Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Small boat crossing numbers in last 7 days much more than the planned number to be sent to Rwanda. Small boat arrivals – last 7 days - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK These migrants obviously believe that being sent to Rwanda is not a consideration when they are aware of other migrants having died making the English channel crossing. If Rwanda was going to receive thousands of migrants, then it probably would be a deterrent to some. But the threat of sending 300 migrants to Rwanda is just not going to make any difference.
    • Last June, 3.4m members received a £100 payment from the building society. Now they will be wondering whether the offer will be replicated this year.View the full article
    • Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.  
    • Hi DX, Sorry, fell asleep as I was up all night last night writing that statement. Yes, I attached the rest of the witness statement on post 50, bottom of webpage 2. That's the important part.  It looks like the lawyer who wrote Erudio's Witness statement does not work for them any more. So, I'll have another lawyer representing instead. Not sure if I can use Andy's hearsay argument verbally if that happens.... I did not put it in writing. Apart from not sending deferral forms, my main argument is that in 2014 Erudio fixed some arrears mistake that SLC made and then in 2018 they did the same mistake, sent me confusing letters. What is the legal defence when they send you confusing material?
    • Chinese firm MineOne Partners has been ordered to sell land it owns near a US nuclear missile site.View the full article
  • 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

sold a car thru ebay


rab jenkins
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4084 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 everyone,i have recently sold a car thru ebay,was on a buy it now price or best offer,acceptd a best offer price,buyer paid thru paypal on friday and came for car on saturday.then on tuesday i receive an e-mail demanding £200 pounds for repairs to wheel bearings,car is moted til august this year,i did not know bearings were dodgy,car was parked up and sorned since xmas,this was explained.i am being threatened with small claims court if i do not pay.he never informed of any faults but got them repaired and expects me to pay,from what iv learned recently i dont think he can do this,am i right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi everyone,i have recently sold a car thru ebay,was on a buy it now price or best offer,acceptd a best offer price,buyer paid thru paypal on friday and came for car on saturday.then on tuesday i receive an e-mail demanding £200 pounds for repairs to wheel bearings,car is moted til august this year,i did not know bearings were dodgy,car was parked up and sorned since xmas,this was explained.i am being threatened with small claims court if i do not pay.he never informed of any faults but got them repaired and expects me to pay,from what iv learned recently i dont think he can do this,am i right?

 

If you are a private seller rather than a trader, weren't aware of the faults and didn't misdescribe the vehicle : then they are trying it on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a private seller rather than a trader, weren't aware of the faults and didn't misdescribe the vehicle : then they are trying it on.

 

 

Sounds like a [problem].. :mad2:

Abbey Settled 3,600:cool:

 

Just started battle with

EGG

Virgin CC

Abbey

MBNA

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the wheel bearings were in such a worn state that they needed immediate replacement, they you would have definately noticed it especially rounding a corner.

 

As a private seller your responsiblity is not to sell a car that is dangerous or misdescribed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am a private seller,first time using ebay,have found out he put good feedback on me on sunday ie."easy transaction,good wee car"on tuesday i receive the paypal email demanding the £200,he told me on texts he noticed car and told bearings were shot when they got home,he had put a hold on funds but i discovered that a paypal administrator had cancelled the hold,i had already phoned paypal and ebay about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the wheel bearings were in such a worn state that they needed immediate replacement, they you would have definately noticed it especially rounding a corner.

 

As a private seller your responsiblity is not to sell a car that is dangerous or misdescribed.

 

As far as I know car was fine,was parked up for 3 months,I told him this,he is trying to say I miss sold vehicle by saying bearings were fine at mot,that was in August when I changed front ones,here was also no advisory about anything for vehicle.as far as I know he has to give me reasonable time to reply to any faults,I wasn't notified of any from him

Link to post
Share on other sites

.as far as I know he has to give me reasonable time to reply to any faults,I wasn't notified of any from him

 

not really in the sense that providing that you didn't misrepresent the car or lie about any KNOWN FAULTS, then he has no come back on you at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An MOT doesn't certify a car as roadworthy, it certifies that the testable items have met the minimum requirement at the time of test.

 

The test for wheel bearings is to rotate the wheel and feel for any roughness in the bearing, you can't fail a car on a noisy wheel bearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An MOT doesn't certify a car as roadworthy, it certifies that the testable items have met the minimum requirement at the time of test.

 

The test for wheel bearings is to rotate the wheel and feel for any roughness in the bearing, you can't fail a car on a noisy wheel bearing.

 

The wheel is also rocked top and bottom and a noise indicates that all is not well and can be failed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read from the first post that the car was laid up for a number of months, the seller may not have known about the wheel bearing issues, and there is no confirmation that the buyer did not tow the car away, meaning nobody may have foreseen the issue.

 

Then on another post the seller confirms the bearings were replaced a few months ago............

 

 

Something isn't right about the claims. The only real proof would be the seller retaining the receipt for the bearings that were replaced, and reasonable proof they were fitted to the car.

It doesn't help with the Paypal issue though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Accepting paypal for an item that is not posted by trackable means will automatically lose you your money. the buyer is using this to get his money back and keep the car so you end up with nothing. I hope you have his address from the V5

 

absolutely incorrect.

 

There is no pay pal clawback or customer protection on paypal with motor vehicles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Accepting paypal for an item that is not posted by trackable means will automatically lose you your money. the buyer is using this to get his money back and keep the car so you end up with nothing. I hope you have his address from the V5

 

Not really relevant. This would only be an issue if the buyer was claiming that he did not receive the goods. As he has left positive feedback, and he is complaining about the wheel bearings, then quite clearly he has received the goods. Paypal will not intervene further and is likely the reason they removed the hold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he has no leg to stand on as he has already said he replaced the wheel bearings without first contacting you to give you the opportunity to put things wright

as he bought the car on buy it now he does have some laws in his favour - ie as has been said before, the car must be roadworthy

i would firstly ask for a copy of the receipt to be emailed or posted over to you, then contact the garage that did the repairs, hopefully for a truthful confirmation that the repairs were done, then if you are satisfied come to an agreement to pay, lets say half of the costs, if you are in any doubt then dispute it and refuse to pay.

if he is genuine it will come out in the end as he may seek court action or action through trading standards

Link to post
Share on other sites

as he bought the car on buy it now he does have some laws in his favour - ie as has been said before, the car must be roadworthy

 

what laws? as long as OP did not misrepresent which it seems he did not then it is buyer beware in a private sale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what laws? as long as OP did not misrepresent which it seems he did not then it is buyer beware in a private sale.

 

sorry to disagree but it is not buyer beware, even with private sales the car must be roadworthy. ..if the buyer can provide proof that these bearings did indeed need replacing then the seller would be seen as to have known this - the car must be roadworthy no matter who sells it

 

anyway, as the buyer did not discuss his problem but went ahead with replacing the bearings he really has a difficult job to get any money back

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the buyer can provide proof that these bearings did indeed need replacing then the seller would be seen as to have known this

 

why would a "normal citizen Smith" know this and be held responsible? I know very little about the true mechanics of a car and short of it having a defect that manifests itself perhaps in the obvious mis-handling of the car, would not be aware of some hidden away problem. As a private seller, as long as I described the vehicle correctly, I could not be held liable for a fault that I couldn't have seen (such as a wheel bearing).

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to disagree but it is not buyer beware, even with private sales the car must be roadworthy. ..if the buyer can provide proof that these bearings did indeed need replacing then the seller would be seen as to have known this - the car must be roadworthy no matter who sells it

 

According to the o/p the car was SORNed and laid up for a couple of months. a lot could have happened in that time

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...