Bought car privately, but it was mis-described in Advert - what can I do ?

[2cojones]

Hi King12345,

 

 

Thanks for the post. I have mixed feelings on this - on one hand the car I bought is shown clearly parked in the driveway of the house on Google Maps, and he definitely went up the garden path and "disappeared" a few times when I was there, on the other hand he was acting a bit weird when I was there and who would say no to young children using their loo, unless he had a few bodies in there !!

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Chris

[2cojones]

Hi Conniff,

 

 

Thanks again for taking the time. I am not sure at all that he actually lives there - his contact number was a mobile phone, and he was outside in the pitch black (private road so no street lights) when we arrived. He was a bit odd to be honest, but I respect a man's (or woman's) privacy and there could be a legitimate reason why I could come into the house - big dog, a sick member of his family etc. You've got me thinking now though .....

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Chris

[f16]

Did the vehicle have TAX? Was he the registered keeper?

How did you get it home with no MOT?

The reason I ask is because if you had been stopped by the Police.The advert said it was MOTed,and he verbaly confirmed it was MOTed.

If you had crashed(God forbid) OR been stopped by the Police, I dread to think.

What a CROOK.

 

PS. Just thinking. You have the address you went to, so you can get the name of the current resident from the poling register at the local council.

 

F16

[Conniff]

I'm afraid that it looks like a premeditated con. By all means report this to TS, but there is nothing they will be able to do.

 

You now need to keep a close eye on where you saw the ad and see if any more with that mobile number comes up.

[WarrenBuffet]

Indeed the V5 will have the registered owners address, so look on that (Cars registration document that is sent to DVLA) ......if the address fails to correspond with address you visited to buy? then its time for further investigation.

[2cojones]

Hi F16,No the car didn't have tax. I tried to get it taxed online outside his house (after buying it) on my smartphone/wifi dongle but it was not possible (for obvious reasons). The seller's name was not on the V5, but the name of a Gatwick Airport Parking Company which I later found he was the sole Director of. I drove the car home thinking that it had an MOT but the DirectGov records hadn't been updated.I realise in retrospect that I was pretty naive on this occassion (before somebody else says it) and that I opened myself up for being charged for driving a car with no MOT OR tax. Even worse, the failed wheel nuts could have led to a very serious accident (but that could happen on any car, depending on who's worked on it).Great idea !! I going to get that info from the Poling Register with the local council, just to build up my case.Thanks for your advice once again.Regards,Chris

[2cojones]

Hi Conniff,I agree. A few weeks ago I asked Auto Trader to look at their records already and he was a first time customer with that address/contact number (they were very helpful), but I will keep an eye on the ads.More than anything his total arrogance and disregard for anyone's road safety gets to me.Regards,Chris

[2cojones]

Indeed the V5 will have the registered owners address, so look on that (Cars registration document that is sent to DVLA) ......if the address fails to correspond with address you visited to buy? then its time for further investigation.

 

Hi WarrenBuffet,As I've only just mentioned to F16 the name and address on the V5 was for his company (a company car/asset I suppose). If it is classed as a Company Car would that change anything ?Thanks again for your post.Regards,Chris

[f16]

Hi 2cojones, In post#31 you say "Was the sole director". Is the compay still trading? Is this why he wanted cash?

Once you've got his name from the electoral register, then that opens up lots of ways to track him down.

As they used to say. "More than oneway to skin a cat"

Happy Hunting

F16

[2cojones]

Hi 2cojones, In post#31 you say "Was the sole director". Is the compay still trading? Is this why he wanted cash?

Once you've got his name from the electoral register, then that opens up lots of ways to track him down.

As they used to say. "More than oneway to skin a cat"

Happy Hunting

F16

 

Hi f16,I checked his company details on http://www.duedil.com and he seems to be 'on the ropes' financially, all kinds of useful information on there for a small fee. He has a Facebook page and one customer wrote a really bad review of his company. The more I dig the more bad stuff I find.Regards, Chris

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Chris,

 

I had a similar situation to yours many years ago, took the seller to the Small Claims Court, and won.

 

Like you I didn't see the registration documents before I bought the car and my solicitor told me I was an absolute idiot.

 

My car was advertised as being three years old, but the car had been abroad and the registration suffix on the number plate was given to it when it arrived in this country. It was actually three years old at that time so six years old when I bought it and worth considerably less than I had paid for it.

 

I took them to court armed with a copy of the ad and claimed misrepresentation. They came out with all sorts of rubbish and had brought a barrister, but the judge could see they were lying, so I won.

 

We did have one slight problem because we hadn't specified the type of misrepresentation in our claim, but my solicitor was quick and said we had decided to leave it up to the judge to decide. It is important to specify - another judge might have thrown out the claim. Fraudulent is quite hard to prove so it might be best to opt for negligent misrepresentation.

 

I too think you should win in the Small Claims Court.

 

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

And I heard their barrister telling them on the way out that they could have won with "a different judge." I don't think so.....

[Conniff]

The difference between your case and the OP's Daniella would have been the proof. As you say it would be very difficult to claim fraud as there was no physical proof, but in this case the man said there was an MoT in an advert when there wasn't and the documents show that.

[2cojones]

And I heard their barrister telling them on the way out that they could have won with "a different judge." I don't think so.....

 

Hi Desperate Daniella,Thanks for taking the time to post advice. That's really good to hear, a case so similar to mine, and you won !!I have already called myself an absolute idiot numerous times for not checking the documentation first, so that's already been covered. As I will not be using a solicitor due to the low value of the claim, and the fact that it appears to be quite a straightforward case (and I do have a hard copy of the original advertisement), I really do appreciate the specific advice you give regarding the type of misrepresentation I am claiming against - I will also site negligent misrepresentation. It would be so frustrating to have the case thrown out on such a technicality.You too thinking I should win the Small Claims Court case is a big boost.There is another similarity between the two cases : Both defendants, or their barrister in your case, possess that arrogance in denying eveything and STILL thinking they could have won with a different judge. Unbelievable.Regards,Chris

[Desperate Daniella]

That is why we claimed innocent or negligent misrepresentation rather than fraudulent misrepresentation, although from the judge's remarks he could see what they had been up too.

 

The ad for my car said it was three years old and they obviously knew it wasn't so pretended they had mislaid the registration document because they were packing up to move. Then they told the judge they had sent it on to me.

 

Our point was that I would not have replied to an ad for a six year old car, or paid that much for a six year old car, and I think Chris's argument would be along the same lines. He replied because the car apparently had an MOT and he wouldn't have to pay £?? to get a roadworthy car.

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Chris,

 

I do think judges can see through people who set out to do this kind of thing. Your guy is talking about all his money; the girl who sold me the car worked for the Foreign Office in quite a senior position. She had left the country and her boyfriend represented her in court. The barrister referred to him as "Dr" rather than "Mr" obviously trying to infer he was a medical doctor. My solicitor immediately asked, "Doctor of what exactly?" and he had to reply, "History." The judge very pointedly referred to him as "Mr" for the rest of the proceedings.

 

DD

[2cojones]

Hi Chris,

 

I do think judges can see through people who set out to do this kind of thing. Your guy is talking about all his money; the girl who sold me the car worked for the Foreign Office in quite a senior position. She had left the country and her boyfriend represented her in court. The barrister referred to him as "Dr" rather than "Mr" obviously trying to infer he was a medical doctor. My solicitor immediately asked, "Doctor of what exactly?" and he had to reply, "History." The judge very pointedly referred to him as "Mr" for the rest of the proceedings.

 

DD

 

Hi Daniella,I agree, I think the judges can see through these people but of course must be see to be fair. The need to mention material possessions (mine) and a title (yours) is totally irrelevant to the case. I'm glad that yoursolicitor and the judge took the edge of his arrogance. I am happy glad that your case went your way, let's hope that mine does too.Best Regards,Chris

[Conniff]

So where are we at the moment, what actions have you taken ?

[2cojones]

So where are we at the moment, what actions have you taken ?

 

Hi Conniff,I've sent the seller a fomal letter and the deadine to pay me for the costs I have incurred is midday on Saturday. When ..... I mean if he misses that I will complete and submit the Small Claims forms online that evening. It's quite frustrating to wait so long, firstly for the garage to work through the MOT failure items, wait for parts etc. and now fore the seller(not) to respond. I shall update this forum with the good or bad news when I know the outcome.Thanks for your post.Regards,Chris

[Desperate Daniella]

Any luck with the deadline, Chris?

[2cojones]

Any luck with the deadline, Chris?

 

Hi Daniella,The seller did not respond to my letter by the deadline. On Saturday I checked the Royal Mail online tracking for Recorded Delivery post and it shows that they were unable to deliver it (i.e. they left a 'while you were out' card). I doubt very much that he would have responded anyway.I am now collating all the documents to submit my Small Claims Court case online, hopefully this evening.Do you have any idea how long it's likely to take to get to court ?Regards, Chris

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Chris,

 

How long is a piece of string?

 

I started proceedings against someone who owes me money in November and we still don't have a court date!

 

I don't know about MCOL, but if you do a paper claim it has to go to a processing centre in Salford and it took them until the beginning of February to send the papers to a court near me and it wasn't the court I asked for (and amazingly the Defendant agreed to it as well).

 

It's all been centralised and it's taking much longer than it used to when you could go to your local court and they would just get on with it. I think it's called progress.

 

DD