Being sued over a car I sold :(

[rallycross]

QuattroDave said:

Do you have a problem with that? helpful.

Ignore the idiots not even worth replying to that post.

[Osinjak]

rallycross said:

Ignore the idiots not even worth replying to that post.

+1

[Brave Fart]

FFS, this forum really does attract some eejits doesn't it?
"Why didn't you replace the tailgate pin....."
"You bought then sold an RS6 so I think you're a trader......."

Dave, you have my fullest sympathy, I bet you'll be glad when it's 2016 and you can put this crazy buyer (and hopefully the scourge of cancer) behind you. Open a bottle of something nice in the meantime!
It used to be that the buyer would check out the seller, now it seems the other way round! Bet you would never have sold the BMW to this loony if you'd known what he was like. Chin up.
Mike.

[Coxy914]

SirBlade said:

QuattroDave said:

So I'm a private seller and I sold the car on 30th August this year.


So being the nice guy I am (and as it happens having just sold on the RS6 I bought to replace it)

You sold a 530D, bought an RS6, which you then sold 2 months later?

Crikey, glad you don't judge me by the cars I buy, get bored with it and move on!
It's a bit like a used car supermarket at mine but it don't make me a trader

[Davel]

Coxy914 said:

Crikey, glad you don't judge me by the cars I buy, get bored with it and move on!
It's a bit like a used car supermarket at mine but it don't make me a trader

I do the same - it drives the wife mad...

[Downward]

Not understanding the 8% intrest.

It's a long time since I did any basic law but I'm sure the law states something like you can only claim for losses incurred.

Something stinks in all of this. I've read through a fair few cases because of my job in contracting and this seems a bit too personal.

[Red Devil]

QuattroDave said:

So a quick internet seach using his name and legal as search terms reveals that he's taken loads of people to court.

In just the last three years he's taken his local parish counciller to court for slander, Portsmouth council for a parking fine

It also looks like he might be a parish counciller and we all know what kind of person likes to take those roles..

Loads? Maybe I'm using the wrong search criteria.

I think a bit of balance might be in order here. He won the slander case. Would you fancy being accused, at an open public meeting, by the Chairman of the Parish Council of a campaign of sexual harassment against the Council's Clerk?

The councillor subsequently accepted that such allegations were untrue and apologised. He gave an undertaking not to repeat the allegations and paid substantial damages and costs. The claimant made a statement through Counsel in open court (QBD) and the case never went to trial,

The upshot was that the entire Parish Council resigned and the complainant (who was the Chairman of the Parish Hall Management Committee at the time) became one of the elected replacements. This was all happened several years ago and he is no longer on the PC.

I can't find any Portsmouth parking fine story. He was involved in a verbal altercation with the Chairman of East Hampshire District Council over the use of a disabled bay. That was even longer ago and he had/(has) a Blue Badge.

As for your comment about the 'sort' of person who takes on the role of a Parish Councillor, I find that generic labelling somewhat insulting. My father was one for 10 years after he retired from world of commerce.

Back to the original topic of the thread, on the basis of what has been posted so far, I reckon you have little to be concerned about. However I do think you may face some (or even a lot) of inconvenience in the meantime. It will be interesting to see how this pans out and whether your barrister friend can help to trump his solicitor (the same firm that acted for him and instructed Counsel in the slander case) before it gets any further.

[QuattroDave]

Red Devil said:

Loads? Maybe I'm using the wrong search criteria.

I think a bit of balance might be in order here. He won the slander case. Would you fancy being accused, at an open public meeting, by the Chairman of the Parish Council of a campaign of sexual harassment against the Council's Clerk?

The councillor subsequently accepted that such allegations were untrue and apologised. He gave an undertaking not to repeat the allegations and paid substantial damages and costs. The claimant made a statement through Counsel in open court (QBD) and the case never went to trial,

The upshot was that the entire Parish Council resigned and the complainant (who was the Chairman of the Parish Hall Management Committee at the time) became one of the elected replacements. This was all happened several years ago and he is no longer on the PC.

I can't find any Portsmouth parking fine story. He was involved in a verbal altercation with the Chairman of East Hampshire District Council over the use of a disabled bay. That was even longer ago and he had/(has) a Blue Badge.

As for your comment about the 'sort' of person who takes on the role of a Parish Councillor, I find that generic labelling somewhat insulting. My father was one for 10 years after he retired from world of commerce.

Back to the original topic of the thread, on the basis of what has been posted so far, I reckon you have little to be concerned about. However I do think you may face some (or even a lot) of inconvenience in the meantime. It will be interesting to see how this pans out and whether your barrister friend can help to trump his solicitor (the same firm that acted for him and instructed Counsel in the slander case) before it gets any further.

Granted 'loads' was perhaps the wrong term to use, however given what was found on the web search coupled with the client reference of 42 on the correspondence that suggests that this is the 42nd letter to be issued by those solicitors on his behalf and I would be surprised if those two cases we've both found generated 41 letters of correspondence. Regardless I don't know ANYONE personally who has taken anyone to court so to find that this guy has at least threatened it twice before mine makes him exceptional in my book.

I can only go on my experience of parish Councillors which involves this guy and two that live in my road who are continually getting in silly arguments with neighbours over trivial matters. No offence was meant to yourself or your father so apologies.

Back to the case, thanks for your support and I too hope that my cousin can pull together enough of a response to kick this to the curb. But I fear the same as you insomuch that I reckon this'll go on for some time.

[schmunk]

Red Devil - not meaning anything directly towards you, but you've written a decent, quotable, post!

Red Devil said:

Loads? Maybe I'm using the wrong search criteria.

I think a bit of balance might be in order here. He won the slander case. Would you fancy being accused, at an open public meeting, by the Chairman of the Parish Council of a campaign of sexual harassment against the Council's Clerk?

The councillor subsequently accepted that such allegations were untrue and apologised. He gave an undertaking not to repeat the allegations and paid substantial damages and costs. The claimant made a statement through Counsel in open court (QBD) and the case never went to trial,

The upshot was that the entire Parish Council resigned and the complainant (who was the Chairman of the Parish Hall Management Committee at the time) became one of the elected replacements. This was all happened several years ago and he is no longer on the PC.

My reading between the lines on how this was reported is that he perhaps did harass the clerk, just not sexually, hence the slander charge was upheld.

Red Devil said:

I can't find any Portsmouth parking fine story. He was involved in a verbal altercation with the Chairman of East Hampshire District Council over the use of a disabled bay. That was even longer ago and he had/(has) a Blue Badge.

I note in the Portsmouth News article on this it says that he had previously "enjoyed a career as a motor racer in the FIA Sport Prototype Championship" - perhaps he's on here...?

Red Devil said:

As for your comment about the 'sort' of person who takes on the role of a Parish Councillor, I find that generic labelling somewhat insulting. My father was one for 10 years after he retired from world of commerce.

We all have a mental image of the sort of person who takes on the role of a Parish Councillor. (Whether that image is accurate is another matter...)

[ORD]

Pompous, ill-informed and not terribly smart - that's the stereotype, right? I can't imagine it's very far off.

[anonymous-user]

bad company said:

Breadvan72 said:

bad company said:

mmmmm. Cheesy & dishonest, been called worse.

As you say the solicitor's letter may well be from a friend, we don't know that. I do know that in previous disputes I have successfully 'worn down' the other side on costs without needing to incur the cost of using a lawyer myself.

An approach greatly frowned upon post the Jackson Review, and one that can have adverse costs consequences for the party that adopts it.

My firm once received a letter from solicitors acting for a competitor threatening to sue us for various matters. I dealt with it by responding directly to the competitor and stating that I would not correspond with the solicitors. We then got a fax from the lawyers - you clearly don't understand the relationship between clients and lawyer etc. Replied again direct to the competitor which was followed with faxes going back and forth for 3-4 days but me making a point of not corresponding with the solicitors.

After a few days the case was dropped as (I suspect) the competitor realised what all this was costing him.

Way off topic I know and clearly not an approach approved of by lawyers - but then turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Lawyers don't matter, but Judges do. The approach to dispute resolution that you recommend would, nowadays, put you at risk of adverse costs orders in the event that an opposing party took the case through to a judicial outcome.

[JustinP1]

schmunk said:

Red Devil said:

...I think a bit of balance might be in order here. He won the slander case. Would you fancy being accused, at an open public meeting, by the Chairman of the Parish Council of a campaign of sexual harassment against the Council's Clerk?

The councillor subsequently accepted that such allegations were untrue and apologised. He gave an undertaking not to repeat the allegations and paid substantial damages and costs. The claimant made a statement through Counsel in open court (QBD) and the case never went to trial,

The upshot was that the entire Parish Council resigned and the complainant (who was the Chairman of the Parish Hall Management Committee at the time) became one of the elected replacements. This was all happened several years ago and he is no longer on the PC.

My reading between the lines on how this was reported is that he perhaps did harass the clerk, just not sexually, hence the slander charge was upheld.

To give a reasonably balanced overview of what occurred, from the court statement, and what was reported:

The claimant had some kind of ongoing dispute with the Parish Council. In a Parish Council meeting, the Chair referred to email(s) sent by the Claimant to the Clerk as '...inappropriate email(s)'.

The crux of the slander claim was that referring to them as such implied that they were sexual in nature. The settlement accepts that 'some' might make this inferrence, and the defendant paid damages and some legal costs.

This all went to the High Court in London for a statement of the same to be read out. The fallout what that the whole parish council resigned, despite of course no other councillor being implicated. The claimant then stood for election for the parish council himself.

A storm in a teacup, perhaps. Either way, it does demonstrate that the claimant is willing to spend good money on legal fees fighting his corner.

[QuattroDave]

JustinP1 said:

A storm in a teacup, perhaps. Either way, it does demonstrate that the claimant is willing to spend good money on legal fees fighting his corner.

This.

That's what I'm so concerned about. Especially as he won the last two cases that I can find he might well be thinking that he's going to win this one too. I do hope that the letter being written will show him that he's unlikely to win this one as I've genuinely done nothing wrong.

In the original letter from himself he states the following:

That I had explained the tailgate issue to him stating that it only required a pin to be replaced and that if he knew it was more he would have rejected the car.

That he acknowledges that the MOT certificate states slight oil leak but denys seeing it before buying (which is a lie as he reviewed the documentation before he bought the car and brought up the oil consumption)

That he has now covered several hundred miles upon which faults have developed with the emissions & gearbox. He also implies that the car has been left at an airport carpark unused for a period of time.

He also states that the test drive was short and he's "prepared" to take the view that the gearbox issue would be apparant when up to operating temperature!!

Edited by QuattroDave on Monday 16th November 10:11

[cirian75]

sounds like a proper little jobsworth wker.

needs to be fought properly made to smeg off.

[JustinP1]

QuattroDave said:

In the original letter from himself he states the following:

That I had explained the tailgate issue to him stating that it only required a pin to be replaced and that if he knew it was more he would have rejected the car.

That he acknowledges that the MOT certificate states slight oil leak but denys seeing it before buying (which is a lie as he reviewed the documentation before he bought the car and brought up the oil consumption)

That he has now covered several hundred miles upon which faults have developed with the emissions & gearbox. He also implies that the car has been left at an airport carpark unused for a period of time.

He also states that the test drive was short and he's "prepared" to take the view that the gearbox issue would be apparant when up to operating temperature!!

Edited by QuattroDave on Monday 16th November 10:11

So:

1) He had a good look over the car.

2) Had a good look through the paperwork (will the court believe that Mr Particular would not ask to read the MOT...?).

3) He went of a test drive.

4) He brought up an issue so apparently so important that he would want to reject the car, but, did not get the issue checked before buying.

To counter 'caveat emptor' he has to prove that you've misrepresented the car. Is there *anything* apart from the tailgate pin issue in the letter that suggests you've been misrepresentative about the other issues?

What's the timescale between sale and him alleging the other issues presented themselves?

Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 16th November 10:21

[QuattroDave]

Car sold on morning of 31st August. Drove from my house to his approximately 15 miles away which would have brought the car up to temperature and shown these 'problems' the same day if they were there??

His letter was dated 25th September so all in all 26 days had elapsed and several hundred miles. His letter states that he was on holiday for a while until 24th but surely that's not really relevant?

[JustinP1]

QuattroDave said:

Car sold on morning of 31st August. Drove from my house to his approximately 15 miles away which would have brought the car up to temperature and shown these 'problems' the same day if they were there??

His letter was dated 25th September so all in all 26 days had elapsed and several hundred miles. His letter states that he was on holiday for a while until 24th but surely that's not really relevant?

Yes, this is the type of question a sensible judge might ask to cut through to the crux of the issues.

It may seem that the chap has been buoyed by his previous success and settlements, and between himself and the solicitor they have blinded themselves to pertinent issues such as this. Or, they just like to plough on regardless.

Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 16th November 10:33

[QuattroDave]

Actually 23 miles door to door plus the five mile test drive he took it on. Ample time for the things he's claiming to have arisen had they existed at time of sale

[Gallen]

Purchasing the touch up paint suggests an intention to keep and maintain the vehicle.

Refer also to the money suggested as spent - as if these issues came up then in the first instance he should have given you the opportunity to correct it (but seeing as it's a private sale of an older car with 150k miles, then doubtful this holds much water?).

G.

[WinstonWolf]

Weren't paint blemishes pointed out in the advert? He's got nowhere to go on that point...