Oh FFS! Buyer of my car issued court summons!
Discussion
Chaps, I know this has been covered hundreds of times... but I feel the need to rant a little.
Sold my car a couple of months ago. I'm not a trader, it was a private sale- it was actually my wifes car (V5 in her name etc).
She's been seriously ill, and as a result, we no longer need two cars.
Advertised it for ages at what appeared to be market value, and ended up selling it to a chap that had seen it, previously on eBay. IIRC similar cars with dealers were around 10k, I had it advertised at £8995, reduced it, reduced it, reduced it. I think when he actually looked at it, it was down to £6795.
Anyway, he comes down, has a good look round it, can't prove insurance so I take him for a drive. He's quite happy. Comes back a couple of hours later, bids me in the goolies, and leaves a deposit, balance to be paid the following week.
I meet up with him, he pays me by bank transfer, which doesn't show up. He drives me to the bank and I'm satisfied its in the system, so let him take the car. Money showed up the next day. at this point he's driven home via motorway etc, the relevance will be apparent in a minute.
I hear nothing more, other than a couple of 'really pleased with the car' type calls / texts.
A week later, he takes it to an Audi 'specialist'..... who finds £2500 of work that 'needs to be done'.
The chap then plagues me with calls, texts and registered letters demanding money. Doesn't ever mention returning the car.
I honestly knew nothing about any of these problems (low brake pads, warped disks, spare tyre down to 3mm 'so needs to be replaced as its not safe'!) FFS, it was only MOT'd a month earlier! He's even phoned the garage that serviced it demanding information!
Anyway, this morning I've received a summons. I described the car as excellent condition, which it was. I made no reference to any of the parts he claims are faulty, wasn't aware of them, he had every opportunity to inspect or arrange an inspection.
The chap evidently doesn't understand caveat emptor. I in no way misdescribed it, and had no knowledge of the bits he says are faulty. he's been driving it quite happily for a week!
Rant over- I shall respond to the summons in a more succinct manner!
Sold my car a couple of months ago. I'm not a trader, it was a private sale- it was actually my wifes car (V5 in her name etc).
She's been seriously ill, and as a result, we no longer need two cars.
Advertised it for ages at what appeared to be market value, and ended up selling it to a chap that had seen it, previously on eBay. IIRC similar cars with dealers were around 10k, I had it advertised at £8995, reduced it, reduced it, reduced it. I think when he actually looked at it, it was down to £6795.
Anyway, he comes down, has a good look round it, can't prove insurance so I take him for a drive. He's quite happy. Comes back a couple of hours later, bids me in the goolies, and leaves a deposit, balance to be paid the following week.
I meet up with him, he pays me by bank transfer, which doesn't show up. He drives me to the bank and I'm satisfied its in the system, so let him take the car. Money showed up the next day. at this point he's driven home via motorway etc, the relevance will be apparent in a minute.
I hear nothing more, other than a couple of 'really pleased with the car' type calls / texts.
A week later, he takes it to an Audi 'specialist'..... who finds £2500 of work that 'needs to be done'.
The chap then plagues me with calls, texts and registered letters demanding money. Doesn't ever mention returning the car.
I honestly knew nothing about any of these problems (low brake pads, warped disks, spare tyre down to 3mm 'so needs to be replaced as its not safe'!) FFS, it was only MOT'd a month earlier! He's even phoned the garage that serviced it demanding information!
Anyway, this morning I've received a summons. I described the car as excellent condition, which it was. I made no reference to any of the parts he claims are faulty, wasn't aware of them, he had every opportunity to inspect or arrange an inspection.
The chap evidently doesn't understand caveat emptor. I in no way misdescribed it, and had no knowledge of the bits he says are faulty. he's been driving it quite happily for a week!
Rant over- I shall respond to the summons in a more succinct manner!
My response...
Mr XXXXXX inspected the car drove the car and was satisfied with the vehicle as described and only after he had satisfied himself did he pay me for the vehicle.
Mr XXXXXX used the vehicle daily for seven days, with no mention of any problems until they were highlighted to him by an Audi 'specialist'.
Mr XXXXX could have had an inspection prior to purchase however he was happy to verify the cars condition himself.
I feel this claim is a frivolous attempt to obtain money.
