Being sued over a car I sold :(

Being sued over a car I sold :(

Author
Discussion

catman

2,490 posts

174 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
simoid said:
Sorry, wasn't clear to me. The letter states the buyer rejected the car after purchase (buyer's remorse anyone...?) but doesn't mention any return of the car to the OP: only demands for £4k, plus the repairs/diagnostics. I assume(!) since it's clear he's rejecting the car they just want to revert to original positions before the sale.
No, you've missed the part where he says the seller would now have the benefit of a car with an up to date service history and a £1,000 spent on it with no additional cost to him.

That wouldn't apply if the buyer intended keeping the car.

Tim

MagicalTrevor

6,476 posts

228 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
He claims to have spent £1000 on the car but that does seem like a very round number. I'm not sure how all those invoices and receipts add up to EXACTLY £1000

Mutley

3,178 posts

258 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
MagicalTrevor said:
He claims to have spent £1000 on the car but that does seem like a very round number. I'm not sure how all those invoices and receipts add up to EXACTLY £1000
If you look, most of the balance appears to be for a quote. Appears he is charging for the job before it is done. All in all, a total chancer

He is getting some good advice from BV.

johnfm

13,668 posts

249 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
The main point of a response would be to show the Court, if the buyer sues, that the OP has acted reasonably in seeking to avoid litigation. This could have a bearing on the award of costs, if the claim is dismissed and is regarded by the court as having been made unreasonably. Sensible pre claim correspondence from the OP may help in this regard.

Dave, you have mail.
Unless this escalates a lot, it will be in the small claims track, no? Aren't costs tuppence ha'penny in small claims court (other than in cases where a party has been extremely unreasonable).

Tyre Tread

10,525 posts

215 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
johnfm said:
Unless this escalates a lot, it will be in the small claims track, no? Aren't costs tuppence ha'penny in small claims court (other than in cases where a party has been extremely unreasonable).
I think if you read the thread you'll find that's already been answered.

johnfm

13,668 posts

249 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
Tyre Tread said:
johnfm said:
Unless this escalates a lot, it will be in the small claims track, no? Aren't costs tuppence ha'penny in small claims court (other than in cases where a party has been extremely unreasonable).
I think if you read the thread you'll find that's already been answered.
I have read the thread. I don't recall seeing it, nor can I figure out how costs would be awarded in 99.9999% of small claims.

Tyre Tread

10,525 posts

215 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
johnfm said:
I have read the thread. I don't recall seeing it, nor can I figure out how costs would be awarded in 99.9999% of small claims.
Ig here isn't sufficient information in the thread then full details are here: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/...

Part 27.14 (g) states: such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably;

HTH

JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
johnfm said:
Breadvan72 said:
The main point of a response would be to show the Court, if the buyer sues, that the OP has acted reasonably in seeking to avoid litigation. This could have a bearing on the award of costs, if the claim is dismissed and is regarded by the court as having been made unreasonably. Sensible pre claim correspondence from the OP may help in this regard.

Dave, you have mail.
Unless this escalates a lot, it will be in the small claims track, no? Aren't costs tuppence ha'penny in small claims court (other than in cases where a party has been extremely unreasonable).
It's still relevant on the small claims track. "Unreasonable behaviour" is up to the judge on the day, there's no set definition in the CPRs apart from that.

'Unreasonable behaviour' would mean that the other party could potentially pay the other parties costs in full, that being solicitor's costs or if a litigant in person, their time spent at £19 per hour. That could easily rack up. That would rack up even further if the other party were playing 'silly buggers'.

I've been awarded costs on the small claims track where the other party's solicitors refused to respond to me in a reasonable fashion and for generally being obstructive. Also, when the other party at every step failed to complete paperwork on time, and failed to communicate with me totally, including ignoring a much better settlement offer.

Hence, BV is of course entirely correct in the approach in demonstrating that you are communicating in a reasonable fashion, even if that is only to flatly reject an offer.

Is this relevant in this situation? Quite possibly. One could argue that if the OP has set out in pre-action correspondence in a clear fashion that there is no evidence to base a claim on and it is fundamentally flawed, the judge might possibly think that the solicitors really must (or at least should) know that the claim has no merit, and is 'unreasonable behaviour' in terms of wasting everyone's time and money. If the OP wants to make such a representation though, it helps if he has behaved impeccably.

johnfm

13,668 posts

249 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
Tyre Tread said:
johnfm said:
I have read the thread. I don't recall seeing it, nor can I figure out how costs would be awarded in 99.9999% of small claims.
Ig here isn't sufficient information in the thread then full details are here: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/...

Part 27.14 (g) states: such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably;

HTH
Which is why I mentioned unreasonable conduct in my post at 21:39.

So, unlikely to be a costs order in most cases really.

JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
I'm sure most small claims track cases don't have costs awards.

However, if a party has chosen a course of action that has cost the other party to waste time and money, and especially if that this is deemed to be a deliberate or ongoing tactic, then the judge may very well deem that to be 'unreasonable behaviour' if a representation is made to argue it.

daveinhampshire

527 posts

125 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
This is exactly what I pointed out before, a storm in a teacup. This is paralegal level normally at best. Costs are rarely awarded in small claims beyond a token amount. A malicious claim would attract them but this comes nowhere near that on either side so far. The op is getting free barrister advice, he'll be able to tie them up in knots.

youngsyr

14,742 posts

191 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
matchmaker said:
I would suggest that now that BV72 has sent the OP a suggested response to the buyer that the multitude of well meaning but misguided non-lawyers on the forum should STFU. smile
Indeed. A lot of posters seem confused about the difference between casual commentary appropriate for a forum and legal advice.

