# Being sued for selling vehicle that later failed an MOT !!!



## Fego (Nov 27, 2006)

This doesn't strictly apply to Motorhomes, but it easily could so I thought I'd post my scenario here to see whether anyone has a view to share and also to act a very mild warning.

Three weeks ago I sold a car. A convertible car I didn't want anymore. I priced it about £2k less than all the others for sale just to get shot quickly. I normally trade in to avoid dealing with 'the public' but on this one I had no choice. The MOT was due later in the month but I had no interest in getting it done first before selling it. I'm too busy so I just thought I would make the buyer do it themselves and knock the price down a bit to compensate.

In the end the first bloke to see it made me an offer £500 below the asking price and we eventually agreed a deal at £400 below asking price. He did a very long test drive on his own and asked lots of questions including whether I thought it would easily pass its MOT. I told him I thought two of the tyres might be a problem (bit bald like me) but that I wasn't qualified to give an opinion on anything else. 

I showed him all the paperwork although he wasn't that interested in reading it really. He just wanted to leave because in his words he was delighted with the deal. I took his company cheque and he took the car there and then. I worried about the cheque clearing for a couple of days and he enjoyed driving around in the late Autumn sunshine. (Note to self: don't do that again!!). Before the cheque even cleared he phoned to complain that an electric seat had stopped working so I told him which fuse to change and that seemed to satisfy him. That was the first warning sign really.

Anyway, he phoned me 6 times today whilst I was busy at work. When I returned his call, he was apoplectic. Apparently the car failed its MOT on three counts and he expected me to help him pay the bill to get it through. To be fair, he wasn't asking me to pay all of it (£1,100) just an offer towards it. When I explained that I thought that was unreasonable and unfortunate, he got angry and demanded to know if I would pay or not. When I said 'not' he got abusive and said he'd sue my arse and I'd regret it. I said I was genuinely surprised the car needed a new steering rack but the tyres were a known issue that he should have dealt with before the test. In my view it was his job to determine the car's condition before buying it and therefore his responsibility to correct any defects subsequently identified.

His view was different. He said it was my responsibility under the Sale of Goods Act to produce a product fit for purpose and that as the car couldn't even pass a simple MOT it was therefore not fit for purpose so I must make good the repairs and if I didn't he will sue me. I realised that nothing I could say would make any difference so eventually had to listen to him hang up on me whilst telling me (loudly) that I am a complete sh#t. Nice.

Now, fortunately, the majority of my working background has been spent handling litigation, defending negligence cases ironically, so I am not at all threatened by the prospect of being sued, lest the intimidation and bullying. My own view is that as I am not a trader I do not have any responsibility under the Act other than to accurately describe the car that I sold (which I did). The responsibility is with the buyer and it is their problem if they buy a pup. However, that said, I am not so naive and lacking in experience to know that some cases quirk the general rule so I am wondering if anyone has any knowledge to share, one way or the other.

I am not looking for sympathy, I can fight my own battle. But I would be interested in socialising the concept of him suing me for selling a vehicle with a fault neither of us knew about and what in theory the outcome might be. It might also be useful for others who are considering buying or selling their motorhomes in case they are buying or selling hidden faults.

I'll update the debate as it develops on here if there is any interest...


----------



## spooky (May 1, 2005)

Sounds like a bit of set up here, somebody trying in on maybe as a scam?

Malc


----------



## GerryD (Sep 20, 2007)

First point, as you know there is no legal protection for a purchase from a private indvidual, unless you can prove either negligence or false statement.
Second point, the first part of your story was horrifying. I am surprised that you managed to bank any money at all. First you allowed him to take the car on an unacompanied test drive, then you let the car go before the cheque cleared.
You are obvoiusly a very lucky person and have nothing to worry about regarding being sued. I would, however speak to your local Constabulary as the buyer's attitude is becoming quite threatening.


----------



## Melly (Jul 5, 2007)

If I ever sell a vehicle private I write out a reciept with the words "SOLD AS SEEN" and keep a copy myself.Everyone then knows where they stand and sign to agree to the fact.


----------



## colian (May 11, 2005)

If it had gone through its MOT with ease would he have come back to you and offered more money?.... I should coco.

He thought he had got one over on you by getting a good deal and also beating you down until the moment it failed. 

An MOT is only good the moment its written, a person can get an MOT for a car, leave the garage and put 4 bald tyres on it and still sell it with a good MOT as I know someone who has done this.

If you are not a mechanic how can you know something is wrong under the body. I know I wouldn't. 

I bet he has a voice in doors having a go at him about the car he brought and is trying to save face.

I do not think he would have a leg to stand on in court unless of course you gave him a warranty that you would make good all repairs and we know how good those are on this site with our new motorhomes.

good luck

ian


----------



## maddie (Jan 4, 2006)

Hi Fego,firstly as a private seller he has no comeback on you.You asnswered all questions he asked honestly and to the best of your knowledge.Buyer beware springs to mind,more fool him,why did he not get a AA/RAC inspection done?probably to save costs.It is a tough world out there and lessons are there to be lernt,bet he buys a car with 12 mts ticket next time
terry


----------



## Snelly (Aug 20, 2005)

some people need a slap...


----------



## grumpyman (Sep 24, 2006)

What was his reason for wanting another £400 of the vehicle, that it did not have any MOT.??????????


----------



## Steptoe (Nov 8, 2005)

If I were to consider buying a vehicle with less than a month's MOT, I would assume that the vendor had already tried and failed to get one, and that was why it was for sale. 

I would therefore proceed accordingly, probably offering to pay for the vendor to take it for another test so I knew what I was letting myself in for. If he refused I would walk away or make a very low offer.

Therefore as others have said, your buyer is either naive or trying it on. Neither he nor you could have possibly known that it was going to fail nor what it would fail on.

You were unlucky with your buyer, I would have taken the hit, but to save further aggro, if it is possible could you consider refunding his money. If you are selling the car 2K under book, you should easily move it on especially as you would have the fail certificate to show prospective buyers.

Incientally what vehicle is it?


----------



## robrace (Jun 30, 2005)

*Vehicle description.*

My brother was in a similar situation and got sued and lost!The buyer beat him down in price then rang him with a catologue of faults and did'nt want his money back but wanted compensation for the garage bills he had incurred.When my brother refused because he a,was willing to give him his money back.b,he had bought the car at a much reduced price.When he got to court his downfall was that he ahd advertised the vehicle as in immaculate condition throughout!!He had to pay up.If your description was accurate then I don't think he has a case.


----------



## 88781 (May 9, 2005)

The guy's a nutter! he bought it without a MOT, you described the vehicle fairly and honestly,.....don't lose any sleep over it. 

Dave :wink:


----------



## fdhadi (May 9, 2005)

Just tell him you have already given him £400 towards the repairs as agreed in the price. You could also tell him you want the extra £1000 that was agreed when the car passes an MOT or you will sue him.

Tell him you will sue him for being in an unfit or unstable condition when buying a car and ask him how many pints of whatever he had been drinking had he had & last thing buy us all a pint of it at the next rally :roll: .


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

Ignore him and move on, resolving to minimise your dealings with the combination of the general public and £. Your clearly have learned before to trade-in to avoid this. Perhaps it is merely an irritating way of re-learning what you already knew.

Dave


----------



## delboy42 (Nov 1, 2007)

If its a private sale its "sold as seen" and you shouldn't be liable for any costs . If he wants to take it further then let him as he will have to pay to take you to court . Like somebody wrote previously if you have not falsely advertised the car as having no faults you wont be liable he is trying it on as far as i am concerned .
Regards
Delboy


----------



## thegreatpan (Oct 29, 2007)

From the DTI website. Sale of Goods Act

"Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 *traders *must sell goods that are as described and of satisfactory quality."


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: Being sued for selling vehicle that later failed an MOT*

If you can show - as you say - that you are a private seller and in no way a motor trader, the Sale of Goods Act does not apply to a private seller unless the goods being sold form part of a commercial business.

Given that you believe you can show you've acted honestly and reasonably throughout (reduced sale price, you've disclosed everything regarding MoT expiry, you've made an effort to point out faults which you know about (tyres) etc.), you may not have difficulty at court should he decide to sue. The question though is on what basis he would sue. As it's a private sale, he most likely won't be able to pursue anything through legislation, but given that anyone can sue anyone else for anything they want (and easily, online), he may decide to do so. The burden (as you'll probably know from your experience) then falls onto you to prove your defence, which is quite different from the criminal burden, and the level of proof required in a civil court is not "reasonable doubt" but the rather lower "balance of probabilities".

In your position, I would be hoping that he will take legal advice, as that can often work against the person seeking to sue. If he presses ahead, you will then see the basis of his claim. If this is simply "I bought the car and then had to spend lots more money on it", that in itself is no basis. He would have to show you had acted recklessly or dishonestly, and that he was not reasonably in a position to be aware of your recklessness or dishonesty. As he's proffered a company cheque, that speaks to him being a businessman. Businessmen are generally deemed to be less vulnerable and have more "nouse" than (say) a 17-yr-old student buying his first car, or an unwell OAP. He may in these circumstances have difficulty persuading the court that he was hoodwinked, or is easily "hoodwinkable". If I got the summons, I would be digging deep into his business and his personal role in it (is he a hard-nosed salesman etc.) with the aim of showing the court that he knew exactly what he was buying, warts & all, and endeavour to discredit him.

Finally, if he continues with abusive contact, just tell him that you don't want to speak to him any more in view of his abuse, that you've done nothing wrong, that you'll speak to his legal agents if that's the path he's choosing, and that you'll contact the Police regarding having him warned under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 if he abuses you one more time. (Don't contact the Police yet - just make a written note of all the conversations, date & times; if he persists in the abuse, you can then make a complaint, and he'll probably be warned under that Act. If he then continues, he can be arrested.)

Dougie.


----------



## Fego (Nov 27, 2006)

*Update*

Many thanks for the replies. Dougie, that was very good of you to go into such detail.

Here's some more info in case it changes any view or prompts more comment.

Here's a link to the ad which in my view doesn't misrepresent the vehicle at all. <<HERE>>. It says the car is in superb condition which the pictures show it was. I don't take that to mean mechanically however and I certainly didn't imply that during the conversations I had with the buyer. I made it quite clear that the car had an MOT due in 3 weeks and I had no idea if it would pass. I hadn't put it in for one so didn't know.

According to the buyer, the car needed a new washer pump, two new tyres and a new steering rack. I only owned the car for 6 months and didn't even use the washers so they either didn't work or they broke after he took it away. I told him the rear tyres were low on tread and he saw that for himself. As for the steering rack, I don't even know what that is.

He has taken advice on suing me. His brother is a Solicitor who has advised him to sue me for selling an unroadworthy vehicle. I'm not sure on the definition of unroadworthy, but as it had an MOT and was legally driveable, I can't see he has a point, especially when you consider that I am not in the trade, was selling privately and sold the car as seen. I pointed out that the car still had a warranty and that might cover the repairs but that was 'unhelpful' according to him.

He is in business and trades as a sole trader trading as S.c.a.r.l.e.t.s. (without the dots) but I couldn't find what they do so I do not know if it is motor trade related. I doubt it, but nevertheless still think he qualifies as an informed and educated buyer rather than a mark, if you will.

I am no longer amazed by the actions of our fellow beings, but am continually upset by them. I am an honest and genuine person and to be treated like this is despairing really. As my stupidity illustrates, I had nothing to hide and was honest and open by allowing him and his wife to test drive on their own. My trusting side even stretched to allowing him to write a company cheque and drive it away there and then without any form of security or gaurantee the funds would clear.

I have considered taking the car back from him and reselling it. I have had so many calls that I am sure I could have sold it for more, even if I tell them about the faults I now know it has. But this is yet more hassle I started out trying to avoid and to be honest I don't want to see the man again anyway. There is now a baneful element to me which might come out.

So, in all, I shall sit back and see what happens. I shall not answer his calls and text him to that effect when he makes contact again. I shall invite him to write to me if he wants to take it further and warn him that I consider his behaviour threatening and abusive and shall take whatever action I deem necessary to prevent that continuing.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: Update*

His telling you his brother is a solicitor may well be bluster. If he is however, it may be that he will get his legal services free of charge, which may give him an advantage over "normal" people.

The site provides potential buyers with advice (http://www.autotrader.co.uk/CARS/buying/how_to_buy.jsp). That in turn contains a link to >> this link << which clearly states, "What about a private sale? You have far less legal comeback when buying privately. The only obligation for sellers is to describe the car truthfully - but even if they don't, getting compensation from them can be difficult, time-consuming and costly. However, you can still expect a car to be:

• Capable of passing an MOT, unless the seller specifies it isn't
• Owned by the person who is selling it - because if you later find out it's been stolen, you have no legal right to keep it

The key word here is "expect". However, given that your man knew full well that the MoT was expiring imminently, and you pointed out that it would not pass an MoT without new tyres, in my view, you could reasonably argue that you told him it would be incapable of passing an MoT. You can also state that you truthfully did not know of any other defect with the vehicle which would also cause it to fail an MoT, but in any case, the buyer also has responsibilities, and it's ultimately up to him to satisfy himself that the vehicle is largely in the overall condition stated in the advert. I take it there was no-one else present except the two of you during the purchase? If so, it's his word against yours; if it goes to court on that basis, it'll ultimately be up to the court to decide which version it believes. That's again where credibility comes in, and I'd still be wanting to dig into the nature of his business for ammunition in this respect.

The other issue is that of the purchase price. If as you say, he bought it at £2k below book price, that strengthens your position, as he could reasonably be expected to know or suspect that the car would need further expenditure for the imminent MoT. He won't be suing you under legislation, therefore all either of you would have to show that you acted reasonably in order to win the case. You need that business information for ammunition.

**EDIT **
I did a Google search on "Scarletts Rochester" and was highly amused to see "Taking Jesus' Love to the Heart of Today's Youth Culture" as first in the list.  I think that's in the US though. Funny if it was him though. Check out >here<. If you've got a landline number for him, that's a good place to start.

Dougie.


----------



## 101776 (Nov 13, 2006)

MMmmm. You have my every sympathy, but I can only comment from another angle.

We have recently purchased a Volvo V70 estate off an elderly gent (84) who to the best of our knowledge is an honest chap and very local to us.
We had it for less than 24 hours when the engine management light came on, O.H phoned himand was told 'ho yes that came on before but then went out and I diden't know what it meant'.
Turns out that it has cost us over £2000 to have a new internal turbo and another bit replaced on it.....

We assumed it was a bit sluggish because the old boy used to 'pootle' about it in, and that a good blast up the motorway would sort it out, at no time did we suspect that it was due to a knackered turbo.

He sold it to us as in "very good condition", but sold as seen. We have not yet approached him, but thought we would do so by letter( due to his age), inviting him to make a comment or better still a financial contribution to the repairs which a Volvo main dealer says he should have known about but if he only 'pootled about' may not have noticed......
Buyer Beware!! Yes I'm cross but can I really take issue with him????

Good luck, the man in your case hasen't got a leg to stand on, tell him to clear off cheeky devil!!!


----------



## 94055 (May 1, 2005)

Hi
I am in agreement with you due to the amount of below book price you sold it for. 
My question is "Superb condition" would this not suggest that the vehicle would pass an MOT? Yes I know you told him about the tyres, I would call that alerting him to the poor condition of them. One may say excluding them (something that you may not have had funds to replace) the vehicle WOULD pass an MOT indicated by the "SUPERB CONDITION" statement.
I would as said just like to question advert on them grounds.

Also "Sold as seen" was stated by someone.
Am I not right in saying that statement has no meaning if the vehicle is not fit for purpose, unless it states.....
Sold as scrap, sold with no engine, insurance write-off or similar.

Just my thoughts/comments

Steve


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

Sounds to me that you may have legal problems

The descriptions of the law above have missed out one or two things which apply to private sales, you may fall foul of at least two, one is criminal as well as civil

A purchaser has very few legal rights if he buys the vehicle from a private seller rather than a dealer. The condition under consumer law that the vehicle must be fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality does not apply. The only conditions which do apply to private sales are that the vehicle is correctly described, is roadworthy and that the seller has good title (this means that they are the legal owner of the vehicle).

He will only be able to claim against you as a private seller if:-

the vehicle was not as described, or 

there was a breach of a specific term of the contract, or 

the seller was a dealer posing as a private seller, or 

the seller did not have good title to the vehicle, or 

the vehicle was un-roadworthy.

If the buyer can show that the vehicle did not meet its description the seller will be liable under consumer law relating to misrepresentation, I think you over did the description in the advert, just a bit, even if the seller believed the description to be true. It will strengthen his claim if he has written proof of the false statement, for example, your advertisement. Verbal false statements are harder to prove, unless someone else was present who can act as a witness.

If the seller makes a specific statement which proves to be false, for example, if you said that the vehicle had a new clutch or one owner from new, the purchaser will definitely have grounds for complaint. However, if the seller described the vehicle as immaculate it may be more difficult to complain as the vehicle’s age, make and mileage, and the price paid have to be taken into account. If the seller did not make any statements about the vehicle, the purchaser will not be able to claim against the seller. This means never make claims.

You pointed out the tyres but the other two things make the car less than immaculate and what is more unroadworthy. it does not matter if it has an MOT, long or short, It was your vehicle and you are liable, if you drive it with poor rack or defective washers, under the construction and use regulations whether you know or not, similarly, if you sell it, it must be roadworthy unless sold for parts. There is both civil and criminal liability here.

I think he has got you on two counts, however what is the measure of damages. Unless it is so bad he would not have bought at all or because the representation was fraudulent, ie you knew, he cannot reject, he can only get damages. The test is not the cost of putting good but the difference in value. In other words if the car as sold with the defects was worth £500 less than what he paid then the damages are £500. If you sold cheap and there is no difference then he has no claim.

Given what he paid it seems unlikely that he paid over the odds

If you as seller failed to do something you specifically agreed to, for example, that certain faults would be fixed or that the vehicle would have an MOT, you will have breached the contract and the measure of damages is the cost of the work.

If he wants to take action against the you, he will need proof that the you made a false statement about the vehicle (the advert) and that the vehicle did not comply with its description at the time of sale (failing the MOT within a very short period). If he has delayed for more than a few weeks or has used the vehicle a lot, this may be almost impossible to prove. 

An independent report may be able to establish the condition of the vehicle at the time it was sold, but can be expensive 

He has complained to the you, it is not clear if he has asked for his money back or the cost of repairs or the diminution in value.

I suggest a reply from you

Dear X

I acknowledge your claim. It is denied.

There was no misdescription, you were aware of the age of the vehicle and book price and the substantial discount on book being asked and further discounted in your offer.

You took the vehicle on a long unacompanied test drive. I warned you the MOT was short and it would need new tyres. I did not make any representations about the washer or steering rack.

If, which is denied, there is liability, any misrepresentation was innocent, you are not entitled to your money back and you are not entitled to the cost of repair or of getting through the MOT.

You would have had to pay for tyres anyway, I specifically drew them to your attention!

The bestyou could hope is to show that you paid more for it than you should have done by esyablishing that the car was worth less than you paid. In view of the low price paid by you I feel that is totally unrealistic.


Hope that helps


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

thieawin said:


> Sounds to me that you may have legal problems


Indeed - that was always the case. However, I would personally never put anything in writing in the way you suggest, especially as your wording includes admissions (e.g. that nothing was said about the steering rack).

In the final analysis, it will come down to whether or not the buyer decides to take legal action. If he does, then the options are either to compensate by negotiation, contest, or buy the car back. I would personally do nothing until it's clear that he really is heading for court. If the guy's bought the car for well under book price, it's likely that he will not be deemed to be due compensation, assuming that the seller is deemed to be at fault.

Dougie.


----------



## grumpyman (Sep 24, 2006)

Got to say having read the advert Superb condition and then on viewing MOT expired two illegal tyres I may have walked away, or as in his case knocked you down a bit more and took a chance.


----------



## passionwagon (Nov 13, 2005)

thegreatpan said:


> From the DTI website. Sale of Goods Act
> 
> "Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 *traders *must sell goods that are as described and of satisfactory quality."


 8O Our friend says it is a private sale and unless he is raelly a trader then the legal term is _*caveat emptor buyer beware *_and so the buyer has no case . The only exception is if any seller uses terms that were incorrect!. Do not worry as they would only go to the small claims court if they think they have a case but you must reply to all court papers and issue you own defence- you do not need a solicitor . Even if they threaten to get a solicitor involved their costs cannot be claimed from you. Sit tight do not worry and if they do threaten then go to police and complian about harrassment! Police must act even though the problem is a civil matter :wink:


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

passionwagon said:


> Even if they threaten to get a solicitor involved their costs cannot be claimed from you.


They can if it goes to court and they win.



passionwagon said:


> Sit tight do not worry and if they do threaten then go to police and complian about harrassment! Police must act even though the problem is a civil matter :wink:


That is wrong advice. From a Police perspective, please see what I posted earlier. "Police must act" is incorrect - there is a duty to investigate a criminal complaint, but that may run to giving you advice (for example to change your phone number).

I don't think this can be progressed further until or unless the buyer makes a move.

<click>

Dougie.


----------



## patman (Jan 1, 2007)

They can if it goes to court and they win.

I believe this to be incorrect. The times I have used the small claims court the actual cost of bringing the case, which is a fixed sum, can be reclaimed if the person suing wins. I don't think the cost of a solicitor is recoverable. The idea of the small claims court is to bring the costs within reach of ordinary people.
Regards Patman


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

patman said:


> I believe this to be incorrect... I don't think the cost of a solicitor is recoverable.


Well, it is under certain circumstances. The key thing is "in most cases", not the caveat that it is not recoverable under any circumstances.

Dougie.


----------



## patman (Jan 1, 2007)

What might the circumstances be? It's always handy to know these things.
Patman


----------



## chapter (May 1, 2005)

or it may be http://www.scarletsletting.co.uk/index.php


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Hi found this here: >>>HERE<<<

In most cases, the court will not order solicitors' costs to be paid by the losing party in a small claims case, and if you instruct a solicitor you will have to pay the costs yourself. For this reason most claimants deal with a small claim without the help of a solicitor.

Olley


----------



## passionwagon (Nov 13, 2005)

asprn said:


> passionwagon said:
> 
> 
> > Even if they threaten to get a solicitor involved their costs cannot be claimed from you.
> ...


 :!: You are incorrect for any claim in the small claims court the costs of either side cannot be given-this is the beauty of the system. The maximum claimable in the small calims is £5000 unless the court gives permission for it to be used for a higher figure. This is to take out of the legal system the minor matters and ensuring it concentrates on the BIG isssues 8O As I said before do not ignore court papers and do not reply to any solicitors letter other than to confirm you dispute their clients claim.Do not give any explanations leave that for the court papers and any appearance. For the record my daughter did this when a national finance house took her to court and they appeared with a a barrister! The judge gave them hell and she won with no costs as she defended herself. :wink:


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

olley said:


> In most cases.....


Exactamundo.  Most means most, not none, never or won't.

Anyway, I'm outta here - nice restaurant, good food, old friends at 7:30 pm. If you've got a problem with that, sue me....

Dougie.


