Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • Owners of older vehicles tell the BBC of their anger that their cars' apps will stop working.View the full article
  • 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
      • 160 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

Private car sale, buyer demanding monies

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 161 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Not sure if this the right place of not.


I sold a car April 2023, I had owned and used the car for 6years, with no issues, the timing belt/water pump had been changed Oct 2020,

The car was sold via Ebay auction, I had put in the description that the car had the timing belt changed 2020 (120k) along with the clutch etc..... as these are

A: true and

B:good selling points.

The chap who won the car on Ebay came to collect, looked the car over test drove it and was happy with the vehicle and the sale was completed. (no bill of sale).

Unfortunately the timing belt failed on the car 3 months after the sale.

the buyer is claiming I lied about the belt been changed, unfortunately the only evidence I have is the invoice for the parts not for the fitting.

He sent pictures (which you can see its a non OEM water pump)

He has since sent me a letter claiming sales of goods acts etc.... and that I need to pay £650 within 14days .

whats my legal standing regarding this, I sold the car in good faith it was my daily driver for a long time and never had any doubt about its reliability.

I am a honest person and did not lie about the belt been changed, but its my word against his.

in his letter he has failed to include a the garage invoice or a breakdown of works done. likewise failed to provide quotes for the job etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are a private seller

the remit of TINY applies.

Tough It's Now Yours.


  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sale of goods act and later law that has replaced it only apply to sellers who are selling as a business. If you are selling a car privately your main responsibility is to ensure that you describe and represent the car fairly and accurately and the car isn't unroadworthy when you sell it. If you did all that you have no liability to the buyer for what has happened since.

Just send a polite reply that you sold the car in good faith, that you are a private seller not a trader, and you will not be paying him any money, and will not be replying to any future letters from him.

Then ignore future correspondence unless it is an actual 'Letter before Action' or court documenmt.  If that happens come back here for advice.

  • Like 2
  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your replies, I did describe the car fairly and honestly, but feels like its a my word against his word situation, I know the belt was changed but the only proof is my word and the invoice for the parts, you can see in the pictures its a non OEM water pump but that could be subjective, I understand he is angry with the situation, but I was honest about the car I was driving it daily and had zero concerns about it, I have tired to explain it was done and provided a copy of the invoice and highlighted the water pump is non factory and you can see the yellow witness marks from when the belt was changed and he has just been very unlucky.

I think the main problem is he has bought a 13yr old car for £1320 and he expects trouble free motoring and reliability you would get with a brand new car, end of the day its a £1320 banger.

he sent me a letter demanding monies and quoted the sales of goods act and claiming I only have 14days to reply I think he is trying to scare me into payment.

He failed to include the actual invoice from the garage, all he included was a copy of his bank statement, to show he had paid out £650, however this is to a persons name not a garage, (he wrote in pen saying garage owner). He has waited 5 weeks from paying the garage to contacting me as well.


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he knew what he was talking about he could prove beyond doubt whether you had lied or not. Like tyres, timing belts are printed with their date of manufacture, so if he'd taken the time to investigate that, he would surely have found the belt's date of manufacture was after your car was built, and therefore the belt has to have been changed. The closer the belt's date of manufacture is to the current date, the stronger your proof the belt was changed recently. Combined with your invoice for parts, your position seems watertight, and that's not considering the fact of it being a private sale.

Has he given you an indication of what the £650 he wants from you is to cover? Obviously you wont be paying a penny, but I can't see £650 fixing it. In a modern engine (which your former car has, despite being 13 years old) a failed timing belt will almost certainly cause valve to piston contact, which will render the whole thing uneconomical to repair.

Edited to add: Failure of the belt material itself is actually not the most common cause of timing belt failure anyway. It's more likely to be caused by a roller bearing or belt tensioner seizing and causing the belt to fail through friction/heat.

Edited by theberengersniper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Send one letter to advise the car was as described and sold in good faith and you will not be paying him any money and all further letters from him will be ignored.

This is a common scam on Ebay vehicle sales, don't get caught. If he did go to court he wouldn't stand a chance.


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...