out the repair to a safe standard.
  4. I appreciate your input. 1. I am deaf so could not hear the binding on test. 2. I did not drive, the trader did, so I could not 'feel' anything 3. I did not visually inspect the brakes as the roadwheels were on the car. I didn't turn up to have a browse around the car with a full workshop in tow. I also didn't take out the spark plugs, remove the air filter, nor pressure test the cylinders. I went to look at the car to ensure it was straight and clean. It was straight, but not clean as the lazy trader could not be bothered to run a hoover over it, 4. I don't have a trailer. Why would I? I haven't worked as a mechanic since 1982. and even then never owned a trailer. I haven't forgot how to be a mechanic, but have moved on to much cleaner and better things. 5. The dealer ONLY suggested driving the car to him. He never offered ANY alternative solutions at all. I refer again to my earlier comments in which my understanding is that it is unreasonable to ask a consumer (me) to drive a car which they believe has faulty brakes. The same would apply to steering also. I will not drive on the public highway a vehicle that I believe is unroadworthy. Call me old fashioned, but I don't want to kill a child when the rear disk locks and the car goes into an uncontrolable skid. The trader initially offered to have his chap 'look' at the brakes. He subsequently (in writing) suggested a compromise over the cost, in which I replied that I was open to suggestion. He later changed his mind and concluded that as he offered no warranty at the point of sale AND in particular as the car was purchased 'at an auction' (meaning that ebay is an auction), it is sold as seen. He forgets two things. Ebay is NOT and auction as far as the law in England is concerned and secondly he is a trader. As a trader it is HIS duty to ensure that vehicles sold to the public are roadworthy, safe and fit for purpose. I get the impression that scaniaman is a mechanic or in the trade, so will understand this better than most. When selling cars for a living, it is nothing less than prudent to remove all 4 roadwheels to examine each and every wheel and tyre correctly and to also examine all the brakes, particluarly pads and discs for correct opertaion and amount of brake material left, or replace if needed. Also to examine the suspension and steering etc. It takes 10 minutes and gives you the peace of mind of KNOWING everything is right. If I was to show you the discs and pads that came off this car, I am sure any mechanic would be suitably horrified. They are definitely the worst I have ever seen. Don't get me wrong. I don't mind replacing things that wear out in due course, like brake pads, tyres etc. But I do very much object to being sold a car that a lazy trader did not bother checking that subsequently turns out to have seriously defective brakes. Worse still is if they did check, spotted the problems and then did n othing about them. I am not suggesting that is the case as I have no evidence or reason to suspect that is the case. I am suggesting that it is the responsibility of any trader to ensure the car is safe to use. As said, I appreciate everyone questioning how events took place. But I can assure you what I have said is correct. The initial purpose of seeing the car was to simply ensure the panels were all straight and that the car ran and changed gear correctly (it is automatic as required by me because I am disabled). My MAIN concern upon inspecting the car was simply that. As said I am deaf so can no longer acurately hear noises like brake binding, but the very first drive I did with my wife, she picked it up immediately and as a driver I could feel the rear brakes were binding. We only drove for 5 minutes and the rear wheels were very hot, which confirmed to me ' a problem' with the rear brakes. I did not actually inspect them until the trader had an opportunity to see for himself. I am aware that the trader has a recovery vehicle himself, but he did not offer to recover the car at all. His only solution meant me driving the car to him 25 miles away, something I was not prepared to do on the grounds of safety.
  5. I will anyway. I was really hoping someone could advise regarding ebay's position on NOT confirming the address they hold for the seller, but happily give the seelr my full address.
  6. Already done all of that. LBA sent recorded delivery as in the very forst post.
  7. I bought as a consumer., not a trader. It is my private car registered to me that I now use daily. The fact I am a qualified mechanic is just handy for me. I no longer work in that field, but the qualification still stands as do my mechical abilities. If the seller cares to produce a bona fider quote for the parts chepaer, I will accept those prices. But I very much doubt that he can as I bought the parts trade. I do have a written record of all communication, yes. I have dates, what was said and as this whole matter went through ebay, they also have a record of all communication.
  8. I feel this is going nowhere. I appreciate your opinions. I do not have a vested interest. To produce parts of another vehicle taht happen to be identiacl to the brand new parts on my car would be a little excessive for even the most faudulent person. The fact that I say the brakes were dangerous and the trader will say they were not, is neither here nor there. Even as a driver who knew nothing of the actual mechanics, it is unreasonable to ask the owner to drive a car in which they think there is a fault with the brakes. The fact that I am qualified to deem the brakes illegal and dangerous outweighs the humble opinion of an unqualified trader. Thanks for your imput guys. I fel my knowledge both of the mechics and the law are probably more than thise who have thus far offered opinion. I am not new to suing people and would not consider unless I was confident of winning the case. I will sue this trader and will at the very least obtain a CCJ against him. Of that I have no doubt. Judges do not look at consumers with a view to them being a mastermind in fraud vs the nice honest car dealer man. They look at the history of events and of the evidence presented, including who did or did not do what. They judge on what is reasonable in each case. It is perfectly reasonable that I refused to drive the car 25 miles with SUSPECTED faulty brakes. On actual inspecction, I was proved right to do so as the brakes were indeed faulty and dangerous. To suggest that a judge might think that a consumer would go to the effrt of fitting brand new rear brakes completely unnecssarily and then go to a scrap yard to obtaimn ientical parts just to recover the cost of the parts unnecssarily replaced is borederline TV sitcom. Thanks guys, I will manage on my own.
  9. I would add that just as there is no legal requirement for me to use a solictor to handle the court case, there is no legal requirement for me to produce a garages opinion either. The fact I am a qualified mechanic and photographed the work before, during and after and have retained all parts would be more than enough to show the brakes were illegal and dangerous to use.
  10. Hi again I beg to differ As a fully qualified mechanic I am more than qualified to assess the fault and to repair. The parts were all photgraphed before and after. All parts have been retained. The seller was given every opportunity to rectify the fault. He chose not to, insisting that I drive a car with faulty brakes on public roads to his location 25 miles. I declined to commit a motoring offence by doing so, or putting the public or myself at risk. A court would deem my actions responsible and the trader irresponsible for asking me to drive a car with faulty brakes. The seller did mnot offer any other solution at all. the trader was informed 2 weeks before I repaired the vehicle that it would be inspected and the seller did not object or ask to be present, which he would have been welcome to be. I was quite ill for 2 weeks and didn't actually repair the car until week 3. At no point in that time did the trader make any other offer to repair or inspect the car. If I had taken the car to the trader, in order to rectify severe faults with the rear brakes, anyone repairing would have needed to replace the exact same parts. In addition to that would be the time and cost of doing so, even if the trader was qualified or competent to do so themselves, they would still have to invest a couple of hours of time and actually do the work. So, the material costs are (pardon the pun) material as they would be incurred in any event. In fact, I have done the trader a favour by elimiatimng the time and cost of doing teh rpair, only leaving the matter of material costs. The parts removed have been retained and have been available for the trader to inspect. They will be produced in court if needed. It would not take anyone much of an effort to establish that one disc has a sterss fcracture and two pads are worn metal to metal, or that both calipers are indeed missing their return springs and the pistons are fully extended thus cracking the rubber piston seals and causing brake fluid leakage. Under the Sale of goods act 1979 I am entitled to reimbursement as the seller did not offer a reasonable solution or rectify the fault. The fact that he offered to look at it does not remove him of any responsibility simply because I chose not to drive a car with faulty brakes to him. That was an unreasonable request. All opinions welcome.
  11. Hi guys My first post so I will try to be brief, but bear with me. I bought a car from a trader on ebayicon in November for £1500 cash. The trader delivered the car and I paid, I did not test drive the car myself as I was not insured to do so, but did go for a short drive with the trader driving a week before bidding. As soon as I drove the car it was obvious the rear brakes were badly binding. Short version: I told the trader immediately. He offered to have his mechanic take a look, but as the trader is 25 miles away I was not happy to drive with brakes binding. He offered no alternatives. As I am a qualified mechanic, I checked the brakes myself and found the rear hand brake return springs were missing, both rear caliper pistons were extended to maximum and the seals were leaking. Both rear discs were badly scored, one cracked. All 4 brake pads were worn to excess, two were metal to metal. I replaced both rear calipers, both rear discs, all 4 brake pads with brand new. Car is perfect now (in that respect anyway). I asked the trader to reimburse me for the cost of the parts only, no labour charge by me. He has refused as I did the work myself and he has seen no evidence of them being fauty. I retained all parts and photographed all the work as I went, anticipating legal action. The trader told me he was moving at the time of the demo drive by him (next street) but I have not got his current address. I sent recorded delivery lbaicon which has not been signed for (nobody home card left by Royal Mail). So, my question is - any suggestions? I will be issuing a summons in any event. On me winning, he will get a CCJ at very least, which will affect him in future. If he choses to challenge later, he would effectiovely hang himself IMHO. So, what do you guys think? He is still trading from the same address, of that I am sure as he sold another car from that address last week - recognised house in photos. Ebay have refused to tell me his registered address now or even to confirm if it is the same/different to what I already have, quoting the data protection act. I tried using section 35, part 2 (a) as legal proceedings are pending, but they dug their heels in. Turn out Ebay are not even registered under the DPA so are wrong to quote that in any case! (Not a UK based company, so cannot register). Any help or advise very welcome. Thanks
  • Create New...