Return of vehicle, distance sale

[dx100uk]

tough 

if he wants his car, he has to get it.

 

have you got your money for it back?

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

how did you pay for the car?

have you got your moneyback?
 

[dx100uk]

if you reported the car faulty within 14 days of receiving it , entitling you to a full refund - it will be a std english claim through MCOL.

 

 

if you return the car and he refunds its sale price, then it would be a scottish claim under simple procedure Rules for your 2 X delivery/collection costs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

firstly, lets get a few things out the way...

 

a trade dealer cannot sell you , a member of joe public, a car under the trader to trader, sold as seen scheme.

that's just std rubbish dealers come out with to buff unaware consumers away once they complain about xyz after a car sale.

it's been blown out the water so many times and numerous traders have been fined £1000's in court by authorities over such.

 

as for this 14 days is extended by 12mts because of no written contract with rights to cancel etc, i've never heard of it and anyway you agreed the sale be it verbal or otherwise...dead duck.

 

can you clarify a few points which not 100% clear from your posts..just for clarity.

 

you did NOT travel to Brum to view the car...i think not..correct?

on what date did you actually receive the car in your possession?

on what dates did you complain about things and what did you complain about?

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

pers i think you are going to have a very hard time proving you were not aware of the 14days limit so it's extended by another 12mts.

 

has the dealer stated he will refund you the money on the car if you return it?

[dx100uk]

said it once i'll say it again - you agreed the sale verbally ...dead duck.

there is NO requirement for him to supply you with a cancellation form on durable medium (whatever that is)

 

his only remit - is to make it available to you or indicate how to get it by the same medium as the sale.

your contract was a verbal one..you cannot dispute or not what he did/didn't say over the phone (i'e see my website ..go to xxx to get it).

 

Carefully reading the bits in the 1st few posts whereby you relate what the trader might have stated..

and what bankfodder has already eluded too later. i agree and concur that:

 

you have 2 choices.

 

1.return the car at your expense.

 

the trader should refund the price of the car (contract ended)

 

you can also ask for both sets of transportation fees back at the same time

 

if he just refunds the price of the car thus ending the contract... you go for a damages claim at your local Scottish court. (but i will suspect he'll question jurisdiction)

 

if doesn't refund the CAR - the contract is still active - you launch an english claim bolting on your transportation costs.

 

or 

 

keep the car for now

 

launch an english claim that encompasses not only the car price, with it not being fit for purpose, but also your transportation costs.

 

the latter i suggest is somewhat risky.

[dx100uk]

Misleading consumers by using phrases such as “Trade Sale – Sold as Seen” or “No Refunds” or issuing a trade invoice ....is not only illegal but also completely voids any contract implied or otherwise.

 

14 days extended or not is thus immaterial to what you can do.

 

he was notified well within the 14 day period (no reason needed), ...but..you have to return the car for this to kick in if you intend to rely upon it.

 

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/dealership-fined-thousands-selling-unroadworthy-16776746

https://theusedcarguy.co.uk/car-scams/sold-as-seen-we-think-not/

https://www.theaa.com/car-buying/legal-rights

 

[dx100uk]

1 hour ago, Aton2244 said:

I am also aware that selling to a private individual on a trade invoice is a big no, no.

1 hour ago, dx100uk said:

you have 2 choices.

 

1.return the car at your expense.

 

the trader should refund the price of the car (contract ended)

 

you can also ask for both sets of transportation fees back at the same time

 

if he just refunds the price of the car thus ending the contract... you go for a damages claim at your local Scottish court. (but i will suspect he'll question jurisdiction)

 

if doesn't refund the CAR - the contract is still active - you launch an english claim bolting on your transportation costs.

 

or 

 

keep the car for now

 

launch an english claim that encompasses not only the car price, with it not being fit for purpose, but also your transportation costs.

 

the latter i suggest is somewhat risky.

 

selling to a private individual on a trade invoice is a big no, no

 

then surely that's your claim.?

 

you can't have it both ways.

 

either there is a contract and the relevant consumer regulations apply.

or

there isn't a contract and no consumer rights apply whatsoever.

 

.................

 

as it stands you are repeatedly stating you signed nothing nor agreed to anything nor did he present or imply any rights.. let alone the 14 days given under a 'durable medium'. all points the sameway to me. he nor you can prove nor want too ... that you have any contract between yourselves.

................

 

you want your moneyback

he wants his car back.

 

.......

 

 

[dx100uk]

get rid of the car and sue under a scottish claim for transportation costs.

[dx100uk]

it is not the only way to proceed and IMHO the wrong claim to raise, should you wish to raise one in an english court

 

if you really do want to raise the claim under consumer rights issues, i suggest you have a chat with TS again first and ask them if this is a good idea?

 

the pre contract info doesn't exist nor is applicable because you nor he ever entered into any contract covered by any consumer rights. he illegally sold you, a member of joe public, a car using a strictly traders only method.

 

i would hope TS point out the above and p'haps suggest you raise a different claim possibly encompassing this mis-sale and that you had no knowledge what he had ultimately done is illegal, nor that you ever agreed to do it anyway, as you now realise as a member of joe public, not a trader, you couldn't. you might even find TS will help, support and be involved with you in court regarding this too.

 

as it stands with cards on the table, he is under no obligation to pay for collection of the vehicle, you don't want to risk returning the car and never getting your moneyback - it's a stalemate where he is smiling still until you raise the correct claim.

 

although you have issued , 2 is it now, court warnings, it might be better to finally issue one correctly stating what you are going to do, then he might realise the penny has finally dropped and the game is up. there would be no harm in stating that to avoid such actions, should you pay me back by bank transfer the sum of the car and my initial transportation cost of xxxx, making £xxx in total by xxxxx date, i will not raise the claim.

 

The situation would then be far more serious for him and he might capitulate, inc refunding transportation costs, in the want of not being exposed in court, as there are numerous well publicised court cases whereby by traders have been hammered hard for pulling doing this scam on joe public.

 

another advantage of doing the above claim is you might get to keep the car for free, get all your moneyback.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

On 24/09/2020 at 16:08, dx100uk said:

Misleading consumers by using phrases such as “Trade Sale – Sold as Seen” or “No Refunds” or issuing a trade invoice ....is not only illegal but also completely voids any contract implied or otherwise.

 

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/dealership-fined-thousands-selling-unroadworthy-16776746

https://theusedcarguy.co.uk/car-scams/sold-as-seen-we-think-not/

https://www.theaa.com/car-buying/legal-rights

 

 

[dx100uk]

5 minutes ago, Manxman in exile said:

go to Trading Standards and rely on them prosecuting the dealer for the "sold as seen" bit?

 

best bit of info on here yet..

the fact that money changed hands is immaterial to if/if not a contract was made.

which is why i'm saying there surely can be no reliance on any consumer rights.?

 

pers i'd be carefully explaining and confirming TS do really believe there is a guaranteed distance selling claim here or if thats the best way to go rather than total illegal mis-sale.

 

this is not a simple case that we see here like the rest of the vehicle issues we get , most are faulty and thats the reliance of the claim and most succeed.

 

this is very diff, with reliance upon mere speculation and assumption of what actually happen with little written records before it went pearshaped.

 

you can't cancel an assumed sales contract with a 14 days + 1yrs extension upon cancellation where there is no real proof one ever existed...and IMHO it would far more damaging to get him in court for illegally selling a car under a traders route to a known mrmber of joe public, and more likely to succeed too.

 

ask Trading Standards.

 

fed up with stating this,

 

dx

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

i posted a link earlier and there are 100's of like cases whereby TS regions have taken on traders and won.

but, again, as i said, if the OP raises the case i'm sure TS would support it.

[dx100uk]

the OP has already done 90% of the above.

and are already in contact with TS over it.

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

don't think there is any ref to TS prosecuting the dealer upon the op's behalf made?

i believe ref was made about getting TS onboard, which has already been done, 

 

then p'haps they might be willing to write a letter or statement etc for later in court proceedings which appears to have happened in many cases i'm reading, then TS publicise the case as a win for them..:)

 

i think it's already been clarified that as the dealer is in England , this would be an English Court Claim?

a Scottish claim would hold no water as the dealer would simply shout out of jurisdiction, thus delaying things more.?

 

a scottish claim for damages could be raised  under the SPC rules should say the dealer have collected the car after refunding but failed to reimburse the existing transportation costs.. ??

[dx100uk]

if yours says consumer too in red under the examination part (which you never signed)

and 

as that one does it uses the word contract, then its not a trader<>trader sale docket

it's a invoice regarding sums owed for the car your purchased.

 

so good to go under your claim you had 14 days to return it under dsr as you'd not seen it, extended by 1 cal year as he didn't use nor refer nor provide your rights in a durable medium..

 

glad thats sorted....

 

to sort if it raiseable under the scottish SPC claim system, simply ring you local sheriff's court clerks office and ask.

 

 

[dx100uk]

interesting...did they elaborate upon what they thought was criminal about his actions..might be useful

[dx100uk]

this is getting to look better for you.

but i cant see how just because you collected the car, by default you have to pay to return it...

doesn't work like that under contract cancellation as you know.

 

dx

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

yes i said does and not doesnt duh!

 

i'll convert that email to PDF for you.

 

its probably alot easier just to login to your email providers website from a PC and simply copy and paste the textfrom the email next time

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

13 hours ago, Aton2244 said:

I have responded asking what the criminal side would be, whether it was no pre contract information given, or the spares etc being written on the invoice, or if indeed because it was on a 'trade sale' invoice...

 

get this answered first IMHO.

[dx100uk]

• EU Directive on consumer rights
•  

as from point 34.

 

but point 40 nails him:

 

(43)

If the trader has not adequately informed the consumer prior to the conclusion of a distance or off-premises contract, the withdrawal period should be extended. However, in order to ensure legal certainty as regards the length of the withdrawal period, a 12-month limitation period should be introduced.

[dx100uk]

5 minutes ago, Manxman in exile said:

"durable medium"

is mentioned lots of times

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

5 minutes ago, Aton2244 said:

The criminal side is both the lack of pre-contract information provided (including no cancelation rights), stating in the advert that the car was in good condition when it wasn’t and claiming it was sold for spares. This has been dealt with and Birmingham Trading Standards have been made aware of this.

i wonder how they dealt with it?

 

5 minutes ago, Aton2244 said:

I'd say £1775 is letting him off lightly.

agreed he is getting off lightly, but interesting how he now understands he must get it back himself.....

 

 

[dx100uk]

he doesn't know what TS said exactly to you so don't exactly tell him.

 

i'd email him telling him that

 

I have today received a reply from trading standards regarding the issue,

i now remove forthwith my offer of settlement @ £1775.

 

the offer of settlement is now (what you think is owed)

 

i give you 24hrs to settle the issue as i now have a very tight response time limit regarding TS concerning both the criminal and the consumer matters they refer to.

 

for want of clarity, by xxx time on xxx date, should £xxxx not appear in my bank account, legal matters may well escalate quickly and might be out of my control .

 

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

if you wish, but he's been dangling you like a fish from dayone...