Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, 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; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

Private car sale, buyer demanding monies


super6
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 215 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

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...