Being sued over a car I sold :(
Discussion
If I recall the original data pack correctly, he supplied a quote for the hydraulic strut for the tail gate but the invoice only covered the pin. The last letter in now stating cost over over £1000 which must in lite the strut. If he is claiming to have purchased this when he has not would this not be some significant mid-representation by him in advance of court action?
Unfortunately you seem to be dealing with a complete and utter arse.
A polite but firm reply and tell him you will have nothing more to do with this and any further correspondence will be handled by your solicitor.
Not worth getting stressed about clearly this wont go very far.
Once he gives up you may find that some payback is deserved perhaps in the form of using his address details to sign him up to as many mail order/home shopping catalogues as you can think of (the mail will never stop until he tapes up his letter box) and sign up his tel numbers to as many payday loan and PPi and personal injury enquiry numbers as you can find online, the calls will never stop either - that should keep him busy writing letter for the next 12 months and forget about his car problems!
A polite but firm reply and tell him you will have nothing more to do with this and any further correspondence will be handled by your solicitor.
Not worth getting stressed about clearly this wont go very far.
Once he gives up you may find that some payback is deserved perhaps in the form of using his address details to sign him up to as many mail order/home shopping catalogues as you can think of (the mail will never stop until he tapes up his letter box) and sign up his tel numbers to as many payday loan and PPi and personal injury enquiry numbers as you can find online, the calls will never stop either - that should keep him busy writing letter for the next 12 months and forget about his car problems!
QuattroDave said:
Another point he made was "no expertise in motorcars" however a web search reveals he "enjoyed a career as a motor racer in the FIA Sport Prototype Championship."
You're certain it's the same chap? If so, and you can prove it, he may end up looking rather foolish should this go to court...I wouldn't ignore it - respond, but refer to your previous letter. You want to appear reasonable if it goes to court.
DanL said:
ou're certain it's the same chap? If so, and you can prove it, he may end up looking rather foolish should this go to court...
I wouldn't ignore it - respond, but refer to your previous letter. You want to appear reasonable if it goes to court.
Yup same guy. Name address and current occupation all agree I wouldn't ignore it - respond, but refer to your previous letter. You want to appear reasonable if it goes to court.
I have never read so much nonsense in my life. Their only realistic chance of success is to bully you into submission and to be fair with you jumping around at their every request it'll happen. 7 days to respond to correspondence is a time limit they set, not you, reply within a reasonable period. You need offer no evidence other than referring them to material in this possession and sent any wing doing, it's for them to prove the allegations.
The old codger contacting you is further coercion, if he has a legal representive you speak to them. I suggest you make an appointment with the CAB. Anyone suggesting you'll win clearly doesn't know the legal system, I've seen some very odd outcomes depending on which side the judge got out of bed but I see issues with this having much hope.
The old codger contacting you is further coercion, if he has a legal representive you speak to them. I suggest you make an appointment with the CAB. Anyone suggesting you'll win clearly doesn't know the legal system, I've seen some very odd outcomes depending on which side the judge got out of bed but I see issues with this having much hope.
What a joker! Reading that latter was pure comedy.
I'd reply back something along the lines of
"Hello former motor racing engineer,
I have received your letter.
I have rescinded my offer to purchase the car back for £3,500. Further to this, I will not be buying the car back for £4,000.
Good luck with your operation
Dave".
Wouldn't ignore it but he's obviously a joker lel.
I'd reply back something along the lines of
"Hello former motor racing engineer,
I have received your letter.
I have rescinded my offer to purchase the car back for £3,500. Further to this, I will not be buying the car back for £4,000.
Good luck with your operation
Dave".
Wouldn't ignore it but he's obviously a joker lel.
You could have some fun and reply to his WP letter to his solicitors. Just state, under the heading of WP, I refer to your client's without prejudice letter of XX.. It is my understanding that as you are on record such correspondence is not appropriate and therefore I ask you to invite your client to desist contacting me himself......
The Moose said:
What a crock of s
t that latest letter is!
Apparently the issue with his leg makes him "unable to walk long distances on his own and begins to feel pain if he sits still for too long.". Not entirely sure how that stops him examining the car or reading an MOT certificate correctly?!
Or, given that he has 'no knowledge of motorcars' he could have paid for an AA/RAC inspection. The health issues are unfortunate, but are not the OP's problem. I don't even see how they are relevant.t that latest letter is!Apparently the issue with his leg makes him "unable to walk long distances on his own and begins to feel pain if he sits still for too long.". Not entirely sure how that stops him examining the car or reading an MOT certificate correctly?!
xjay1337 said:
I'd reply back something along the lines of "Hello former motor racing engineer...
Superb!Meantime its an interesting dilemma whether to respond or not and especially within 'his terms'.
Your goal should be to make this nonsense go away - it seems utterly without merit as any of us that have bought and sold used cars would know. In fact I did my own appraisal of my latest car even though it had passed the full main dealer 140 point check (the stuff they missed and the stuff they don't really do as its may not be in their best interests...). D i l i g e n c e...
Personally I would respond - winding him up with ignorance may not be in your best interest and may get his back up further (it would mine). Just keep it really short (especially as what he has written is quite ignorant in places and is against his interest) and say you will not respond further. You could call him if you have the patience and record the call - generally better to talk as less keyboard warrioring, but will take a cool head! Whatever you do wish him well with his health and be the bigger man.
Ken Figenus said:
Superb!
Meantime its an interesting dilemma whether to respond or not and especially within 'his terms'.
Your goal should be to make this nonsense go away - it seems utterly without merit as any of us that have bought and sold used cars would know. In fact I did my own appraisal of my latest car even though it had passed the full main dealer 140 point check (the stuff they missed and the stuff they don't really do as its may not be in their best interests...). D i l i g e n c e...
Personally I would respond - winding him up with ignorance may not be in your best interest and may get his back up further (it would mine). Just keep it really short (especially as what he has written is quite ignorant in places and is against his interest) and say you will not respond further. You could call him if you have the patience and record the call - generally better to talk as less keyboard warrioring, but will take a cool head! Whatever you do wish him well with his health and be the bigger man.
This is what I'm intending on being as I (hope I) have been throughout. He's got to me but he won't get to my manners!Meantime its an interesting dilemma whether to respond or not and especially within 'his terms'.
Your goal should be to make this nonsense go away - it seems utterly without merit as any of us that have bought and sold used cars would know. In fact I did my own appraisal of my latest car even though it had passed the full main dealer 140 point check (the stuff they missed and the stuff they don't really do as its may not be in their best interests...). D i l i g e n c e...
Personally I would respond - winding him up with ignorance may not be in your best interest and may get his back up further (it would mine). Just keep it really short (especially as what he has written is quite ignorant in places and is against his interest) and say you will not respond further. You could call him if you have the patience and record the call - generally better to talk as less keyboard warrioring, but will take a cool head! Whatever you do wish him well with his health and be the bigger man.
I wonder if there's any mileage in sending a copy of his letter to his solicitors with a note that your position is as outlined in your barrister's letter & stating that you consider their client's letter to be harassment & you would be obliged if they would advise him about that.
Edited by paintman on Saturday 21st November 19:32
Looking at http://www.racingsportscars.com there is a driver on there with the following record;
Qual 19th, DNF (gearbox)
Qual 17th, DNF
Qual 7th, Not Classified
Qual 14th, DNF
Qual -, DNS
Qual 10th, DNF
Qual -, DNS
Qual 25th, Finished 13th
Qual 15th, DNF (Fuel pump)
Quite a pattern emerging there
Hope the OP gets this resolved and never has to meet the purchaser in court.
Qual 19th, DNF (gearbox)
Qual 17th, DNF
Qual 7th, Not Classified
Qual 14th, DNF
Qual -, DNS
Qual 10th, DNF
Qual -, DNS
Qual 25th, Finished 13th
Qual 15th, DNF (Fuel pump)
Quite a pattern emerging there
Hope the OP gets this resolved and never has to meet the purchaser in court.
eatcustard said:
So the buy can't inspect the car due to a disability, so why did he not take someone with knowledge?
100% this. I'm not a mechanic so if I was looking at a 10 year old car for sale privately I'd ask someone to have a look at it for me. Common sense really. Why can't people take responsibility for themselves these days?Slightly O/T, but does anyone else think of Major Misunderstanding when reading the blokes letter?!
No?
Just me then
People need to stop complicating this, this is a small claim.
He has solicitors, correspond with them. You are under no obligation to respond to every single letter. Once you have made your position clear there is no need to keep responding to the same questions or further provocations.
Regards to his letter, both is it improper to communicate directly when legal counsel is engaged the letter is clearly marked 'without prejudice' and therefore not worthy of your time.
He has solicitors, correspond with them. You are under no obligation to respond to every single letter. Once you have made your position clear there is no need to keep responding to the same questions or further provocations.
Regards to his letter, both is it improper to communicate directly when legal counsel is engaged the letter is clearly marked 'without prejudice' and therefore not worthy of your time.
You are receiving a lot of really bad and flatly wrong advice on here, OP.
There is nothing remotely wrong with the buyer writing to you directly. Nothing at all.
And it is very rarely a good idea to silly disregard correspondence, especially where it includes an offer to settle. This does not mean that you response has to be long and detailed. A short response referring politely back to your earlier letter and refusing the offer would be adequate.
There is nothing remotely wrong with the buyer writing to you directly. Nothing at all.
And it is very rarely a good idea to silly disregard correspondence, especially where it includes an offer to settle. This does not mean that you response has to be long and detailed. A short response referring politely back to your earlier letter and refusing the offer would be adequate.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff