Vulcan Motor Company, Norwich - Problems with a 2nd hand car sale

[dx100uk]

10 minutes ago, Fringer said:

Generally, the rules when buying a car are governed by the terms “Caveat Emptor” which, in layman’s terms, means “Let the buyer beware”.

total BS!!

poss might apply joe public selling to joe public but not when a trader is involved... typical old grannies tale!!

[Fringer]

I shouldn't have asked but he was there when I was explaining to my assistant why I couldn't drive my car home that day.

 

Thank gawd for that! 
 

[BankFodder]

Well as I pointed out earlier in this thread, it certainly would have been more correct to give the dealer warning that you are incurring expenses on his behalf.

However, I don't think that that is an obstacle in this particular case and at the very worst, the only thing that may not be recoverable is the cost of fixing the brakes. However, even this amounts to an "improvement" and in avoid contract it's not unreasonable to claim for improvements which have been easily made.
It's considered to be unfair to allow someone such as the dealer to take the benefit of an improvement which was necessary and for which you have paid.

In any event, your "knowledgeable" contact has overlooked the fact that the contract is void from the beginning because first of all you asserted your right to reject it within 30 days and secondly it is void from the beginning because it was sold to you in a dangerous condition and therefore it is associated with a criminal offence.

I should be careful about listening too much to these people. It seems to me that you are under confident anyway and they will further destabilise you.

However of course the case is yours to win or lose. We are simply doing the best we can to try and get you out of the mess you are in. I have high expectations that you will win but of course no guarantees.
Assuming that you do win, you will still have to go on to enforce the judgement and that can often be more difficult than winning the case.

Make sure that you understand that it is your decision to bring this case even in the face of our own optimism as to the result.

[BankFodder]

Also, the term "caveat emptor" is much misunderstood.

It is a term which applies to the ownership of the vehicle. That means that you take a risk that the person who is selling you the vehicle is actually the owner.
If you buy a vehicle which has been stolen then the fact that you bought it in good faith does not legitimise your ownership of the vehicle. Once a vehicle or anything else is stolen, then it stay stolen no matter how many good faith hands it passes through and how much time has passed before the items recovered.
As we are talking in Latin, the maxim for this is "nemo dat quod non habet" – which broadly means no man can transfer on what he does not have to transfer. If you do not have ownership of goods then you are not able to pass them on even though you can transfer the physical possession of the goods.
It has nothing to do with the quality of the goods that you purchase. Only the quality of the title which comes with the goods
You can tell that to your "knowledgeable friend".
 

[Fringer]

Thank you 

I will

 

I do want to go ahead with the case as I feel he has done wrong and I am out of pocket and without a vehicle which I bought in good faith

 

I am sticking with the advice from you guys, you are right, I am totally under confident when it comes to the legalities but know what he has done is wrong and shouldn't be allowed to get away with it

 

[Fringer]

I have had 2 letters through from the companys 'legal team'

 

We write to you on behalf of the above-named client in response to your letter dated 7 December 2021, the content of which is noted. Please ensure any future correspondence is sent to Lawgistics directly and not our client, save for any service of court proceedings.

 

Your unduly discursive correspondence does not detract from the fundamental fact that the vehicle was fault free at the time of sale, as evidenced by the MOT which passed on 3 November 2021 with no advisories.

 

To be clear, the dangerous an major defects listed on the MOT failure dated 3 November 2021 were promptly repaired. Such repairs resulted in the subsequent MOT pass.

 

Should you wish to question the validity of this MOT, we suggest you contact the DVSA and or the MOT test station concerned. However, our client is confident that the MOT station carried out the MOT and repairs to a satisfactory standard. The repairing garage, Rickarl Motors, has been established for over 30 years and has a reputable reputation with an average google review rating of 4.8/5*.

 

As previously explained, since you have chosen to repair the vehicle on your own accord, you have waived your right to reject the vehicle. Since the vehicle does not currently have any faults present, our client is not liable to accept your rejection of the vehicle

 

As regards the text messages sent after sale, we can confirm that we are in receipt of all text messages. We note you initially stated to have heard a slight knocking noise and your son suggested it could be the anti-roll bar link. You intimated to our client that you would book the vehicle in for a check. Your suggestion that our client’s silence to one text message implies liability is completely without merit. If our client intended to conceal a fault, which he did not, he would not have suggested to take the vehicle for a diagnosis.

 

For the aforementioned reasons, we see no grounds for rejection and our client will not be accepting your rejection.

You must do as you see fit.

 

Take notice, any proceedings will be robustly defended and any defamatory comments posted on any online platform will be subject to legal action through the High Court

 

both dated the same day, today 

Screenshot 2021-12-16 155923-converted.pdf

Edited December 16, 2021 by dx100uk
formatting

[BankFodder]

I suggest that you keep on sending all correspondence to the dealer.

If you are happy that you can establish your case in the court then you should proceed as planned and not be derailed by this kind of thing.

[Fringer]

Do I need to respond to these letters advising I am not accepting or just go ahead and wait until the 21st December and proceed with the court?

 

I also note they say the car passed the MOT on the 3rd November, it didn't - it failed on the 3rd and passed on the 17th - not sure that makes any difference?

Edited December 16, 2021 by Fringer
question added

[BankFodder]

I've just read the offer letter that you've posted.

It's up to you if you want to accept it. You can either simply ignore it and continue to issue your claim or you can contact them and suggest a different offer. They have apparently offered 50% you could require 80%, for instance.

On the other hand you can simply ignore and then issue your claim.

I think it probably would be a courtesy to write to the dealer and say that you have received an offer and that the answer is – whatever it is you want it to be.

If you want to decline the offer then I suggest

 

Quote

Dear XXX

Your offer dated XXX

I've received a message dated XXX in which I am made a without prejudice offer of 50% cost of the brakes.

The answer is no.

I've made everything clear to you and I think the best thing now is to bring it all to the attention of the court and let a judge decide.

Once again, if the judge sides with me – as I'm sure will be the case – then I will make the judgement available to trading standards and also make sure it is widely publicised on social media.

Yours sincerely

let us know what you want to do

[Fringer]

Thank you I will get that in the post first thing tomorrow

 

Is it usual practice for them to withdraw the offer of 50% then re-offer it? Or is that them having a wobble?

[BankFodder]

I don't think there is any usual practice. It would be dangerous to start speculating on that. Take every move as it comes.

Don't forget that this is your case to win or lose – and of course if you lost the case then you would have given up their offer.

From what you say, the evidence that you tell us you have is very good. I think it is significant that it apparently failed an MOT and then passed it only a very few days later that the faults which were detected in the first MOT appear not to have been addressed.

[Fringer]

I agree 100%

I really cannot get over the fact he thinks he can get away with this

[Fringer]

Hi

Today is his deadline, I haven't heard a word since the last letter from his legal team

 

I will be going ahead with the claim after today 

[BankFodder]

What's the name of the guy, by the way?

[Fringer]

His name is Matthew McGhee

[BankFodder]

Matthew James Edward MCGHEE personal appointments - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

FIND-AND-UPDATE.COMPANY-INFORMATION.SERVICE.GOV.UK

---

Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers...

 

[Fringer]

I've had a letter from the legal team stating to go ahead with the claim and they will defend robustly.

 

I had a few days away booked over Christmas and had no car to get there so have had to use the Honda. I also now have no funds to pursue the claim as it will cost me to put the claim in therefore I have had to come to the conclusion that I will have to keep the car and just try to sell it as I do not want anything to do with this guy or his company.
I am gutted that he has gotten away with it but I was left in a situation where I had no choice but to use the car or lose the £600 mini break away

 

Thank you for all of your help throughout. It really is appreciated.
Happy New Year to you all 

[BankFodder]

I'm very sorry that you are in this position. It must be wrenching to feel that they can get away with it.

Of course your cause of action last for up to 6 years so you can still begin a claim later on in the year if your finances recover.

You should also investigate the possibility of getting a fee waiver – have a look at the County Court website. You don't need to be on benefits of this. You may qualify for a fee waiver although it would take some time. So there are a couple of options still open to you – not necessary to give up quite yet

[Fringer]

Hi again

 

I've just had to have the brakes done again on this car after a strong smell of burning coming from the back wheel 

I have paid out another £320 to have the back discs and pads replaced, also whilst it was in the garage they called me to say that the battery had become flat, the engine light had come on and the acceleration had ceased.

I'm still within 3 months of buying this car!

Edited February 4, 2022 by Fringer
missed a digit

[BankFodder]

I'm not sure that we can say anything more than we have already said.

I understand that you haven't issue the claim even though you threatened to do so and you even proposed a deadline for your claim.

By not following up on your threat I'm afraid you simply lose credibility.

You should probably start realising also that this catalogue of problems with this vehicle may well continue but while you are not prepared to take any action for whatever reason, I think you're going to have to put up with it