Sold car privately, buyer wants money back

[biggbn]

sandman77 said:

By some crazy coincidence it appears this has happened to you twice. Once back in March where the only difference was you were selling on behalf of your daughter and not your son.
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legalbeagle...

Wow, what the hell is going on? I'm out.

[SistersofPercy]

Monkeylegend said:

Makes you wonder if it was actually Plainjane that bought the car and is looking for a way to get her money back

Or if it's some kind of educational essay.
Either way it's starting to look like a duck...

[Austin_Metro]

Another fake thread. Sad.

[Muzzer79]

biggbn said:

. What's to stop the buyer, if they are crooked, claiming it was advertised as never repaired and claim free? One person's word against another's then?

The buyer would have to prove that was the case. The OP would not have to prove that wasn’t the case.

But this all seems like it’s male cow manure anyway, so it’s moot.

[biggbn]

Muzzer79 said:

biggbn said:

. What's to stop the buyer, if they are crooked, claiming it was advertised as never repaired and claim free? One person's word against another's then?

The buyer would have to prove that was the case. The OP would not have to prove that wasn’t the case.

But this all seems like it’s male cow manure anyway, so it’s moot.

That doesn't seem fair does it? So I can advertise my car as having a full dealer history and never been in an accident, sell it, then delete the advert in the full knowledge I'm telling lies and its up to the buyer to prove my ad said that? I'm exaggerating a point to to make a point to but, seems strange nonetheless? What a pathetic thread tbis has turned out to be tbough!!. I can't believe people are so sad they need to do this. Rather predictably, OP seems to have disappeared.

Edited by biggbn on Saturday 13th May 22:21

[Oceanrower]

sandman77 said:

By some crazy coincidence it appears this has happened to you twice. Once back in March where the only difference was you were selling on behalf of your daughter and not your son.
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legalbeagle...

Some people are just unlucky, I guess…

[Gad-Westy]

biggbn said:

Lesson to all, always check the paperwork. The new buyer has made exactly the same mistake you and your son did, and as a result he and his family, and the new buyer and his, may have been/be running around in a badly repaired death trap. Now that thought fills me with dread. Learn from this and move on.

It’s worth mentioning here that checking the paperwork might make no difference. The V5C will not always show if a car has been written off. An HPI style check is still required.

[dbrbot]

plainjane please explain

[ChrisH72]

Thread on the legal forum was dated late March which isn't long ago. Surely this is just the same ongoing situation?

The only odd discrepancy is that the car belonged to the son/daughter. I guess they could have shared it.

It's a bit strange granted but I can't really see why people would go on forums and make up this kind of stuff. What would be the point?

[Monkeylegend]

There is a second follow up thread on there asking for advice on how to respond, which OP posted on a couple of days ago.

[ZX10R NIN]

sandman77 said:

By some crazy coincidence it appears this has happened to you twice. Once back in March where the only difference was you were selling on behalf of your daughter and not your son.
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legalbeagle...

Oh wow

[Red 5]

Nobody said the car was written off did they?

There’s really no point in HPI checks anymore, or anyone referring to them as any proof. We do know HPI are not informed of any cars that can be auctioned for repair after full insurance settlements. Reporting is voluntary and it’s not done, if the car is worth more money at auction without the marker. Insurance companies do this enthusiastically to make money after they’ve had to make ‘full and final settlement’
Is there anyone left here that didn’t know that?

The buyer might have just done a Car Vertical or Vehicle Checks search after the new V5 arrived and discovered previous unrecorded damage.
If that’s the case, then almost every reply post is moot.
So many people seem to do these things and get inspections post private purchase!

The car was obviously red flag material anyway, with no history, only one key etc.

Usual OP fact omission (worst cast lying and attention seeking) that will most likely go unexplained is just the cherry on top.

[Turkish91]

Muzzer79 said:

Turkish91 said:

Wasn’t there a chap on here who sold a TVR(?) privately and then got taken to court and lost? Not for a full refund but something wrong with the car maybe? He posted a similar thread to this, advice all the same, then all went quiet for maybe a year and he came back to say he’d lost and had to pay the buyer several thousands?

Not helpful

The seller of the TVR agreed a price, then went back on the deal to sell it to someone else at a higher price.

The first buyer sued him for loss of bargain and won.

So, totally different to the OP.

OP - you have nothing to worry about, but you must send the paperwork back to the court and defend your case, not matter how ridiculous the claim is (which this one is)

My sincerest of apologies for not quite remembering the thread to it’s total accuracy.

After seeing the reply above yours, yes I now recall it was slightly different. Although still an utterly bizaare scenario to be taken to court for, and (IIRC) pretty much every single reply on that thread told him he wouldn’t have anything to worry about.

OP I do agree though you’ve got nothing really to be concerned about, just saying strange things do seem to happen sometimes.

[Turkish91]

sandman77 said:

By some crazy coincidence it appears this has happened to you twice. Once back in March where the only difference was you were selling on behalf of your daughter and not your son.
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legalbeagle...

Nice work

[Rushjob]

Raccaccoonie said:

Plainjane91 said:

Not a story. This is 100% the truth. I really don’t appreciate you implying I am lying.

Welcome to PH, you will find everything you post is interpreted as the opposite, over and over again.

Ironic post when you read a bit further along the thread..........
Response from the OP to the new revelations has so far been deafening.

[andymc]

Raccaccoonie said:

deebs said:

Indeed. The OPs story that she was acting for a son who is out the country and willing to sell the car cheaply ("they got a good deal because he was moving to Australia") and it then turns out it's a cat car that she couldn't possibly have known about has several markers of an iffy story. But roll the dice and see what the court says. Or offer to split the difference to keep it out of a judgement.

he could have known it was a cat, he doesn't have to say, unless asked.

Edited by Raccaccoonie on Saturday 13th May 15:05

i think he does, anything that can influence the buyers decision is meant to be revealed

[andymc]

great sleuthing, think jane is a pain and long gone

[Red 5]

Plainjane91 said:

Not a story. This is 100% the truth. I really don’t appreciate you implying I am lying.

Lair.

[530dTPhil]

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forum...

Just found another thread running as recently as last Friday on the same forum describing a car, sold on behalf of the daughter, being a cat S.

[biggbn]

530dTPhil said:

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forum...

Just found another thread running as recently as last Friday on the same forum describing a car, sold on behalf of the daughter, being a cat S.

Similarly 'exposed' earler in thread. What possesses people? There are some strange folk about.