Being sued over a car I sold :(
Discussion
bad company said:
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.
The OP has received what seems to be a formal letter before action. Not replying to that can have consequences later if the other party sues. Also, if the OP demonstrates he is a 'head burier' then that only increases the chances of being sued.
Why cause yourself problems, or opt to be dishonest?
Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 13th November 15:09
Breadvan72 said:
That is just cheesy and dishonest, and could bite you on the bum if costs become an issue.
Anyway, if the solicitor's letter has been prepared by a friend or relative of the buyer, it may have been written without charge.
mmmmm. Cheesy & dishonest, been called worse.Anyway, if the solicitor's letter has been prepared by a friend or relative of the buyer, it may have been written without charge.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 13th November 15:05
As you say the solicitor's letter may well be from a friend, we don't know that. I do know that in previous disputes I have successfully 'worn down' the other side on costs without needing to incur the cost of using a lawyer myself.
bad company said:
As you say the solicitor's letter may well be from a friend, we don't know that. I do know that in previous disputes I have successfully 'worn down' the other side on costs without needing to incur the cost of using a lawyer myself.
That may be the case, and playing silly buggers might be better than arguing a losing position, but that's not the case here.The buyer and his solicitor may, or may not know they are stood in s
t whilst the OP is stood on a rock. The OP has the opportunity to demonstrate that he knows that fact - so the claim goes away. Or, if the solicitor and buyer really are deluded as to the law, a rebuttal letter from the OP would usually be enough for them to look a bit more introspectively at their chances.
Alternatively, ignoring that is not only a missed opportunity to put it to bed quickly, playing silly buggers means that the OP is choosing to jump off his rock into the s
t with them. Bad move when you really don't have to.bad company said:
mmmmm. Cheesy & dishonest, been called worse.
As you say the solicitor's letter may well be from a friend, we don't know that. I do know that in previous disputes I have successfully 'worn down' the other side on costs without needing to incur the cost of using a lawyer myself.
Whereas I tend to find that the straight bat approach works well. Giving too much information is idiotic, but if you give nothing it might let the other side think that they've got you rattled and strengthen their resolve.As you say the solicitor's letter may well be from a friend, we don't know that. I do know that in previous disputes I have successfully 'worn down' the other side on costs without needing to incur the cost of using a lawyer myself.
If, on the other hand, you've sent back a response, the solicitor involved can discuss with their client along the lines of "you've asked, he's given an answer, there's nowhere to go from here so it's time to give it up". No guaranteess, obviously, but a stubborn old goat who's gone to this much trouble (and who feels he's thousands of pounds out of pocket) is unlikely to shrug his shoulders and let the matter drop if there's no response. If he's advised to by his solicitor, however, he's more likely to.
bad company said:
mmmmm. Cheesy & dishonest, been called worse.
As you say the solicitor's letter may well be from a friend, we don't know that. I do know that in previous disputes I have successfully 'worn down' the other side on costs without needing to incur the cost of using a lawyer myself.
An approach greatly frowned upon post the Jackson Review, and one that can have adverse costs consequences for the party that adopts it. As you say the solicitor's letter may well be from a friend, we don't know that. I do know that in previous disputes I have successfully 'worn down' the other side on costs without needing to incur the cost of using a lawyer myself.
Once again thanks all.
I've heard from my cousin who will be drafting the response over the weekend.
I may in the mean time respond wihtin the seven days stated that I acknowledge the letter and will respond by 20th. If for nothing else it means I wont get more st letters from them right before my birthday (and my only other days off this year!).
I can only honestly think it's one of two things:
It's family/friend/relative sending the letter for nowt OR
He really is quite deluded (& bored) and a solicitor has seen it as a quick £3/500 to consult and send one letter.
I'm hoping with a decent enough response it'll put it to bed once and for all.
As to his motives and expectations well I'm not sure I want a window into the mind of a mad man. I mean insisting I pay for his costs to date when he's taken an 11 year old BMW to a MAIN DEALER and spend £700+ on 'fixing' an electric tailgate that was already working but required the lightest of nudges to pop the strut back into the socket is beyond insane surely? I had it for eight months and I can honestly say it's such a minor inconvenience that any repair more than about £50 I would have just left it be.
The other crazy point (amongst many admittedly) is the fact they're charging 8% interest daily on the claimed amount. Considering the world we live in at the moment there's absolutely no justification for 8% interest, 3 maybe. But what that does mean is within 45 days the total they're claiming for will go above £5,000 which I believe is the limit for small claims court?
Even though I've done nothing wrong & it was a good car it's played on my mind all night and I had a rotten nights sleep meaning I've had a crappy day off, joy!
I've heard from my cousin who will be drafting the response over the weekend.
I may in the mean time respond wihtin the seven days stated that I acknowledge the letter and will respond by 20th. If for nothing else it means I wont get more s
t letters from them right before my birthday (and my only other days off this year!).I can only honestly think it's one of two things:
It's family/friend/relative sending the letter for nowt OR
He really is quite deluded (& bored) and a solicitor has seen it as a quick £3/500 to consult and send one letter.
I'm hoping with a decent enough response it'll put it to bed once and for all.
As to his motives and expectations well I'm not sure I want a window into the mind of a mad man. I mean insisting I pay for his costs to date when he's taken an 11 year old BMW to a MAIN DEALER and spend £700+ on 'fixing' an electric tailgate that was already working but required the lightest of nudges to pop the strut back into the socket is beyond insane surely? I had it for eight months and I can honestly say it's such a minor inconvenience that any repair more than about £50 I would have just left it be.
The other crazy point (amongst many admittedly) is the fact they're charging 8% interest daily on the claimed amount. Considering the world we live in at the moment there's absolutely no justification for 8% interest, 3 maybe. But what that does mean is within 45 days the total they're claiming for will go above £5,000 which I believe is the limit for small claims court?
Even though I've done nothing wrong & it was a good car it's played on my mind all night and I had a rotten nights sleep meaning I've had a crappy day off, joy!
ORD said:
I second that. Honestly, put it out of your mind. There is no point allowing idiots to ruin your weekend. You have a solicitor to do the worrying for you. A sensible letter back should end it. Even if it doesn't, you're in a strong position.
Thirded. Forget about this. You'll have a letter written for you and this will go away.
As I said on the front page, I've seen some silly claims on this forum in ten years, but the fact that an actual real life solicitor has printed this on their headed paper makes this one of the most astonishing.
Breadvan72 said:
bad company said:
mmmmm. Cheesy & dishonest, been called worse.
As you say the solicitor's letter may well be from a friend, we don't know that. I do know that in previous disputes I have successfully 'worn down' the other side on costs without needing to incur the cost of using a lawyer myself.
An approach greatly frowned upon post the Jackson Review, and one that can have adverse costs consequences for the party that adopts it. As you say the solicitor's letter may well be from a friend, we don't know that. I do know that in previous disputes I have successfully 'worn down' the other side on costs without needing to incur the cost of using a lawyer myself.
After a few days the case was dropped as (I suspect) the competitor realised what all this was costing him.
Way off topic I know and clearly not an approach approved of by lawyers - but then turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
bad company said:
Way off topic I know and clearly not an approach approved of by lawyers - but then turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
I'm not a lawyer.However, I've won reasonably substantial costs from a party (who was actually professionally represented) who were clearly playing silly buggers with normal procedure in a more minor way than you have described.
JustinP1 said:
bad company said:
Way off topic I know and clearly not an approach approved of by lawyers - but then turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
I'm not a lawyer.However, I've won reasonably substantial costs from a party (who was actually professionally represented) who were clearly playing silly buggers with normal procedure in a more minor way than you have described.
I have used similar tactics since but not in such a risky way.
JustinP1 said:
Thirded.
Forget about this. You'll have a letter written for you and this will go away.
As I said on the front page, I've seen some silly claims on this forum in ten years, but the fact that an actual real life solicitor has printed this on their headed paper makes this one of the most astonishing.
Would it be possible to get this solicitor into trouble for making what seems to be a spurious claim i.e. what they're saying is so blatantly wrong that they're acting unprofessionally?Forget about this. You'll have a letter written for you and this will go away.
As I said on the front page, I've seen some silly claims on this forum in ten years, but the fact that an actual real life solicitor has printed this on their headed paper makes this one of the most astonishing.
Centurion07 said:
JustinP1 said:
Thirded.
Forget about this. You'll have a letter written for you and this will go away.
As I said on the front page, I've seen some silly claims on this forum in ten years, but the fact that an actual real life solicitor has printed this on their headed paper makes this one of the most astonishing.
Would it be possible to get this solicitor into trouble for making what seems to be a spurious claim i.e. what they're saying is so blatantly wrong that they're acting unprofessionally?Forget about this. You'll have a letter written for you and this will go away.
As I said on the front page, I've seen some silly claims on this forum in ten years, but the fact that an actual real life solicitor has printed this on their headed paper makes this one of the most astonishing.
If he were to run with that claim all the way to a hearing, and lose, it does leave the door open for an argument that being so blatantly wrong (plus anything else silly that occurs) amounts to 'unreasonable behaviour' which, if it seen to be so in the eyes of the judge then the other party can claim their costs, even on the small claims track.
However, it's difficult to see how it will get that far as a properly drafted particulars of claim will have to refer to the actions and contract law/statute that is the basis of the claim, and surely at that point it will be realised that there is a problem.
A while back I was involved in something where I was dealing with a partner of a 'local firm'. Her legal premise was demonstrably rubbish, despite it apparently being her area of specialism. The defence she filed looked like an amateur had done it, and she admitted that she had not done one before, nor has she ever been to a hearing. I do hold out the possibility that in this situation the solicitor has just deluded themselves in an area they don't really deal with, and is just generally crap. They do exist, but the one in this thread seemingly has taken it to a new special level.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff