Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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

2nd hand car bought found to be unroadworthy


zoe27
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2571 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

Guest roaringmouse

From an impartial perspective and I think a legal one also, 'quite some time' has no actual definition. 2 days is quite some time to be waiting for a cancelled aircraft. 8 hours is quite some time to be in labour with a child. And if I am completely honest, 7 months IS quite some time to have had a vehicle. A week or a month would have been less convincing, but I would drop any argument you have with the seller not having the car long.

 

Also, I haven't read the entire thread, but a few points:

 

Your parents went and bought the car so the contract would be between them and the person they bought it from.

 

Secondly, where did they meet this individual? Was it at their home? Is that address compensurate with being a ''neighbour'' of the person in the V5c.

 

WHY did your mum have the whole V5c? She should have been given they green section only - which leads me onto my next point. DO they have the whole V5c or is the yellow portion missing?

 

Lastly, from a mechanical perspective. For the power steering to lose all its fluid in under 200 miles would be either an instant catastrophic failure (ie seal blows) or could be caused by damage (driving over say a brick). OR could be that it had a leak already. Now, from the MoT you know that to be the case.

 

I have no doubt at all you have been conned. Your attention needs to be on finding out who the person selling the car ACTUALLY is. Search for their phone number, address etc. If you can show that they are a dealer, you will win instantly. But I think the case is very much in your favour anyway as someone selling for the owner makes them an agent in law and thus falls into the realm of not a private sale as such.

 

And yes, now I have read the whole thread, as you have been rightly told the car MUST be roadworthy. Leaking power steering is not only unroadworthy it is downright dangerous as you could end up with power steering oil under the tyres.

 

As others have said, DO NOT contact the seller or communicate with them unless they offer to settle to your satisfaction. Otherwise wait for the court process. Do not be scared of the process, it is there for YOU not rogues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi roaring mouse and all,

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Although my mum and dad went to meet the sellers - it was near severn services, not near their home - it was my money that paid for the car, and would be put in my name. As it's my money I'm claiming back I did it in my name.

 

My mum took the form as I wasn't there and needed to sign it. I couldn't go with them as I was in a car accident in July (hence having to buy a new car) and had to go back to Devon for physio that day.

 

I have asked for the sellers contact details but they won't give them over, unsurprisingly. I've tried to search for him but haven't had any luck so the claim is having to lie with the owner and her husband - he was present at the time of sale.

 

Ah, never thought of the oil effecting the tyres. Not sure if I mentioned it before, but the mechanic found that the leak in the steering rack had been covered with some rubber. When we first called the seller and asked for the money back the next morning and explained the problem, he replied with "just top the oil up again". Unfortunately we don't have that recorded though.

 

I won't be contacting them again, will wait and see what they say. It's a shame really because it would have been a lovely car!

 

Not to worried about court, I'm getting all my documents together this week ready for whenever it may be. I can only try, otherwise I'm stuck with a useless car I'll have to pay to get fixed and sell on - which after having to find money for another car and not being able to work after the accident will be very hard!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

They have replied to the claim saying they're going to defend all the costs - meaning they don't want to pay. And they had 2 weeks more to reply to me with a reason, but haven't heard anything yet - they have until mid next week. After that I'll have to take it further and hopefully get the mediation.

 

We'll see what they say, if anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont forget, you dont have to accept any offer they make during mediation and likewise they dont have to accept anything you may offer either. It then goes back to court for a hearing to be arranged. Mediation is normally a person on the end of the phone asking you things and then getting back to you with what they say. You dont meet the defendant face to face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I've read up a bit abut mediation. I'll ony really accept the full amount back as it's been a nightmare.

 

I've just checked the dates of the claim and realised that although they have put in an acknowledgement of service that they will defend all of the claim, they've not put in any defence as to why, and the time limit is up.

 

I am going to ring the court people tomorrow, as I'm now not sure what the next steps are? As far as I know I think this may mean that the court may be able to make them pay as they have not put in a reason for defence. Does anyone know if this is right?

 

I sure hope so as it would put an end to all of this. But I'm also thinking it can't be that easy...?!

 

Thanks again to all for your help, I really do appreciate it!

 

Sorry I didn;t mention this but it says on the letter of their acknowledgement of service:

 

"If you file an acknowledgement of service but do not file a defence within 28 days of the date of service of the claim form, or particulars of claim if served separately, judgement may be entered against you.

If you do not file an application to dispute the jurisdiction of the court within 14 days of the date of filing this acknowledgement of service, it will be assumed that you accept the courts jurisdiction and judgement may be entered against you."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all. I've just called MCOL and they've told me that a defence has been filed, and told me how to access it.

 

I'm so upset at this moment in time. They have completely denied anything, and looks as if it is going to court.

 

The owner has said that she had no problems with the car, she is a police officer and needed a bigger car for her grandchildren, and she believes this is happening because I don't like the car..... I actually would have loved to have that car!!!

 

Her husband has again stated our rights with it being a private sale and said this:

 

This car was described as is and no warranty was implied or given.

Although the car still had an MOT for a couple of months I had the

car retested to ensure it was fit for sale. All faults found on 16

May were fixed by the issuing MOT Station at a cost of £240.

That's fair enough, but if they are now claiming that the car had been fixed (which is hasn't, there is a peice of rubber wrapped around the point of leak on the steering rack), then I don't understand why they didnt just say this in the first place?? And if they did have if "fixed" then why not give me a receipt. Would it be a case of getting in touch with the garage that should have fixed it?

 

Also said this:

 

If, as claimed, there was no fluid present in the power steering

the steering would have been incredibly heavy and would be obvious

to anyone driving the car. There were no issues raised.

We have said all along that it was fine at the time of buying, and the fluid leaked out on the drive back. It was then heavy! They're completely turning it around. I'm sure they knew there was a fault - it's impossible they didnt!!

 

I'm in utter disbelief at the moment. The owner has also said "I have put a report in to our Professional Standards Department

with Gwent police." I'm not worried about this - but should I be?!

 

I now have a questionnaire to fill out to take it to court. I've read the guidelines and it says both sides should be in touch with each other to try and settle it before sending in the form. I'm going to write them another letter, asking why they haven't given me this information about the problem being fixed before, and ask for receipts and so on.

 

Any advice as to what to say would be helpful.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly I would like to introduce myself as Zoe parent.

 

I telephoned the mot station a few days after the sale.

 

They could not find the mot certificate under the private number plate which the mot was done.

 

They called me back and I gave them the original number plate which they then found.

 

I was told that they were only a mot station and do not do repairs.

 

They did not know where the repair was done it is returned and they check which obviously they let the car get through the mot with the steering problem being botched up and other outstanding issues not being fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The owner has also said "I have put a report in to our Professional Standards Department

with Gwent police." I'm not worried about this - but should I be?!

You needn't be worried, but they obviously are. Quite apart from offenses under the RTA which themselves could have serious implications for a serving Police Officer, there is the matter of using their position as a serving police officer. If they use their position in anyway that is not relevant to their job, i.e. to give them more status or as an inherent threat that can be deemed as a misuse of their power and may be worth a complaint to the IPCC. In either case the DPS will then get involved. It seems to me they are seeking to be preemptive.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in utter disbelief at the moment. The owner has also said "I have put a report in to our Professional Standards Department

with Gwent police." I'm not worried about this - but should I be?!

 

Did they say this (as in 'verbally', ie on the phone), or put it in writing? PSD are an internal investigations department, investigating police officers and not members of the public. If it was a verbal comment then there is nothing you can do as you cannot prove they said it. (Though, why oh why would you be talking to them - have NO verbal contact with them until mediation - and do that through a third party - or court). If it in writing, then contact the IPCC as it is essentially a threat, albeit a harmless one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

An update of the thread by the parent. So I court date as been fixed for April and paper work to be sent by Tuesday to the court and the defendants. Managed to get the court hearing transferred to my county, Defendant email to me:-

 

 

Please be advised.

Recently submitted the below application to the court.

 

Further to this the cost to ourselves to defend this case in xxxxxxxxxxx will be upwards of £200.00 plus costs incurred by our witness. These costs will be claimed back.

 

Firstly the Sale of Goods act was replaced by the Consumer Rights act in 2015 which clearly states that when buying a Car from a private seller the Buyer is to Beware. There is also no need for the Car to be of Reasonable Quality or be Fit for Purpose.

 

This vehicle was sold after a thorough inspection by the Father of the Claimant and was accepted by him to be in good order.

There were no indications of any fluid leaks whatsoever. Preparations for the sale of the Car were to MOT it even though it still had a valid Mot.

The Car was sent For MOT which it failed due to a Leaking Steering Rack. We were advised that to fit a new Seal would cost £240.00 including the cost of the MOT itself. We agreed to this and the repair was carried out.

 

The Claimant has on several occasions accused us of wrongdoing. However, if there was some wrongdoing then how can we be held responsible? The Car was taken to a fully licensed MOT Station, it was tested and repaired by them.

 

The fact that they are now denying doing the work suggested they completed a poor repair... but, how were we to know this? They are a Licensed MOT Station and as such we took them at their word.

Intelligence and report about this has been sent to Trading Standards about their conduct in this matter.

 

Curiously at the point of sale of the vehicle the Claimants Mother refused point blank to return the V5 Document with the New Keepers Details in order for us to notify DVLA of the Transfer of ownership? She stated “I always do it this way”?

The Claimants parents then told us they were heading to Salisbury but we now know they went to Bournemouth.

Was this because the Car was bought by a Trader for re-sale?

 

The pressure within a Power Steering System is very high, such that, had there been a leak from the vehicle there would have been evidence of Fluid after the car was driven by Mr Craig Hunt 35 miles down the M4 to a pre-arranged meeting with the buyers, who were the Claimants parents, not the Claimant.

 

I am also extremely doubtful that the fluid would have lasted even an hour, let alone the 126 miles claimed. I suffered a leaking hose on my Isuzu Trooper recently in Cardiff and the Steering went heavy due to lack of fluid in less than ten miles.

 

The Car was sold after my Wife (and Co-Defendant) replaced it with a bigger car after the arrival of our Grandaughter meaning we now had three Grand Children and associated equipment to contend with.

 

I hasten to add I had no idea of the information of sales of goods act stated in the first paragraph, it was pointed out by a Solicitor friend.

Also my wife had absolutely nothing to do with any of this, either in word or deed, with the sale of the vehicle.

I suspect that the reason for my wife's inclusion in all of this is a spiteful act by a woman, whose vitriol, we have experienced by no end, after she discovered my wife is a serving police officer?

 

The garage is saying that they never carried out the work, the owner says they did but obviously not personally she must have given the money to the seller. Which makes me wonder why did she give this car to a neighbour to Mot in May and then in August to sell when she had a husband who is now claiming it was his car but she was the registered keeper,

 

Are they correct regarding the sale of goods act and the MOT do they have a case. the car was not as described in the advert because apart from the steering there was a torn seat which we was'nt mentioned in the avert or told when asked about the condition, we would never have made that long journey.

Your feed back would be much appreciated.

 

Feeling quite upset being quoted as doing a spiteful act because I found out she was an acting police officer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi All.

 

I just wanted to give you an update on the situation.

 

The case went to court yesterday and I won!

 

The Judge's decision was that the defendants (the owner and her husband who was present at the sale), would pay the £1000 for the car, court costs and the cost of the MOT we carried out as proof of the fault.

 

This was on the grounds that the car WAS misrepresented on the Gumtree ad and also in the text messages I had in my evidence to the seller asking about the condition of the car.

 

This judgement was made from the result of our MOT stating around 10 failures and 15 advisories

- one of these faults is a serious steering failure which was on a MOT prior to sale that has not been fixed, or fixed badly.

 

For this reason the car was seen to be unroadworthy at the point of sale. They had no receipt and no idea who fixed it as they gave the car to the seller to MOT.

 

The judge was suspicious that the seller was a trader, but as the defendants did not bring him as a witness (even more suspicious!), he could not prove this.

 

The defendants came up with ALL SORTS, which were ridiculous statements.

 

One of his defence points was that the steering is fine if there is still oil left in the reserve, even though its leaking..

..it took the judge 3 attempts to get the point across that it is unroadworthy and dangerous if it is leaking at all.

 

The defendants also tried to say I had less rights it being a private sale

- he was put right by the judge telling him that it is not his place to decide the law and to let him do it.

 

It was such a relief to have such a great Judge.

 

I think he could see from the beginning that they were fighting a loosing battle.

 

This just goes to show that if you have FACTS that a car is unsafe, you will have no problem defending yourself in court.

 

They told the judge they would pay yesterday and pick up the car this weekend.

They are now saying to me that they want to inspect the car before paying, and have the cheek to ask to come into my house and use my wifi.

I have told them that I want the money before they collect on Sunday, but am yet to hear back.

 

Am I right in sticking to my guns and making sure I get the money before collection?

They do have 14 days to pay but I am worried they will take the car and think of some excuse not to pay.

 

Almost funny they want to inspect the car incase its faulty when they sold it to me in a dangerous condition in the first place.

 

If anyone has one last bit of advice that would great.

 

Thanks for reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats on winning.

 

Do NOT, under ANY circumstances, return the car to them until they have paid you. The car is legally yours until payment has been received. They have, afaik, no legal right to inspect the car - this appears to be a flimsy excuse to find faults in an attempt to say "hey, its damaged". Take multiple photos AND a walk-around video of the car exterior and interior, as close as possible, so if there is any attempt later to say "it was scratched/damaged" you can prove the condition of the vehicle when it left you.

 

If they turn up on Sunday without CASH, then do NOT release the vehicle to them. If they choose to turn up, sans payment, that is their fault, not yours. Do NOT release the car. If they choose to make a long journey, tough, that was their decision. Let them threaten and bluster all they want. I'd also advice that if they do arrive, record a video, especially if they do not have cash.

 

Cash, cash, cash. A cheque can be cancelled, a Bankers Draft needs to be drawn against cleared funds. PayPal Transaction is subject to charges and can be reversed. PayPal Gift is also not advisable. Unless they send a cheque and it clears before they arrive, it's cash all the way. And dont hand them the keys until you have counted it.

 

As an aside, be prepared to have to return to Court in 14 days for a warrant of execution to obtain the sum in judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi woad,

 

Thanks for your reply. I definately won't be handing over the car before I get the money. I've made it clear they have to pay before, we'll see.

 

Thanks again for all your help throughout. Much appreciated! Same goes to all others that gave advice!!! :)

 

Just had this from the defendants:

 

"Ok. We have 14 days to clear this debt. CAB have advised us that we are within our rights to inspect the car for damage and if any is found we are to inform the court immediately.

I propose that we collect the car on Sunday as agreed and I will pay you in cash.

You must agree beforehand in writing that you will provide a receipt once the money has been counted.

 

If you fail to agree to any of this then payment will be made on 18 of April and a collection date arranged with yourself.

 

Pick Up And Go."

 

I wonder if they actually have spoken to CAB. Still speaking to me in a threatening tone. They really want to bring me down!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that they have spoken to CAB should not worry you. They are a charity and do not provide legal advice. If legal advice is required, they will normally refer you to a lawyer or solicitor. I suspect that the advice they provided related to goods returned to a shop or online entity who have the right to inpect the returned goods for damage. I also suspect that the original sellers did not elaborate on the nature of the "goods" being collected. Do not worry. Just follow the instructions in post #73

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Nimrod205.

 

I told the sellers that they were making the situation stressful once again, and that they could look at the car if they wanted, as I am sure there would be nothing to tell the Judge.

 

They came a few hours ago, gave me the cash first and took the car. No issues raised, and the owner was being very nice. She said she thought we were 'having her on' all along (despite the factual evidence!), and will be taking it up with the MOT garage - although I am convinced it is actually her neighbour, the seller who really knows what happened to the car. Oh well....not my problem anymore.

 

Thanks again for everyones help. It's been a long 8 months but just goes to show you really should fight for your rights! Especially when it comes to being sold a dangerous car! :high5:

 

I will be donating too as a thanks. As you have all been really helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...