Jump to content

alb9694

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Hi Daniella, Good to hear about similar actions, Thanks for the advice re the fraudulent part. Maybe I could suggest it might have been innocent because he could have taken the car to the garage, but they didnt do the work, yet still stamped the book? Did you just claim for a V5 or was it for more?
  2. Thanks, I's a pretty open and shut case so shouldn't be too much of a problem.
  3. Misrepresentation refers to the contract not the item. "Excellent condition" would not be covered under misrepresentation as this has already been stated as caveat emptor, or buyer beware in case law. The contract was entered into on the understanding that the V5 was an integral part of the sale, and that the vehicle held full service history (both stated in the advert). The service book was provided but was fraudulently amended to indicate services that had not been carried out. This is classed as "fraudulent misrepresentation" as it makes a statement about the vehicle's state of repair that is untrue. The presence of the V5 was stated in the advert, and the contract was entered into on the understanding that the V5 would be provided the next day (with text messages showing his intention to do this). This is classed as "innocent misrepresentation" (providing that the seller did not already know that he had lost it), yet even though it is innocent, damages can still be claimed from the misrepresentor.
  4. Hi all, I recently bought a vehicle. The vehicle was advertised as having the V5 present and also having full service history. I bought the car, no V5 was present, promised to let me have the V5 in person the following day. But he text to say he had lost the V5, this cost me £25 to replace. He ignored my texted request to compensate me for this £25. (Please no lectures on buying without V5 documents, we HPI'd the car and the guy had the original bill of sale from the manufacturer in his name as he was the first owner, so his right to sell was unquestionable) Also, on contacting the dealer that had stamped his service book, no record can be found of the services having been carried out. (therefore the book has been "stamped up"). It will cost me a couple of hundred quid to get the vehicle serviced. Now I understand that private vehicle purchase is "Caveat emptor", but where specific guarantees have been made (and can be proven) and turn out not to be true, surely this is a material misrepresentation and thus not covered by the "Buyer beware" phrase? In fact, where he has created a document to support these misrepresentations, isn't this even a fraudulent misrepresentation? Do you think there is any mileage in sending an LBA and then issuing small claims courts proceedings? The guy is gainfully employed, and seems to be reasonably well off.
  5. I have tried that but had no response Where can I find the list of mods?
  6. Hi just wondering who do i make the SAR cheque payable to?
  7. Ok sending the SAR today. Who do I make the £10 cheque payable to?
  8. just wondering if anyone used abbey internet banking and new how much I could get from there, before I send the SAR
  9. Ok this is providing me with some help. You say they MAY be obliged to do it but any idea where I could confirm this?
  10. No I was just using the written off thing as an example. There was £150 worth of damage to the vehicle. Im aware of the use of a spotter and I will speak to him later to see if this is enforced on the site he was on. The other thing I'm thinking is that the campany say "where damage to a company vehicle is incurred as a result of your negligence". But who decides whether or not this is so, surely an accident investigator should decide negligence and not mere managers as they are not experts in the field of this? Couldnt a joint negligence be argued here?
  11. A friend of mine has recently been in an accident at work where a vehicle was damaged. He was reversing on a building site and a large piece of wood was sticking out of a skip which he reversed into and caused damage to the vehicle. In his contract it states "Where damage to a company vehicle is incurred as a result of your negligence, you will be liable for the total cost of repair to the vehicle". My argument is twofold 1) Firstly, if the person in question writes off his vehicle will he be forced to pay for the whole cost of the vehicle?? surely this is impractical!!? 2) Can this man be held responsible for the damage, surely the negligence is on the part of the health and safety officer on the site (for allowing the skip to be unsafely loaded) and not the driver of the vehicle?# And also, is this an acceptable addition to a contract of employment? it also goes on to say that an employee should pay the insurance excess on any claim and any increase in premium will be dedcucted from the employees wages?
×
×
  • Create New...