Second hand car query

[98elise]

BlueHave said:

marshalla said:

BlueHave said:

If your not a trader then he should have got in touch and ask if you could fix it and if you could your being more than generous.

JimmyConwayNW said:

I sell used cars.

You don't need to be a trader to sell a few used cars.

If you are selling any number of cars for profit, then you are a trader.

[Andyjc86]

I had a thread on here with a similar story. The end result was court with both parties claiming the high ground.

The judge said go into that room sort out a deal between yourselves, or hire in independent experts who can explain the fault in detail, then I'll decide who should pay.

The dealer (my mate) ended up paying about 30% of the bill iirc

I'll try to find it

[Andyjc86]

Here it is

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[The Mad Monk]

98elise said:

BlueHave said:

marshalla said:

BlueHave said:

If your not a trader then he should have got in touch and ask if you could fix it and if you could your being more than generous.

JimmyConwayNW said:

I sell used cars.

You don't need to be a trader to sell a few used cars.

If you are selling any number of cars for profit, then you are a trader.

IIRC HMRC have a yardstick to define a trader. Something like more than six cars a year? Anyone else remember?

[TooMany2cvs]

The Mad Monk said:

98elise said:

BlueHave said:

marshalla said:

BlueHave said:

If your not a trader then he should have got in touch and ask if you could fix it and if you could your being more than generous.

JimmyConwayNW said:

I sell used cars.

You don't need to be a trader to sell a few used cars.

If you are selling any number of cars for profit, then you are a trader.

IIRC HMRC have a yardstick to define a trader. Something like more than six cars a year? Anyone else remember?

There are nine "badges of trade", which HMRC will use to decide whether somebody is trading - not just in used cars.

One of the most important is intent or "profit-seeking motive".

Buy a car, with the intent of using it as your own car, then sell it - not a trader.
Buy a car, with the intent of selling it on for a profit - trader.

http://www.accaglobal.com/uk/en/technical-activiti...

[Red Devil]

Jasandjules said:

rallycross said:

Its not a tricky one and that one off story from 2011 means nothing, just some crazy decision from a county court that does not set a precedent.

The Appeal was rejected.

You seem to be suggesting that there was an appeal but it did not succeed.
If so, you're mistaken. It didn't happen, as leave to appeal was refused by DJ Savage.

Jasandjules said:

So it is in fact binding on lower courts (i.e. County) in similar circs.

How can it be, given that the case never progressed beyond Worcester County Court?

[BlueHave]

TooMany2cvs said:

The Mad Monk said:

98elise said:

BlueHave said:

marshalla said:

BlueHave said:

If your not a trader then he should have got in touch and ask if you could fix it and if you could your being more than generous.

JimmyConwayNW said:

I sell used cars.

You don't need to be a trader to sell a few used cars.

If you are selling any number of cars for profit, then you are a trader.

IIRC HMRC have a yardstick to define a trader. Something like more than six cars a year? Anyone else remember?

There are nine "badges of trade", which HMRC will use to decide whether somebody is trading - not just in used cars.

One of the most important is intent or "profit-seeking motive".

Buy a car, with the intent of using it as your own car, then sell it - not a trader.
Buy a car, with the intent of selling it on for a profit - trader.

http://www.accaglobal.com/uk/en/technical-activiti...

That's going to be very difficult to prove. As there is obviously no limit to how many cars an individual can own or any timescale they have to own them fore before selling any.

[Black_S3]

BlueHave said:

TooMany2cvs said:

The Mad Monk said:

98elise said:

BlueHave said:

marshalla said:

BlueHave said:

If your not a trader then he should have got in touch and ask if you could fix it and if you could your being more than generous.

JimmyConwayNW said:

I sell used cars.

You don't need to be a trader to sell a few used cars.

If you are selling any number of cars for profit, then you are a trader.

IIRC HMRC have a yardstick to define a trader. Something like more than six cars a year? Anyone else remember?

There are nine "badges of trade", which HMRC will use to decide whether somebody is trading - not just in used cars.

One of the most important is intent or "profit-seeking motive".

Buy a car, with the intent of using it as your own car, then sell it - not a trader.
Buy a car, with the intent of selling it on for a profit - trader.

http://www.accaglobal.com/uk/en/technical-activiti...

That's going to be very difficult to prove. As there is obviously no limit to how many cars an individual can own or any timescale they have to own them fore before selling any.

Why the side track? He is a trader and hasn't claimed otherwise. No private seller would be selling their car to a 'customer'.

[hora]

Firstly contact the service manager and verify if it's real.

[mikeveal]

The customer has not been reasonable. He must have given you a chance to fix the car (several chances actually). The fact that the customer lives an inconvenient distance from you is not your problem.

So:
Can the fault reasonably be considered something that you should have fixed?
How much would your guy have charged you to fix it?

If the answer to the first Q is yes, then in your shoes, I'd consider offering the customer what it would have cost you to fix it.
If the answer to the first Q is no, then offer half what it would have cost you to fix it as a good will gesture.

Should the customer be daft enough to try the small claims court, I suspect the court will look favourably on the fact that (without admitting liability) you've put a reasonable offer on the table.

And yeah, make any offer subject to receiving a copy of the invoice for the work.

[Red Devil]

mikeveal said:

Should the customer be daft enough to try the small claims court, I suspect the court will look favourably on the fact that (without admitting liability) you've put a reasonable offer on the table.

I'll wager that Sean McGrath thought exactly that until he discovered to his dismay that DJ Savage found in favour of Garry Barnes.
True that it doesn't set a precedent, but a clued up consumer could try suggesting to another County Court judge that it is persuasive.
It all depends what is in the trader's T&Cs. Omitting certain key wording could prove costly.

[Atomic12C]

TooMany2cvs said:

Buy a car, with the intent of selling it on for a profit - trader.

How does that apply to all those who buy cars as 'investments'?
That would mean there are an awful lot of traders out there


But back on track with the OP's situation. It seems all you need to do for the future is have repair/return policy stated within your terms of sale contract with customers.

If this was missing from the sale in question then you may have to fork out for the bill - based up on that court link above.

[singlecoil]

Atomic12C said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Buy a car, with the intent of selling it on for a profit - trader.

How does that apply to all those who buy cars as 'investments'?
That would mean there are an awful lot of traders out there

To work as an investment they would need to sell it for more than they paid for it. Even if they didn't manage to get more than they paid for it when they sold it, as long as they intended to get more (make a profit) then that would seem to meet the definition of trader.