Sold a car privately - COURT ACTION

[alfie2244]

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

I think you need to share what you wrote in the advert with us. She may have a case if you wrote...

Drives perfectly
Fault free
100% reliable
Won't let you down
Nothing needs doing
Won't need anything for the MOT
BMW reliability
etc etc

Even if he sold it to a completely different person?

[eyebeebe]

Suggest you google Arkell vs Pressdram

[muussaah]

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

I think you need to share what you wrote in the advert with us. She/He/they? may have a case if you wrote...

Drives perfectly
Fault free
100% reliable
Won't let you down
Nothing needs doing
Won't need anything for the MOT
BMW reliability
etc etc

Here's the ad...

2003 BMW 330CI M SPORT CONVERTIBLE - AUTO FACELIFT

Serviced last week!

M Sport so has the following...
Auto Wipers
M Steering Wheel
Auto Xenon Headlights
Sat Nav (Inc Aux Output)
Electric Power Folding Mirrors
Full Electric Leather Memory Seats

I have since had the following done...
BBS LM Deep Dish Alloys Wheels (8J / 9J)
Upgraded BM54 75w Amp
LED Number Plate Lights
Black Kidney Grills
Rear Lip Spoiler

I have had the car coded for a few more extras such as
Front US Indicator DRL
Windows Close/Open from key fob
Soft top can be closed/opened from key fob

The car is cat D from 2012, apart from this 'history' it performs faultlessly, quick and handles perfectly. Its probably the worst time to sell given that these do increase during the summer however funds required for a family car (3 or 5 E series diesel)

ANY QUESTIONS... JUST ASK

Listed for £2400 however accepted £2100 due to the rocker cover gasket leaking which she acknowledges he knew about at the time of sale.

[muussaah]

shake n bake said:

Who's name is on the court letter as the claimant? Does it match who you sold the car too?

Boosted LS1 said:

This. If it's her and not the person who bought the car then it's game over for her. You have no contract with her.

Correct, Court letter states the individual who I have never met or dealt with, I sold the car to a bloke and the claimant (on court letter) appears to be his sister.

[essayer]

muussaah said:

Correct, Court letter states the individual who I have never met or dealt with, I sold the car to a bloke and the claimant (on court letter) appears to be his sister.

Lol, call the court and get them to strike it out. She has no legal claim against you does she?

"I did not sell the car to the claimant".
Civil Procedure Rules 3.4

[imdeman87]

muussaah said:

Correct, Court letter states the individual who I have never met or dealt with, I sold the car to a bloke and the claimant (on court letter) appears to be his sister.

Well, that's the best part of £300 down the pan for her then..

[Andehh]

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

I think you need to share what you wrote in the advert with us. She/He/they? may have a case if you wrote...

Drives perfectly
Fault free
100% reliable
Won't let you down
Nothing needs doing
Won't need anything for the MOT
BMW reliability
etc etc

IANAL but what he put on the advert is irrelevant, unless he stated explicitly '' I guarantee this car will not let you down at all in the next few months''. All of the above may be well & true on the Friday, but by the Monday all instantly become moot points?



OP - do not loose sleep over this. Get all your paperwork & evidence in order, which by the sounds of it you already have, and respond as & when you have to and just laugh her out of court. She doesn't have a hope in hell of winning this one, not a single bit of the situation swings anything in her favor?

Even TRYING to understand her point of view / plays devil's advocate I can't see what she hopes to achieve!? 4,000 miles in 1 month for a 15 year old / 134k car is very very good going!!!


As for the interest, you can claim around 8%, which by my crude reckoning is around 45p a day. £30!? fk off.

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/work...

edit: And please please don't leave us hanging here, keep us updated throughout!

Edited by Andehh on Thursday 8th June 15:09

[fivepointnine]

I would call the court, if you were a trader she would have recourse, but you are a private seller so she does not have a case period. I am surprised the court even accepted the case.

Even for traders the car (paraphrased here) needs to be in appropriate condition for the age and mileage. You cannot expect a 134k 10 year+ old car to be in perfect condition and leak free.

I won a case to get my deposit back from a trader because the 60k mile BMW 5 series I agreed to buy was not delivered on the agreed date in acceptable condition, but again this was a trader. I would have never even attempted to make a case against a private seller. A private seller sold me a Accord Type R last winter that was advertised as good condition, it was not until a week later that I discovered all the bulkhead rust. It never even crossed my mind to take him to court, as I neglected to look close enough at the car when buying, I sucked up the monetary loss and moved on.

[E36GUY]

muussaah said:

Correct, Court letter states the individual who I have never met or dealt with, I sold the car to a bloke and the claimant (on court letter) appears to be his sister.

Then the whole thing is irrellevant.

To the court your evidence would surely simply be.


As the Defendant, I state that I do not know Claimant, Ms ABC, and am very confused by her claims against me. Her claim relates to a Vehicle Registration Number AB23 ABC that I was a former owner of.

"I sold this vehicle to a Mr XYZ on **/**/2017 and I attach proof of said sale. Mr XYZ's information was entered into the new keeper's details section on the vehicle's V5 which was submitted to the DVLA in accordance with the law. This was a private sale - I am not a trader and therefore my responsibility for this vehicle ceased at this point.

What Mr XYZ did with the vehicle subsequent to purchasing it from me is not my affair. I have had neither any prior knowledge or communication with Ms ABC nor did I sell her a car and therefore, she has no claim against me in this case."

Edited by E36GUY on Thursday 8th June 15:28

[DuncB7]

eyebeebe said:

Suggest you google Arkell vs Pressdram

Enjoyed that. Thanks for sharing.

[Gareth79]

muussaah said:

Yes, the v5 was all filled out correctly in the chaps name and both sold as seen receipts were also signed by he himself.

I guess the counter claim will now be submitted as and when I am in court.

edit: This reply sat on my browser when some work came up, the replies above have duplicated my thoughts!

I'm no legal expert, but I'd look into having it struck out because you have never had any contact with the claimant (and didn't even know they exist) and the paperwork was signed by a different person. It's possible the claimant's details could be changed maybe?

You'd expect their claim to include evidence of the sale to prove there is a contract though, or at least a written description of how she came into ownership of the car, strange!

[InitialDave]

Maybe go to court, just for the experience. I've never heard a judge call someone a complete and utter fkwit before, and I wouldn't want to miss my chance.

[jjones]

muussaah said:

apart from this 'history' it performs faultlessly

This may cause you grief. Chap at work sold an old scenic for less than £500 on ebay. It was a shed, advert clearly stated "Spares or Repairs" but he also added "should be good for many years".

Judge found in his favour (sellers) but warned him it was a close run thing and he shouldn't have stated "should be good for many miles" as he was not a qualified mechanic (or someone who was in a position to express an "expert" opinion".

[catman]

As said previously, the comments about how you described the car are irrelevant in this case, as you have absolutely no contract with the woman.

This will be an easy win if it actually goes that far, but I would apply to have it struck out to avoid wasting your time.

Tim

[InitialDave]

jjones said:

This may cause you grief. Chap at work sold an old scenic for less than £500 on ebay. It was a shed, advert clearly stated "Spares or Repairs" but he also added "should be good for many years".

Judge found in his favour (sellers) but warned him it was a close run thing and he shouldn't have stated "should be good for many years" as he was not a qualified mechanic (or someone who was in a position to express an "expert" opinion".

"I meant the parts it would provide as spares would be good for several different model years"

[JM]

Any updates yet OP?

Did you contact the court saying you didn't sell anything to the claimant?

[HIAO]

jjones said:

This may cause you grief. Chap at work sold an old scenic for less than £500 on ebay. It was a shed, advert clearly stated "Spares or Repairs" but he also added "should be good for many years".

Judge found in his favour (sellers) but warned him it was a close run thing and he shouldn't have stated "should be good for many miles" as he was not a qualified mechanic (or someone who was in a position to express an "expert" opinion".

There's a meaningful difference between describing current reliabilty "performs faultlessly" and making assertions about the future "should be good for many years".

[Yipper]

Is this thread fo' real...

By UK law, the vehicle should match the description given by the private seller.

If it did match, then case dismissed.

What's more, the deal is always between the "seller and buyer".

Not between "seller and re-buyer". Case, again, dismissed.

[Markbarry1977]

InitialDave said:

Maybe go to court, just for the experience. I've never heard a judge call someone a complete and utter fkwit before, and I wouldn't want to miss my chance.

This had me laughing so much my ribs hurt. How about the op posts the court date and location on here. I'd love to be a fly on the wall if this goes to court.

[nyxster]

Markbarry1977 said:

This had me laughing so much my ribs hurt. How about the op posts the court date and location on here. I'd love to be a fly on the wall if this goes to court.

Sounds like it will be in front of Judge Rinder on ITV.