Being sued over a car I sold :(
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Either the DJ went nuts (can happen), or the seller wasn't telling his audience there the full version of events (can happen too).
Yes, those were both my thoughts too the last time this was posted up. The other anomaly which could point to either of those hypotheses was that the claimant was awarded the filing fee but specifically not the hearing fee.
Strange, I thought?
I have no legal training. I might even be talking out my arse totally.
But the one thing that can scare a speculative claimant, is not that they might lose. Lets face it, they want thousands of pounds from you, but are also only looking at small track costs if they lose. Ie it's going to cost them £115 or so, to potentially gain £5k. It's worth a flutter.
So if you write back, suggesting that it's not a disagreement over facts of the sale, but that you are being accused of fraud, by "deliberately" withholding knowledge, and that you will be seeking to have the matter allocated to the Multi Track, and seeking your legal costs on an indemnity basis from this point, being a minimum of say £180+vat an hour, for all work preparing to trial, perhaps you might be able to persuade the claimant that this is not worth pursuing. Say given the allegations of fraud, against your unblemished good character and your professional reliance on same, that you cannot allow the claimant to make such allegations, as they will undermine you personally and professionally.
Actually, this is a terrible idea. Ignore it. Please. Really.
But I leave it here for discussion about how badly things can go wrong, either for you or the claimant, and how asking people with only an unqualified and faint grasp of the law can pilot the most laughable ideas, leading to financial expense and heartache far beyond what was required.
But the one thing that can scare a speculative claimant, is not that they might lose. Lets face it, they want thousands of pounds from you, but are also only looking at small track costs if they lose. Ie it's going to cost them £115 or so, to potentially gain £5k. It's worth a flutter.
So if you write back, suggesting that it's not a disagreement over facts of the sale, but that you are being accused of fraud, by "deliberately" withholding knowledge, and that you will be seeking to have the matter allocated to the Multi Track, and seeking your legal costs on an indemnity basis from this point, being a minimum of say £180+vat an hour, for all work preparing to trial, perhaps you might be able to persuade the claimant that this is not worth pursuing. Say given the allegations of fraud, against your unblemished good character and your professional reliance on same, that you cannot allow the claimant to make such allegations, as they will undermine you personally and professionally.
Actually, this is a terrible idea. Ignore it. Please. Really.
But I leave it here for discussion about how badly things can go wrong, either for you or the claimant, and how asking people with only an unqualified and faint grasp of the law can pilot the most laughable ideas, leading to financial expense and heartache far beyond what was required.
Thanks to all for the feedback, it seems the general concensus is that he is somewhat of a fool to take it further, but given he's taken it this far I can't discount the fact that he'll go "full retard" so I shall leave it for my barrister cousin to draft a response which I will send this week. In her words she'll word it in such a way that it'll come from me but will let the other party know that there's someone on my side who knows exactly what they're on about!
Hopefully that'll then be that, but I thought that last time too...!
Hopefully that'll then be that, but I thought that last time too...!
Jujuuk68 said:
But the one thing that can scare a speculative claimant, is not that they might lose. Lets face it, they want thousands of pounds from you, but are also only looking at small track costs if they lose. Ie it's going to cost them £115 or so, to potentially gain £5k. It's worth a flutter.
With this you are correct, I remember a thread on this exact same subject where the PHer was on the other end of a 'speculative' claim.If you're suing for £5000 and it costs you £100 to file, and you believe that your odds of winning are any better than 50/1 then it's a consideration. Indeed, it may be enough to convince the other side that the possible risk of losing £5000 is enough for them to offer settlement even though losing £5000 is unlikely.
However, on that thread the claimant was called out on his bluff, and IIRC, the claimant didn't pay the hearing fee, so the claim was discontinued.
QuattroDave said:
Thanks to all for the feedback, it seems the general concensus is that he is somewhat of a fool to take it further, but given he's taken it this far I can't discount the fact that he'll go "full retard" so I shall leave it for my barrister cousin to draft a response which I will send this week. In her words she'll word it in such a way that it'll come from me but will let the other party know that there's someone on my side who knows exactly what they're on about!
Hopefully that'll then be that, but I thought that last time too...!
Sounds like you are set up perfectly. Good luck! Let us know how it goes. Hopefully that'll then be that, but I thought that last time too...!
QuattroDave said:
Thanks to all for the feedback, it seems the general concensus is that he is somewhat of a fool to take it further, but given he's taken it this far I can't discount the fact that he'll go "full retard" so I shall leave it for my barrister cousin to draft a response which I will send this week. In her words she'll word it in such a way that it'll come from me but will let the other party know that there's someone on my side who knows exactly what they're on about!
Hopefully that'll then be that, but I thought that last time too...!
Bookmarked. Hopefully that'll then be that, but I thought that last time too...!
Alternatively, deny all knowledge of the car. In the further alternative, say that you are a Freeman and do not consent to his letter or to any claim not brought under the Common Law (in capitals and making clear that you have no idea what it is but has something to do with a jury trial).
xjay1337 said:
Just to confirm, you are not a trader of any type?
You sold privately owned vehicle(s).
And he's sueing you?
Interesting
I want to hear the outcome.
"Thanks all. I'm on phone so short replies til in home. I owned the BMW for eight months as my daily. Only cars sold this year are the BMW, ur quattro I owned for six years the RS6 I just didn't feel affinity with (thread on here) and the alfa I bought of my dad to replace my wifes older alfa but she didn't like it. Before that it was three years since I last sold a car. You sold privately owned vehicle(s).
And he's sueing you?
Interesting
I want to hear the outcome.
Absolutely not a trader of any sort and after this I'm never likely to be either! "
bad company said:
Why not just ignore the letter. They will probably write again but remember the buyer is having to pay for the solicitor's letters.
Because, if the nutter actually does sue, the court will not look kindly on the fact that the OP ignored any attempt at contact or resolution pre-action.Given everything the OP has said so far, he is on very solid ground. Why would he weaken his position by ignoring the letter?
IANAL. BBV72IAJP1HSLT.
mikeveal said:
bad company said:
Why not just ignore the letter. They will probably write again but remember the buyer is having to pay for the solicitor's letters.
Because, if the nutter actually does sue, the court will not look kindly on the fact that the OP ignored any attempt at contact or resolution pre-action.Given everything the OP has said so far, he is on very solid ground. Why would he weaken his position by ignoring the letter?
IANAL. BBV72IAJP1HSLT.
Remember it all increases the other sides costs. I have successfully used this strategy.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff