Oh FFS! Buyer of my car issued court summons!
Discussion
RRH said:
He bought it at the start of August, and was quite happy with everything until he took it to the specialist.
He's huffed and puffed about solicitors for a few weeks, and phoned me 30+ times and a similar amount of texts.
My guess is that he's been to a solicitor, they've laughed at him, so he's decided to do this off his own back. Last weeks letters (always send one recorded and one normal first) said that if I settled within seven days he'd accept £1400, or he was going to pursue it through the courts.
Weapons grade cock end.He's huffed and puffed about solicitors for a few weeks, and phoned me 30+ times and a similar amount of texts.
My guess is that he's been to a solicitor, they've laughed at him, so he's decided to do this off his own back. Last weeks letters (always send one recorded and one normal first) said that if I settled within seven days he'd accept £1400, or he was going to pursue it through the courts.
Make sure you mention harrassment in your defence.
RRH said:
Thanks everyone 
Although in the end I am sure that things will be OK, it is worthwhile getting the Defence done properly - as if nothing else it will save you time and hassle.1) How is the claim worded? Is is made clear in the format of 'this happened, which is against law X, therefore I want Y'. If not, then his claim can be seen as deficient, and you can get it struck out. Generally you can't defend something that doesn't make sense.
2) Lay your Defence out with numbered paragraphs, making sure that you specifically deny anything that is in the claim - otherwise it can be seen that you have accepted the point.
3) Put forward your Defence along the lines has been stated in previous posts, with the pertinent points.
4) If/when the allocation questionnaire comes through, request the claim be transferred to your home court. It sometimes is transferred automatically, but don't take the chance, the additional point is that the contract was formed at your place.
RRH said:
IIRC legal costs in small claims are limited to £260. You don't get much lawyer for that, although I appreciate your point.
In the ordinary course of events, absent the court finding "unreasonable conduct", you can't recover ANY legal fees. You can get the court issue fee and potentially out of pocket expenses of attending the small claims hearing, but that's generally it.The "no costs" rule is in place specifically to dissuade people from using lawyers to deal with small claims.
Out of interest, do you know how much meat was on the tyres when you sold it? And the type etc. I really think if he is saying tyres were worn below legal limit he should be bringing them into court as exhibits. That said whats to say what he presents is what was removed?
And (again someone more knowledgeable may comment on this), since the vehicle is subject to a claim, and further use may affect the ability of him to prove condition at time of sale, is there any procedure to force him to stop using the vehicle until the matter is settled.
At the end of the day the best thing all round would be to bring enough pressure about to make him see the futility of his claim.
But you have to do it in just the correct way.
And (again someone more knowledgeable may comment on this), since the vehicle is subject to a claim, and further use may affect the ability of him to prove condition at time of sale, is there any procedure to force him to stop using the vehicle until the matter is settled.
At the end of the day the best thing all round would be to bring enough pressure about to make him see the futility of his claim.
But you have to do it in just the correct way.
richardxjr said:
I don't know the wording of his claim, but I'd offer a defence around:
1. I am [name] the defendant, of [address]
2. I was the private owner of [car, reg] and sold it to the claimant as an unwarranted private vehicle sale, at my home address, on [whenever].
3. The claimant inspected the vehicle prior to sale and was happy to buy the vehicle at the price agreed, unwarranted.
4. The claimant called and texted me after driving the vehicle home to say, again, that he was happy. I received no further communication until I was notified of his problem a week after the sale.
5. As a private owner selling a private vehicle in a private sale, this contract is not covered by the Sale Of Goods Act.
I'd substitute the word 'demands' for problem...1. I am [name] the defendant, of [address]
2. I was the private owner of [car, reg] and sold it to the claimant as an unwarranted private vehicle sale, at my home address, on [whenever].
3. The claimant inspected the vehicle prior to sale and was happy to buy the vehicle at the price agreed, unwarranted.
4. The claimant called and texted me after driving the vehicle home to say, again, that he was happy. I received no further communication until I was notified of his problem a week after the sale.
5. As a private owner selling a private vehicle in a private sale, this contract is not covered by the Sale Of Goods Act.
These are all service items bar one, the dealer is fishing for work...
RRH said:
My guess is that he's been to a solicitor, they've laughed at him, so he's decided to do this off his own back. Last weeks letters (always send one recorded and one normal first) said that if I settled within seven days he'd accept £1400, or he was going to pursue it through the courts.
My guess is he has posted on some forum or other, or has believed some inaccurate b
ks written by a spazmong on bookface after he ranted in (probably) barely coherent English on there. Chrisw666 said:
RRH said:
My guess is that he's been to a solicitor, they've laughed at him, so he's decided to do this off his own back. Last weeks letters (always send one recorded and one normal first) said that if I settled within seven days he'd accept £1400, or he was going to pursue it through the courts.
My guess is he has posted on some forum or other, or has believed some inaccurate bks written by a spazmong on bookface after he ranted in (probably) barely coherent English on there. 
I'm not really sure. It was still on winters when he saw it as it wasn't being used much, offered the option of summer tyres and had them swapped on the morning, don't remember making any comment about tread depth but the fitters would have mentioned it if there was a problem, and they were legal.
He didn't check when he collected it as far as I'm aware as it was absolutely bucketing down.
Two of the tyres were less than 500 miles old.
He didn't check when he collected it as far as I'm aware as it was absolutely bucketing down.
Two of the tyres were less than 500 miles old.
daz3210 said:
Out of interest, do you know how much meat was on the tyres when you sold it? And the type etc. I really think if he is saying tyres were worn below legal limit he should be bringing them into court as exhibits. That said whats to say what he presents is what was removed?
And (again someone more knowledgeable may comment on this), since the vehicle is subject to a claim, and further use may affect the ability of him to prove condition at time of sale, is there any procedure to force him to stop using the vehicle until the matter is settled.
At the end of the day the best thing all round would be to bring enough pressure about to make him see the futility of his claim.
But you have to do it in just the correct way.
And (again someone more knowledgeable may comment on this), since the vehicle is subject to a claim, and further use may affect the ability of him to prove condition at time of sale, is there any procedure to force him to stop using the vehicle until the matter is settled.
At the end of the day the best thing all round would be to bring enough pressure about to make him see the futility of his claim.
But you have to do it in just the correct way.
RRH said:
I'm not really sure. It was still on winters when he saw it as it wasn't being used much, offered the option of summer tyres and had them swapped on the morning, don't remember making any comment about tread depth but the fitters would have mentioned it if there was a problem, and they were legal.
He didn't check when he collected it as far as I'm aware as it was absolutely bucketing down.
Two of the tyres were less than 500 miles old.
Hope you still have the bill for the two new tyres then, and for the tyre changeover, all the more evidence in your favour.He didn't check when he collected it as far as I'm aware as it was absolutely bucketing down.
Two of the tyres were less than 500 miles old.
daz3210 said:
Out of interest, do you know how much meat was on the tyres when you sold it? And the type etc. I really think if he is saying tyres were worn below legal limit he should be bringing them into court as exhibits. That said whats to say what he presents is what was removed?
And (again someone more knowledgeable may comment on this), since the vehicle is subject to a claim, and further use may affect the ability of him to prove condition at time of sale, is there any procedure to force him to stop using the vehicle until the matter is settled.
At the end of the day the best thing all round would be to bring enough pressure about to make him see the futility of his claim.
But you have to do it in just the correct way.
And (again someone more knowledgeable may comment on this), since the vehicle is subject to a claim, and further use may affect the ability of him to prove condition at time of sale, is there any procedure to force him to stop using the vehicle until the matter is settled.
At the end of the day the best thing all round would be to bring enough pressure about to make him see the futility of his claim.
But you have to do it in just the correct way.
I have to say it amazes me, not only the people that try a fast one, but those that simply appear to have no idea of their rights.
Op - have a look here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-cus...
As a private seller none of it applies. You have no responsibility to the seller at all. Treat it as such.
Op - have a look here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-cus...
As a private seller none of it applies. You have no responsibility to the seller at all. Treat it as such.
It doesn't really matter, as they're all items he had chance to examine when he bought the vehicle. Any other defects that were not obvious to him were also not obvious to you (as demonstrated by his messages back to you shortly after purchase) and, in any case, the car was sold privately with no implied warranty so you have no obligation to put any of it right.
The complainant either has a single brain cell or is just a chancer.
That said, the MCOL fee for sums in the band £1500.01 - £3000.00 is £80, so it's a no brainer to start the ball rolling if he thinks you will be scared into admiting his claim. Much better odds than at the bookies or a casino. Even if he thinks he can get you to settle for 50%, it's still a good bet.
That said, the MCOL fee for sums in the band £1500.01 - £3000.00 is £80, so it's a no brainer to start the ball rolling if he thinks you will be scared into admiting his claim. Much better odds than at the bookies or a casino. Even if he thinks he can get you to settle for 50%, it's still a good bet.
IIRC prior to making a claim the claimant is obliged to send you a letter as required by Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct as set out in the Ministry of Justice Rules.
Even if you had a case to answer (which you don't) as I understand it failing to send the relevant letter could seriously prejudice the claimants case.
IANAL IJPTB
IJPTB = I just pay the bill
Even if you had a case to answer (which you don't) as I understand it failing to send the relevant letter could seriously prejudice the claimants case.
IANAL IJPTB
IJPTB = I just pay the bill
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff