Sold fridge for £60 and the buyer now claiming £450 - £500 through courts and now BALIFF!

[rickyd]

hi all. I've just found this thread and at first reading thought it was a joke!

 

Now I think I've woken up in a parallel universe where the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

 

So if I buy something second-hand and later decide for whatever reason I don't want/like it I can pursue the seller for anything I fancy?

 

Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

 

As the seller offered to refund the purchase price (I wouldn't have) that ought to be the end of it and they cannot demand that it is collected either.

 

If I buy a TV in Comet or wherever and take it home, there's no way on earth they will collect it from me if I want to return it, even if its defective and they have delivery vans!

 

Beam me up Scotty, the worlds gone mad!

[stush]

hi all. I've just found this thread and at first reading thought it was a joke!

 

Now I think I've woken up in a parallel universe where the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

 

So if I buy something second-hand and later decide for whatever reason I don't want/like it I can pursue the seller for anything I fancy?

 

Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

 

As the seller offered to refund the purchase price (I wouldn't have) that ought to be the end of it and they cannot demand that it is collected either.

 

If I buy a TV in Comet or wherever and take it home, there's no way on earth they will collect it from me if I want to return it, even if its defective and they have delivery vans!

 

Beam me up Scotty, the worlds gone mad!

 

Exactly! This is so ridiculous hence why I posted this for my brother in law to see where he stood!

[Huff&Puff]

From what I remember, I remember my brother in law getting a letter about this and stating he needed to attend court.

 

That's why it happened. The claimant will always win an undefended claim, however ridiculous it is. It would have been the easiest claim in the world to have won too, if he hadn't ignored it.

[stush]

My sister in law has called the baliff a couple of times to find out what the situation was but he hasn't been answering and she left him a message

but he hasnt called back..

[Bookworm]

You need to act fast. The longer between the judgment and the application for the set-aside, the least likely it is to succeed.

 

Get the set-aside application done ASAP, on the grounds that you never received the claim form (the banks do it all the time and get away with it ), and you wish to get the chance to defend the case in full.

 

Once set-aside is granted, it means exactly that, and the case starts all over again. Your BIL will have a chance to see the claim set out by the other side, and will have to acknowledge it within the times and tick the "deny he owes anything" box and send it back. Then he will have a further couple of weeks to lodge a defence, which will be set out as such:

1 - The buyer was given a full chance to examine the goods before purchase and was satisfied with the goods. [set out the circumstances under which the sale happened, keep it factual, where advertised, contact made, when purchase made, when they complained etc...]

2 - As this was a person to person sales, the only obligation under SOGA 1979 was for seller to sell the goods "as described", which they were.

3 - Even if the goods were found to be not as described, which is denied, and even if the buyer had bought the goods unseen, which is also denied, it is illogical for the claimant to then decide to use the goods after all then claim the foodstuff was spoiled.

4 - Furthermore, the defendant suggest that the claimant deciding first to inspect the goods before purchasing and removing them, then deciding to use them for storage of food, constitutes acceptance of the goods as defined under SOGA.

5 - Should the courts decide that the claimant's claim is a valid one, which is denied, the defendant puts him under strict proof as to the actual losses incurred and how they have been calculated.

 

Something like that anyway. Make sure that he signs the statement of truth and send that back.

 

Make sure that he asks for the case to be transferred to his local court, so the claimants will have to travel to him, not the other way round.

[Bookworm]

Forgot to say that when it goes to court, your BIL needs to have HIS costs set out for him to reclaim against them if he wins: set-aside costs, his costs as a litigant in person (£9.25/hour), but he must be able to particularise those. Best is to keep a diary, set in 15 mns slices, in which he can details the time spent working on preparing his defence, srtationery, research into the law, phone calls etc... ;-)

[Ell-enn]

Great Stuff Bookie!

[Bookworm]

Thank you dear, one aims to please.

[rickyd]

My God this is still going on?

 

Let me get this straight in my head as I think I must have missed something here -

 

You place an ad for a fridge and some guy comes around to see it, seems happy and buys it.

 

Then his wife decides its got to go back but you must collect it but this is after they've been using it to keep food in.

 

You tell them you're not collecting it but offer them their money back however they're not happy and make abusive phone calls and allegations about the product on a forum that weren't true

 

It all goes quiet than you get a bailiffs letter demanding payment and it seems you owe them £500. It goes to court and now you have to defend yourself against the judgement?

 

This kind of thing could kill e-bay and all those adverts in the local papers stone dead!

 

I get the feeling that this couple would claim damages even if the fridge had been free - where I'm baffled is how this ever came to court and how nobody chucked it out whilst laughing uncontrollably?

 

Like I said previously, the world's gone mad.....

[stush]

You need to act fast. The longer between the judgment and the application for the set-aside, the least likely it is to succeed.

 

Get the set-aside application done ASAP, on the grounds that you never received the claim form (the banks do it all the time and get away with it ), and you wish to get the chance to defend the case in full.

 

Once set-aside is granted, it means exactly that, and the case starts all over again. Your BIL will have a chance to see the claim set out by the other side, and will have to acknowledge it within the times and tick the "deny he owes anything" box and send it back. Then he will have a further couple of weeks to lodge a defence, which will be set out as such:

1 - The buyer was given a full chance to examine the goods before purchase and was satisfied with the goods. [set out the circumstances under which the sale happened, keep it factual, where advertised, contact made, when purchase made, when they complained etc...]

2 - As this was a person to person sales, the only obligation under SOGA 1979 was for seller to sell the goods "as described", which they were.

3 - Even if the goods were found to be not as described, which is denied, and even if the buyer had bought the goods unseen, which is also denied, it is illogical for the claimant to then decide to use the goods after all then claim the foodstuff was spoiled.

4 - Furthermore, the defendant suggest that the claimant deciding first to inspect the goods before purchasing and removing them, then deciding to use them for storage of food, constitutes acceptance of the goods as defined under SOGA.

5 - Should the courts decide that the claimant's claim is a valid one, which is denied, the defendant puts him under strict proof as to the actual losses incurred and how they have been calculated.

 

Something like that anyway. Make sure that he signs the statement of truth and send that back.

 

Make sure that he asks for the case to be transferred to his local court, so the claimants will have to travel to him, not the other way round.

 

sounds very good. thanks for that info, much appreciated...

 

the case was in april 2008 so over a year ago so i doubt it would get set aside, but worth a shot

[Bookworm]

Because it was not defended, Ricky.

 

The claimant obviously went through MCOL and won by default, no-one laughed it out of court because it was processed centrally and as long as all the admin details were input properly and the fee paid, claim went out and after 14 days with no acknowledgment from defendant, claimant went online and claimed a win by default, all automated too. That's all it is.

[rickyd]

Thanks for the explanation - wow!

 

Amazing that this is possible but we can't get violent criminals, rapists and anti-social yobs locked up.....

[Bookworm]

sounds very good. thanks for that info, much appreciated...

 

the case was in april 2008 so over a year ago so i doubt it would get set aside, but worth a shot

Don't lose heart. If you do a search on CAG for a thread by user "Disneyman", it will show you that it can be done. ;-)

 

If your BIL didn't know about the case, he couldn't defend and therefore if the first he knew was when the bailiffs turned up, he has a very good chance indeed. All he needs to do is show that he has a reasonable prospect of defending if given the chance and the over-riding objective means he should be given the opportunity. MCOL cases are sent by their hundreds every day and some do go astray in the post, that's all.

[domtheman7]

Not wanting to pour water over anything, and remembering there are always two sides to every story, the "brother in laws" document, posted on here was an order **AFTER A HEARING**. SEE POST #28 (which regrettably can't be edited to change its effect).

 

It was before a District Judge, who considered the argument, albeit only of one side.

 

To have got this far, the brother must have:-

 

1) Received the claim form.

2) Acknowledged it, by sending Defence (and possibly acknowledgment of service as well)

3) Filled in and returned an Allocation Questionaire

4) Then not attended the hearing.

 

I have known the court to send the wrong form of document out, and they may have done that in this case. But if they haven't then all what has been said about set aside is simply wrong.

 

Instead, the application is under CPR 27.11 (which has strict timelimits and different rules).

 

And whilst you are right about caveat emptor and satsifactory quality, goods sold nevertheless have to fit their description. If I sell something that I call a "fridge" that is less that one year old, then it has to work as a fridge. Otherwise it's a metal box with chemicals in pipes attached to the back. I would be in breach of contract and liable to put the buyers in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed properly, namely compensate them to allow them to buy a less than one year old fridge that does work, and compensate them for any losses.

 

And, RickyD, yes Comet would have to compensate you if you bought a tv off them that didn't work, including delivery costs. They may not agree to pick it up themselves, but you can charge them the costs you incur yourself. That's the law.

[domtheman7]

Oh - and court forms, including N244 contain a "statement of truth". Saying "I didn't recieve nothing", when the court have a copy of your defence on file, will not go down too well. Look up Joanne Kirk Contempt of Court on google, to see what happenned in that case (Costs of tens - indeed hundreds of thousands plus a £5,000 fine!) when she signed statements to try to get more compo.

 

It obviously wouldn't happen in this case - but I personally wouldn't be taking the risk of two years in jail for contempt.