Private car sale - Letter of court action
Discussion
moooooobss said:
The only laws that have to be followed are that the person has the right to sell the vehicle. It be road worthy and that it was not miss described.
Great (and the correct!) result for you.The bit I bolded above - does that mean you are unable to sell a car that is not road worthy as a private person even if it's described with it's faults?
The Moose said:
Great (and the correct!) result for you.
The bit I bolded above - does that mean you are unable to sell a car that is not road worthy as a private person even if it's described with it's faults?
Sorry my bad. I've just checked our solicitors letter sent to the claiment and it describes the following three rules when selling a car privately The bit I bolded above - does that mean you are unable to sell a car that is not road worthy as a private person even if it's described with it's faults?
Seller must have the legal right to sell the car
The vehicle must be as described
The vehicle is not miss represented
Sorry about the initial confusion. Don't know where I got road worthy from.
2 years!
It seems so wrong that on small claims track someone can claim pretty much anything they want, and you have to then make sure you do everything by the book, respond on time, etc lest you lose by default. At the very least it's wasted time and stress. If you're an honest person it's even more debilitating.
And paying for representation? Nice if you can afford it, shame you can't get any of your legal costs back even if you win.
I guess there must be some rationale for this being so open to abuse, but I must be too simple to know what it is...
It seems so wrong that on small claims track someone can claim pretty much anything they want, and you have to then make sure you do everything by the book, respond on time, etc lest you lose by default. At the very least it's wasted time and stress. If you're an honest person it's even more debilitating.
And paying for representation? Nice if you can afford it, shame you can't get any of your legal costs back even if you win.
I guess there must be some rationale for this being so open to abuse, but I must be too simple to know what it is...
moooooobss said:
Hi everyone
Just resurrecting this thread as we had our day in court last week and I thought I would update everyone with the results.
Short of it is that we sat down with a judge. Judge explained to both parties that the fact that the vehicle may be unfit for purpose is irrelevant in a private sale. The only laws that have to be followed are that the person has the right to sell the vehicle. It be road worthy and that it was not miss described.
Some discussions between the judge and claiment took place. We, as the defendant, were not asked to provide any evidence as the judge had made a decision based on the claiments evidence.
The decision was that the vehicle was not miss described and there fore the case was dismissed.
So after a long two years this has finally been put to bed.
So there you have it folks. I hope no one else has to go through our experience but I just thought I would provide this update for anyone else out there who is looking for answers as I was when I started this thread.
Nice to see the judge didn't even really bother to entertain the claimant.Just resurrecting this thread as we had our day in court last week and I thought I would update everyone with the results.
Short of it is that we sat down with a judge. Judge explained to both parties that the fact that the vehicle may be unfit for purpose is irrelevant in a private sale. The only laws that have to be followed are that the person has the right to sell the vehicle. It be road worthy and that it was not miss described.
Some discussions between the judge and claiment took place. We, as the defendant, were not asked to provide any evidence as the judge had made a decision based on the claiments evidence.
The decision was that the vehicle was not miss described and there fore the case was dismissed.
So after a long two years this has finally been put to bed.
So there you have it folks. I hope no one else has to go through our experience but I just thought I would provide this update for anyone else out there who is looking for answers as I was when I started this thread.
Durzel said:
2 years!
It seems so wrong that on small claims track someone can claim pretty much anything they want, and you have to then make sure you do everything by the book, respond on time, etc lest you lose by default. At the very least it's wasted time and stress. If you're an honest person it's even more debilitating.
And paying for representation? Nice if you can afford it, shame you can't get any of your legal costs back even if you win.
I guess there must be some rationale for this being so open to abuse, but I must be too simple to know what it is...
Make it too hard the other way and then with the expense of court and risk of costs its too hard for someone who has a genuine case to access justice. It seems so wrong that on small claims track someone can claim pretty much anything they want, and you have to then make sure you do everything by the book, respond on time, etc lest you lose by default. At the very least it's wasted time and stress. If you're an honest person it's even more debilitating.
And paying for representation? Nice if you can afford it, shame you can't get any of your legal costs back even if you win.
I guess there must be some rationale for this being so open to abuse, but I must be too simple to know what it is...
Difficult balance.
I think perhaps cost protection should only apply to claims raised by a consumer against a business.
Durzel said:
I guess there must be some rationale for this being so open to abuse, but I must be too simple to know what it is...
If the small claims court wasn't so accessible it would be very costly to claim back money when someone does genuinely screw you over. You could add some pre-screening to reply to the claimant and say this is very unlikely to be upheld perhaps.meatballs said:
If the small claims court wasn't so accessible it would be very costly to claim back money when someone does genuinely screw you over. You could add some pre-screening to reply to the claimant and say this is very unlikely to be upheld perhaps.
I think the thing that is missing is a cursery glance by a judge before it goes to court once all the papers have been submitted. They can then decide if there is any merit to the case or not. You can do this now via a 'summary judgement' however this can cost a significant sum and may get you no where. meatballs said:
If the small claims court wasn't so accessible it would be very costly to claim back money when someone does genuinely screw you over. You could add some pre-screening to reply to the claimant and say this is very unlikely to be upheld perhaps.
