Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • BTW, the reply I got to an SAR shows they got my keeper details from DVLA via ZatDVLA and apparently their footage shows the vehicle being stationary for 38 seconds.   Time for sleep.   Thanks again.
    • Morning all,   the pdf in my previous post is an error. Could soemeone delete it please as I don't seem to be able to myself. Thank you.   Correct files are below. Had to be 2 as file size limit would be exceeded.   What a night, got myself in a right muddle switching between file formats to ensure security. To cap it all it's my birthday today.   Thank you in anticipation final multi.pdf Second two page file elms 1 and 2.pdf
    • This is a draft of my WS   By no means final   Negatives:   doesnt follow smoothly    long winded   not much referene to cases except Beavis     I have tried to attach appendied but failed miserably, but I may not need them   The appendix are essentially:    IPC COP example of a contract between landowner and a PPC   IPC COP re entrance signages   IPC COD re sanctions on members who dont comply   JPEG of the erected signage showing that its back is to the entrance of the car park hence not in immediate view   JPEG of a receipt from 16.1.2021 ( yesterday) proving I went there and had a look at the signages     Not really sure if the appendices will make much difference en my defence   Please make any constructive comments etc..   I will have a look at the many links  FTM Dave kindly provided. I havent in detail because bene typing for the last 7 hours      Anyhow Thanks All             WS redacted-merged.pdf
    • Thanks DX 100   haha i totally  agree with your comment about the page 20    Yes I am awake and been all night w my WS   BUT can I point this very very very impt point please, which I am not sure if it has come to your attention   1. The payment machine and 6 hours and the free parking after 4.30 pm on a Saturday etc....all taken on board.   HOWEVER, and I cant stop myself laughing, this pay machine  he eludes to is based at The Market Shopping Centre Car park , after googling it is in CREWE.  It is not even relevant. They have put in a signage that is not even at the Merry Hill Centre which is in the West Midlands.    The Merry Hill Centre is the one I went to in Dudley, west midlands. All the signages , apart from the one you elude to have the intu Merry Hill logo     The one you refer to is in Crewe. I have never been to Crewe in my life lol so that signage is totally irrelevant    we can play this either way:   1. can take up your line of argument regarding the 6 hours etc. and pretned we are also using the pay machine    OR     2. totally dismiss it as being irrelevant, misleading , wasting the time of everyone by providing irrelevant info. Thats what I have argued in my WS so far. That signage does not belong to inTu Merry Hill            This is akin to someone being on annual leave from work between say 1.10 .2020 and 1.11.2020, and then finding out one of his/her collogues saying,  I saw you leaving work early last week , the 15th of October 2020.   hello !!!, I wasnt even in the country on the 15th of October 2020 !!   essentially thats what the claimant has done . The signage on page 20 doesnt even belong to the shopping centre I went to   I will log out and carry on with th WS     Thanks again       .   
    • Thank you FTMDave. As you can see from the time now I have had a nightmare getting questionnaire answered due to scanner problems, it is up there now though. I do not have proof of breakdown as the alternator was bought from a breakers yard near Chelmsford. I remember it well as they sold me the wrong one on the Saturday and I had to go back in my mechanic friends vehicle on Sunday as I had broken the original alternator getting it off.
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Issue after selling my vehicle on eBay

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2991 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone.


I'm having an issue regarding the sale of my vehicle a few weeks ago on eBay. The buyer had purchased the vehicle through 'Buy it now' and did so without prior contacting me or coming to view the vehicle first. Having arranged a date for collection, the buyer had a quick walk around the car, I started the engine and then he decided he's happy with the vehicle.


The issue I am having now is, the buyer filled out the V5 information and signed (another issue here but I will move on to that), paid in cash and then drove the vehicle home. The next day I received a message saying he had experienced problems with the vehicle on the journey back to his house, claiming an engine management fault light was coming on and then told me he is taking the vehicle to Lookers to get it checked it out. A few days pass and I receive an email from him stating they have found more than £800 worth of damage (he's the 6th owner and purchased for £550). I immediately thought to myself that it isn't right at all, the vehicle had just passed its MOT with 2 advisories, one being a minor oil leak which I got fixed immediately for £30, and the other being 'Offside front velocity gaiter damaged but preventing the ingress of dirt' and the same for 'nearside front velocity gaiter', which I had pointed out to him on the MOT certificate and he was satisfied with, knowing I had already had the oil leak fixed.


The buyer has asked to return the vehicle (I listed as returns accepted), but I am disputing this as there is nothing wrong with the vehicle and I have been driving it for just over a year before selling. He has contacted eBay and has been told they cannot help him as he did not pay through PayPal and all he can do is negotiate compensation, which I refused to do as the MOT proves there is not £800 worth of damage. The buyer gave me a list of parts that needed replacing, one of them being brake discs AND pads for nearly £200! He is saying that I had described the vehicle incorrectly and misleading in the listing, the vehicle is not fit for purpose and should be listed as spares or repair.


After refusing to compensate and accept the vehicle return, I have been threatened with being taken to the small claims court. Where do I stand on this? The MOT proves there is not £800 worth of damage as it passed the MOT test, however, I listed the vehicle as returns accepted.


Moreover, back to the V5 issue I mentioned earlier, he had bought the vehicle on behalf of his daughter who lives 200 miles away, resulting in him filling out the V5 and signing her name, is there a legal issue with this?


Any help or advice is much appreciated.

Edited by MoV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if he had paid via PayPal - motors as I understand are outside of buyer protection. I know because I was I felt mislead on the description of a vehicle (used daily but having problems starting with full service history - I found out later that it was used daily and serviced regularly until over a year earlier when the starting issue happened, and then it had been parked in a field since and left so it had more than the starting issue, it was rather holey in the sills). Reread your advertisement and ensure you've described it accurately, if so, I would do nothing further.

Link to post
Share on other sites



I haven't mislead or mis-described the vehicle in the description as the buyer is saying so. I had put 'I've owned the car for more than a year and have encountered no problems', which is true. From his point of view, he thinks I knew about all the problems and listed it as it having no problems at all.


I have been in touch with a friend who studies law at Oxford University and has advised me that he doesn't have a case here. I wanted to have the opinion of others and ensure I'll be OK if the buyer decides to make a claim, as he has 'given me 14 days' to change my mind before he goes to the small claims court.



Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read other similar threads on the forum you will find that as a private sale, the purchaser has no claim unless you deliberately mis-described the vehicle.


If you do receive a claim it will be relatively easy to defend.


"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi MoV!

You can not rely on a new MOT certificate to imply that the vehicle is in good working order. The MOT certificate is the minimum legal standard a vehicle must be kept in and the certificate has no bearing on whether the vehicle is roadworthy or fit for sale. It simply states that the yearly MOT check, on that date, your car met the legal critieria for being roadworthy, but, ONLY on that day!


Your buyer sounds to me as 'trying it on' with you! For example, you sold the car for £550 and your buyer then takes the car to 'Lookers'.

I am not sure how many £550 cars go into Lookers - there are far more less expensive garages that can be used instead of Lookers. I guess people take their car to Lookers if the car is newish and needs the main dealer stamp for a full service history.


You say you have a friend studying law at Oxford! Maybe, it would be an idea to speak with your friend and ask for help in preparing a counter claim against your buyer - eg, make a claim for the time it takes you in researching and preparing for your case, should the buyer wish to make a claim against you.


My opinion is that your buyer is just trying it on with you and realises that they have no legal case against you and is just relying on your ignorance and fear!

Don't be scared and defend this... but it is just a guess your buyer is bluffing about small claims court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...