Thanks for the advice on this from the last few months. I now have a court date after submitting my reply to the defence. However, after a conversation with TS a couple of days ago (it has taken a long time to get a response from them) I'm considering withdrawing the the claim and starting over. It's all to do with this point about not knowing the owner of the business. I'm yet to pay the hearing fee, although it is due very soon, and just wanted to ask on here about what the best thing to do is. Is it possible to amend the claim at this stage and add the owners name without withdrawing? I would assume it isn't. Do I withdraw the claim and start from scratch. If this is the case, how do I do this? Is there a particular form to complete and will this affect my capacity to re-issue in future? Or, is there a third option that I haven't considered to keep this claim in process?

Hi Ganymede Ok, third time lucky posting this, my computer is playing up. So, there is no specific court form to send in my response. I have gone through point by point so far but I need to remove anything subjective. I need to sign with a statement of truth. Would this be correct?: 'I believe that the facts in this response to the defence are true' I'm sorry, but what do you mean by the correct court heading? Is this where it is to be returned to? Bankfodder also mentioned any orders that I am asking for. What is asking for an order? Is this to do with information I am requesting from the defendant? As an aside I received an email this morning from planning who have confirmed that the lawful use of the site is for both a car wash and car sales as per an application a 3 years ago. Thanks

I'm a bit unsure what to submit in the DQ. I think that because of the uncertainty around who actually owns the business I should just go with the business name as the claim is at present so I'm going to fall onto my sword on this one. It's not an answer I can ask for here without giving the full details of the case. I wish I had come to the site earlier and done things a bit more efficiently! Ultimately, I'm not confident we will ever get the money back and we are prepared for that... However, I'm going to pursue this. Ganymede, you said that I shouldn't send my responding statement in its current form. I'll be taking out all of the references to not knowing the defendent although this is true in terms of identifying the owner. I am not really sure what I am stating at this stage however. Do I question the defendants defence or is this for later in the process? I've looked at the link you gave me and I'm not any clearer unfortunately. Is this something I could sit down with someone at the CAB about or would this constitute legal advice? I find the MCOL helpline pretty hit and miss!

Mechanics report as requested by Bankfodder earlier... "With reference to the nissan micra that you bought to us in January 2014 complaining that the engine was noisy and the oil light had come on. When we checked the car the mechanic immediately noticed that the engine was a great deal noisier than it should normally be expected for this make and model of vehicle. We then carried out an oil and filter change to see if this could help to reduce the the noise. However, after this was done the engine noise was apparent and the oil light was still on. We then carried out an investigation as to why this was happening. The oil pressure sensor was removed and an oil pressure measuring gauge connected. By doing this we found that the oil pressure was very low. At this point we removed our equipment and informed you of our findings. We advised you, in light of the fact that you had only just purchased the car, that you should contact the selling dealer and report it to him. We believe their may be internal damage and wear to the engine caused by low oil pressure with possible damage to the oil pump or oil strainer blocked.it would be difficult to diagnose this without stripping the engine down to find out. As a mechanic with 35 years of experience repair of this type can be very costly."

This is part of the problem and I'm hoping the planning dept can clear this up for me. I do now know the full names of the guy who claims to be the owner AND the guy who I believe is the owner. The latter is who applied for permission for change if use of their forecourt for car sales in 2011, has opened a 2nd hand car sales business there in April 2014, and who purchased the car previously according to the dvla. However, I don't want to amend to the wrong one in case I am actually somehow incorrect in this assertion! Would the fact I've never had any personal dealings with this guy make any difference? I'd assume not?

Ha! If Bankfodder is out of date then there's no hope for me! With regard to the DQ/AQ ;0) looking at this I thought it was just a simple form where I state what would like to do. I've not asked for mediation as the business don't acknowledge the sale so this is pointless... But should I say yes anyway? I've agreed the small claims track is appropriate, stated where I would like the case to be heard and asked to use the report from the mechanic firm as written evidence. It will be just me attending, my wife's pregnant so I don't want her under any further stress, and I've included dates I can't attend a hearing. Is there anything else I should be adding to this? It needs to be returned by 23rd June. On my way home I called up our local trading standards to see any of this had been reported to them by either the CAB or a local fair deal scheme that runs here. Someone is due to call me back in 3 days however, the person I spoke to asked me to pass my information on to the planning department. Obviously If they are selling cars from the car wash without permission this goes against the sites registered use. I will be doing this but I explained to trading standards that the owner of the car wash had applied for permission to sell cars in 2011 to the council-I've been able to access this online when I google the guys name. I believe that they were granted permission in principle but I'll confirm this with the planning dept. When I asked what she had down as the business name at present the car wash still retains its old name on their records. So I'm guessing the 'new name' is simply a lick of paint. So... Should I still be pursuing this claim in its current form? Should I instead pursue under the car wash's old name against the guy who I believe is the owner and who last purchased the vehicle? Do I continue as is and focus on get everything right from here?!

Thanks for the replies. I will send a reply in a couple of hours when I get home so I can be thorough. In the meantime, and apologies for my ignorance, but is there somewhere on the site like a quick reference guide to the abbreviations used here?! Sorry, but what is the AQ Bankfodder? Assuming the DQ is directions questionaire Ganymede? So the I have to file my reply to the defence, in the correct format along with the DQ, yes? I'll be back in a couple of hours - thanks for your guidance so far.

Ok, this isn't what I was advised.. This is throws a spanner in the works. I don't know who the owner is. He hasn't named himself. The only names I have are: - A christian name of the guy claiming to be the owner. I have since found out that the christian name he introduced himself to me as and his real name are very different. Only realised I could actually work this out yesterday using the name on the recorded delivery receipt of my last letter and the likes on their car wash Facebook page! - The cousin who is named in the defence but there is no record of him ever owning the vehicle - The name of the person who last purchased the car and who owns a recently formed car dealership (formed in April this year 3 months after I purchased the car) that shares the site. He also owned the car wash when it was called something else a few years ago. I believe this guy still owns the car wash but I have never met him. I now know I've never met him because I've got the name of the guy claiming to be the owner. So, who should I name on the claim?! Is the problem the fact that the business isn't registered? I've already amended my POC once after messing up the first one online by ticking a box I shouldn't have. Citizen's advice have told me to sue the car wash and did not ever mentioned naming someone.... I'm really confused now.

Hi Ganymede Thanks for the response. I've named the car wash as the defendant. I've not named anyone individually at this stage but I take your point that in effect I have named 'someone'. I'm sorry, what is T/A? Something totally obvious I'm sure but not up to speed on the my abbreviations on here yet! I can't find the car wash as a registered business and I don't believe that the person claiming to be the owner actually is. One of the things I wanted feedback on was the reply to the court as this was a first draft and I had no idea what I was doing! Could you tell me where I can find out about the correct format for this reply and if I need to send it all at this stage as I sensed from Bankfodder's reply that I was intending on sending back too much information? Thanks.

Hi Bankfodder Totally agree. We shouldn't have bought it and I'm at a loss to think why we actually did. Lessons have been learned and now I'm trying to rectify the situation best I can. Even if we don't ultimately get our money back I want to at least make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else. Not sure anyone else would be as stupid however!!! My only rationale for why we bought it is that my wife had helped one of their staff members in his asylum application in her previous work. We got a bit sucked in by how friendly the whole situation was - they're not going to screw us over, surely?!!! We were very wrong. In terms of the car, I don't have the report to hand this moment but the garage have said that the engine either needs to be completely stripped to fix the fault or a replacement engine fitted - either way it's considerably more than the car's value. They have confirmed that this isn't something that would have just happened overnight and it would have had to have been sold in this condition. I can upload more details from the report this evening - it's very much to the point. So am I focusing on the wrong thing here? The CAB have said treat this as a trade sale and that I'm entitled to a full refund (I'm aware that getting it is another matter entirely). This is after both speaking to the national helpline and our local consumer advice charity. With regard to what I now submit the MCOL adviser gave me the impression I needed to submit my evidence so I've been preparing a full pack. Is this incorrect? I've completed the directions questionnaire but I'm now unsure as to what I'm also adding to this if anything? Engineers report? receipt? Copies of the letters I've sent? Or just the questionnaire at this point? Thank you!

Hi Bankfodder Thanks for the reply. When I spoke to the MCOL helpline they said I need to send in my evidence with my directions questionnaire. Is this not correct? We purchased the car on 6th January. After having it checked out by a garage I tried to return it to them on 29th January. DVLA records show it was purchased at from a dismantlers in November 2013 by someone who I believe is associated with the car wash (I believe he owns it). It is taxed until November 2014. MOT expires November 2014 also. I've taken the claim against the name of the car wash. Other than the cousin they have been evasive in giving any other names. The guy the claims to be the owner calls himself something that isn't his real name and he hasn't printed his name on his defence or in the texts I received from him. I am concerned about this side of things but I dealt solely with the car wash so that's all I had to go with. In terms of the private sale side of things the car wash are saying this is a private sale (that the car belonged to the cousin and that the car wash was just helping him sell it). They say its nothing to do with them at which I obviously know is not true. They bought the car, realised it was on its last legs and I believe they felt that buy pretending it was a private sale they would have no comeback. Do you think I shouldn't worry about this Bankfodder as I thought this was key-if I can show that it isn't a private sale then they have to take responsibility for he car?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51608[/ATTACH] Ok, here is my draft response. Apologies if it's confusing to read with the names/locations taken out etc. For reference... (the cousin): is the alleged owner of the car and supposedly not an associate of the business -------: Alledges to be the owner of the business Mr X: Is someone I've never met, but who last purchased the car, trader to trader and owns the recently formed car sale business on the same site. It is also the same person that a newspaper article says owned the car wash under a previous name 3 years ago (I have a feeling he owns both businesses but can't be sure yet) My case has been taken out against the car wash business as that was who the entire transaction was via. Any advice greatly welcomed thank you!

Yep. I'm just editing my response to the defendant which should explain that. In a nutshell, the last person to purchase the car did so trader to trader and it the same person that owned the car wash a couple of years ago. He also registered a car sale company on the same site in May. I cannot find the car wash registered anywhere. I only know about the guy owning the car wash a few years back as there was an article in the local paper about it and some disruption with their neighbours. The car wash haven't included any names, other than the cousin, in their responses so I've had to do a lot of research.

I certainly will Rebel. I have now posted the POC and their defence so would appreciate anyone's thoughts. I have a defence written that I can also upload once I taken out any references to anyone etc.

Their defence... "I am writing to totally dispute this claim. I am the owner of (the car wash) and my sole business is washing/cleaning cars. I share the same site with a car sales which is adjacent to me and nothing to do with my business other than I clean their cars from time to time. I did not own the Nissan Micra in question or sell it to the claimant. This vehicle belonged to (the cousin) who advertised it for sale privately and the claimant responded to (the cousin) regarding viewing it etc. I have absolutely no idea what it ws advertised as or for. The transaction was between (the cousin) and the claimant. I did not benefit from the sale all of the money was given to (the cousin). I was present during part of the sale as (the cousin) speaks limited English he asked me to assist in the communication. It was made completely clear to the claimant from the outset that this was a private sale and nothing to do with me. The claimant even confirms his knowledge of this in his letter dated 1st February 2014 that this was a private sale when he first came to see the car. The claimant inspected the car and after viewing it/driving it and checking over was keen to buy the car and paid (the cousin) a £200 deposit but wanted a receipt to prove that he had given a deposit for the car. He was under no obligation to buy the car or leave any deposit. (The cousin) had nothing to write a receipt on and asked to borrow a piece of paper to do this so I gave him one of my slips. I have never offered to pay for any repairs that were required for the vehicle and had no contact from the claimant other than a time when the claimant came to see me and I explained it was nothing to do with me. My mobile number is listed on the top of my receipt for my business which is ############. I never received any communications from the claimant on my number. I am glad the claimant states in his claim that he has documentary proof from the DVLA that he has supporting evidence. It will be completely clear from any DVLA record that this Nissan Micra never belonged to me and was never sold by me. I will be able to provide proof of what I am saying is true. I have contacted (the cousin) about this and he will provide written confirmation that he advertised the car on autotrader as a private sale and contact was made by the claimant to (the cousin) and all transaction deals were solely between those two parties and nothing to do with me or my car wash business. There were also other people who were present at the car wash when the claimant purchased the car from (the cousin) and can be witnesses if required. I am extremely disappointed that the claimant is trying to make a claim against me in this way which I feel is malicious and will seek compensation from him for any stress, legal cost, time wasted or loss of reputation incurred by this case. The claimant should be making a claim against (the cousin) who he purchased the car from and not me. I shall send the supporting evidence in due course once I have obtained this. Yours faithfully Signature (but no name listed anywhere on the claim)

And yes, I have reported them to the CAB on the understanding that this would be passed on to TS. However, I've never received any follow up contact and sent an email to my local TS via the council who I am awaiting a response from. I will be phoning them this week to follow up

Hi Rebel Thanks for the link and I agree entirely I shouldn't have paid with cash. I feel very foolish about the whole thing! I will just write up their defence...

My POC: "My wife and I purchased a Nissan Micra 1.5 diesel car from ##### on 6ht January 2014. Since purchase the vehicle has not been used for its purpose as it spent a number of weeks with #####(a local garage) being investigated. We have been informed by the garage that the car is not fit for purpose and there may be internal damage to the engine. We have been advised that the engine would need to be stripped to diagnose the problem or a replacement engine procured. This would be significantly more costly than the value of the car. The car wash have claimed that this is a provate sale and offered a repair to us that we are expected to pay for. They refuse to provide information regarding who will carry out the repair. We reject this is a private sale and have supporting evidence from the DVLA. The car is no longer in use. We have rejected the car and asked for a full refund which has been refused. I am claiming for the vehicle cost of £2225, inspection fees of £133.06 and postage costs of £16.54"

Yep, I'll just make an edited copy removing names etc.

Hi Everyone New to the site, been lurking a while however! I'm currently involved in a dispute. I've uploaded the description of the case as it's quite long and after previewing the post I figured nobody woud want to read it! As a summary however... 1. Purchased a second hand Micra for £2225 from a car wash 2. They claimed private sale 3. Car turned out to be a dud! 4. There is no record of the supposed car owner ever owning it 5. I've taken the car wash to small claims 6. They have defended the claim (with lots of fibs!) 7. I'm at the stage of returning the directions questionnaire... To be with the court by 23rd June 8. I would really appreciate some advice as to how to return my response. I've created a response that call each of the defendant's points in their letter into question but it's quite long (7 pages). Is this too much? 9. Do I also return all of my evidence, fully indexed, at this stage? Many thanks, I hope the attachment makes sense.[ATTACH=CONFIG]51606[/ATTACH]