I think the thing that is missing is a cursery glance by a judge before it goes to court once all the papers have been submitted. They can then decide if there is any merit to the case or not. You can do this now via a 'summary judgement' however this can cost a significant sum and may get you no where. Good result, but a shame you got stuck with a lunatic buying the vehicle from you!
There was that other one a wee while back where the buyer again got chucked out of court, but it's car buying 101, it's sold as seen.
Where on earth are these maniacs finding the advice and support saying "you've owned the privately sold vehicle for 3-4 months and there is no legal reason to expect the judge to say anything other than get lost, but yes, you'll definitely manage to get it refunded in a court case"?
There was that other one a wee while back where the buyer again got chucked out of court, but it's car buying 101, it's sold as seen.
Where on earth are these maniacs finding the advice and support saying "you've owned the privately sold vehicle for 3-4 months and there is no legal reason to expect the judge to say anything other than get lost, but yes, you'll definitely manage to get it refunded in a court case"?
t in most threads 
Back tracking but the OP said in the advert...
'Had new brakes'
...which the buyer was arguing wasn't the case but it doesn't stipulate when or what. Would there be a defence by simply saying...
'Yes, it had new brakes... when it was built'
...though my point is more, if there's no mention of dates or parts etc then surely the description is so vague, how can a buyer agree a point based on that?
'Had new brakes'
...which the buyer was arguing wasn't the case but it doesn't stipulate when or what. Would there be a defence by simply saying...
'Yes, it had new brakes... when it was built'
...though my point is more, if there's no mention of dates or parts etc then surely the description is so vague, how can a buyer agree a point based on that?
Davie said:
Back tracking but the OP said in the advert...
'Had new brakes'
...which the buyer was arguing wasn't the case but it doesn't stipulate when or what. Would there be a defence by simply saying...
'Yes, it had new brakes... when it was built'
...though my point is more, if there's no mention of dates or parts etc then surely the description is so vague, how can a buyer agree a point based on that?
Surely the date of sale?'Had new brakes'
...which the buyer was arguing wasn't the case but it doesn't stipulate when or what. Would there be a defence by simply saying...
'Yes, it had new brakes... when it was built'
...though my point is more, if there's no mention of dates or parts etc then surely the description is so vague, how can a buyer agree a point based on that?
moooooobss said:
Hi everyone
Just resurrecting this thread as we had our day in court last week and I thought I would update everyone with the results.
Short of it is that we sat down with a judge. Judge explained to both parties that the fact that the vehicle may be unfit for purpose is irrelevant in a private sale. The only laws that have to be followed are that the person has the right to sell the vehicle. It be road worthy and that it was not miss described.
Some discussions between the judge and claiment took place. We, as the defendant, were not asked to provide any evidence as the judge had made a decision based on the claiments evidence.
The decision was that the vehicle was not miss described and there fore the case was dismissed.
So after a long two years this has finally been put to bed.
So there you have it folks. I hope no one else has to go through our experience but I just thought I would provide this update for anyone else out there who is looking for answers as I was when I started this thread.
Good to hear it's over for you. How stupid can this buyer be. You would be hardpressed to get a refund from a dealership, let alone a private sale. The whole point of a private sale is you get it cheaper than from a dealer which even that has no guarantee of quality once you drive off the lot.Just resurrecting this thread as we had our day in court last week and I thought I would update everyone with the results.
Short of it is that we sat down with a judge. Judge explained to both parties that the fact that the vehicle may be unfit for purpose is irrelevant in a private sale. The only laws that have to be followed are that the person has the right to sell the vehicle. It be road worthy and that it was not miss described.
Some discussions between the judge and claiment took place. We, as the defendant, were not asked to provide any evidence as the judge had made a decision based on the claiments evidence.
The decision was that the vehicle was not miss described and there fore the case was dismissed.
So after a long two years this has finally been put to bed.
So there you have it folks. I hope no one else has to go through our experience but I just thought I would provide this update for anyone else out there who is looking for answers as I was when I started this thread.
The Moose said:
Great (and the correct!) result for you.
The bit I bolded above - does that mean you are unable to sell a car that is not road worthy as a private person even if it's described with it's faults?
If its not road worthy you have to sell it as "spares and repairs". You should not allow a test drive as you are the Keeper and its not roadworthy. The car must not be driven away from you - it has to be taken on a truck/towed etc.The bit I bolded above - does that mean you are unable to sell a car that is not road worthy as a private person even if it's described with it's faults?
If you sell a car after an MOT fail and just want to get rid of it for scrap you have to follow the above.
andyr said:
If its not road worthy you have to sell it as "spares and repairs". You should not allow a test drive as you are the Keeper and its not roadworthy. The car must not be driven away from you - it has to be taken on a truck/towed etc.
If you sell a car after an MOT fail and just want to get rid of it for scrap you have to follow the above.
I'm sure the OP has probably learnt that in the 4yrs that have passed since starting this thread If you sell a car after an MOT fail and just want to get rid of it for scrap you have to follow the above.
lornemalvo said:
Good result. I have doubts about the mot tester the buyer took the box to. Vehicles do not need to have a spare wheel to pass the MOT but if it's there, it must be in good condition (I'm assuming it's not an LGV, which may or may not be different)
Whatever it was, I'm sure it's probably been moved on after all these years.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff