Car Dealer Gave False Information - Sued Innocent Person

Car Dealer Gave False Information - Sued Innocent Person

Author
Discussion

NobleGuy

Original Poster:

7,133 posts

214 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
Not sure if this is the correct area to post in but...

We've had a real fun 6 months surrounding a car we bought in April.
The car had a gearbox issue and they fobbed us off with the warranty (we complained inside 3 weeks).

To cut a long story short, they gave me the details of the previous trader when I phoned them and then ignored every communication since. This lead us to trace the guy they named (who previously traded at that address) and our small claims fell apart when he could show he wasn't the one we were after.

They're now saying they've only just moved into the premises and that the last lot moved out, but we've spoken to the landlord of the unit. He confirmed the same guys had been there for about 2 years, but he wouldn't furnish any more details other than first names.

We're both basically sick to death of this whole thing and are running out of energy, but it just
doesn't seem right that in the supposed age of Consumer Rights and Trading Law that they can get away with this.

Do we have any (sensible) course of action...?

Ean218

1,959 posts

249 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
From whom did the invoice say you bought it?

Jim the Sunderer

3,238 posts

181 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
I've heard a few stories of garages going bankrupt on the Friday and then reopening on Monday with a new sign on the door.

Might be worth checking it on Companies House.

KingNothing

3,159 posts

152 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
NobleGuy said:
Not sure if this is the correct area to post in but...

We've had a real fun 6 months surrounding a car we bought in April.
The car had a gearbox issue and they fobbed us off with the warranty (we complained inside 3 weeks).

To cut a long story short, they gave me the details of the previous trader when I phoned them and then ignored every communication since. This lead us to trace the guy they named (who previously traded at that address) and our small claims fell apart when he could show he wasn't the one we were after.

They're now saying they've only just moved into the premises and that the last lot moved out, but we've spoken to the landlord of the unit. He confirmed the same guys had been there for about 2 years, but he wouldn't furnish any more details other than first names.

We're both basically sick to death of this whole thing and are running out of energy, but it just
doesn't seem right that in the supposed age of Consumer Rights and Trading Law that they can get away with this.

Do we have any (sensible) course of action...?
Who are "they"?

siwil1

1,022 posts

230 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
your gripe is with who you bot the car from, not a previous dealer surely?

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
siwil1 said:
your gripe is with who you bot the car from, not a previous dealer surely?
This. You have a company name on the invoice for the car, don't you? THAT is who your claim is against. End of.

Look on Companies House or DueDil to verify it's real and, if necessary, to get the names and addresses of the directors.

NobleGuy

Original Poster:

7,133 posts

214 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
siwil1 said:
your gripe is with who you bot the car from, not a previous dealer surely?
This. You have a company name on the invoice for the car, don't you? THAT is who your claim is against. End of.

Look on Companies House or DueDil to verify it's real and, if necessary, to get the names and addresses of the directors.
These are sole traders/partners. No info with companies house. We have an invoice for a company that doesn't necessarily exist (because sole traders can trade under any name on any day).

When I say "they", I mean the people we bought the car from.
They told us the owner was a "Mr X", but then it turned out he'd left the premises three years ago and they were just using his name as soon as a problem came along...

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
Did you buy the car from an individual or a trader/dealer?

If it was the latter then why didn't you sue them? And if it was the former then I can't see how the previous trader is still responsible for the car.

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
Did you buy the car from an individual or a trader/dealer?

If it was the latter then why didn't you sue them? And if it was the former then I can't see how the previous trader is still responsible for the car.
This.

Surely any subsequent claims are the business of the parties in the chain. What contract have you got with the company you didn't buy the car from?

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
Ha. Sounds like the bomb site dealer(s) from the mid 1900's. After you bought a car from them, if it actually managed to get you home that is, any issues or problems, and the 'person' you bought the car from didn't exist any more! There used to be a solution used by traders when they traded with each other though. Any dispute re quality of goods, if the offender didn't act the gentlemen, and honour the sale, the next morning he'd turn up to find a few of his stock on their roofs !!!!

NobleGuy

Original Poster:

7,133 posts

214 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
Durzel said:
BlackLabel said:
Did you buy the car from an individual or a trader/dealer?

If it was the latter then why didn't you sue them? And if it was the former then I can't see how the previous trader is still responsible for the car.
This.

Surely any subsequent claims are the business of the parties in the chain. What contract have you got with the company you didn't buy the car from?
Have you both had your brains removed...?
Maybe it's my explanantion that's tough to follow.

This is so simple:
Mr A used to trade at the premises (as sole trader 1).
He moved out.
Mr X & Mr Y moved in and started trading (as sole trader 2).
We bought the car from Mr X & Mr Y.
Car had problem.
We phoned Mr X & Mr Y to complain.
Mr X & Mr Y told us that the owner of the company was Mr A.
We sued Mr A, who was never involved.

We never believed we had a contract with anyone other than Mr X & Mr Y.
Mr X & Mr Y lied to us about who they were and where to direct our complaint.

trickywoo

11,706 posts

229 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
Sounds like you bought a car from some cowboys.

Hope it wasn't expensive.

edc

9,231 posts

250 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
NobleGuy said:
Durzel said:
BlackLabel said:
Did you buy the car from an individual or a trader/dealer?

If it was the latter then why didn't you sue them? And if it was the former then I can't see how the previous trader is still responsible for the car.
This.

Surely any subsequent claims are the business of the parties in the chain. What contract have you got with the company you didn't buy the car from?
Have you both had your brains removed...?
Maybe it's my explanantion that's tough to follow.

This is so simple:
Mr A used to trade at the premises (as sole trader 1).
He moved out.
Mr X & Mr Y moved in and started trading (as sole trader 2).
We bought the car from Mr X & Mr Y.
Car had problem.
We phoned Mr X & Mr Y to complain.
Mr X & Mr Y told us that the owner of the company was Mr A.
We sued Mr A, who was never involved.

We never believed we had a contract with anyone other than Mr X & Mr Y.
Mr X & Mr Y lied to us about who they were and where to direct our complaint.
Am I missing something here? You know the car was supplied by X&Y. Everything you know and believe points to X&Y. You were fobbed off and took the word of X&Y over your own due diligence and research and sued A. Why can't you just take action against X&Y as you should have in the first place?

NobleGuy

Original Poster:

7,133 posts

214 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
edc said:
NobleGuy said:
Durzel said:
BlackLabel said:
Did you buy the car from an individual or a trader/dealer?

If it was the latter then why didn't you sue them? And if it was the former then I can't see how the previous trader is still responsible for the car.
This.

Surely any subsequent claims are the business of the parties in the chain. What contract have you got with the company you didn't buy the car from?
Have you both had your brains removed...?
Maybe it's my explanantion that's tough to follow.

This is so simple:
Mr A used to trade at the premises (as sole trader 1).
He moved out.
Mr X & Mr Y moved in and started trading (as sole trader 2).
We bought the car from Mr X & Mr Y.
Car had problem.
We phoned Mr X & Mr Y to complain.
Mr X & Mr Y told us that the owner of the company was Mr A.
We sued Mr A, who was never involved.

We never believed we had a contract with anyone other than Mr X & Mr Y.
Mr X & Mr Y lied to us about who they were and where to direct our complaint.
Am I missing something here? You know the car was supplied by X&Y. Everything you know and believe points to X&Y. You were fobbed off and took the word of X&Y over your own due diligence and research and sued A. Why can't you just take action against X&Y as you should have in the first place?
Due diligence (records) showed that Mr A (innocent) is still the trader at the premises.
We followed several lines and they all pointed back to Mr A. All of our communications to all involved were ignored completely, so even Mr A didn't stand up at an early stage and say "Hang on, that's not me". Nothing in the records showed that he'd moved on, or that the business had folded. Sole traders aren't required to provide that kind of information. They can if they want to, but there's no requirement.

Anyway, your question was my original question smile

We don't know who X&Y are. They're sole traders/partners and aren't registered anywhere.

Who's to say we find out the identities of these clowns, sue them and then find the company is actually owned by someone else and they just work there? We're at the point where we hardly know what our own names are anymore...

Just to add, we can't even prove that it was Mr X & Mr Y that gave out the name of Mr A...

Edited by NobleGuy on Thursday 2nd October 12:26

Bluebarge

4,519 posts

177 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
NobleGuy said:
Durzel said:
BlackLabel said:
Did you buy the car from an individual or a trader/dealer?

If it was the latter then why didn't you sue them? And if it was the former then I can't see how the previous trader is still responsible for the car.
This.

Surely any subsequent claims are the business of the parties in the chain. What contract have you got with the company you didn't buy the car from?
Have you both had your brains removed...?
Maybe it's my explanantion that's tough to follow.

This is so simple:
Mr A used to trade at the premises (as sole trader 1).
He moved out.
Mr X & Mr Y moved in and started trading (as sole trader 2).
We bought the car from Mr X & Mr Y.
Car had problem.
We phoned Mr X & Mr Y to complain.
Mr X & Mr Y told us that the owner of the company was Mr A.
We sued Mr A, who was never involved.

We never believed we had a contract with anyone other than Mr X & Mr Y.
Mr X & Mr Y lied to us about who they were and where to direct our complaint.
Still making no sense.

Did you buy from a "company" (which is a separate legal entity regd at Companies House) or a sole trader (individual trading under business name?.

If the latter - you sue the individual. If the former - you sue the company.

If the former, it makes no frigging difference who the owner of the company is, you sue the separate legal entity that is the company (assuming it has any assets). Not the owner, not its directors, not the bird on reception or the company cat.



andysgriff

913 posts

259 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
As long as people don't do their homework when buying a car these things will always happen.

NobleGuy

Original Poster:

7,133 posts

214 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
Bluebarge said:
NobleGuy said:
Durzel said:
BlackLabel said:
Did you buy the car from an individual or a trader/dealer?

If it was the latter then why didn't you sue them? And if it was the former then I can't see how the previous trader is still responsible for the car.
This.

Surely any subsequent claims are the business of the parties in the chain. What contract have you got with the company you didn't buy the car from?
Have you both had your brains removed...?
Maybe it's my explanantion that's tough to follow.

This is so simple:
Mr A used to trade at the premises (as sole trader 1).
He moved out.
Mr X & Mr Y moved in and started trading (as sole trader 2).
We bought the car from Mr X & Mr Y.
Car had problem.
We phoned Mr X & Mr Y to complain.
Mr X & Mr Y told us that the owner of the company was Mr A.
We sued Mr A, who was never involved.

We never believed we had a contract with anyone other than Mr X & Mr Y.
Mr X & Mr Y lied to us about who they were and where to direct our complaint.
Still making no sense.

Did you buy from a "company" (which is a separate legal entity regd at Companies House) or a sole trader (individual trading under business name?.

If the latter - you sue the individual. If the former - you sue the company.

If the former, it makes no frigging difference who the owner of the company is, you sue the separate legal entity that is the company (assuming it has any assets). Not the owner, not its directors, not the bird on reception or the company cat.
It quite clearly says "sole trader" on my post. It could be a partnership. It might not be.
The word "company" is the word Mr X & Mr Y used when I spoke to them:
e.g. "Ah right, the owner of the COMPANY is Mr A".

It's the latter, yes. So we sue the individual.
My question is:
How do we identify the INDIVIDUALS?
Is it possible there is another INDIVIDUAL that has 'more responsibility' than Mr X & Mr Y?
Is there a concept of a 'boss' at a sole trader?
i.e., could there be a third person who actually runs the show and those two are just monkeys who answer the phone?

Du1point8

21,604 posts

191 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
But if you bought from X&Y, you have their details.

So why you believed them when they said they are actually person A is a little strange, surely the sales notice had X&Y on it or was it cash in hand and you have nothing?

Thats what is confusing with your first message on the thread, Person A had nothing to do with it, but you didn't just go after X&Y and listened to their lies about it... you paid X&Y, so therefore they are responsible, yet you were led to believe someone else was and that is the confusing part.

NobleGuy

Original Poster:

7,133 posts

214 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
Du1point8 said:
But if you bought from X&Y, you have their details.

So why you believed them when they said they are actually person A is a little strange, surely the sales notice had X&Y on it or was it cash in hand and you have nothing?

Thats what is confusing with your first message on the thread, Person A had nothing to do with it, but you didn't just go after X&Y and listened to their lies about it... you paid X&Y, so therefore they are responsible, yet you were led to believe someone else was and that is the confusing part.
Cash (I know...)

We have a receipt with a company name on it, but it's not registered and there's no individual linked to that name. A sole trader/partnership like this can trade one day as "company 1" then change to "company 2" the next day, or have a different name for every day of the week

I suppose when you call a 'company' that you've had dealings with you're not really psychologically thinking that the information they're giving out like that would be so untrue. I guess I'm completely naiive in that way. You hear about regulations and rules coming out of officialdom these days that I'd got into the mindset of "People don't do that kind of thing".

If the answer is "You're screwed, forget about it" then that's a perfectly acceptable answer.
I was just wondering if anyone had any bright ideas smile

Edited by NobleGuy on Thursday 2nd October 12:42

anothernameitist

1,500 posts

134 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
I'll bet X and Y are related to A