Being sued over a car I sold :(
Discussion
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..
That speaks volumes. The solicitor probably loves him as a client happy to pay fees for hopeless cases.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..
My layman's opinion.
No one is allowed to spend your money or incur a debt on your behalf without first informing you. He should have contacted you and asked what you wanted to do. He needed to state his intentions in advance and given you the opportunity to get the faults repaired (if that's what you were prepared to do)so you could mitigate your costs well before he spent any of the money which he now expects to claim.
My, none professional advice, would be that you write back stating you are not an expert in motor vehicles and were relying entirely on your visual knowledge of the car and the fact that it was recently passed as road worthy by MOT testers and at the time the emissions levels must have been satisfactory. Deny any misrepresentation and quote the advanced age of the car, its considerable mileage and the low price for a car £45,000 new and of this complexity. Advise him that you have not had the opportunity to see the vehicle in order to discuss, without obligation, the options for resolving the issue, issue that may in fact have been made worse and relate to driver abuse since his ownership. You might want to refer to the specific errors previous posters have identified.
I'd also say that if he persists and forces you to engage legal assistance that you will hold him fully accountable for these additional costs and any further out-of-pocket costs.
The 8% is the rate Government agrees for bad debt, since your liability for the debt has not been confirmed by a court and he did not give you the chance to avoid the costs I'd refute liability for these as well.
He obviously wastes time and money so do not ignore it.
No one is allowed to spend your money or incur a debt on your behalf without first informing you. He should have contacted you and asked what you wanted to do. He needed to state his intentions in advance and given you the opportunity to get the faults repaired (if that's what you were prepared to do)so you could mitigate your costs well before he spent any of the money which he now expects to claim.
My, none professional advice, would be that you write back stating you are not an expert in motor vehicles and were relying entirely on your visual knowledge of the car and the fact that it was recently passed as road worthy by MOT testers and at the time the emissions levels must have been satisfactory. Deny any misrepresentation and quote the advanced age of the car, its considerable mileage and the low price for a car £45,000 new and of this complexity. Advise him that you have not had the opportunity to see the vehicle in order to discuss, without obligation, the options for resolving the issue, issue that may in fact have been made worse and relate to driver abuse since his ownership. You might want to refer to the specific errors previous posters have identified.
I'd also say that if he persists and forces you to engage legal assistance that you will hold him fully accountable for these additional costs and any further out-of-pocket costs.
The 8% is the rate Government agrees for bad debt, since your liability for the debt has not been confirmed by a court and he did not give you the chance to avoid the costs I'd refute liability for these as well.
He obviously wastes time and money so do not ignore it.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I can't see anything in the ebay advert that would constitute misrepresentation.
Two things that could possibly be classified as "misrepresentation" in the ebay advert are:1) ".....and has a very good service history showing that it's never wanted for anything, something I've continued in My ownership".
The issue here being that the OP knew it wanted a tailgate repair - So it could be argued that the above statement is not actually 100% true.
And:
2) "Mileage now reads at 147,600 which is average for its age but these N54 3.0 diesel engines really do go on forever"
The car is a 2004 BMW 530D and the N54 engine did not enter service until 2006.
The 2004 530D has the M57TÜD30 engine fitted.
It's being a bit pedantic, but that seems to be the buyers mindset!
PurpleMoonlight said:
You had it serviced and MOTed shortly before sale.
This one's a bit odd!The OP had the car serviced on 21/08/2015 and then the buyer chose to have the car serviced again on 06/10/2015.
The Solicitor seems to think that the OP should have to pay for the second service that the car didn't need!
Unless there was no evidence of the service being carried out on 21/08/2015 and the buyer is claiming that the OP lied about the service being done and so had to have a service carried out on 06/10/2015, I cannot see any legal reason how the OP could be liable for the buyer's unnecessary service a month and a half later.
PurpleMoonlight said:
You told the buyer about the boot issue, although he could of course deny that.
The OP has stated:QuattroDave said:
In previous correspondence he has acknowledged that I explained the boot operation to him but cited that it only needed a pin to stop the ball popping out the socket. Surely enough on both the quote and invoive it states £3.42 for a pin, the bulk of the cost is for the hydraulic strut which was working fine!
ANother thing that strikes me is the £717 quoted for the strut is exactly that, a quote. Not anywhere does it state that he's actually had the work done and paid for it!
So long as the OP has kept a copy of the correspondence where the buyer has acknowledged that the tailgate had an issue then the buyer's going to have a hard time denying being told about it.ANother thing that strikes me is the £717 quoted for the strut is exactly that, a quote. Not anywhere does it state that he's actually had the work done and paid for it!
What I suspect the buyer will claim (and the solicitor seems to be implying incorrectly!), is that the OP made the fault sound as though it needed a simple, almost trivial repair whereas BMW are saying that the repair will be a more expensive repair.
However, the buyer does not have a "Diagnostics" report from BMW that states that they have investigated the fault with the tailgate and that it requires both a hydraulic cylinder and a pin to repair the tailgate (otherwise there would have been a "Diagnostics" invoice).
All he has is a quote from the parts department for the hydraulic cylinder and the pin, dated 03/09/2015, stating a total of £717.92, and a purchase invoice from the parts department for the same pin (priced at £3.42) and a paint stick, dated 06/10/2015 (Why should the OP be legally liable to pay for the paint stick?
).My take on this is, the buyer has gone to BMW to ask their parts department how much both the hydraulic cylinder and pin would cost (not to the service department to enquire about having the work done), probably thinking that the parts would be comparatively cheap, has then been shocked by the cost of the cylinder (which the car probably does not require!), and has decided to claim for the cost of the hydraulic cylinder (which has not been purchased yet! - Again, My suspicion is that the buyer is either hoping to get the OP to pay for the part in order to get it for free, or to get the OP to hand over £594 for a part that is not required and will never be bought!)
If the tailgate repair requires both the pin and the cylinder though, why has the buyer only purchased the pin?
Also, by highlighting both of the BMW documents, the solicitors appear to be attempting to get the OP to pay for the pin twice!, once from the "Estimate" paperwork and again from the "Invoice" paperwork.
I have also noted that the solicitors have incorrectly stated:
"We have enclosed copies of the following documents that are relevant to this matter: the Correspondence; E'Bay description: And receipts from BMW for parts and labour as follows:......"
Two issues here:
1) There is only one receipt from BMW (the invoice paperwork), the other paperwork is an estimate not a receipt.
2) Neither BMW documents make any quote whatsoever for labour!
I have to say that I'm not impressed with a solicitor who has failed to show the necessary attention to detail required!
I'll also add that I'm completely unimpressed by a solicitor who cannot spell "controller" correctly:
"The engine is not functioning correctly and is emitting excess emissions. E-Tec for our client have diagnosed the car and have highlighted the following issues "PARTICULATE FILTERS", "THROTTLE ISSUES", and the "SMOOTH RUNNING CONTROLER; AND..........
(E-Tec managed to spell it correctly on their paperwork!).
PurpleMoonlight said:
It's an 11 year old car with 150,000 odd miles on the clock.
I seriously doubt you have anything to worry about if he is crazy enough to take you to court.
Totally agree! I seriously doubt you have anything to worry about if he is crazy enough to take you to court.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 14th November 11:14
This whole situation is complete nonsense!
If I were the OP though and could be arsed to get into all this nonsense in more detail, I would want to know the following from the solicitor:
1) Why should I be liable for the cost of a service that the car did not require but the buyer volunteered to have carried out on 06/10/2015 - A month and a half after it's previous service?
2) Where is the evidence to prove that in order to repair the tailgate, both a pin and a hydraulic cylinder is required? - NOTE: A parts estimate from BMW is not evidence of the part actually being required!
3) Where is the evidence that the cost of labour to fix the tailgate will be £300~£400?
4) Why should I be liable for the cost of a paint stick? - Especially as it was noted and accepted by your client that the vehicle was 11 years old and there were one or two marks in the paintwork, as should be expected!
5) Where is the evidence of the car "emitting excess emissions", including evidence that the car does not meet the requirements to pass an MOT test? NOTE: The "advise" note of an unofficial independent garage possibly quoting for work that may not really be required is not acceptable as proof of excess emissions!
6) Why are you stating that the BMW paperwork quotes for parts and labour when it does not? - This is a clear case of misrepresentation!
7) Why, as a professional and supposedly highly educated solicitor are you unable to spell "controller" correctly? (There are two letter l's in controller if that helps!)
OP: Follow the advice of Breadvan72!
Of all the people on here, when it comes to legal matters he's the one I'd trust without reservation! - He wont do you wrong!
it clearly states interest of 8% at a daily rate
not 8% apr as i had assumed it would
Is it standard for solicitors to be that lax about the wording around interest or is this an attempt at extortion ?
These are loan shark terms, with 8% daily interest, after 2 weeks of no payment £5k becomes £15k
oh i need to keep up, already discussed
not 8% apr as i had assumed it would
Is it standard for solicitors to be that lax about the wording around interest or is this an attempt at extortion ?
These are loan shark terms, with 8% daily interest, after 2 weeks of no payment £5k becomes £15k
oh i need to keep up, already discussed
Edited by ging84 on Saturday 14th November 16:58
Granfondo said:
OP, if the tailgate only required a £3 pin to fix the electric tailgate why did you not fix it before sale?
Genuinely because it never bothered me enough to warrant going to my main dealer to order a pin from them.Press boot release button, boot opens electronically as it should at the speed it should, whilst doing so the strut socket comes out slightly from the ball. Closing it works as it should. However if you don't give the boot strut a slight nudge before you close the boot the next time you open it the strut pops out.
It really is that minor an ailment!
QuattroDave said:
Granfondo said:
OP, if the tailgate only required a £3 pin to fix the electric tailgate why did you not fix it before sale?
Genuinely because it never bothered me enough to warrant going to my main dealer to order a pin from them.Press boot release button, boot opens electronically as it should at the speed it should, whilst doing so the strut socket comes out slightly from the ball. Closing it works as it should. However if you don't give the boot strut a slight nudge before you close the boot the next time you open it the strut pops out.
It really is that minor an ailment!
As any TVR owner may tell you, some cars have such idiosyncrasies seemingly as part of their design!
Zod said:
bad company said:
Simon Burn Solicitors are listed in the Legal 500, so not monkeys.
I still reckon they are bluffing tho.
There are plenty of monkeys in the Legal 500. I'm listed as a Leading Individual. That should tell you all you need to know! I still reckon they are bluffing tho.
I think it's much more likely that this is the type of claim that a new client to the firm would have been told that they have two hopes, one being Bob.
However, it seems like the buyer of the car is one of the firm's favourite clients in terms of filling their pockets, and they have perhaps taken that into account.
However, it seems like the buyer of the car is one of the firm's favourite clients in terms of filling their pockets, and they have perhaps taken that into account.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff