I am being forced to buy a used car !

[Master Tyke]

The website is registered as a 'non-trading individual' which allows them to hide their registration details.

Since it is clearly a commercial operation in breach of nominet regulations.

I've reported their breach to nominet.

[minus-millions]

Sad thing is i don't necessarily think this guy is dishonest , just peeved because the sale fell through and naive about trading rules . Nevermind , the car was re-listed for sale on ebay for sale AFTER i bought it and before i cancelled and it was never marked as sold on karhouse nor any of the numerous other websites on which it is listed for sale . So if a another buyer comes along maybe he will just refund my money .

 

Incidentally when i offered to let him keep the £150 delivery fee as a gesture of goodwill for his inconvienience , he replied that he would buy the car back off me for £650 less than i paid because he wanted compensating for putting the car through an M.O.T . Earlier emails stated the car had a current M.O.T but on checking it had only 4 months left to run instead of the stated 9 months so he would renew it .

 

My thinking is - if the car failed the M.O.T and cost £650 to repair to m.o.t standard , then he was obviously selling me an unroadworthy and illegal vehicle to start with ?

[Conniff]

Regulations are regulations - that is the chance you take in business, some you win, some you loose. Don';t worry, he wont go without his bottle of wine tonight.

 

You have already offered him £150 so he probably thinks you are a soft touch, don't be, don't offer a penny more, just remind him the clock is ticking towards when he has to refund you by, and add, if it's not paid on time the statutory 8% interest will be added.

[minus-millions]

Initially he said he had already paid an outside company £150 for delivery , i made it clear i found that very unlikely but offered to let him keep that much for a quick and amiable ends to the matter . His reply saying he wants £650 resulted in my sending the rules and demanding a full refund including delivery charges .

[Conniff]

Good girl.

[Master Tyke]

A little more digging, Karhouse have spamed hundred of site with links to their website.

They were listed at companies house until they were struck off in May 2012.

That means he is trading as an individual (sole trader) and he is personally liable for any debts.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Master Tyke

[heliosuk]

They were listed at companies house until they were struck of in May 2012.

That means he is trading as an individual (sole trader) and he is personnally liable for any debts.

 

Actually that's not correct. It dosen't mean anything of the sort. The company could have been struck off just for failing to send in returns. It does not neccassarily make him liable for any debts associated with the company at that time or for future debts of the company depending on the nature of the entity he is trading under. Don't jump to conclussions!!

[dw190]

Actually that's not correct. It dosen't mean anything of the sort. The company could have been struck off just for failing to send in returns. It does not neccassarily make him liable for any debts associated with the company at that time or for future debts of the company depending on the nature of the entity he is trading under. Don't jump to conclussions!!

 

The OP only made the purchase last week so its nothing to do with any Company that was struck off in May.

[heliosuk]

The OP only made the purchase last week so its nothing to do with any Company that was struck off in May.

 

So how do you know it is not a new company or a company winding up but still trading. There are many ways to dissolve a company and still keep on trading. Like I said, don't jump to conclusions that a particular person is liable.

[Master Tyke]

Actually that's not correct. It dosen't mean anything of the sort. The company could have been struck off just for failing to send in returns. It does not neccassarily make him liable for any debts associated with the company at that time or for future debts of the company depending on the nature of the entity he is trading under. Don't jump to conclussions!!

 

They were struck off for failure to file, the reason is not material. The fact is it (The Company) no longer legally trades.

 

Any trade carried out, since that date, is therefore by the individual as a Sole Trader.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Master Tyke

[Master Tyke]

Their website is operating in breach of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (UK Regulations) I will be reporting them to the IoC on Monday,.

 

In short they are breaking the "Cookie Law", since we already way past the information period they will likely receive an "Enforcement notice" requiring them to comply with a fixed period of time.

 

The homepage seems to be using copyright material, I will try to track the legitimate owner and report that next.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Master Tyke

[minus-millions]

Office of Fair Trading contacted me today by letter saying , and i quote "I have been led to believe that you are currently in correspondence with the seller of the vehicle . I would be grateful if you could keep me updated"

 

I replied via email that Court is my only option without Fair Tradings intervention and sent copies of the last 3 or 4 emails between seller and myself .

 

From what you guys are saying , Karhouse is not a company etc , it seems likely to me that there is no LEGAL way of getting either the car or our money back -

 

Do i understand you all correctly ?

[sailor sam]

No you don't understand correctly. Just because he isn't a registered company dosn't mean he isn't a trader so wouldn't still be subject to DSR's

 

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.

[Master Tyke]

Karhouse is not a company etc , it seems likely to me that there is no LEGAL way of getting either the car or our money back -

 

Do i understand you all correctly ?

 

The DSR applies to any trading business. It doesn't matter if the business is carried out by a company, sole trader (or partnership).

 

The fact that he is doing this business as a sole trader is potentially better for you because a company has limited liability, but as a sole trader you can ultimatly send bailiffs after any of his assets, his house, car, tv etc. or even future earnings.

[minus-millions]

OK thanks guys , i will just wait and see how the fair trading people respond . I'm not sure how much power they actually have , i cant help feeling maybe i should just proceed to court without waiting . The very fact the fair trading letter came via my local council pretty much destroyed any faith i had in getting competent help .

[sailor sam]

If the worse comes to the worse, you can take him to court using the DSRs.

 

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.

[Conniff]

So how have things progressed then minus-millions, has your refund appeared yet ??

[minus-millions]

OK so i got a refund minus £350 which the seller says Trading Standards and his solicitor advised is a fair charge for his inconvienience . This has become almost a joke , when he told me he was keeping the 350 i replied that i would have to get advice as i believe theft is a criminal offence and so that makes it a police matter .

 

His response "call me a thief again and i will sue you for defamation of character" .

 

I nearly wet myself laughing ! . I wonder what he will have to say to tomorrow when Trading Standards call him on his personal mobile phone ?

[Conniff]

Don't leave this to TS, send him a letter by recorded asking for the outstanding balance and give him 7 days or you will take further action.

 

Under DSR, the cost of return is bourne by the customer only if it says so in the original Terms & Conditions of sale. As this purchase wasn't delivered, there was no fee.

 

After the 7 days, send him a Letter Before Action giving him another 7 days and reminding him that the amount will be higher than the outstanding as there will be fees and court costs added.

Don't do this if you don't intend to go through with it though. You can do it on line and the initial outlay will only be around £40.

[minus-millions]

Thanks Conniff but i told him i will continue to Court for the full amount regardless of the part refund . Trading Standards have only just got involved and at my request they have not "yet" made my complaint official . When they call him today they will simply explain the DSR to him and let him know they are keen to investigate his entire business dealings if i ask .

From some of the comments i've read on here i expect a full investigation will be something he is very keen to avoid so i hope to have all my money back soon .

[Conniff]

i expect a full investigation will be something he is very keen to avoid

 

I would think so to expecially if HMRC get involved.

 

If, and only if, there were some admin charges, you are entitled to a complete breakdown of them.

[Prolix]

Sorry to be a bit negative, but Distance Selling Regs may not actually apply as I've pointed out on other posts. You see, if a company sells by distance means as a one off, or is only done exceptionally, then they are exempt from the requirements. If that's the case then you have a contract with the trader. If though the car is mis-described in some material way, or is faulty, then you could reject it immediately and claim a refund (but you'd have to do this pretty quickly). Why did you change your mind anyway?

[Surfer01]

Sorry to be a bit negative, but Distance Selling Regs may not actually apply as I've pointed out on other posts. You see, if a company sells by distance means as a one off, or is only done exceptionally, then they are exempt from the requirements. If that's the case then you have a contract with the trader. If though the car is mis-described in some material way, or is faulty, then you could reject it immediately and claim a refund (but you'd have to do this pretty quickly). Why did you change your mind anyway?

 

I think you are getting mixed up with custom made articles which are exempt. In this case DSR apply.

[sailor sam]

I think you are getting mixed up with custom made articles which are exempt. In this case DSR apply.

 

Agreed.

 

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.

[Prolix]

Agreed.

 

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.

 

Check the OFT guide: ...2.14 If you normally do business with consumers face-to-face, the DSRs are unlikely to apply to an occasional order that you take in these ways... Most car transactions are not done by distance means (because people tend to go and test drive them etc) so it could be that the trader can say that he normally does business face to face so the DSRs won't apply. I would if I was a trader!And it appears that a trader could do this occasionally and still the DSRs wouldn't apply. And no, I'm not getting mixed up with personalised goods thank you.http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf