Car Dealer Gave False Information - Sued Innocent Person
Discussion
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...?
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...?
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.
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...
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.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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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?
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.
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
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 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.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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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...)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.
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
Edited by NobleGuy on Thursday 2nd October 12:42
anothernameitist said:
I'll bet X and Y are related to A
Possibly. Mr A was apparently not a lot better than Mr X & Y.I'm not 100% sure, but it sounds like Mr A pee'd some people off in the trade.
If Mr X & Y moved in and letters were at the premises addressed to "Company 1, Mr A" it wouldn't take much for Mr X & Y to start using those details if they were that way inclined.
Centurion07 said:
Is the info on the V5 any use re. the previous owner?
It may have the details of Mr X & Mr Y (unlikely), but it should at least have the details of the last person that actually owned it so it may be worth trying to get hold of them and asking if they have any idea who they sold it to?
It doesn't no, but the previous owner may well be worth a try It may have the details of Mr X & Mr Y (unlikely), but it should at least have the details of the last person that actually owned it so it may be worth trying to get hold of them and asking if they have any idea who they sold it to?
waterwonder said:
In summary:
You've got a bit of paper which says Company ABC sold you the car
Company ABC don't exist so that line of inquiry is dead.
Some time ago X & Y who you actually dealt with told you its Person A that owns the company
Person A has since denied (and proved?) that he's nothing to do with it
This line of inquiry is dead.
So you're back to X & Y but you don't know who they are or where they live.
Have you been back to the premises to see if X & Y are still there?
Good luck.
Exactly right You've got a bit of paper which says Company ABC sold you the car
Company ABC don't exist so that line of inquiry is dead.
Some time ago X & Y who you actually dealt with told you its Person A that owns the company
Person A has since denied (and proved?) that he's nothing to do with it
This line of inquiry is dead.
So you're back to X & Y but you don't know who they are or where they live.
Have you been back to the premises to see if X & Y are still there?
Good luck.
They are still there, but I work away a lot and they're never there for the few weekends I'm actually around...
They're pretending that they've only been there a month and that the last guys were "cowboys".
It's definitely the same people though - we've finally traced the landlord and he's confirmed they've been there for ~2 years. He either won't divulge or doesn't know their full names.
waterwonder said:
Sounds like one for the PH bloodhounds.
Have you tried CAB or anything? This must be reasonably common.
We tried Trading Standards, they seemed interested initially but when I emailed them 3 weeks ago to see if they'd found out anything I got no reply.Have you tried CAB or anything? This must be reasonably common.
They probably phoned up, got told the same rubbish and also swallowed it.
Bluebarge said:
NobleGuy said:
It quite clearly says "sole trader" on my post.
It also quite clearly says "the owner of the company" when it appears there is no effing company, so stop referring to "company" when you mean "business name".This is only complicated because you are making it so.
zedstar said:
So basically X and Y sold you a dodgy car and then pretendended to work for A when infact X and Y are trading as a partnership. Good news for you that as it means that they are liable personally.
Make a new MCOL against X and Y, take your evidence from case against Mr A to prove that he is nobody and then use 192.com or facebook to find the addresses of the 2 individuals.
If you don't actually know their names at all then do a bit of digging round facebook/192.com, or ask around here - i'm frequently amazed the amount of information the PH detectives can find out.
We know the name of one of them. He's listed as a builder on some random website with the mobile that he uses. We found him on Facebook and although there's little or no information of any use, we did get a big photo of him and it's deifnitely him. Make a new MCOL against X and Y, take your evidence from case against Mr A to prove that he is nobody and then use 192.com or facebook to find the addresses of the 2 individuals.
If you don't actually know their names at all then do a bit of digging round facebook/192.com, or ask around here - i'm frequently amazed the amount of information the PH detectives can find out.
We have the partner's reg number on a random photo the GF took of our car when we originally went to see it (assuming it's registered to him). Do you think DVLA would be willing to give out information in this case...?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff