mobility scooter sale

[buzby]

Your idea of 'evidence' is interesting - can is so string a word, relies on further scrutiny. Evidence is a 'finding of fact' - without corroboration, it is not evidence, but a statement by the pursuer, which leaves the defender amble opportunity to ask for ACTUAL evidence, not an expectation.

 

Assuming the OP is 100% in his interpretation of events, and the dealer is put to rip-off the seller, an agreement by 'telephone' is worth exactly nothing unless it was recorded (ideally) or overheard, less good - but better than nothing.

 

Without this, the exchange may just as well never hve taken olace, as the subsequent exchanges would be heresay, NOT evidential. Since it is not advised to raise any action speculativrly, the lackof a formal written arrangement will have to relay on nothing more than his understanding of the situation and unless the dealer put forward a VERY poor show,the chances of success are not good - which is why I questioned your suggestion there was any case at all.

[postggj]

In A County Court Claim, Is It Not Decided On Balanced Probability.

 

As Its Not A Criminal Trial, Cast Iron Proof Is Irelevent

 

The Judge Will See

 

800 Quid Scooter Put Up For Sale By Xyz

Xyz Takes A Cut Say !5% For Selling Scooter Minus Parts And Service

 

Client Gets Not Say 400 Quid Back But 75 Quid

 

The Judge Will Be Thinking

 

Stitch Up Job

 

I Would

 

IME SPEAKING FROM MY GUT ON THIS

NOT LEGAL ADVICE

[buzby]

The trouble with 'gut' advice is that it is invariably wrong.

 

You killed your own argument with your first sentence, you second sentence was - with respect - nonsensical.

 

WITHOUT proof, it IS decided on the balance of probabilities - I'd be interested in how you think there is an alternative. The dealers would also go to the judge as an independent arbitrator of the dispute, and (possibly) spin a plausible story of trying to help out the OP but he had an unreasonable expectation of the funds to be released after taking into account all the factors I mentioned in an earlier message.

 

Do you think the dealership could not cobble up a sale invoice for £200, and then point to their requirements to repair and replace items, after all (they could argue) the OP gave the impression he would tharther it was used to assist some similarly disadvantaged individual to get around, and the money was only secondary....

 

I'm delighted in your faith, but it can be an expensive mistake to spend more money with no certainty of getting this (or indeed anything else) back.

[postggj]

I See Where You Are Comming From And I Agree

 

Its Just That It Has

 

Stitch Up Job And Taking Advantage All Over It

 

 

I Would Think A Chat With Trading Standards For Advice Might Be In Order

[Surfer01]

If the scooter required two deep cycle batteries these would cost about £120 each. Service would then set you back about £80. Total £320. Thus the OP should have rfeceived a cheque for about £350 minimum. I recently bought privately a 4 year old 8mph class 3 mobility scooter for £400 with two new batteries. You can buy brand new class 2 scooters for under £500!

[legalpickle]

Mmmm. I can see where everyone is coming from on this. And I do hope the OP pops back. My main worry is that they read the first few posts and then, as they said, put it down to experience. Because there is a bit of a whiff about this 'deal'...

Taking the OP as gospel, which we need to do, we know some basics. We know there was an agreement to offer for sale at £800, the dealer to take 15% plus cost of refurbishment. We know the seller got £75. We know there was no written agreement and we also know the old adage that a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on. One word against another tends to cancel each other out.

That latter part is one of the reasons why - in my absolute legal ignorance - I suggested the small claims court. I just feel that is where a one against one argument would most likely be heard with compassion. And if the price of sale was still an issue it is a place where the dealer would have to produce the invoice for work done and the price the scooter was really sold for. A simple calculation would then resolve the issue. For better or worse.

It is also a case, sadly, where the longer the OP leaves it the less likely they are to get anywhere...

Rae.

I agree 100% with the above.

 

Your idea of 'evidence' is interesting - can is so string a word, relies on further scrutiny. Evidence is a 'finding of fact' - without corroboration, it is not evidence, but a statement by the pursuer, which leaves the defender amble opportunity to ask for ACTUAL evidence, not an expectation.

 

Assuming the OP is 100% in his interpretation of events, and the dealer is put to rip-off the seller, an agreement by 'telephone' is worth exactly nothing unless it was recorded (ideally) or overheard, less good - but better than nothing.