Mr XXXXXX inspected the car drove the car and was satisfied with the vehicle as described and only after he had satisfied himself did he pay me for the vehicle.
Mr XXXXXX used the vehicle daily for seven days, with no mention of any problems until they were highlighted to him by an Audi 'specialist'.
Mr XXXXX could have had an inspection prior to purchase however he was happy to verify the cars condition himself.
I feel this claim is a frivolous attempt to obtain money.
Front parking sensor failed (although it had always been fine, and worked when HE drove ME to the bank!).
Broken flap on the inlet manifold, apparently.
He also treated himself to a new set of tyres, brake disks and pads.
In essence, he wanted the car to the standard of his outgoing car (61 plate X5 that he had to sell back to dealer).
Bearing in mind the car we sold him was 9 years old and had covered 115,000 miles....
Thanks for the replies, chaps, I know he doesn't have a leg to stand on (not even sure he could rely on the description on the ebay advert as the deal was done after the auction had ended, unsold, ie not through ebay).
Its just a pain in the arse. you lot are making me smile though
Broken flap on the inlet manifold, apparently.
He also treated himself to a new set of tyres, brake disks and pads.
In essence, he wanted the car to the standard of his outgoing car (61 plate X5 that he had to sell back to dealer).
Bearing in mind the car we sold him was 9 years old and had covered 115,000 miles....
Thanks for the replies, chaps, I know he doesn't have a leg to stand on (not even sure he could rely on the description on the ebay advert as the deal was done after the auction had ended, unsold, ie not through ebay).
Its just a pain in the arse. you lot are making me smile though
Gruber said:
I understand all that, but why does he say he's entitled to money from you? Is he saying you owe it under the Sale of Goods Act? Is he saying you misrepresented the condition of the car?
Nope, doesn't give any grounds, just claims I misrepresented it. I'm not a mechanic, neither is he, when I describe it as 'excellent condition' I mean it stops and go's as it should, the paintwork is bright and not damaged, and so is the leather.It had a very recent VOSA MOT, so I know it was fine mechanically.
More to the point, he had every opportunity to inspect it. If he wanted a warranty he should have paid more and bought one from a garage. AND he drove it for a week with warped disks without noticing.... come on!
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.
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.
daz3210 said:
I thought that under £5k was small claims track in which you couldn't get very much by way of legal costs, except (solicitors) issue fee if you issued the summons and the court fee.
As for the claim, when did the OP actually sell the car? The way I have read it this was only seven days since, and he has received a summons already. That means that either no notice of the intention to issue has been made, or things were started pretty much as soon as he had his hands on the car.
With regard to the matter of expenses, you have to ask the judge at the end of proceedings otherwise they are not normally offered. Having said that at one hearing that I attended, the other party did not attend, but instead, on the morning of the hearing sent a fax to court saying they had emigrated. Whilst we never saw the money, the judge did his best to award everything he could. Travel expenses, loss of earnings for all etc etc were awarded, which added up to about £400.00. Our initial claim was only for £250.00 plus interest and court fee. Judges are not daft, and if they get annoyed they are at liberty to do what they wish within the law.
Others better qualified will advise on this, but in addition to defending the action, is it worth writing to the claimant outlining your likely costs in the event of a successful defence, and putting him on notice that you will intend to apply for such costs? Or would this be frowned upon by the court? My thought is to make him think carefully and hopefully withdraw the claim.
In any event, even without having someone inspect the car for him, he would have oppotunity to inspect the tyres before purchase. And I hope he has retained all the allegedly faulty bits to bring to court.....
As for the claim, when did the OP actually sell the car? The way I have read it this was only seven days since, and he has received a summons already. That means that either no notice of the intention to issue has been made, or things were started pretty much as soon as he had his hands on the car.
With regard to the matter of expenses, you have to ask the judge at the end of proceedings otherwise they are not normally offered. Having said that at one hearing that I attended, the other party did not attend, but instead, on the morning of the hearing sent a fax to court saying they had emigrated. Whilst we never saw the money, the judge did his best to award everything he could. Travel expenses, loss of earnings for all etc etc were awarded, which added up to about £400.00. Our initial claim was only for £250.00 plus interest and court fee. Judges are not daft, and if they get annoyed they are at liberty to do what they wish within the law.
Others better qualified will advise on this, but in addition to defending the action, is it worth writing to the claimant outlining your likely costs in the event of a successful defence, and putting him on notice that you will intend to apply for such costs? Or would this be frowned upon by the court? My thought is to make him think carefully and hopefully withdraw the claim.
In any event, even without having someone inspect the car for him, he would have oppotunity to inspect the tyres before purchase. And I hope he has retained all the allegedly faulty bits to bring to court.....
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.
Jasandjules said:
Can you please state what the claim form says?
As 10ps said, you can make an application to have the claim struck out (unless he is claiming Misrepresentation which is why I would like to know what he is actually claiming, if he simply states private sale etc then it should be fairly easy). You would not get costs in a small claim BUT there is a way around that. If you make the application before the claim has been transferred to the small claim track, that means that you can indeed recover your costs - which at the moment if you are self employed you can prove your hourly rate, if not, litigants in person get £18ph......
So you send in your acknowledgement of service, noting that you will defend the claim. Then your defence is that the claim should be struck out etc... and ask for costs....
The defendant sold and Audi XX to the claimant under representations that it was in excellent condition for age and mileage and with full service history, everything described was in full working order with good tyres.lt was on the basis of this representation that I agreed to purchase theAs 10ps said, you can make an application to have the claim struck out (unless he is claiming Misrepresentation which is why I would like to know what he is actually claiming, if he simply states private sale etc then it should be fairly easy). You would not get costs in a small claim BUT there is a way around that. If you make the application before the claim has been transferred to the small claim track, that means that you can indeed recover your costs - which at the moment if you are self employed you can prove your hourly rate, if not, litigants in person get £18ph......
So you send in your acknowledgement of service, noting that you will defend the claim. Then your defence is that the claim should be struck out etc... and ask for costs....
vehicle. Upon delivery, the vehicle was not as represented and the following defects were found.
Engine fault caused by broken air inlet manifold that had been present for some time.
Defective brakes ? front discs warped and pads (front and rear) in need of immediate replacement.
Rear tyres worn down to 2mm tread and spare unserviceable.
Failure of front parking sensor. Accordingly the claimant was induced into the purchase by the defendant?s misrepresentations and seeks recovery of the cost of rectifying the defects in the sum of #2391
That's cut and pasted, along with the random ? and #'s, with only the reg and model deleted.
[quote]Upon delivery, the vehicle was not as represented and the following defects were found.
[/quote]
What a load of tosh. Why would he have paid if that were the case?? And why did it take him a week to find the faults.
He should have had the Audi 'specialist' look at it before he bought it.
[/quote]
What a load of tosh. Why would he have paid if that were the case?? And why did it take him a week to find the faults.
He should have had the Audi 'specialist' look at it before he bought it.
ks, particularly the tosh about 'delivery'. Tyres are something he should blatantly have seen and the rest... Well, if he wants to pay a specialist for unnecessary work...I described it accurately, listing everything in pretty minute detail, even down to a small crack in a speaker grille!
I pointed out everything the first time he viewed it and he was quite happy.
It had quite a comprehensive service history - which I listed in detail.
Irrespective, he viewed it twice, plus the day he collected it. He didn't check the spare tyre, I made no claims about it, and it was legal. The tyres were legal, two of them nearly new as I said earlier.
I have a signed receipt, clearly stating sold as seen, with no warranty given or implied.
He drove it for a week, quite happily, before the 'specialist' told him there were 'issues' - issues that I didn't know about, they weren't in any way apparent, hence we'd both driven it and been quite satisfied that everything was just fine.
I pointed out everything the first time he viewed it and he was quite happy.
It had quite a comprehensive service history - which I listed in detail.
Irrespective, he viewed it twice, plus the day he collected it. He didn't check the spare tyre, I made no claims about it, and it was legal. The tyres were legal, two of them nearly new as I said earlier.
I have a signed receipt, clearly stating sold as seen, with no warranty given or implied.
He drove it for a week, quite happily, before the 'specialist' told him there were 'issues' - issues that I didn't know about, they weren't in any way apparent, hence we'd both driven it and been quite satisfied that everything was just fine.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff