Sold a car privately - COURT ACTION
Discussion
muussaah said:
She claims that I have let her name out on this thread and email address which I have gone back on and cant see anything specific apart from her name....
Out of curiosity did she say how she came across the thread? Was she searching for info about the car or just how to attempt to shaft someone in court?Great result OP
Gareth79 said:
Is there any basis of her "data protection" complaint? I can't see any problem with announcing publicly that a person is suing you (if that is your decision) - the entire hearing will be public anyway, and often end up in the paper!
No but I'd imagine that she beliveves it is a complete travesty that vexatious litigants can't do so in complete anonymity thus hiding their true character. Next argument out of the blocks will probably be "hoooman rights innit"
tumble dryer said:
adh said:
Having come out of a deep stasis hibernation, I would like to ask OP upon finally meeting his litigant in person, would he take her on a date up the OXO Tower? I don't think the £20 would get you much beyond an amuse-bouche. But it's best to be civil and let bygones be bygones in matters like civil litigation.
Lol'd, and then looked at the poster.Where the fook have you been hiding...??
Centurion07 said:
Couple of questions...
1. What was the breach of the DPA about?
2. There COULD possibly be a case to answer if the actual buyer can be arsed to go through with it all...?
Unless the OP is a data controller the reference to the DPA is a complete nonsense.1. What was the breach of the DPA about?
2. There COULD possibly be a case to answer if the actual buyer can be arsed to go through with it all...?
Just like the whole thing in fact, utter nonsense propagated by idiots.
SiH said:
With that lurking history I would suspect he's either been driving round in a car that was found in a field so re-registered to him, driving round in a Lotus Elise that was won as a prize from the site or alternatively was locked in a tunnel in some guy's garden with nothing but a winged horse of chav tat to keep him company...
No, I'm just really popular on mumsnet. The Lotus is an Elan +2. 
Tyre Tread said:
Hate to say I told you so...
Hope they don't reissue in the buyer's name ...
That occurred to me too. Someone else said the victory was not as satisfying as it might have been if the judge had said that it was a feature of sold-as-seen purchases that there is no redress bar through misrepresentation by the vendor. Instead it was the easily remedied absent claimant.Hope they don't reissue in the buyer's name ...
muussaah said:
<snip>
I didnt even get to have a say as the judge focused on the simple fact that she had no contract of law, she gave a letter to the judge which read the money was hers and thats why she was claiming it back however the judge stated the actual buyer is not in court so "I simply don't know what your doing here" and on that basis its dismissed. The ACTUAL claimant is welcome to reapply however judge didn't think it was best as he wasn't present to show any interest attending court to begin with.
<snip>
I didnt even get to have a say as the judge focused on the simple fact that she had no contract of law, she gave a letter to the judge which read the money was hers and thats why she was claiming it back however the judge stated the actual buyer is not in court so "I simply don't know what your doing here" and on that basis its dismissed. The ACTUAL claimant is welcome to reapply however judge didn't think it was best as he wasn't present to show any interest attending court to begin with.
<snip>
godskitchen said:
<snip>
Well done again OP, you have given us concrete proof (as far as one can) of a seller winning in court, something that the "oh be careful" merchants can not provide for a seller losing.
Not to take anything away from the OP here - but he 'won' his case on a technicality, so there is no "concrete proof" here.Well done again OP, you have given us concrete proof (as far as one can) of a seller winning in court, something that the "oh be careful" merchants can not provide for a seller losing.
Things might have ended differently if the case was bought by the original buyer and said buyer was in court to represent himself.
Disclaimer: I have no association with any of the parties involved.
@muussaah - no matter what - you did the right thing to 'stick to your guns' and well done.
muussaah said:
Centurion07 said:
Couple of questions...
1. What was the breach of the DPA about?
2. There COULD possibly be a case to answer if the actual buyer can be arsed to go through with it all...?
She claims that I have let her name out on this thread and email address which I have gone back on and cant see anything specific apart from her name however I have today spoken with CAB and they have told me there is nothing to worry about as its open information plus it was done with the intention of finding out whether she had any previous history such cases.1. What was the breach of the DPA about?
2. There COULD possibly be a case to answer if the actual buyer can be arsed to go through with it all...?
When the judge asked me for the counter claim and I was awarded the £20 I did say I will happily drop the £20 if shes forgets this whole thing and then she intervened stating I have disclosed her email and name etc to which then the judge told her to be quiet as I was being helpful and she needs to hear me out, that in itself was VERY satisfying!
If she takes me to court again for DPA then so be it, the stage fright I had has now gone and will be confident from here on, for those of you asking the fees are as follows:-
£70 to apply for a case
£170 for hearing
£130 garage invoice payment
£20 loss of earnings
A cyclist-hating hypocrite from the New Forest was quite vocal in opposing an organised cycling event in the National Park. Not of itself worthy of any note. Apart from the fact that she was also the owner of a commercial website and she earned money from carrying adverts on her site for a large number of local bike hire and cycle-touring firms.
She complained to PH when I jokingly threatened to ride my bicycle in circles around her house, and linked to a photograph (on Google streetview) of a liveried car advertising her website parked outside said house). Her complaint was that I'd revealed her home address. Only I hadn't. I'd cropped the detail from the Streetview screenshot, and she'd published her own address as the registered address of the website business, on her own site itself.
I was actually worried when I got an email form the moderator, but he laughed it off as "yet another nutter", deleted my post to keep her happy, and told me to worry no more. Her website, after all, was a "matter of self-published public record". In the end she changed the registered address on the website, rather than actually address my point about her two-faced hypocrisy regarding taking money to advertise some of the New Forest's many cycle-friendly tourism businesses, whilst simultaneously using some frankly disturbing rhetoric against organised events in particular, and cyclists in general, on another outlet. Come to think of it, I wonder if she's bought a used car recently and found she's not happy with it...
muussaah said:
Centurion07 said:
Couple of questions...
1. What was the breach of the DPA about?
2. There COULD possibly be a case to answer if the actual buyer can be arsed to go through with it all...?
She claims that I have let her name out on this thread and email address which I have gone back on and cant see anything specific apart from her name however I have today spoken with CAB and they have told me there is nothing to worry about as its open information plus it was done with the intention of finding out whether she had any previous history such cases.1. What was the breach of the DPA about?
2. There COULD possibly be a case to answer if the actual buyer can be arsed to go through with it all...?
When the judge asked me for the counter claim and I was awarded the £20 I did say I will happily drop the £20 if shes forgets this whole thing and then she intervened stating I have disclosed her email and name etc to which then the judge told her to be quiet as I was being helpful and she needs to hear me out, that in itself was VERY satisfying!
If she takes me to court again for DPA then so be it, the stage fright I had has now gone and will be confident from here on, for those of you asking the fees are as follows:-
£70 to apply for a case
£170 for hearing
£130 garage invoice payment
£20 loss of earnings
yellowjack said:
muussaah said:
Centurion07 said:
Couple of questions...
1. What was the breach of the DPA about?
2. There COULD possibly be a case to answer if the actual buyer can be arsed to go through with it all...?
She claims that I have let her name out on this thread and email address which I have gone back on and cant see anything specific apart from her name however I have today spoken with CAB and they have told me there is nothing to worry about as its open information plus it was done with the intention of finding out whether she had any previous history such cases.1. What was the breach of the DPA about?
2. There COULD possibly be a case to answer if the actual buyer can be arsed to go through with it all...?
When the judge asked me for the counter claim and I was awarded the £20 I did say I will happily drop the £20 if shes forgets this whole thing and then she intervened stating I have disclosed her email and name etc to which then the judge told her to be quiet as I was being helpful and she needs to hear me out, that in itself was VERY satisfying!
If she takes me to court again for DPA then so be it, the stage fright I had has now gone and will be confident from here on, for those of you asking the fees are as follows:-
£70 to apply for a case
£170 for hearing
£130 garage invoice payment
£20 loss of earnings
A cyclist-hating hypocrite from the New Forest was quite vocal in opposing an organised cycling event in the National Park. Not of itself worthy of any note. Apart from the fact that she was also the owner of a commercial website and she earned money from carrying adverts on her site for a large number of local bike hire and cycle-touring firms.
She complained to PH when I jokingly threatened to ride my bicycle in circles around her house, and linked to a photograph (on Google streetview) of a liveried car advertising her website parked outside said house). Her complaint was that I'd revealed her home address. Only I hadn't. I'd cropped the detail from the Streetview screenshot, and she'd published her own address as the registered address of the website business, on her own site itself.
I was actually worried when I got an email form the moderator, but he laughed it off as "yet another nutter", deleted my post to keep her happy, and told me to worry no more. Her website, after all, was a "matter of self-published public record". In the end she changed the registered address on the website, rather than actually address my point about her two-faced hypocrisy regarding taking money to advertise some of the New Forest's many cycle-friendly tourism businesses, whilst simultaneously using some frankly disturbing rhetoric against organised events in particular, and cyclists in general, on another outlet. Come to think of it, I wonder if she's bought a used car recently and found she's not happy with it...
k her.godskitchen said:
Excellent result OP.
Fair play to you for sticking to your principles and not caving like many on here would have.
There were a few of us who called the outcome well in advance and you clearly took our advice on board.
As for the rest of you who said it could go either way and were nit picking or splitting hairs , I really hope none of you ever come up against anything remotely mentally or emotionally taxing in your lives. There was some truly shocking advice handed out here.
The people that suggested mediation, Jesus wept!
Having had my little Alan Partridge moment and with all that said, there is a possibility that the bad advice was planted by the claimant, if as it turns out he or she was reading this forum. I honestly think that's giving them too much credit however and it is just a case of some of the users here being idiots.
Well done again OP, you have given us concrete proof (as far as one can) of a seller winning in court, something that the "oh be careful" merchants can not provide for a seller losing.
I think this may be what Arnie would call a "teachable moment"....(I am leaping to an assumption you have some form of legal qualification/vocation/experience).Fair play to you for sticking to your principles and not caving like many on here would have.
There were a few of us who called the outcome well in advance and you clearly took our advice on board.
As for the rest of you who said it could go either way and were nit picking or splitting hairs , I really hope none of you ever come up against anything remotely mentally or emotionally taxing in your lives. There was some truly shocking advice handed out here.
The people that suggested mediation, Jesus wept!
Having had my little Alan Partridge moment and with all that said, there is a possibility that the bad advice was planted by the claimant, if as it turns out he or she was reading this forum. I honestly think that's giving them too much credit however and it is just a case of some of the users here being idiots.
Well done again OP, you have given us concrete proof (as far as one can) of a seller winning in court, something that the "oh be careful" merchants can not provide for a seller losing.
I was one of those who spoke of mediation and you chastised me for that appropriately, which I take on board. My suggestion was based on previous experience where I was told that in any case one should engage in that process, even in cases such as this instance where the mediation may have been as brief as "the claimant has no contract with me so I can't take this any further". That being said, clearly the advice which I received (from two separate legal entities, who I paid for it, was clearly wrong. The context was that if the case went further and the rejection of mediation could be held against the parties involved.
In your capacity, as a legal expert, are you saying that there are instances where mediation should be declined, and what would those be?
What is a straightforward process for those with experience and knowledge can be intimidating and difficult for those who do not.
I don't think anyone suggested the OP should be capitulate. However, I am not alone in being curious of what would have happened if the claimant had received some better advice and amended the paperwork such that the case went beyond straightforward opening and closing. At that point I think it would be fair to say that you have more faith in the legal system than I do. Common sense, and right, does not always prevail.
Echoing all before - really good result ... been following this with interest. Personally I hope the chancing muppets DO try to take further court action - just to give you the opportunity to smash their so-called claim and for them to waste a further £400 and be left in no further doubt that they're a bunch of chancing muppets!
adh said:
SiH said:
With that lurking history I would suspect he's either been driving round in a car that was found in a field so re-registered to him, driving round in a Lotus Elise that was won as a prize from the site or alternatively was locked in a tunnel in some guy's garden with nothing but a winged horse of chav tat to keep him company...
No, I'm just really popular on mumsnet. The Lotus is an Elan +2. RobDown said:
Great result - but one thing bothers me (Sherlock) - " why did the claimant not make a claim in the purchasers name in the first place?". Does he have something to hide?
Car breaks down. Bloke tells wife. Wife says get your money back. Bloke says "Don't be ridiculous, we've put a few thousand miles on it and it was a bit of a shed in the first place. Wife says "Well if you won't take him to court I will". Bloke thinks "This'll be a laugh".Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff