Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • And presumably it has been thoroughly checked out mechanically. You're confident that you have identified all the defects. Your situation is this: You can certainly bring a County Court claim against the dealer and on the basis of what you say, you will probably win. Under ordinary contract law, it might be considered that the breach of contract is not overly serious and you have not been deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract. On that basis you would more likely to be awarded a sum of damages to reflect the reduced value of the vehicle had it been correctly advertised. Under ordinary contract law, the breach would have had to be so serious that it could be said that you had been deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract. This is what is called in law – a fundamental breach – and this would allow you to treat the contract is terminated. This is where you find a difference between ordinary contract law – the common law contract – and the statutory rights provided under the consumer rights act. Under the consumer rights act, because you have identified a defect and assert your right to reject within 30 days, then you are entitled to reject the entire contract simply on the basis that the vehicle is not of satisfactory quality – even though you have not been deprived of the whole benefit of the contract because you are still driving the thing around. In other words, the car is not up to the standard that you would expect considering all the circumstances – and particularly in view of the price – about £26,000. This is why you are better off suing under the consumer rights act because I understand that you want to reject the vehicle and you would not be prepared to accept a reduction in price – although you could negotiate this if you wanted. The complicating factor here is the value of the vehicle. If the dealer Hills Prestige of Lymington,  want to stick their heels in, then you will be obliged to bring a County Court claim against them. Where a claim is for a figure less than £10,000, the action is allocated to the small claims track. Small claims track rules concerning costs are that even if you lose your case, you won't have to bear the costs of the winner. In other words each party bears their own costs. This is done to discourage expensive litigation. It doesn't always work because large corporations don't give a fig and they will spend huge amounts of money trying to crush their customers rather than settle claims which are worth a tiny fraction of the litigation costs. Where the claim is more than £10,000 then it gets allocated to the fast track. This means that if you lose the case then you will have to bear a substantial portion of the costs of the winning party. This can act as a real disincentive to litigate. The problem is that some companies use this as an opportunity to intimidate their customer – who is generally speaking a litigant in person – with the prospect of substantial costs in the event that the customer loses the action. This can put a lot of people off very understandably. Your chances of success here are extremely good that you need to be aware that your risk factor if you lost a fairly high level of costs – will be more than £5000. If Hills Prestige of Lymington, decide that as part of the litigation strategy they want to intimidate you, then they could litigate in a way which causes obstacles and delays and which incurs greater costs for them and then I do this simply to raise in your mind the spectre that if you were to lose, then you would be liable for a large proportion of those costs incurred. It's a nasty – who-blinks-first – style of litigation. It doesn't always happen that it can do. Conversely, if you brought this action a new one then they would have to pay your costs. Perversely though, because (I imagine) he would be bringing the action yourselves, you would only be able to recover your costs at a litigant in person rate which is currently about £18 per hour. I say it's perverse because if you decided that you wanted to employ lawyers to represent you, they would be able to recover their costs at the professional rate. It's also perverse because even though you might decide to try and save money and incur only litigant in person costs, if you lost the action you would have to pay the dealer's costs at the professional way of their legal representatives – assuming that they used professional legal assistance. If you wanted to bring a legal action then we can help you all the way although of course it would be you would be going to court. We would simply be advising you and helping you to draft your documents and advising your strategy.  
    • Yes no indication that it was a private sale until we asked for our money back under right to reject. With regards to repairs, the only outstanding defects seem to be slight misalignment of ns wing, overspray on components inside engine compartment, but we were able to find out some of the parts replaced from Toyota, such as ns wing, bonnet, front bumper, front grill, A/C radiator, inner flitch plate which is poorly finished and front bumper support. That doesn’t count as Immaculate to me.
    • It's most unlikely they will reach out to you at all. Any offers will be made at mediation. If they agree to settle your entire claim then of course you will have to accept it. Why should you not want to anyway? Other than that you seem to understand your position quite well
    • You say that you've had an inspection which has confirmed the damage. Have you had the vehicle inspected generally to identify the defects? On the basis of what you have told us I don't see why you shouldn't be able to rely on the right to reject – but you should understand that simply because the consumer rights act provides for a right to reject, it doesn't replace or supplant the common law of contract in any way and so you still have your general contractual rights. In other words, regardless what the RAC say – you still have excellent rights. We are finding that the right to reject under the consumer rights act seems to be pretty toothless and is generally ignored by most traders and people still find that they have to litigate.     When I say it was there any evidence that it was a private sale and they were simply selling on behalf of somebody else, I mean for instance was that pointed out to you in the original advertisement or by the dealer who should you run the vehicle? If there is any basis upon which they can argue that you are fully aware that it was a private sale then it makes things a little more tricky as far as contract law is concerned – you wouldn't take the benefit of the consumer rights act although you can still fall back on the common law of contract. It will make things easier all round if there is absolute no indication that they were selling for a private seller because on that basis, it is a trade sale regardless.
    • So, if I understand correctly from reading other cases on thia forum, I need to monitor MoneyClaim so that I can apply for judgement the first moment it becomes available. This will be in about 14 days unless they acknowledge the claim in which case it will be 28 days for them to come up with a defence?    If understand correctly, Hermes might contact me and offer to pay fraction of a cost of the mobile phone they lost/stole, if I drop the action - and that I should refuse this offer. Hermes might also contact me an offer to pay the full cost of the mobile phone + all my court fees – and I should consider accepting this. Hermes might put in a defence so that the matter is then drawn out and I will then receive a questionnaire which I should complete. This would ask you if I wanted to enter into mediation – and I should refuse mediation or should I agree for mediation to take place? It will also ask which court I want the hearing to take place, and I should indicate my local court. I should pay the hearing fee to continue further, as Hermes may well be waiting to see whether I am prepared to pay the hearing fee.   If I pay the hearing fee, then Hermes will realise that I am serious and they are looking at a court hearing. At this point they might contact me and offer the full amount + court fees.   Do I understand the sequence of events correctly? Thanks.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Sold car, buyer wants to return it


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2051 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 there. I sold my car last week through a classified ad on eBay. Buyer came to have a look, I took her on a test drive, she went home, then messaged me later to say she wanted it and came and bought it.

 

Several hours later her and her boyfriend returned the car saying that the rear seat belts were not long enough to wrap around their maxi cosi car seats. They told me they had turned down several other cars for the same reason, I asked them why they didn't check, they said they forgot. I refused the refund, but did offer to buy them some adapters to which they refused.

 

They became very aggressive, blocked our driveway with their car, and threatened us with physical violence and implied they would come back and do damage to me and our property. I phoned the police, they left just before they arrived but I told the police the story and got a crime reference number.

 

Yesterday I got a very vague email saying I had failed to disclose information regarding the vehicles history and that eBay's fraud team would be in touch (they haven't been). I replied that I had been completely honest and that it was for the seat belt they wanted to return the car, and outlined all the above that had happened.

 

They replied again saying I failed to inform them of the cars history and didn't tell the truth. They said once they got home they tried to insure it and found out about this history, so came back to me expecting me to come clean. They never mentioned anything about the cars history it was all tears about the seat belts and how their kids seats cost £500 a piece so they couldn't change them.

 

I reply asking what history?

 

Today they said it has been a Cat D write off. They quote sale of goods act 1979 and innocent misrepresentation clause in the misdescriptions act. They still want to return the car for a refund.

 

Where do I stand? How can I find out if it really was a Cat D and what the damage was? Surely if they care about this sort of thing they should have done a HPI check before they bought it? I have not told them any lies. It seems to me they are trying to think of new problems so that they can get out of buying the car. If there is a problem I guess I feel bad for them, but not after the way they have behaved. The car is sound, low mileage and as far as I'm concerned in perfect working order, minus an exhaust rattle I mentioned in the description.

 

They have been very aggressive and threatening in person, so much so that we have just installed CCTV as every time we come home we expect to have the windows smashed. On paper of course they seem to be writing very tactfully.

 

Thanks for reading this far, I wanted to be thorough. Please advise me where I stand.

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was a private sale, then Cat D is for them to find out not for you to declare.

 

 

If its a trade sale the reverse applies.

 

 

However if it really IS a Cat D write off (HPI it yourself, don't take their word for it) , I would give them their money back out of good will.

 

 

The seat belt matter is immaterial, they should have checked, tough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the threats, you REALLY should call the police asap. It really sounds like a case of buyers remorse, but they refuse to accept that. And 500 per child seat? That isnt your problem, its theirs. Plenty of good seats in argos for £60

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks I will do a HPI. If it is, can I find out more information such as what the damage was?

 

It was a personal sale. I can't physically give them their money back even if I wanted to as we have already purchased a new car and other things with the cash. They should have told us about the cat d when they came back the day they bought it, not 4 days later. I think from the way their emails were worded they were trying to entrap me into saying I knew about the cat d.

 

My own research backs up what you say. But this misdescriptions act is worrying me, can only find limited information.

 

Re the threats I did call the police. They offered to go and see them but I said leave it in case it makes things worse. I have a crime reference number.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so the HPI shows it was indeed a Cat D in Feb last year. I bought it in August. Looks like I was conned too. Can I find out more information? They are trying to make out I was dishonest about it. Does it even matter if I knew or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was a private sale, they are completely out of luck. Especially if all your information here is accurate. Proof of the fact they know it, is that they are threatening and intimidating you.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
What about this misdescription act they are quoting? They reckon their solicitor is issuing proceedings under that and I'll be getting a summons.

 

 

No. let them get on with it. the misdescription does NOT apply unless you expresslylied in the ad - eg 72000 miles and its done 100000.

 

 

Not mentioning Cat D is not the same as lying about it.

 

 

It doesn't matter what happened in the past, it was cat D which implies cosmetic damage, so forget about it, it makes no difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A solicitor will send whatever they are paid to send. If you get anything from a solicitor, then come back here and we will help you send them a reply that will make them shut up. Either they do, or they get reported to the SRA.

 

Besides, why employ a solicitor? If they throught they had a case, theyd just issue you a LBA then take you to SCC.

 

It's buyers remorse plain and simple.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

And remember as another poster mentioned before, there is no requirement to state it is a cat d. They should have checked it out themselves before purchase on a private sale, plus you never misdescribed it.

 

Classic case of buyers remorse, they dont want to admit it so are threating you. If they took you to court, wonder what the judge would say about the intimidation and threats of violence they made

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no requirement to do anything you don't know about so how can you have misdescribed something if you didn't know.

 

As said before, it's buyer beware on private sales as long as the car is not dangerous or you have deliberatley hidden a problem with it. Cat D can also mean it was stolen recovered, it doesn't have to have been damaged at all.

 

These things are also worth remembering if you should buy privately.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

A work colleague once told me of his friend who had bought a car and found something wrong with it, so returned it later the same day. He did this several times with different cars to different sellers - not because he wanted to buy a car, but because he had decided that this was a good way to get free use of a car for a day or less. He also came a cropper when a seller refused to give him his money back and became very angry. It was the first thing I thought of when I read the post. The anger and threats seem disproportionate to the situation - why do they not just sell the car themselves to get their money back if it's of no use to them, it would cost less than solicitor fees.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cat D is nothing. If it's been repaired, it's not going to affect insurance or anything. Usually means it's cosmetic, and not a dangerous issue.

 

Usually Cat D would cost less to repair than the value of the car, but the insurer decides to write it off anyway for whatever reason. Cat C is usually damage that costs more than the value of the car so the insurer writes it off, but often people buy back and get the work done cheaper than insurance rates.

 

So the category given (in case of D or C) is more of an indicator of the total cost of the repair, not the level of damage the car actually sustained. Some valuable cars with quite disturbing amounts of damage can still be classed as cat D and returned to the road, where as some older cheaper cars with minor damage can be a cat C.

Edited by carbuyer101
Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside you can check for free whether a car has a cat marker on the Autotrader website. Click on that your selling a car and enter the reg No. Click next and it will show if there is a cat marker. My car is a cat C and had to obtain a vic check but that doesn't apply to cat d.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi caggers, today by signed for delivery (which the post man just put through we didn't sign for it) I got a letter before action. I've scanned it into a PDF.

 

 

I also thought it best to include a copy of the eBay listing. It would print out properly while keeping the entire description and I'm worried ebay will delete it soon. So I've printed each part separately and blanked out the identifying details.

 

 

 

 

Its really winding me up how they are using this Cat D as an excuse when they only wanted to return the car because of the seat belts. Also this case they mention is from the late 1800's and as far as I can tell is irrelevant as I have not made any statements which could be deemed false.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You failed to mention it was cat d: irrelevant unless you are a car trader.

You failed to disclose the 'true' history: He would need to explain what this means? Anyway your advert lists clearly the history and again.

 

I'm no expert but "Derrek vs Peek" case law he refers to is about a business transaction, not a private sale. You are not a car dealer, it isn't up to you to disclose stuff that you may not even know about. The only issue is if you knowingly told a blatant lie, for example if he directly asked you "Has this car ever been written off?" and you replied "No". Even then he would have to prove you were lying.

 

I think if you described the car accurately and didn't lie about its condition and you are not a car trader then you have nothing to worry about. His letter before action is trying to scare you. Draft up a reply, send it back to him on day 19 using recorded delivery. Await his next pathetic attempt to bully you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He took it for a test drive and examined it. The OP's case is pretty solid. The buyer is either trying to pull a con, or has a serious case of buyers remorse. In either case, they wont win a case, and since they have tried to threaten and intimidate the OP, have crossed the line to criminal action.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...