Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.    Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.   The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved.  Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
    • You can use a family's address.   The only caveat is for the final hearing you'd need to be there in person   HOWEVER i'd expect them to pay if its only £200 because costs of attending will be higher than that
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Small claims for blown clutch


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4110 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

Hi Guys,

 

I am part way through a small claims for a car I bought last year from a private seller. The car was advertised as 'in excellent' condition in an ebay advert and I bought it but after the ebay listing had finished so was not entitled to any buyers protection.

 

Anyway I paid in cash for it without test driving it and discovered that the clutch was blown as on the way home I couldn't get about 2krpm without extreme slippage and burning. i complained within a few hours to the seller asking for 50% contribution towards a new clutch or returning it and offering her to keep £100 fo the cost. It was a Toyota Celica 1997 and I paid £450.

 

Anyway after getting it repaired, without using it for 3 months due to not affording the repair. I made a small claims and the defendant didn't reply to the papers within 2 weeks so asked for a default judgement which I was awarded. they challenged this and the judgement was 'set aside' two weeks ago. Now I'm back to square one.

 

My question is shall I on my allocation questionnaire express an interest in 'mediation' or just proceed to the court hearing??

 

Has anyone any knowledge/experience of the mediation process??

 

I didn't pursue this originally because they didn't want any contact with me or they'd report me to the cops!!

 

Thanks for any help :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as you have gone this far and had the award granted, (albeit by default), you should bypass mediation. My opinion.

 

If the ad describes it as in excellent condition and it broke down the road, it was obviously sold because the clutch had

gone.

If you still have the advert you already 10 steps ahead as practically the only comeback on a private seller is 'not as described'.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Conniff you're a star!! Yes I do have the the original ad that i have already submitted as evidence. One of the reasons I didn't test drive it was that i would have had to activate insurance then if I didn't want it I'd be out of pocket. i have definitely learned my mistake!!

 

thanks again. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no reason to decline mediation as it can do you no harm, but may make you look like a reasonable persontrying to resolve the problem amicably. Taking mediation does not change the court date already set and you are in no way obliged to agree anything offered at mediation. Remember mediation only takes place if both parties agree to it and it sounds like the defendant probably won't anyway.

 

Mediation is usually by a 3-way phone call with the mediator ringing you, then ringing the other party, then ringing you back etc so you are not speaking direct with the defendant at all.

 

You don't have to agree to anything offered in the mediation phone call if it doesn't suit you and none of the details discussed/offered are reported back to the court. they are simply informed that "mediation was unsuccessful". Your court date still stands..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Crem for the information.

 

I take your point that really I haven't anything to lose by engaging with mediation. I think the defendant is probably not willing to compromise, as they've have ample opportunity, but if they don't agree to it then I know that it will go straight to the hearing. I am willing to compromise just to conclude it all. I have to get the form back in a week so food for thought......

 

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on a minute

 

This was a private sale

 

The car was £450

 

Although the seller didn't turn up to court, they have had the judgement set aside.

 

1. Private sales, are, largely, buyer beware as a private seller is not deemed to have sufficient technical knowledge or experience to be able to declare any faults (apart from obvious like mis stating mileage).. I know that's codswallop and they knew, but that's private sales for you

 

2. You cannot expect a reliable car for £450. Sorry, you just can't! ESPECIALLY not from a private seller. Honestly, a £450 car is just going to be a banger, end of story.

 

3. They've now had the judgement set aside and will defend any new action you my take

 

$. Even should you win in court you may well still not get paid. Winning doesn't equal getting paid.

 

IMO just fix the car or scrap it and move on, you really are expecting too much of a £450 motor car.

 

And I'm sure I saw a similar thread to this on the ebay motors board.

 

Please move on I think you're throwing good money after bad and the time and money you're spending would be better spent on a new clutch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has said they are expecting perfection, but you can expect the car to go when it is described as 'In excellent condition". Miss-description is the only real thing that can be taken against a private sale. Not everything is buyer beware.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may well be right Conniff, but getting a judgement is entirely different to getting paid.

 

I think the OP will struggle here, s the seller, rightly or wrongly, will be thinking 'WTF does he want for £450?'

 

£450 really is banger money, I have to ask why the OP didn't drive the car straight back to the seller rather than taking it home if the clutch was really that bad.

 

We can only go on what the OP has said though, but even on that basis it's a £450 banger and I don't really think he's got anywhere to go with this.

 

We'll see!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to go with Oddjob on this..................in principal I can see what the op is saying but reality is that he is taking the ****. If I were judging this case I'd be telling the OP to be not so bloody stupid with frankly a frivellous claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the comments.

 

Helio/Oddjob. Your language is quite gruff and uncompromising!!!

 

Ok £450 to you maybe not a lot of money but to me at that time and those circumstances it was. It took me nearly 3 months to save up enough money for the clutch and it is all relative to ones' means, to me it isn't frivolous. The car couldn't do over 40mph and I couldn't drive it at all for 3 months, from the day after I picked it up, until it was repaired. In other words I'd might as well just flushed the cash down the lav. I was extremely miffed as you can empathise.

 

The reason I didn't drive it back was that I had contacted the seller who refused to refund me, so that wasn't an option. I couldn't exactly use violence to get it. It was advertised as in 'excellent and very reliable condition' it patently wasn't, it was undriveable. what would you have done?? Not even contacted the seller and complained?? Yes I made an error and was being exploited. Who hasn't. Funny, I thought access to a small claims track was supposed to give low end claims or claimants a fighting chance for justice. I'm glad you're not my judge then helio!!

 

Weird thing is I offered to try and limp the car back to her the next day and let her keep £100 of the sale price, she refused, now she has already spent at least £80 on court fees, go figure

Link to post
Share on other sites

An obvious question to the OP. If the clutch was as bad as you describe, why did you not take the car straight back to the seller? (That is a question the judge will no doubt ask also).

 

When buying privately, your rights under the SOGA are practically non-existent. Only comeback is if the car was falsely advertised or knowingly miss-sold. Is the OP 100% sure the seller is not actually a trader? Did his/her details match those on the V5 and if so, was the last change of keeper recent?

 

As far as the money is concerned and suggesting that £450 will be a 'banger', well last September I bought my son a 1993 Fiat Uno with 3 months MOT/tax with 80k miles for £245. Ii went to collect it and first thing I did was check the docs to verify the mileage ect (before even looking under the bonnet). I then asked for the key to start it up checking that it was stone cold first and what state the coolant and oil was in. Fired first time and ran as sweet as a nut with no crap coming from the exhaust.

 

Let it tick over while I checked the tyres and as much as the underneath as I could. (Body fine except rust around the o/s wheel arch) Then I ran it round the block (on my own) to see who it all ran (took my own insurance cover with me). Within 20 minutes I handed over the cash and drove it home.

 

To get it through the MOT in December cost £100 (plus the fee of course) but it's running fine and son is over the moon with it and so am I. If he gets only 12 months use out of it, it will be a bloody good buy. But I have a feeling that he could get his money back at least if he sells it before then.

 

Point being that buying a car for next to nothing may not necessarily mean that you are buying a shed. BUT you do need to check and check again the obvious, especially when buying privately.

 

OP in this case will need to prove that the car was miss-sold so the advert will be vital. BUT the question above will need a good answer if it goes to court.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always Remember:-

 

Buy any vehicle then you must road test it, as in this case if it went wrong in a very short distance you could walk away. But buying without testing well there you have it.

 

But also note that many experienced sellers will get you to sign Sold as Seen and Tested!

 

The court may look to you did not test the vehicle, so proportion of blame there, might get reduced cost or even then has the other person got money to repay you,= if not court case you pay, no money = you pay.

 

We all learn from hindsight, a very difficult situation

 

Take a company goes bust do you get your money back = No.

 

But at the end of the day, the seller should have a moral responsibility?

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Mattyhants

 

It's not meant it that way, and I DO sympathise - it was all the moey you had and you got turned over.

 

The seller wil claim it was ok when they had it, they didn't know' etc. They knew, they always know, don't even think for a moment that they didn't.

 

All I wanted to say and meant to say was that even if you win in a SCC the likelihood of you getting paid is very small.

 

£450 IS banger money, although like Sam suggests you CAN buy the odd very nice cheapie.

 

Your time will be better spent by moving and and fixing it and learning from it.

 

But thats just my opinion and its not my money so at the end of it all it's entirely up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...