Ebay Nightmare (please help)

[crash3903]

With courts nothing is fact until proven beyond reasonable doubt

True in criminal but in this case will be on the balance of probability - 51% in your favour case proved

 

so it does not matter what is said in this forum.

very true and a lot of people would do well to remember this is not a court

 

This may also help in deciding if your seller was a dealer

 

Motor Trader:

‘motor trader’ means a) a manufacturer or repairer of , or dealer

in, mechanically propelled vehicles or b) any person not falling

within para (a) who carries on a business of such description as

may be prescribed and a person shall be treated for purposes as

para (a) as a dealer in such vehicles if they carry on a business

consisting wholly or mainly of collecting and delivering

mechanically propelled vehicles, and not including any other

activities except activities as a manufacturer or repairer of, or

dealer in, such vehicles (This can include Hire and Leasing

Companies and also Finance/HP Companies).

I remember once there was a limit of selling 12 or more cars a year before you are classed as a dealer. Not too sure if this is still valid

[JonCris]

rps of course at the end of the day it's up to the courts & believe me when I say that the majority here know precisely how they work

 

Now I'm not going to spend my time arguing the toss with you about your 'FACTS' other than to say your FACTS are wrong & the OP is advised to issue proceedings if the seller won't play ball

[JonCris]

True in criminal but in this case will be on the balance of probability - 51% in your favour case proved

 

very true and a lot of people would do well to remember this is not a court

 

This may also help in deciding if your seller was a dealer

 

I remember once there was a limit of selling 12 or more cars a year before you are classed as a dealer. Not too sure if this is still valid

 

For the revenue there is no limit - If they take it into their heads that your a dealer........then your a dealer.........& no amount of denying "I only do it as a hobby guv" or cajoling will change their minds

[crash3903]

Now I'm not going to spend my time arguing the toss with you about your 'FACTS' other than to say your FACTS are wrong & the OP is advised to issue proceedings if the seller won't play ball

 

I personally think that rps makes some good points regarding the onus of proof but as you are not going to argue the toss, as you believe you are correct, there is little point posting any views

[crash3903]

For the revenue there is no limit - If they take it into their heads that your a dealer........then your a dealer.........& no amount of denying "I only do it as a hobby guv" or cajoling will change their minds

 

maybe but they still have to prove it if they are going to take the seller to court as a dealer

[Bookworm]

Honestly, what do people expect for £1100 and a 12 year old vehicle?

STILL missing the point.

 

What the buyer has the absolute right to expect is that the 12 year old car he has purchased for £1100 is as described.

 

 

Originally Posted by buzby

 

No - I'm saying you need a new pair of glasses and should read what is actually posted, before responding with an inappropriate and innacurate reply. But it's not the first and most likely won't be the last. Which bit of "Nothing in the TS statement differs from my view" don't you understand?

Oh dear, didn't take long to get personal again, there's a surprise.

[Chesterexpress]

STILL missing the point.

 

What the buyer has the absolute right to expect is that the 12 year old car he has purchased for £1100 is as described.

 

BW it is you once again whom is missing the point. I was simply asking a question, re; £1100 and a 12yr old vehicle! Was nothing to do with product as described. Please learn to read the post and digest what is actually being said before you jump in with your size 12's.

[Bookworm]

maybe but they still have to prove it if they are going to take the seller to court as a dealer

He doesn't have to. Regardless of whether seller was a dealer or not, it still would be a case of goods not as described, and being a private seller gives you no protection against that.

 

RPS is mistaken on quite a few of the issues:

a) As previously pointed out, in a civil court, it is balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.

b) "PLEASE TAKE NOTE: IT WILL NOT MATTER IF THE CAR BROKE DOWN 4 MILES UP THE ROAD IF HE IS A PRIVATE SELLER, HE COULD SAY HE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY ISSUES AND THAT WOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH. PROVIDING HE DID NOT STATE SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT TRUE IN THE DESCRIPTION THEN THERE IS NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. FACT" Wrong. Ignorance is NEVER a valid excuse in itself. Maybe he acted in good faith, maybe he didn't. So? The buyer bought in good faith too, and the item was still not as described! Whose responsibility is it to describe the item accurately? Yep, the seller's. If HE didn't ensure that his description was accurate, then that is very much his problem and there is no getting away from that.

[crash3903]

He doesn't have to. Regardless of whether seller was a dealer or not, it still would be a case of goods not as described, and being a private seller gives you no protection against that.

In case you have read my reply wrongly Bookworm I was replying to the ref of the inland revenue made by JonCris

 

In addition prove the defect didn't occur after the car was driven away ??

[Bookworm]

BW it is you once again whom is missing the point. I was simply asking a question, re; £1100 and a 12yr old vehicle! Was nothing to do with product as described. Please learn to read the post and digest what is actually being said before you jump in with your size 12's.

Insults from you too! My, how insecure are you guys if you can't argue a point with a modicum of courtesy?

 

You are asking a question (which, forgive me, I understood as rethorical) which is irrelevant to what this is about. Maybe the car is a lemon, maybe it was a bargain, maybe maybe maybe... Who cares? It has nothing to do with the point in question, which is the buyer bought a car on a description that said it drove "spot on", and said car does not. Therefore, it is not as described. Therefore, as per his statutory rights, OP is entitled to reject it. It is really that simple. I can't explain it in simpler words than I already have, so will have to leave it at that, I'm afraid.

[Bookworm]

In case you have read my reply wrongly Bookworm I was replying to the ref of the inland revenue made by JonCris

 

In addition prove the defect didn't occur after the car was driven away ??

Sorry, yes, I misunderstood that part.

 

He doesn't have to. His case would be: "not as described, I reject the goods", in other words, "description stated "drives spot on", this was what happened when I drove it away." and put the defendant to strict proof that the ad described the car accurately.

 

The onus would then be on the defendant to convince the judge that on the balance of probabilities, the car was not faulty when sold and was therefore sold as described, ie "drove spot on", and must have developed the fault once the car was driven away. In the end, it would be down to the judge to decide on the balance of probabilities, what is the most plausible scenario.

[crash3903]

The onus would then be on the defendant to convince the judge that on the balance of probabilities, the car was not faulty when sold and was therefore sold as described, ie "drove spot on", and must have developed the fault once the car was driven away. In the end, it would be down to the judge to decide on the balance of probabilities, what is the most plausible scenario.

 

Maybe the case but...

 

The judge would use his experience and knowledge in these matters and he would still have to be seen as acting in the interests of both sides. How on earth are either side going to prove when the defect developed.

 

If the brake discs were scored then that would be easy to prove

 

If a bolt shears is that so easy to prove?

 

Mechanical faults can develop at any stage of a cars life, from when they are built to when they are scrapped...Over to you

[Bookworm]

No argument there, but consider that the seller (presumably) had the car for longer than the short time in which the buyer had it to both test drive it and take it home. Consider too that the buyer contacted the seller as soon as he became aware of the problem, having driven it for a fairly short period of time. Finally, consider the attitude of the seller who, when contacted, says "sorry, mate, not my problem", and if you were the judge, what picture does that paint in your mind?

[crash3903]

Yes i would agree with you

 

But I still feel the judge would put aside any hearsay and irrelevant information and deal with the nuts and bolts of the case (Excuse the pun :lol: )

 

I guess it is for the OP to make the decision as to whether they want to spend more money taking the case to a court, getting a report from maybe the RAC or AA as to its mechanical state, and taking a solicitor or representing himself

 

If he/she is saying it is "not as advertised" or whatever then he/she needs to be able to prove that to the judge

[Bookworm]

Nope.

 

Let me run the parallel with the bank charges, see I can make it clearer that way:

 

We say: Bank charges are unlawful because they do not represent a true pre-estimate of costs.

Bank says: they are a genuine pre-estimate of costs.

We say: Ok, prove it.

 

Op says: Car not as described, ad says "drives spot on" and it doesn't. (doesn't need a report to prove it either, all it needs is a video of driving car at speed where the problem occurs, but a report to show what exactly the problem is, especially if it were to show an ongoing problem is not a bad idea, although not strictly necessary, remember this is about the description of how it drives, not what fault causes the problem)

 

Seller says: Well, it did drive spot on when I advertised it, so it was as described. He would then have to prove that the car was driving as described at the time, and how is he going to do that? Has he got a video to show the car being driven at 50 mph and driving well? Not likely. Balance of probabilities. ;-)

 

Of course, you could always get a judge who is going to stick to "caveat emptor" and disregard anything else, one thing I have learned with judges is that you can never be sure of what they'll say or decide.

[crash3903]

Of course, you could always get a judge who is going to stick to "caveat emptor" and disregard anything else, one thing I have learned with judges is that you can never be sure of what they'll say or decide.

 

Exactly

 

I was a Mackenzie friend last year and I told my friend to bring the BS5385 for tiling to court as he made reference to it in his claim

 

The respondent, a solicitor, made all sorts of ridiculous assertions about his character and mine. The judge disregarded all this rubbish and looked at the facts. The job was not finished so it looked bad in the pictures. I represented that had he been allowed to finish the job the pictures would have told a very different story.

 

The judge agreed and found in my friends favour

 

What I am saying is that either side will have to prove the defect was or was not present at the time of the sale.

 

How do we know the seller sold a crap car? How do we know the OP didn't go over a pot hole in the road and cause the damage? - Only an expert report will clarify these points and, unless that report is definitive, it would be hard to prove

 

To the OP ==>> Good luck with any claim

[rps1969]

Take it to court as from what I can see he has three neg feedbacks for the same thing - I am sure he can pay you back £10 a week for 2 years.

 

The seller would appear quite young (gut feeling), say 17 with a car like that, and if he has not got the funds to pay you back I dont think the Courts would throw him in jail.

 

I think it is fair to say he knew the car had faults, but if he claimed he only drove it at 40 MPH which he may have and if he generally did not know of the fault then I cannot see where blame could be portioned, and the judge may simply rely on the facts in front of him and the law about private sales.

 

If you are claiming this guy was a "dealer" then then how many honest 17-19 year old car dealers do you know? I know this is not the point, but I get the feeling you are not that old yourself and have been somewhat robbed. But hey hands up, I bet you have already questioned what a fool you have been ah!

 

Yes you want a refund, Yes you have been done, but again, if he does not have the funds to hand over how will this help you? And what really can the Courts do apart from say issue a community order and that will not get you your money back. Such things happen all the time in court.

 

 

 

OH, and for those who suggested I was wrong please take note:

 

Nonsense. The Sale of Goods Act applies to both brand new and second-hand goods – in both cases, they have to be of satisfactory quality.

This statement is NOT correct as it has not been established that the seller was a "trader"- As such "Privately" sold goods DO NOT have to be of satisfactory quality. Once the purchaser has paid for the item, in law he has satified this point. As if he was not satisfied he would not have purchased it.

 

What the law says

 

When you buy goods from a private individual, for example, by answering an advert in the local paper or at a car boot sale, the law says the goods must:-

 

• match their description.

This means they must be as described by the seller. This includes any description on the label. For example, if a seller says a car has a 1800cc engine, it must not have an 1100cc engine.

 

It is important to check goods before you buy, because generally goods brought from a private seller do not have to be free from faults.

 

However, if the seller tells you the goods are in good working order, and they turn out to be faulty, then you may be able to take action on the grounds that the goods did not match their description

This point is in your favour

 

People who sell goods as part of their business sometimes pose as private sellers, because then the customer has fewer rights. This is a criminal offence.

 

If you buy goods from someone posing a private seller, you can insist on the same rights as if you had brought the goods in a shop. For example, if the goods are faulty, you may be able to get your money back.

 

It is an offence for a private seller to sell an unroadworthy car.

You would need to establish if the car was unroadworthy by an independant inspection.

 

Your rights if the goods are faulty

 

Refund

 

You probably won't be able to return (reject) faulty goods and get your money back because goods brought from private sellers do not have to be free of faults

 

Enough said I think

[Chesterexpress]

Insults from you too! My, how insecure are you guys if you can't argue a point with a modicum of courtesy?

 

Not an insult at all, I was merely pointing out that you ought to actually read what people are saying, before you dive in with your replies. It appears from your responses to both buzby, myself and others that it is you who is insecure as you like many others on here think you are always 100% right, when in fact if you stepped back and looked at things realistically you would realise that what you are saying is not correct.

 

You see bw some of us live in the real world and understand what actually happens and not what we would like to happen.

[JonCris]

BW remember your dealing with litigation 'experts' Oh! & a Mackenzie Friend with 'Right of Audience'............apparently

[crash3903]

JC - Instead of stooping low enough to throw insults at people who you know nothing about, maybe you should get your facts straight about what can and can't be done.

[buzby]

Needing new glasses is an insult? I'd be lost without mine. Still nothing new in you not addressing the point being made. To recap kindly show me where I was at odds with TS advice despite specifically saying I was in agreement, yet you say I claimed the opposite.

 

You made a mistake - everyone saw it - but bluff and bluster prevails. Admit your error and move on. But I digress from the OP. There is little point wondering what the Seller knew or did not - even if he only had the car of 2 days, if he did not specifically warrant the car he did no wrong. The best advice was given earlier - learn, repair or sell.

[Bookworm]

OH, and for those who suggested I was wrong please take note:

Nonsense. The Sale of Goods Act applies to both brand new and second-hand goods – in both cases, they have to be of satisfactory quality.

Where is that said on THIS thread? Please don't quote me out of context.

 

This statement is NOT correct as it has not been established that the seller was a "trader"- As such "Privately" sold goods DO NOT have to be of satisfactory quality.

But this thread isn't about satisfactory quality, this is about "not as described". In the context of the above quote, which as I recall, is on a different thread altogether about a different situation altogether, that statement is quite correct, I think you'll find, as the distinction being made on that other thread was about 1st or 2nd-hand goods, not about private seller or dealer. ;-)

 

What the law says

 

When you buy goods from a private individual, for example, by answering an advert in the local paper or at a car boot sale, the law says the goods must:-

 

• match their description.

Precisely.

 

 

However, if the seller tells you the goods are in good working order, and they turn out to be faulty, then you may be able to take action on the grounds that the goods did not match their description

This point is in your favour

Precisely.

 

 

Your rights if the goods are faulty

 

Refund

 

You probably won't be able to return (reject) faulty goods and get your money back because goods brought from private sellers do not have to be free of faults

But they still have to be as described, yes?

 

 

Enough said I think

Indeed.

[nufsaid]

The seller bought a Rover from someone named bookworm bookie selling motors now are you.

On a more serious note I 100% agree with bookie what court/judge would agree with oh well it's not fit for purpose so you will have to put it down to experience and next time you but a car described as "drives spot on" you have to go and get a qualification as a vehicle inspector then you wont have the same problem.

A lay person is not expected to know and you have up to around two weeks to reject a vehicle that is faulty.Obviously this depends on the fault but this fault was immediate and the seller was advised immediately as bookie said his reply will only go against him.

This seller is a rouge and will be seen as such he obviously has decided that it's OK to buy and sell cheap cars as a "hobby" which amounts to a dodgy dealer.

The fact that it appears ALL the cars he has sold on ebay not to mention cars he has probably flogged else where all seem to be faulty one being described as a "death trap".

A judge would certainly take this into account.

maybe the op could ask other buyers to send him notes about their cars as this could help for discrediting the seller as being innocent of mis selling just one faulty car.

The vehicle was not as described and the fault was immediate

Trading standards have already advised in the original post that he is entitled to refuse the car.

I do however feel an inspection would be in the op's favor as it would only strengthen his case should it goto court.

I fought a dodgy car dealer in court and won by sticking to my guns and fighting my corner.

My only question regarding this would be that maybe the op should nip to a kwikfit or similar and have the tyers checked as I know balance/tracking could be the fault and these are easily fixed and not to costly.

Of course if this is the ONLY problem with the car, and he is wanting to keep the car.

This is of course if this is the cause for the vibrating I'm no car expert. I had a people carrier and had a punctured tyre replaced by an idiot who failed to balance the tire it was fine until I got on the dual carriage way, I got up to around 50mph and the car shook uncontrollably I immediately took it back and noticed no little weights around the rim of the wheel they took it off saying it's looked fine:rolleyes: and pretty much gave me the what did I know attitude, and placed it on their balancing machine the read out should be the same both sides, and hey presto mine was miles off, a very embarrassed manager took the wheel and balanced it properly and refunded me the cost of the tyre as an apology.

Just maybe worth a shot to avoid hassle, only a thought.

As I said though a thorough inspection may be the answer though as this maybe the start of many problems, has a hpi check been done to check the car isn't accident damaged?

[rps1969]

My Mistake Bookworm about the top part if that was the case.

 

I take your point about

But they still have to be as described, yes?

 

However, we are talking about the seller stating "drives spot on" yes.

 

Ok, so say for instance the car was indeed fault free when it was purchased and the seller was telling the truth, the buyer went down the road and hit the kerb resulting in the problem discribed. The buyer then claims the car has a problem, without telling the seller about hitting the kurrb. It would be for the buyer to prove it had this unroadworthy fault prior to purchase.

 

Unfortunatly unless the fault was due to wear and tear making it unroadworthy then even an Independant Inspection could not state when the problem first came about.

I,m not being arguementitive here, just giving advice which after all was what was initially asked for.

 

My adivce is he can prove all he likes, but it will all be in vane if the seller cannot affort to pay the sum back in one go, which if your consider the probabilities is highly likely.

[nufsaid]

My Mistake Bookworm about the top part if that was the case.

 

I take your point about

 

However, we are talking about the seller stating "drives spot on" yes.

 

Ok, so say for instance the car was indeed fault free when it was purchased and the seller was telling the truth, the buyer went down the road and hit the kerb resulting in the problem discribed. The buyer then claims the car has a problem, without telling the seller about hitting the kurrb. It would be for the buyer to prove it had this unroadworthy fault prior to purchase.

 

Unfortunatly unless the fault was due to wear and tear making it unroadworthy then even an Independant Inspection could not state when the problem first came about.

 

I,m not being arguementitive here, just giving advice which after all was what was initially asked for.

 

My adivce is he can prove all he likes, but it will all be in vane if the seller cannot affort to pay the sum back in one go, which if your consider the probabilities is highly likely.

 

Yep agree especially as it seems there maybe multiple claims against this guy by the looks of it, it's a definite possibility.

I would still say get the car checked just for ease of mind if nothing else it's worth fighting for if there are multitude of problems that are causing this vibration,there could be a more sinister reason for all this body kit it's certainly not come from some old granny this car, heres hoping it's just the tyres.