Potential issue with car trader/dealer - advice welcomed

Potential issue with car trader/dealer - advice welcomed

Author
Discussion

POORCARDEALER

8,523 posts

240 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
drdel said:
If t'was me I'd write and offer him/her 7 days to agree to getting the faults you notified him of within a week of ownership repaired and the car fully working.

Tell tedhen if they do not respond promptly and because you need to use the vehicle you'll be getting car repair at his/her cost (est £2,500) and you will want your additional cost covered which you will do via the small claims court (which is quick and cheap).

Or they can fully refund your costs within the 7 days and you will return the car after the funds have cleared.
Naive post in the extreme....nothing quick about the small claims court if its defended.

northwest monkey

Original Poster:

6,370 posts

188 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
REALIST123 said:
northwest monkey said:
4rephill said:
If you're taking the company to court then you should be dealing with his partner rather than the than the guy who sold you the car as technically he's just "working for the company" and doesn't own it.
Yep - we're going after his missus as it's "her" company & not his (as per Companies House).
If it's Limited you can't go after his 'missus' unless you're saying she's committed some crime? You're 'going after' the Company.

I would suggest you take proper advice, it's in fairly short supply here.
His Mrs is the name I'm sending the letter to as in "Mrs Smith, Director, Car Sales Company Ltd". The fact I bought it from her bloke is irrelevant - I'm treating him as an employee of her company.

northwest monkey

Original Poster:

6,370 posts

188 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
Out of interest, if I had to sell the car (we're going to France in August and I'm not going in this car with it's current problem) and buy another, could I go after him for my losses?

E.g. if I traded it in / sold it at auction and got £6k for it, could I go after them for my losses - i.e. I bought a car with a working engine for £7,750 and had to take £6,000 for it with a broken engine then I'd be £1750 down through no fault of my own.

andymc

7,334 posts

206 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
northwest monkey said:
Out of interest, if I had to sell the car (we're going to France in August and I'm not going in this car with it's current problem) and buy another, could I go after him for my losses?

E.g. if I traded it in / sold it at auction and got £6k for it, could I go after them for my losses - i.e. I bought a car with a working engine for £7,750 and had to take £6,000 for it with a broken engine then I'd be £1750 down through no fault of my own.
would doubt it very much

JM

3,170 posts

205 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
4rephill said:
If you're taking the company to court then you should be dealing with his partner rather than the than the guy who sold you the car as technically he's just "working for the company" and doesn't own it.

Based on the above, I suspect that unless it can be shown that the company is his, then he can start up his own Ltd company and claim it has nothing at all to do with "her" company, whilst trading from the same address.
How do you know who owns the company?

Just because the wife is listed as a director it doesn't mean she owns any shares.


But, yes the OP should address the wife as director of the company in his letter.

northwest monkey

Original Poster:

6,370 posts

188 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
JM said:
How do you know who owns the company?

Just because the wife is listed as a director it doesn't mean she owns any shares.


But, yes the OP should address the wife as director of the company in his letter.
She's the only person listed at Companies House for the company so the letter is going to her.

northwest monkey

Original Poster:

6,370 posts

188 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
Ok, an update...

I sent a "letter before action" to the blokes Missus on Tuesday, basically detailing every conversation we've had (via text and voice) and saying the problem I initially reported (that being low oil pressure and a noisy engine) was still there and getting worse. I offered him 3 alternatives - (a) fix the faults at his expense and provide me with the 12 months warranty as advertised, (b) take the car back and refund me the £7,750, or refund me the difference between the Glass's guide p/ex value & what I paid (so £1900) and I'll find a new car.

He phoned me this morning, sounding incredibly annoyed, and basically said that because I got the car for a good price I didn't get a warranty (although I have texts from him saying he's spoken to the warranty company & they wont pay for a new engine...) and I should have taken the car back to his mechanic. I mentioned to him that he suggested I took it somewhere local rather than drive it 50 miles but he chose to ignore this. He also said that as I didn't tell him the alarm was faulty on my car (I did tell him) and that the door needed adjusting (I did tell him) that he doesn't have to offer a warranty.

He claims to have spoken to his solicitor & he's told him not to bother responding in a letter & that I should just take him to court.

So, do I need to wait the 30 days before doing the MCOL?



oldnbold

1,280 posts

145 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
Having successfully taken action in the small claims court twice I know it can be a great method of getting your money back, however to do that the person you are suing has to have some assets. You mentioned that you purchased the car from a home trader who had formed a Ltd Co. What assets does the company have?

I'm guessing that he keeps a couple or maybe three cars in stock, with a court case pending its very easy to sell them, empty the company bank account and dissolve the company. Therefore no company assets left for the baliffs to take.

Whilst the threat may make him sort this mess out he can easilly close the Ltd Co and open again in a different name.

Hammer67

5,706 posts

183 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
Clearly a load of old conkers. He's making st up as he goes along. Avoid phone calls and go straight to court.

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
hornetrider said:
northwest monkey said:
That's very interesting - I didn't know that. Might be worth paying for a rebuild & then going after him if that's the case.

Cheerssmile
Steady on. You have to give him the opportunity to repair. Get stuff in writing.
Don't be too sure about that - http://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/court-rejec...
I am not sure if the Consumer Rights Act 2015 will negate that judgement.

northwest monkey said:
He phoned me this morning, sounding incredibly annoyed, and basically said that because I got the car for a good price I didn't get a warranty...
So he is now directly contradicting what the advert said. I hope you recorded that conversation.

If/when you get judgement you need to find out whether there is any likelihood of the company being able to pay. I suspect not because he sounds like a proper fly-by-night chancer. However you could cause the pair of them maximum hassle/embarrassment by immediately applying for his wife (as the company's responsible officer) to be brought to court for questioning - https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/PDFForms/N316A.pdf

That's the revenge I would take if I was likely to end up considerably out of pocket because some scrote trader thought he could get away with shafting me.

Roo

11,503 posts

206 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
Any faults on the part exchange are his problem, not yours.

He's the expert and didn't inspect/appraise it properly.

northwest monkey

Original Poster:

6,370 posts

188 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
Red Devil said:
northwest monkey said:
He phoned me this morning, sounding incredibly annoyed, and basically said that because I got the car for a good price I didn't get a warranty...
So he is now directly contradicting what the advert said. I hope you recorded that conversation.
Sadly, I didn't record it and I'm not sure even if that would be admissible. I actually didn't get the car "for a good price". I thought the car was advertised at a fair price, but rather than knock cash off, I asked him to get a new MOT (it only had 3 months left), get the rear brake pads done (I-drive was saying they needed doing) and replace a front tyre - he agreed. He's claiming the car was advertised as "warranty available" which is bks. The advert said (word for word) - "Supplied with full 12 months Gold warranty".

Red Devil said:
If/when you get judgement you need to find out whether there is any likelihood of the company being able to pay. I suspect not because he sounds like a proper fly-by-night chancer. However you could cause the pair of them maximum hassle/embarrassment by immediately applying for his wife (as the company's responsible officer) to be brought to court for questioning - https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/PDFForms/N316A.pdf

That's the revenge I would take if I was likely to end up considerably out of pocket because some scrote trader thought he could get away with shafting me.
I've got no problem whatsoever doing that - in fact I'd positively enjoy it. I think he thinks I'm going to go away and unfortunately for him, I'm not. Even more unfortunately for him, Mrs Monkey is far worse than me. The idea if him speaking to his solicitor this morning & his solicitor advising him not to bother responding but to just phone me up is laughable. I'm not even remotely a solicitor, but I've dealt with enough of them to know they like to put everything in writing.

The situation for me at the moment is slightly more problematic. I'm self employed, and need a car to be able to get me about & I need that car to be reliable. As it stands, I'm not convinced the engine in the car is going to last much longer so I'm now in a position where I've probably got to get rid of it.

The options for rebuilding this engine are anywhere from £1500 (absolute minimum) to £3000 depending on what needs doing & the car off the road for 3 weeks which is no good. The other option is a second hand engine for under £2000, which is a gamble as to whether or not it is a good one - this would mean the car being off the road for a week which isn't ideal but I could cope with it if I had to.

Either way, it would still mean coughing up a lot of money which being honest I'd rather not be paying and although I could get the money together if I really had to, being honest it wouldn't be easy and would impact on other plans. It would be slightly different if I'd owned the car 2 years, but after less than 2 months...

northwest monkey

Original Poster:

6,370 posts

188 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
Roo said:
Any faults on the part exchange are his problem, not yours.

He's the expert and didn't inspect/appraise it properly.
I did mention that to him on the phone today & I also reminded him I told him about the door and the alarm when we went to see his car - there was no point me trying to hide it as it was pretty obvious there was an issue (the drivers door needed adjusting and the alarm siren went off at random when you turned the alarm off).

northwest monkey

Original Poster:

6,370 posts

188 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
Hi all - so do I need to wait at least 14 days before starting proceedings or not?

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
northwest monkey said:
Hi all - so do I need to wait at least 14 days before starting proceedings or not?
So you've not taken proper advice yet?

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Friday 6th May 2016
quotequote all
northwest monkey said:
Sadly, I didn't record it and I'm not sure even if that would be admissible.
If you didn't mention it and consent wasn't given probably not, but AFAIK there is nothing to stop you making a transcript. "Those were your exact words chum: I wrote them down." Unfortunately that possible option has gone out the window.

northwest monkey said:
Roo said:
Any faults on the part exchange are his problem, not yours.

He's the expert and didn't inspect/appraise it properly.
I did mention that to him on the phone today & I also reminded him I told him about the door and the alarm when we went to see his car - there was no point me trying to hide it as it was pretty obvious there was an issue (the drivers door needed adjusting and the alarm siren went off at random when you turned the alarm off).
The time has long passed for telephone calls. If you're contemplating proceedings ALL communication from you should be in writing. You need an audit trail. If he fails to respond the judge will take that into consideration.

northwest monkey said:
Hi all - so do I need to wait at least 14 days before starting proceedings or not?
Have you issued a LBA yet? If not, you'll be shooting yourself in the foot - https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/going-t...

northwest monkey

Original Poster:

6,370 posts

188 months

Friday 6th May 2016
quotequote all
Red Devil said:
northwest monkey said:
Sadly, I didn't record it and I'm not sure even if that would be admissible.
If you didn't mention it and consent wasn't given probably not, but AFAIK there is nothing to stop you making a transcript. "Those were your exact words chum: I wrote them down." Unfortunately that possible option has gone out the window.
Ok, fair enough. Although I can't remember word for word what he said, I can remember what he said (if you get my drift).


Red Devil said:
northwest monkey said:
Roo said:
Any faults on the part exchange are his problem, not yours.

He's the expert and didn't inspect/appraise it properly.
I did mention that to him on the phone today & I also reminded him I told him about the door and the alarm when we went to see his car - there was no point me trying to hide it as it was pretty obvious there was an issue (the drivers door needed adjusting and the alarm siren went off at random when you turned the alarm off).
The time has long passed for telephone calls. If you're contemplating proceedings ALL communication from you should be in writing. You need an audit trail. If he fails to respond the judge will take that into consideration.
Completely agree. I didn't phone him - he called me.

Red Devil said:
northwest monkey said:
Hi all - so do I need to wait at least 14 days before starting proceedings or not?
Have you issued a LBA yet? If not, you'll be shooting yourself in the foot - https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/going-t...
Yes I have. I sent him (or rather his Mrs) the LBA, detailing everything that had happened. In it, I gave them 14 days to respond, and if they didn't (or didn't respond satisfactorily) then I'd begin legal proceedings. He phoned up saying he'd read the letter, spoken to his solicitor and that his solicitor had advised him to phone me up and tell me I haven't got a leg to stand on. Basically, a load of crap.

I haven't had a response from her though, so arguably she could say she'd never seen the letter (he could have hidden it from her) so I'm guessing that I still have to give them the time to respond?



Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Friday 6th May 2016
quotequote all
This guy is a complete bellend. Phoning you to say 'do your worst' tells you all you need to know. He may not even have spoken to a solicitor and is bluffing. Either way it doesn't matter much. He's also digging a hole for himself if he has hidden the letter from his wife. She is the officer of the company not him. Hiding behind a woman's skirt has its risks. If he/his wife won't engage, then ADR is impossible and the judge will want to know what the reason is.

There is no necessity to give them more time. Just crack on with filing the claim on day 15 because he has admitted the letter has been received by making that phone call to you. If his wife is unaware of it that's her problem (with him), not yours. There really are some bricks missing from his wall.

northwest monkey

Original Poster:

6,370 posts

188 months

Saturday 7th May 2016
quotequote all
Brilliant - cheers. I must admit, I did laugh at him when he said "my solicitor has told me to not bother writing back & just give you a call as he says you haven't got a leg to stand on".

I think he thinks we're just going to back down on this & he's sorely mistaken. There is no way I'm having someone take the piss that much & think they can get away with it. To be honest, I thought the days of these sort of clowns were long gone. Shows how stupid you can be...

4rephill

5,040 posts

177 months

Saturday 7th May 2016
quotequote all
northwest monkey said:
Brilliant - cheers. I must admit, I did laugh at him when he said "my solicitor has told me to not bother writing back & just give you a call as he says you haven't got a leg to stand on".

I think he thinks we're just going to back down on this & he's sorely mistaken. There is no way I'm having someone take the piss that much & think they can get away with it. To be honest, I thought the days of these sort of clowns were long gone. Shows how stupid you can be...
You've not been stupid - A little naive maybe, but not stupid.

I bet when you were buying the car this guy was nice as pie to you, and told you reassuringly something along the lines of: "Not that you will have any problems with this car 'cos it's a cracking motor, but if you do have any problems, don't worry, it's all under warranty and I'll make sure it all gets sorted, because a happy customer is what I'm all about!".

These sort of guys are incredibly good at making you feel as though you have nothing to worry about, and that they're the most trust worthy guy on the planet. Some will go as far as to treat you as though you were a mate of theirs whilst your looking to buy a car from them! - They can't do enough for you!

Then, should there be a problem (as with your case), you find out that it was all just a bullscensoredt act, and that they're just a lying devious bcensoredd!

Where they fall down is that in the old days, people were a lot less aware of their rights than they are today and so just accepted what they were told, and to this day, many buyers simply don't want all of the aggravation, time and expense that is required to pursue these sort of things and so simply don't bother (they're the kind of buyer that this chump loves!).

They also think that they have several get out clauses and legal loopholes that they can use to avoid their responsibilities, and if all else fails, shut the old company down and start a new one the same day.

As for his partner, that's going to be one of two things:

1) She is fully aware of what he is up to, with making her the director of the company (he may possibly already be banned from being a director of a company due to past indiscretions), and leaves him to deal with it all (she may even be the mastermind behind it all!).

2) She is a bit naive, he's given her some guff about how it's better if she's named as the director of the company, and she has no idea how much trouble he is creating for her, not fully appreciating her responsibilities if things go wrong. In this case, she will never see the letters about the business because he doesn't want her knowing what's really going on.

(As a side note, a few years ago a female friend of Mine was telling Me that she was about to become the director of a company for another friend of hers, and he'd told her that she didn't even have to work for the company. I explained to her that it was highly likely he was banned from being a director, and that if the company went under then she alone would be financially liable for any losses incurred whilst he walked away scot free. The next day she had a Solicitor look into it and discovered I was right, he was banned and she would be financially liable, so she turned him down. Funnily enough, she didn't hear from him ever again! - No idea why? scratchchin )

northwest monkey: Sorry to hear this has gone the way I thought it would, but you stand by your guns and don't give up on it!

And if this guy gets in touch with you again, just tell him that you'll have no more correspondence with him (or his Solicitor), either directly or indirectly, as he is merely an employee of the business, and that you are now only dealing with the listed director of the company as it is now a legal matter.