"The guy seems like a complete arse" is a casual comment. However "Ignore his letter" is legal advice, and unless you are legally qualified, is unhelpful at best.

Generally speaking, if you have to prefix your post with, "I'm not a lawyer/expert, but... " then you should probably rethink its content before hitting the "post" button.


Edited by youngsyr on Monday 23 November 08:57

JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
daveinhampshire said:
This is exactly what I pointed out before, a storm in a teacup. This is paralegal level normally at best. Costs are rarely awarded in small claims beyond a token amount. A malicious claim would attract them but this comes nowhere near that on either side so far. The op is getting free barrister advice, he'll be able to tie them up in knots.
Correct - however we are not even at the point of papers being filed yet, but is would be relevant if a claim is filed. Actions don't have to be 'malicious' to attract a costs award, simply behaviour that is 'unreasonable' in the eyes of the judge.

This all came up because some posters argued that ignoring correspondence was the best hing to do going forward.

As BV has said, and I have reiterated with real-world examples of how costs are awarded on the small claims track for 'unreasonable behaviour' that is not a good tactic. Depending on what might happen, going on the standard of communication from the buyer, there's at least an outside chance that should this go to a hearing that the OP might have a claim for costs.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
As BV has said, and I have reiterated with real-world examples of how costs are awarded on the small claims track for 'unreasonable behaviour' that is not a good tactic. Depending on what might happen, going on the standard of communication from the buyer, there's at least an outside chance that should this go to a hearing that the OP might have a claim for costs.
[/quote]

Let's not forget that the OP has already replied to the purchasers solicitor denying any liability.

If the purchaser then sends him a dozen letters does the OP have to reply to them all?

Ignoring further correspondence once you have made your position clear is fine.

JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
Let's not forget that the OP has already replied to the purchasers solicitor denying any liability.

If the purchaser then sends him a dozen letters does the OP have to reply to them all?

Ignoring further correspondence once you have made your position clear is fine.
If a party brings up new issues, or makes an offer to settle, then yes, you should reply to that letter for the reasons stated with regards to the award of costs either way. Additionally, apart from the costs issue - consider the wider situation:

If the OP replies, it demonstrates quickly back to the buyer, that he does not accept his offer because his claim is bullst and his threats are empty. There is no reason for the buyer to then write back. This is very possibly the last throw of the buyer's dice.

If the OP ignores the letter - what does that tell the buyer?

Clearly, the buyer thinks his letters are important enough to send them, and his threats sound legit. So, he could think if his letter is being evaded that he has the OP running scared, or 'burying his head'.

Ignoring the buyer's letter actually increases the chance of a claim being filed against him. That means that the OP has to invest even more time, this time responding formally with filing a Defence.

So, for the sake of a two sentence letter and a stamp - the OP should reply.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
OP: I deny liability and will not pay you a penny.
Purchaser: £4000 then?
OP: No.
Purchaser: £3900 then?
OP: No.
Purchaser: £3800 then?
OP: No.
Etc.

See how silly replying to every letter becomes.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
JustinP1 said:
If the OP replies, it demonstrates quickly back to the buyer, that he does not accept his offer because his claim is bullst and his threats are empty. There is no reason for the buyer to then write back. This is very possibly the last throw of the buyer's dice.

The OP has already done that to the purchasers solicitor.

JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
OP: I deny liability and will not pay you a penny.
Purchaser: £4000 then?
OP: No.
Purchaser: £3900 then?
OP: No.
Purchaser: £3800 then?
OP: No.
Etc.

See how silly replying to every letter becomes.
Has that happened? In real life that does not happen either.

But, take this hypothetically, lets say the offer was £300 and the other party ignores it.

First thing is that the claimant might fire off a claim thinking his reasonable offer is ignored. The defendant then is forced to spend time formally filing a defence.

Then consider it goes to court, and the claimant is (even unexpectedly) awarded £350. If the claimant words his offer correctly, he can show this to the judge and tell him that that now proven very reasonable offer was not even given the courtesy of a reply. Ignoring that cost the claimant money, and wasted the court's time. That would certainly be a scenario where costs might be awarded - and those costs might actually be more than the value of the claim itself if a litigant in person has spent 8 hours in writing back and forth, filing a claim, collating evidence and taken a day off work to come to court.

Of course - I'm not trying to change your mind, you might very well think that ignoring is better. But, IMHO in all but totally exceptional circumstances it is not.

I am sure that the OP can decide whether it is correct to take your advice to ignore his letter, or not.

bad company

18,484 posts

265 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
youngsyr said:
Indeed. A lot of posters seem confused about the difference between casual commentary appropriate for a forum and legal advice.

"The guy seems like a complete arse" is a casual comment. However "Ignore his letter" is legal advice, and unless you are legally qualified, is unhelpful at best.
Edited by youngsyr on Monday 23 November 08:57
I have stated that I would ignore the latest letter from the buyer. I'm not a lawyer but in business I have been involved in litigation on several occasions. IMO if the op decides not to respond there is a very good chance that he will hear no more.

As stated previously lawyers never like this tactic but then they make their money from cases like this and turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

QuattroDave

Original Poster:

1,461 posts

127 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
Hi All,

I AM going to respond to the letter with the response that breadvan has once again kindly drafted.

What I'm not doing though is running around to ensure it reaches him by the deadline of 5pm tomorrow which given the letter arrived saturday afternoon isn't a reasonable timeframe for response (in my eyes) so I shall send the letter off from work tomorrow and he'll get it on Wednesday.

I had considered emailing him back my response but to be honest I don't want another communication channel being opened up!