Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I remember a similar issue with a customer claiming that 'alexia' had ordered something that wasn't ordered and when it should have been off, .. with Amazon quoting evidence that they had that the customer had said a word 'similar' to the activation word - which 'accidentally' activated it .. followed by 'accidental' ordering due to interpreting what was said   I would not ever consider one of these things in my house.
    • is installing an Alexa type device in your home similar to having bug listening devices installed by Police or security services ?   Woman finds recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa – and you can hear yours WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Amazon customers can request all their data from the shopping giant, and can automatically delete voice data in the Alexa app  
    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Mistake made by a dealer - Paid much less than the asking price ** Court Papers Received **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3577 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Guys,

 

Your thoughts please - should i do the honest thing?

 

Today, my wife and i viewed a car and negotiated a price taking into consideration some work which needed doing which both myself and the garage owner agreed to be fare. The owner of the garage had to leave the garage at that point and left us with mis colleague who i believe is his son. When it came to completing the paperwork and paying I noticed he had put the price down on the invoice as being £1,000 LESS than the price implied. At no point was an exact figure agreed it was just that £XXX would be taken off to cover the cost of repairs. Naturally we didn't say anything, signed here and there and paid pretty much 50% cash and the rest by debit card. We jumped in the car sat there for 10-15 minutes sorting a couple of things out then drove off and could not believe our luck.

 

On the 290 mile 4 hour drive home both the owner and the gent who completed the sale left 28 voice mail messages asking me to phone them urgently as a mistake had been made and that it was in my best interest to do the right thing, which of course is to pay the £1,000 missed off the sales Invoice.

 

What should I do

1 - Do I do the honest thing and pay the £1,000 in the knowledge that my action will earn me massive Karma points

2 - Say on your bike - your mistake, deal with it

3 - Initially say On your bike but then offer to pay £500 as a "gesture of goodwill" by cheque.

 

Another thing which worries me is that part of the transaction was made by Debit card and I'm concerned they will try and make another transaction be made with out the consent of my wife but as they don't have the three digit security i'm not even sure this is possible.

 

I get the impression this isn't going to go away over night and i assume they are going to threaten me with various acts to force me to pay BUT which, and this may make me sound like a complete donkey I would rather not do.

 

What do think i should do - have i done anything wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

So you are saying the £XXX agreed was not £1000 but he gave you up to a thousand pounds off or was it £1000 + £XXX off.

 

very tricky situation - I will try option 2 offer them half and if that doesn't work after a few days you can offer to spread the rest of the payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 'paper work' is a sales invoice bearing the purchase price on it and you have paid that amount, then there is not much they can do about it legally so option '2' is likely to be available to you. As for taking more money from your debit card, I don't think they can without the security number although you could contact your bank and advise them that any further requests for payment from this retailer are without your consent.

 

However, should you have any problems with the car, the seller is not going to be enthusiastic in helping you although you would still have the SOGA on your side. I think that is why scaniaman is asking about the warranty.

 

Personally, if its a good car and you were happy with the service ect, I would go for option '1' which is what you appear to have agreed. I would stipulate though, that I will expect decent after sales care should it be necessary.

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Quick Update,

 

Court papers received today from the Car Dealer for £1,000+ and what is interesting is that the Sales invoice they have included with thier POC has had the sale price increased by £1,000 and my signature has been forged.

 

This is going to be fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites

initially id have been tempted to offer half as a gesture of goodwill as im almost certain that the invoice is in essence the same as a receipt i.e. a legally binding contract for the sale of goods. sounds like they have done something very stupid by falsifying that 'legal document' and especially your signature as that is a criminal offence. id now suggest you stick two fingers up to them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OOOH! Do keep us posted!

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right,

 

Not had much time to look at this due to two deaths in the family but managed to find a couple of hours last night to read the Defendants POC and I am concerned.

 

The crux of their claim is that the price recorded on the sales invoice was recorded in error and on the basis of a unilateral mistake being made the contract is null and void as a result they are claiming a figure of £1,000 which is the difference.

 

After returning home and to stop the barrage of calls I sent the owner of the garage a short yet sweet email and may have shot myself in the foot. In the email I said “I appreciate that the person who processed the transaction allegedly made a mistake and put the incorrect amount on the invoice but i do not see how or why i should be held responsible for their mistake” The Claimant has quoted this in their POC and is claiming this as an admission that a mistake was made.

 

The Claimant states that I was aware of the price of the Vehicle at all times and agreed to pay the price advertised on Autotrader and ebay. I was aware what the price was approximately, but not the exact price. I had arranged to view 9 cars that weekend in the price range of £3,500 - £5,000 and at no point did we agree a price for the car just that a certain amount would be deducted off the end amount for the cost of paint work correction. I was also picked up in the car, no “A” board was present advertising the price nor was it written anyway on the car. The Claimant has included copies of the adverts.

 

The Claimant has included with their POC a copy of the sales invoice but the Net Price, Total cash price and balance due have corrected to reflect a figure uplifted by £1,000. When I say corrected I mean overwritten in pen!

 

There is also the issue of the warranty which is detailed here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?286202-Breach-of-Contract-by-Car-Dealer-Refusing-to-submit-Warranty-application-to-3rd-Party&highlight==

 

I have just over two weeks to file a defence and would appreciate any help with content for my POC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you still got your copy of the sales invoice?

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be pretty striaght forward I would of thought then. The judge will find it very interesting that your copy and the claimant's copy show different figures and that your signature has been forged. The invoice is what matters, not the fact what was in the advert or on the screen. The basis of your defence will be that you paid the price on the invoice as the car required some work done and there had been negotiations in the price from what had been advertised. I would limit it to that personally. You should point out that the invoice that the claimant has included in his POC has been altered thus it differs from your copy (By the way, I hope your copy has not been altered in any way) and you do not believe that the signature on it is yours.

 

While I think this is pretty much a win for you, I still would of dealt with this differently (as per my post # 5)

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are chancing their luck becasue they know that if it goes in front of a judge with a forged signatrue there will be some serious consequences bordering on theft by false pretences which is a criminal offence. I would say that their case is probably very weak. Your defence would be your paperwork and their original invoice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“I appreciate that the person who processed the transaction allegedly made a mistake and put the incorrect amount on the invoice but i do not see how or why i should be held responsible for their mistake” The Claimant has quoted this in their POC and is claiming this as an admission that a mistake was made.

 

If your quote above is taken directly from your e-mail, then I fail to see how they can use this as your agreement that the price should be corrected. You state "...the person allegedly made a mistake...." i.e. you do not admit or agree a mistake on the price was made. And you further state "...why should I be held responsible...." i.e. even if the price was wrong, that is not your fault, and you paid the price as per the invoice.

 

I am with sailor sam on this I think. They appear to be risking going to court with an agreement that they know contains a forged signature. I think that will be very brave of them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching this for a while now.

Just playing devils advocate, I'm pretty sure there is relatively recent case law on this with very similar circumstances apart from the "forged document" scenario here, which set a precedent. I think it was based on something that was sold obviously well under price, possibly a fancy TV or something and from memory it was ruled that the buyer must have known something was wrong because of the actual price paid. You freely admit this in your original post. Further what if they can show phone records that they continually tried to call you on your way home?

 

What would happen if they withdrew the invoicing evidence?

 

Personaly, if it was me in your situation I'd run this past a solicitor first. I think a quick freebie consultation or even a fixed fee would put your mind at rest. It does seem a bit absurbed that they should resort to doing this as they had a better case without doing what they have done and I reckon when you file the defence they will take legal advice.

 

Sailors usual spot on advice perhaps should have been taken in #5?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

(By the way, I hope your copy has not been altered in any way) and you do not believe that the signature on it is yours. While I think this is pretty much a win for you, I still would of dealt with this differently (as per my post # 5)

 

The copy I have is the top copy written in blue ink and is the same as the bad photocopy the Claimant has provided in their POC. The only differences are that on copy they have provided the amount paid is broken down into cash and Debit card on the bottom right hand corner, the sale value has been increased by £1,000 (and crudely at that) and there are random marks all over it like it has been under carbon paper.

 

I made a verbal offer to meet the dealer halfway by offering him £500 if he honoured the warranty but he point blankly refused, well that is the polite way of putting it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The copy I have is the top copy written in blue ink and is the same as the bad photocopy the Claimant has provided in their POC. The only differences are that on copy they have provided the amount paid is broken down into cash and Debit card on the bottom right hand corner, the sale value has been increased by £1,000 (and crudely at that) and there are random marks all over it like it has been under carbon paper.

 

I made a verbal offer to meet the dealer halfway by offering him £500 if he honoured the warranty but he point blankly refused, well that is the polite way of putting it!

 

That's an easy one for them to defend especially with carbon paper.

 

If they bring up your verbal offer it's an admission that you knew the price was wrong. Any DJ will not take into account how he put it across. The fact remains you knew of the error, they reacted very, very quickly to it. In my mind I would seriously get advice on this one as if they withdraw that signature evidence I think you could be out on a limb.

 

That's not to say I wouldn't have tried though!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an easy one for them to defend especially with carbon paper.

 

If they bring up your verbal offer it's an admission that you knew the price was wrong. Any DJ will not take into account how he put it across. The fact remains you knew of the error, they reacted very, very quickly to it. In my mind I would seriously get advice on this one as if they withdraw that signature evidence I think you could be out on a limb.

 

That's not to say I wouldn't have tried though!!

 

Thanks for your earlier comments Helio. The cliamant has apparently allready submitted the 'amended' invoice as part of his POC so i'm not sure how he could withddraw it. In any event, the OP has the orginal top copy which will be the most important peice of evidence in the case. Personally I think that the claim will fold before any verbal evidence is heard because of the 'amendments'. I take your point about the OP being aware of the error and as I said in post #5, I would have dealt with it differently. However, there appears to have been some negotiation in the original purchase price due to some pre-delivery work being needed. This could explain why the price on the invoice differs from any advertising for the car. The OP should limit his defence to that point and certainly not mention that he was fully aware of the mistake in court unless asked specifically. But as I say, I doubt the DJ will be impressed enough to hear the claimant's verbal evidence having seen the amended invoice and 'forged' signature. I don't think it would do the OP any harm to take face to face proffesional advice however but I do think the dealer has obviously not done the same as he has probably well and truly shot himself in the foot by altering what is in effect a legal contract of sale.

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one case was probably about a brand new item whereas thsi is about a second hand item and as we all know with cars the dealer loads the price so was probably £1000 more than if a private sale or trade in price so one could argue that even at a £1000 less than previously agreed it was a reasonable expectation to pay that price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the OP may be accepting that his signature has not necessarily been forged, IMO the document itself will be considered as a forgery as it was altered after the OP signed it to contain different information.

 

Whether the claimant had submitted the invoice as part of his POC, I would have thought it is the first document the judge would ask for. i.e. surely to demonstrate that the OP owed him money, he needs to show the judge what price was agreed compared to what price was paid. I think that is as far as the case will get when the OP also presents his, unaltered, version of the invoice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the OP may be accepting that his signature has not necessarily been forged, IMO the document itself will be considered as a forgery as it was altered after the OP signed it to contain different information.

 

Whether the claimant had submitted the invoice as part of his POC, I would have thought it is the first document the judge would ask for. i.e. surely to demonstrate that the OP owed him money, he needs to show the judge what price was agreed compared to what price was paid. I think that is as far as the case will get when the OP also presents his, unaltered, version of the invoice.

That is if the claimant is foolish enough to pursue it that far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one case was probably about a brand new item whereas thsi is about a second hand item and as we all know with cars the dealer loads the price so was probably £1000 more than if a private sale or trade in price so one could argue that even at a £1000 less than previously agreed it was a reasonable expectation to pay that price.

Yes indeed that could be the case but you're missing the point about the precedent that was set in that the buyer knew a mistake had been made. Further we don't all know that with cars the dealer loads the price by £1000 or more. The price they agree buy and the price they agree to sell is their perogative so I think that side of your opinion is probably nebulous.

 

For the 30 to 50 quid fixed fee advice you can get from a solicitor as to what could happen when you have filed your defence it will be well worth it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the 30 to 50 quid fixed fee advice you can get from a solicitor as to what could happen when you have filed your defence it will be well worth it!

 

I'm trying to find a solicitor who charges less than £180 to offer advice but not having much luck. So far I have phoned a couple of solicitors in my area and tried searching using Contactlaw.co.uk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try the old yellow pages. Just tell the solicitor that you need 1/2 an hour to run through a scenario. A lot of them do, do a fixed fee for a quick opinion which is what you need. Am surprised you cannot find one. It's the independants you ought to look for.

 

I've run the scenario through a relative tonight who is rather high up in the legal begal world and their advice was run it through a solicitor. So I said you would say that anyway and the advice was "run it past a solicitor to let him (i.e. the OP ) know what could happen" if it proceeded to a hearing. Advice was to try and settle outside as if it went to court it could backfire big time. Further the DJ would hit home on the signature issue but not on the receipt book unless the receipt book showed the inappropriate signature.

 

What you have, I was advised, is a situation of liar against dishonesty and taking advantage, both of which don't go down too well.

 

If I was going to Ladbrookes tomorrow I'd put a bet on both each way!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3577 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...