Advice regarding making a Money Claim Online for goods

Advice regarding making a Money Claim Online for goods

Author
Discussion

TroubledSoul

Original Poster:

4,599 posts

194 months

Wednesday 10th December 2014
quotequote all
Hi folks, just after a quick bit of advice.

I saw some front seats advertised on eBay and decided to see if the guy was open to offers. He was, but only knocked a tiny amount off for me as they were "in fantastic condition and already cheap enough".

I wasn't too fussed about buying outside of eBay because if they weren't right then I would just tell the guy thanks, but no thanks.

This is where the twist comes in.... I had somebody ask about buying an engine I had for sale. It just so happened that this person was from the same area as the seller of the seats and he offered to go and get them for me then bring them with him when he came up for the engine. As the location is around 180 miles away from me, that sounded like a good idea, and true to his word he brought them for me no problems.

Unfortunately, that means I didn't get to see them first and I went on good faith. I noticed that one of the bolsters had a bit of wear on it. The seller specifically told me there was no significant wear. I disagree with his opinion! The real problems however, started when I fitted the seats to the car. The passenger seat is perfect, but the driver's seat is knackered. The back rest has a huge amount of play in it when it is "locked" in place. I also found that the seatbelt warning indicator plug was cut off on the bottom of the seat! Additionally, the back rest and the base do not line up properly and the whole thing appears to be a bit twisted - it basically looks like a seat taken from a crashed car.

I've sent the guy a message and I have told him what I have discovered. I have asked him what he wants to do about it and told him that I am happy to return them, subject to my costs being covered but I am also happy to accept a 50% refund in light of one seat being fine. It will be a pain trying to find just a driver's seat for sale, but never mind.

I think that's fairly reasonable and I am giving him 24 hours to respond to me. I am not going to chase him for a response. If he doesn't contact me I am going to go ahead and file a small claim online for the full cost of the seats. To be honest I just wanted to clarify my position and make sure I am not going to make a tit out of myself. I am assuming the messages I have from him about the condition will be admissible, regardless of them being via eBay?

Lesson learned as far as buying unseen items outside of eBay goes.

mikeveal

4,573 posts

250 months

Wednesday 10th December 2014
quotequote all
If you can prove that the seller deliberately misrepresented the item then you're on to a winner. Unless your seller is an 'expert' you may have problems proving that his misrepresentation was deliberate...

What your seller said has to be clearly wrong. "Great condition for age" is subjective and open to interpretation. "No scratches more than 3ft long" is less subjective.

Reading your post above, he said "No significant wear". Could the seller be reasonably expected to spot the wear you've found? And if so, define "significant".

IANALBBVI, but my opinion is you'll not easily win this, don't waste your time.

JustinP1

13,330 posts

230 months

Wednesday 10th December 2014
quotequote all
TroubledSoul said:
If he doesn't contact me I am going to go ahead and file a small claim online for the full cost of the seats. To be honest I just wanted to clarify my position and make sure I am not going to make a tit out of myself.
If you don't want to go 180 miles to pick up the seats, do you really want to go 180 miles to his home court to argue this matter in a few months time?

Such thoughts need to be considered if one wishes to avoid titmaking of oneself.

TroubledSoul

Original Poster:

4,599 posts

194 months

Wednesday 10th December 2014
quotequote all
Sorry, you've misunderstood me; I was fully prepared to go and get them. It wouldn't have been a problem. I actually went down to Hemel Hempstead (from Leeds) to pick up a set of wheels that same weekend, so I have no issue travelling to get stuff. Just that the guy buying my engine offered to help and it made sense at the time.

As for the wear, that's debatable. It's very noticeable to me as all the material (suede) is bobbled and marked on the bolster in question. But that alone I can live with. It's the fact the connector has been chopped off - very clear to see - and the fact the seat is twisted and has lots of play in it.

I could accept he didn't know about the play in the seat if he bought these as they are to sell on, but surely you have a responsibility to know when you are telling a buyer they are in fantastic condition, no?

The crux of this is that I can accept that he might have been unaware and so offered the opportunity to talk this over with me and offer one of the aforementioned refunds, but if he doesn't respond then I have to assume he has no intention of playing ball and I am not prepared to accept being ripped off.

Hopefully that makes as much sense to you guys as it does me! smile

mikeveal

4,573 posts

250 months

Wednesday 10th December 2014
quotequote all
TroubledSoul said:
The crux of this is that I can accept that he might have been unaware and so offered the opportunity to talk this over with me and offer one of the aforementioned refunds, but if he doesn't respond then I have to assume he has no intention of playing ball and I am not prepared to accept being ripped off.
No, it isn't. The crux of the matter is what the law says and what you can prove.
Unless of course your intention is to invest time money and heart ache in this, then travel to the vendors local court just to give the other guy the pleasure of seeing you sent away with your tail between your legs.
But hey, it's just advice.

TroubledSoul

Original Poster:

4,599 posts

194 months

Wednesday 10th December 2014
quotequote all
So you are saying that I should allow the seller to get away with this?

As you can probably imagine, I don't like that idea much frown

mikeveal

4,573 posts

250 months

Wednesday 10th December 2014
quotequote all
Based on what you've told us, I think you may have to chalk this one up to experience. I can imagine what you think, I'd be pissed too.

Basically, this is second hand goods privately traded between two individuals:

  • Did the seller deliberately misrepresent? Needs a clear statement from the seller that isn't open to interpretation.
  • Can you prove it?
If the answer to either of the above is "no"; caveat emptor, you're wasting your time and money and you'll just be even more bitter when you lose.

There are several folks on here more qualified to answer your question than I am. I'm sure one of 'em will pop his head in and verify or vilify my opinion soon.

TroubledSoul

Original Poster:

4,599 posts

194 months

Wednesday 10th December 2014
quotequote all
mikeveal said:
Based on what you've told us, I think you may have to chalk this one up to experience. I can imagine what you think, I'd be pissed too.

Basically, this is second hand goods privately traded between two individuals:

  • Did the seller deliberately misrepresent? Needs a clear statement from the seller that isn't open to interpretation.
  • Can you prove it?
If the answer to either of the above is "no"; caveat emptor, you're wasting your time and money and you'll just be even more bitter when you lose.

There are several folks on here more qualified to answer your question than I am. I'm sure one of 'em will pop his head in and verify or vilify my opinion soon.
I have messages between the two of us. I directly asked him if there was any wear on the bolsters and I asked if there was any wear anywhere else. He responded to me with "No there [sic] real tidy mate".

Before that he had also told me they were "in real good nick". I'd be hugely disappointed if I didn't have a case based on that? It seems to me like blatant misrepresentation, but IANAL, hence me wanting to check here.

dingg

3,989 posts

219 months

Wednesday 10th December 2014
quotequote all
move on lifes too short

learn from your mistake that YOU should have eyeballed them before buying them

caveat emptor

blindswelledrat

25,257 posts

232 months

Wednesday 10th December 2014
quotequote all
mikeveal said:
Based on what you've told us, I think you may have to chalk this one up to experience. I can imagine what you think, I'd be pissed too.

Basically, this is second hand goods privately traded between two individuals:

  • Did the seller deliberately misrepresent? Needs a clear statement from the seller that isn't open to interpretation.
  • Can you prove it?
If the answer to either of the above is "no"; caveat emptor, you're wasting your time and money and you'll just be even more bitter when you lose.

There are several folks on here more qualified to answer your question than I am. I'm sure one of 'em will pop his head in and verify or vilify my opinion soon.
I don't neccesarily agree with this.
In civil court the burden of proof is not the same as a criminal court.
It's all worked out 'on the balance of probabilities'.
I would argue that on the balance of probabilities the messages you have to your questions would suggest you being mislead, although a judge may interpret it it differently.
I still know from experience it is not worth the hassle, but if you are that angry about it- go for it.

Happy Jim

968 posts

239 months

Wednesday 10th December 2014
quotequote all
How much is at dispute, how much is your time/frustration worth?

Jim

Red Devil

13,060 posts

208 months

Wednesday 10th December 2014
quotequote all
JustinP1 said:
If you don't want to go 180 miles to pick up the seats, do you really want to go 180 miles to his home court to argue this matter in a few months time?

Such thoughts need to be considered if one wishes to avoid titmaking of oneself.
Why does he have to? In a MCOL claim, especially one of low value, the judge is likely to encourage the parties to use ADR. Alternatively he can deal with the case in private on the papers alone. Of course if either party refuses and wants to appear in person firing broadsides they have that right.

The MCOL issue fee won't break the bank and the service of papers might be enough to persuade the seller to co-operate. He may even be stupid enough not to file in time and the OP then wins by default. The hearing fee for a couple of s/h seats won't be huge either - http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/...

OP's call but imo he doesn't have a great deal to lose at this stage over and above writing off what he has spent so far.

TroubledSoul

Original Poster:

4,599 posts

194 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
It's a couple of hundred quid but it's the principle really. I'm hugely annoyed. No response from the guy by the way.

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
TroubledSoul said:
It's a couple of hundred quid but it's the principle really. I'm hugely annoyed. No response from the guy by the way.
For a couple of hundred quid it might be too much trouble even if you win. The lesson to be learnt is that you can't trust anyone, especially on E Bay, don't buy anything unless you are sure it's what you want and you know what you're doing.

talksthetorque

10,815 posts

135 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
I'd say wait for his reply.

JustinP1

13,330 posts

230 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
Red Devil said:
JustinP1 said:
If you don't want to go 180 miles to pick up the seats, do you really want to go 180 miles to his home court to argue this matter in a few months time?

Such thoughts need to be considered if one wishes to avoid titmaking of oneself.
Why does he have to? In a MCOL claim, especially one of low value, the judge is likely to encourage the parties to use ADR. Alternatively he can deal with the case in private on the papers alone. Of course if either party refuses and wants to appear in person firing broadsides they have that right.

The MCOL issue fee won't break the bank and the service of papers might be enough to persuade the seller to co-operate. He may even be stupid enough not to file in time and the OP then wins by default. The hearing fee for a couple of s/h seats won't be huge either - http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/...

OP's call but imo he doesn't have a great deal to lose at this stage over and above writing off what he has spent so far.
If I sold something, after giving the buyer (and his agent) the full opportunity to inspect the goods, I'd not be willing to budge much.

ADR, yes, but I don't know how much these seats are worth, but adding £30 of court costs means that for the seller to make any meaningful movement for the OP, he's got to cover that too. But, for the first reason, I'm not sure I'd agree to move much, if at all in ADR, and the OP'd be lucky to get his fee back in settlement.

He can of course request to the court that he does not appear in person. However, the standard that his papers would have to be to be able to have any chance a he'd be investing hours anyway.

He may lose, he may very well win, but to have the best chance he'd need to appear in person for the judge to answer whatever pertinent questions about the faults and the sale that he felt necessary. From experience, on seeing the papers the judge will have at least a couple of factors that he thinks is paramount in deciding a matter, and the papers may or may not over those in detail, or at all.

IMHO, I have the skills to be able to fire of coherent pleadings, but, this is not one I would litigate over, as even a 'win' is not a win.

For example, I think it would be a bittersweet end to this thread to find that the case has been decided on the papers and the judgment is for the OP to return the seats where he bought them from, and to receive a full refund.... smile

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
TroubledSoul said:
It's a couple of hundred quid but it's the principle really. I'm hugely annoyed. No response from the guy by the way.
Litigating over principles is foolish.

TroubledSoul

Original Poster:

4,599 posts

194 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Litigating over principles is foolish.
I do understand that, I'm just feeling very stung at the moment.

JustinP1

13,330 posts

230 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
TroubledSoul said:
Breadvan72 said:
Litigating over principles is foolish.
I do understand that, I'm just feeling very stung at the moment.
Well, do anything you can. First of all appeal to his better nature first without threats.

Then, ask if you turn up with the seats you want your money back.

However, IMHO you really don't want to litigate over this. It's a lot of work to win this. Then, you'd need to enforce a debt from someone who seemingly makes a living from selling knackered stuff from a breakers yard...

If you file a claim you might end up with £200 in the post. But it'd be a bluff from you, as you really don't want to litigate over this.

tyranical

927 posts

190 months

Friday 12th December 2014
quotequote all
I run an eBay business so I know very well how it works and unfortunately I am on the receiving end of many a ridiculous claim (not suggesting your claim is ridiculous just FYI)

You can disregard pretty much every single response you have had to date as they are from people using common sense and real world logic.

eBay does not work on common sense and real world logic, the fact is if you open an ebay case against the seller, you will more than likely win as long as you paid by paypal.

If you paid cash in hand then you are screwed but otherwise, give the guy a chance to reply to your message. If he doesn't reply or is not willing to cooperate then just open a case through the ebay resolution centre, if he does not agree to your terms of which you can very easily prove with photographs and messages of you asking questions then 99.9% of the time ebay will always side with the buyer and may well refund you through their buyer protection scheme.