 

Without this, the exchange may just as well never hve taken olace, as the subsequent exchanges would be heresay, NOT evidential. Since it is not advised to raise any action speculativrly, the lackof a formal written arrangement will have to relay on nothing more than his understanding of the situation and unless the dealer put forward a VERY poor show,the chances of success are not good - which is why I questioned your suggestion there was any case at all.

buzby: I beg to differ. What I write is based on my legal experience and I have argued cases which were a lot less likely to succeed - based on your assessment - and won.

 

The case would be decided on the balance of probabilities. The OP had a reasonable expectation of sums due, and received substantially less. The OP asked for a breakdown, the potential Defendant refused. This bears a substantial amount of relevance, as if a sudden breakdown materializes - why wasn't it provided before? It becomes less likely to be believed.

 

As I say, I have fought cases with substantially less chance of success - based on your assessment - and succeeded. One of the cases I have won had zilch evidence from me, and evidence from the Defendant that suddenly materialized; but I still won. I believe the OP would succeed, if only the OP would return!

 

In A County Court Claim, Is It Not Decided On Balanced Probability.

 

As Its Not A Criminal Trial, Cast Iron Proof Is Irelevent

 

The Judge Will See

 

800 Quid Scooter Put Up For Sale By Xyz

Xyz Takes A Cut Say !5% For Selling Scooter Minus Parts And Service

 

Client Gets Not Say 400 Quid Back But 75 Quid

 

The Judge Will Be Thinking

 

Stitch Up Job

 

I Would

 

IME SPEAKING FROM MY GUT ON THIS

NOT LEGAL ADVICE

postggj:

 

Can't you write in normal text? It's really frustrating seeing text written so badly - no offence meant - and makes one look at you in a less serious light, when I know that you are more competent than that. There is somebody on Times Online who always writes in the same way as you do, and many ignore his comments because of this.

 

Overall I agree with you. But it's "balance of probabilities", not "Balanced Probability".

 

The trouble with 'gut' advice is that it is invariably wrong.

 

You killed your own argument with your first sentence, you second sentence was - with respect - nonsensical.

 

WITHOUT proof, it IS decided on the balance of probabilities - I'd be interested in how you think there is an alternative. The dealers would also go to the judge as an independent arbitrator of the dispute, and (possibly) spin a plausible story of trying to help out the OP but he had an unreasonable expectation of the funds to be released after taking into account all the factors I mentioned in an earlier message.

 

Do you think the dealership could not cobble up a sale invoice for £200, and then point to their requirements to repair and replace items, after all (they could argue) the OP gave the impression he would tharther it was used to assist some similarly disadvantaged individual to get around, and the money was only secondary....

 

I'm delighted in your faith, but it can be an expensive mistake to spend more money with no certainty of getting this (or indeed anything else) back.

As I've stated above, I disagree with this, for the reasons I've stated above, based on my own experience.

 

I See Where You Are Comming From And I Agree

 

Its Just That It Has

 

Stitch Up Job And Taking Advantage All Over It

 

 

I Would Think A Chat With Trading Standards For Advice Might Be In Order

Trading Standards - in my experience - are bleeding useless. It depends on the location of the OP. Some councils TS departments are so useless you would think they were a central government department; others are very useful. Therefore I wouldn't make a blanket recommendation for the OP to contact TS.

 

Either way till the OP comes back - if ever - this debate is pointless - so I am withdrawing till such time as the OP comes back, as I have better things to do, fortunately.

[buzby]

Whilst I have no way of evaluating your levels of experience in court as a litigator, I am sure you were pleasantly surprised when you litigated cases and 'won' against the odds. However, there is a difference.

 

YOU were being paid, and win or lose, you have the benefit of your endeavours being recompensed. A LIP does not have this security, if they win - they get the benefits, if they lose - then they must pay the price. This includes losing the money paid to fund the case, and the inevitable application by the defenders for their capped costs so even more money needs to be paid out.

 

When THIS situation exists, a LIP does not have the benefit of any safety net, and speculative litigation in the 'hope' of an eventual win is bad advice. Having followed a variety of court actions (many hundreds) from the initial Proof to the eventual disposition, I have been amazed at the naivety of many litigants who thought it didn't matter what proof existed, it was based on their 'unfair treatment', and the court should see this and act accordingly.

 

This is of course nonsense. As is your assertion of the 'balance of probabilities'. PROOF is king, and after that the statements made by the claimant and defender. Then (and only then) will any measure of 'probability' be raised, you are suggesting that a dealer paying a paltry sum in payment would 'probably' be ripping off the customer. This can be the only interpretation as you believe a statement can be 'evidence' in its own right.

 

Choose to withdraw from the threat if you like - however, since you have not answered WHY the details provided could lead to a successful outcome (even hypothetically) this would still leave a LIP exposed to wasting more money. This held true for ANY litigant, whether the OP or an imaginary one, so holding out for a response from the OP would still be academic to the question posed.

 

Where I wholeheartedly concur with you is the sham that is Trading Standards, whose advice can be as variable as a waste of space, to a possible course of action, it is by no means the arbitrator of good sense (or, if truth be told) good advice.

 

The sad fact remains people are fooled into thinking that their problems will be resolved simply by chanting 'Trading Standards'. It most certainly will not.

 

LIP = Litigant In Person

[legalpickle]

Whilst I have no way of evaluating your levels of experience in court as a litigator, I am sure you were pleasantly surprised when you litigated cases and 'won' against the odds. However, there is a difference.

 

YOU were being paid, and win or lose, you have the benefit of your endeavours being recompensed. A LIP does not have this security, if they win - they get the benefits, if they lose - then they must pay the price. This includes losing the money paid to fund the case, and the inevitable application by the defenders for their capped costs so even more money needs to be paid out.

Wrong. I am not a Solicitor and have never claimed to be. I was a LiP in such cases.

 

Further, I was confident that I would win purely because I knew I was being honest, and the other side dishonest.

 

When THIS situation exists, a LIP does not have the benefit of any safety net, and speculative litigation in the 'hope' of an eventual win is bad advice. Having followed a variety of court actions (many hundreds) from the initial Proof to the eventual disposition, I have been amazed at the naivety of many litigants who thought it didn't matter what proof existed, it was based on their 'unfair treatment', and the court should see this and act accordingly.

As stated above I was a LiP in such proceedings.

 

I also disagree that it is solely based on "unfair treatment" that such would succeed, but based on the balance of probabilities.

 

This is of course nonsense. As is your assertion of the 'balance of probabilities'. PROOF is king, and after that the statements made by the claimant and defender. Then (and only then) will any measure of 'probability' be raised, you are suggesting that a dealer paying a paltry sum in payment would 'probably' be ripping off the customer. This can be the only interpretation as you believe a statement can be 'evidence' in its own right.

It is correct that proof is king, however where no proof was provided, and there is proof - the cheque - that there was a relationship; the balance of probabilities does rule.

 

Choose to withdraw from the threat if you like - however, since you have not answered WHY the details provided could lead to a successful outcome (even hypothetically) this would still leave a LIP exposed to wasting more money. This held true for ANY litigant, whether the OP or an imaginary one, so holding out for a response from the OP would still be academic to the question posed.

Holding out for a response from the OP would be relevant, because till then everything is theory and - because I have a lot on, and many other people who are continuing to benefit from my assistance on CAG - it is a waste of my time going into further theoretical discussions with you!

 

The details speak for themselves.

 

As you say above any investment in litigation is a monetary commitment. I however believe that this case would be a good gamble for the OP, and I would take this gamble if it was my own case.

 

Where I wholeheartedly concur with you is the sham that is Trading Standards, whose advice can be as variable as a waste of space, to a possible course of action, it is by no means the arbitrator of good sense (or, if truth be told) good advice.

At least we agree on one thing!

 

The sad fact remains people are fooled into thinking that their problems will be resolved simply by chanting 'Trading Standards'. It most certainly will not.

I agree 100%.

 

LIP = Litigant In Person

I know.

 

In small claims track - which this would inevitably be allocated to if it were issued - the risk of costs is extremely limited. In my extensive experience the only time of costs being awarded against a losing party in the small claims track are where the losing litigant blatantly ignored the court procedure AND had no remote possibility of a basis for any action even being issued - what I mean is cases like: A claims B owes A money, but A has no evidence that they ever knew each other and B claims that before A moved into the house down the road they had never met. A has no evidence to the contrary and B has substantial evidence to support B's defence.

 

Such a case is not here, as here the cheque would be sufficient proof of the existence of the relationship. I therefore do believe that the gamble would be worth taking and would take it myself if such a case arose with me.

 

This concludes my involvement in this discussion unless the OP returns. I would recommend that you and others take my example by continuing to invest more time in helping others than in theoretical discussions which have no benefit.

[cavvy]

hi all

 

just to say many many thanks to all posters who have left some very informative and helpful posts concerning this matter

 

to clarify the situation the scooter had not been used for a few months prior to my dads death,when my mother asked me to look into selling it

i charged the batteries but the scooter would still not work

 

working on the assumption it needed new batteries and some kind of repair i approached the company who my father had bought all his scooters from in the past

 

they said they would replace the batteries,carry out any repairs and for a 15% fee would advertise and sell the scooter

 

they also said it was a popular model and they would expect to achieve between £600 and £800

 

obviously in hindsight i should have got something in writing but due to the field in which this company operate i was naturally very trusting

 

even when they collected the scooter no receipt or any other paperwork was issued

 

i saw the scooter on the website advertised for £800 although assumed it could be an or near offer type of thing

 

after the sale and when my mother received the cheque i was surprised she did not receive a breakdown of the transaction so e mailed the company reguesting one

 

when they replied basically refusing to supply one i was quite surprised and this was when alarm bells started ringing,i mean they could have easily falsified a breakdown to bear out the figures but to just refuse seemed odd

 

i have had a chance to chat to my mother concerning events but to be honest this is just another thing to keep opening up old wounds,particularly as the scooter was so closely linked to my father

that at the moment she is content to leave matters be and try to move on with other things

 

i would look forward to any further advice or comment in the hope it could help or advise others who may find themselves in a similar position

 

so once again thanks to all for the excellent posts:)

[JonCris]

1st let me say there are awful lot of conmen in the mobility business who pray on the vunerable. I'm not just talking about fly by nights some are established firms which have no compunction in ripping customers off, the reason? few of the elderly or infirm want to make a fuss as like your mum they just want to forget

 

In future make sure everything is in writing do not do deals over the phone period

[legalpickle]

hi all

 

just to say many many thanks to all posters who have left some very informative and helpful posts concerning this matter

 

to clarify the situation the scooter had not been used for a few months prior to my dads death,when my mother asked me to look into selling it

i charged the batteries but the scooter would still not work

 

working on the assumption it needed new batteries and some kind of repair i approached the company who my father had bought all his scooters from in the past

 

they said they would replace the batteries,carry out any repairs and for a 15% fee would advertise and sell the scooter

 

they also said it was a popular model and they would expect to achieve between £600 and £800

 

obviously in hindsight i should have got something in writing but due to the field in which this company operate i was naturally very trusting

 

even when they collected the scooter no receipt or any other paperwork was issued

 

i saw the scooter on the website advertised for £800 although assumed it could be an or near offer type of thing

 

after the sale and when my mother received the cheque i was surprised she did not receive a breakdown of the transaction so e mailed the company reguesting one

 

when they replied basically refusing to supply one i was quite surprised and this was when alarm bells started ringing,i mean they could have easily falsified a breakdown to bear out the figures but to just refuse seemed odd

 

i have had a chance to chat to my mother concerning events but to be honest this is just another thing to keep opening up old wounds,particularly as the scooter was so closely linked to my father

that at the moment she is content to leave matters be and try to move on with other things

 

i would look forward to any further advice or comment in the hope it could help or advise others who may find themselves in a similar position

 

so once again thanks to all for the excellent posts:)

cavvy,

 

Obviously this is a decision you and your mother need to make yourselves, but I think it is the wrong decision.

 

Whilst I can only try to fully imagine - and don't for one second claim to be able to fully imagine - what you and your mother have been through, I am one who believes in going the full way in such situations; and contrary to some others here I do believe you have an arguable case.

 

A quick question: Who communicated with the company and to whom was the cheque made payable? If it was made payable to you, your mother's involvement is not necessary above signing a witness statement. If it makes its way to a hearing she would not have to attend.

 

And if the cheque was made payable to your mother, then whilst she would have to attend the hearing - if it made its way to a hearing - you would be able to speak on her behalf, with her present.

 

It is your choice but I would be happy to assist you in taking this case further and getting what is rightfully yours.

 

Good Luck & All the best - whatever you decide!,

legalpickle

 

1st let me say there are awful lot of conmen in the mobility business who pray on the vunerable. I'm not just talking about fly by nights some are established firms which have no compunction in ripping customers off, the reason? few of the elderly or infirm want to make a fuss as like your mum they just want to forget

For once I agree with JonCris!

 

In future make sure everything is in writing do not do deals over the phone period

Ideally get a device like trueCall and the call recording part of it. If you don't have a recording device of any kind, then if you speak on the phone, state clearly that you're not agreeing to a deal till you receive written confirmation of the terms and have agreed to them. If you can't do that and don't have a call recording device - then I agree with JonCris (wow, twice in one night! Lol!)

[Britainsworstdriver]

You and your dear mother have been well and truly stung.

 

My Dad's mobility scooter had been sat in the garage for two years. The batteries were dead, so I phoned a couple fo local mobility shops. They quoted me £96 per battery plus fitting. I bought two brand new ones off ebay and fitted them myself in about 5 minutes. 4x 10mm bolts and two velcros straps. Cost me £105 delivered.

 

I checked the scooter over myself. Brakes fine, tyres fine, seat, steeriung, lights all fine. There is very little that can go wrong in a garage.

 

In your case you had two batteries fitted, lets say £250. They sold it for £800 as far as you can be aware as they advertised it for that. So, taking 15% of that is £120 plus the batteries makes about £370. You got £75, so where is the other £295??

 

I agree with the poster above that there are a huge number of vultures in this sordid business. You have been charged for a service or goods and are entitled to know what you paid for. If they refuse then demand your scooter is returned to you. These **** rely on frail elderly and infirm people to not 'want to make a fuss'. I would make a fuss alright! I would drive my Dads scooter right up their Arsenal football club!

 

Put it to you another way. Someone has effectively mugged your dear old mum of just short of £300. Feel so comfortable about it now?

 

What bothers me about this thread is that you say your dad bought 'all his scooters' from these swines. Many thousands of pounds in their greasy hands and they want to rip him off as soon as he is 6ft under. Sorry for being so blunt. It makes me angry this.

[legalpickle]

You and your dear mother have been well and truly stung.

 

My Dad's mobility scooter had been sat in the garage for two years. The batteries were dead, so I phoned a couple fo local mobility shops. They quoted me £96 per battery plus fitting. I bought two brand new ones off ebay and fitted them myself in about 5 minutes. 4x 10mm bolts and two velcros straps. Cost me £105 delivered.

 

I checked the scooter over myself. Brakes fine, tyres fine, seat, steeriung, lights all fine. There is very little that can go wrong in a garage.

 

In your case you had two batteries fitted, lets say £250. They sold it for £800 as far as you can be aware as they advertised it for that. So, taking 15% of that is £120 plus the batteries makes about £370. You got £75, so where is the other £295??

 

I agree with the poster above that there are a huge number of vultures in this sordid business. You have been charged for a service or goods and are entitled to know what you paid for. If they refuse then demand your scooter is returned to you. These **** rely on frail elderly and infirm people to not 'want to make a fuss'. I would make a fuss alright! I would drive my Dads scooter right up their Arsenal football club!

 

Put it to you another way. Someone has effectively mugged your dear old mum of just short of £300. Feel so comfortable about it now?

 

What bothers me about this thread is that you say your dad bought 'all his scooters' from these swines. Many thousands of pounds in their greasy hands and they want to rip him off as soon as he is 6ft under. Sorry for being so blunt. It makes me angry this.

I second that!!! Don't apologize for being blunt, it's quite often the best way to be!!!

[Surfer01]

I second that!!! Don't apologize for being blunt, it's quite often the best way to be!!!

I also agree and it makes my blood boil knowing that they are getting away with it. When i was looking for a new mobility scooter on line at well known mobility centres scooter quote averaged about £1500 for class 3. Our local chemist is selling them for under £1000.

Same applies to rise recliners which they are selling for over £1000 when at same chemist they are £400! Still out of my reach at present but will be buying one when funds become available.

[RaeUK]

Ok cavvy. It really is you and your Mums choice at the end of the day. I'm not sure if it's good form or not - others can advise - but perhaps you could let us know who the company was so that any fellow caggers in the vicinity can avoid them...

Take care.

Rae.