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

My draft letter is perfect for the situation

There is no admission contained in te bit about not discussing the washer pump or the steering rack, it is a denial of making any representation. that is really important, the sooner it is done the better.

it is better to get it in now.

but then I'm an advocate and solicitor qualified in four jurisdactions, what would I know.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

{edited by author}


----------



## Fego (Nov 27, 2006)

Gentlemen, many thaks for your helpful comments. There's lot of wisdom and support going on here and I appreciate that.

I haven't heard from Mr. Nasty since Friday's disturbance and my best guess is that he will just issue proceedings. I'll keep you in the loop on what happens.

I intend to defend any action against me. Even if he is assisted by a Solicitor and he wins and the court award costs, they can only award reasonable costs and how much will it reasonably cost his brother to tell him what he already knows? A risk I am prepared to take.

This could have been avoided if he had been nice about it and actually tried to talk me through his concerns and let me say my view, but he simply exploded into a rage thus putting my back up. You can't reason with unreasonable people unfortunately.


----------



## patman (Jan 1, 2007)

Yes we're all here to help and dispense sound advice and wisdom on subjects that we mostly know nothing about.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

patman said:


> Yes we're all here to help and dispense sound advice and wisdom on subjects that we mostly know nothing about.


lol - very good. :lol:

Dougie.


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

If he issues Pm me and I will gladly help drfat a defence

BUT that letter is important now

It helps lay the grounds of your defence, more it helps you deny any costs applicartion because you have behaved resaonably, you held open the door having correctly identified the damages risk, third it helps you portray his claim as unreasonable even if he wins and if he loseses, totally so, that is when the court has power to award uo to £230, I think, in costs.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

{edited by author}


----------



## HarleyDave (Jul 1, 2007)

Well asprn - I guess since thieawin isn't being paid for his advice on this forum he can mis-spell and typo to his heart's content.

I do agree however that ANY post has more credibility if it is grammatically correct, has no spelling errors or typos, is punctuated effectively and laid out in such a way that it is easy to read.

I have seen some posts recently with 20 or so lines assembled in one solid block of text replete with spelling errors, minimal punctuation or spacing, and a liberal sprinkling of the usual howlers (there for their, effect for affect, etc etc), but I thought I was the only one that found it irksome...

Cheers

Dave


----------



## ChrisRich (May 27, 2007)

thegreatpan said:


> From the DTI website. Sale of Goods Act
> 
> "Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 *traders *must sell goods that are as described and of satisfactory quality."


Exactly, ie private sales are not covered under the Act in the same way. Tell him you'll see him in court, keep us posted! :wink:


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

{edited by author}


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

hi Dougie what gives with you? guy comes on offering advice and all you do is have a pop at him over his language skills. apart from being "off topic", its rude and unnecessary. Do you get a kick out of belittling people?

Olley


----------



## RichardnGill (Aug 31, 2006)

> hi Dougie what gives with you? guy comes on offering advice and all you do is have a pop at him over his language skills. apart from being "off topic", its rude and unnecessary. Do you get a kick out of belittling people?
> 
> Olley


 I will second that, I was reading this intresting post with and then it gets spoilt.

Richard...


----------



## 99214 (May 14, 2006)

Caveat Emptor


----------



## 101405 (Oct 15, 2006)

*sale*

But ! you did have an Idea that it would fail an mot ?be fair , and of course you you told him that and reduced the price to help him cover costs . he bought a vehicle without an mot, the problem then became his. forget it.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

olley said:


> what gives with you? guy comes on offering advice and all you do is have a pop at him over his language skills. apart from being "off topic", its rude and unnecessary. Do you get a kick out of belittling people?


Let me answer that. My own personal view is that if the quality of the professional work offered is reflected in the quality of the communication here, then it is highly questionable. That is simply my opinion, and I qualified what I asked by clarifying that my intention was not to offend - or belittle. I seriously doubt if a practising barrister or lawyer would feel belittled by this point - it's one of the fundamental requirements of their profession.

You will have noted that I also contributed to Fego's predicament earlier in the thread, so I'm not here to spoil it. I disagree about it being off-topic. I've raised it as a matter of concern, for the reasons I've already stated.

However, the last thing I want is the result which has now occurred, so I'll remove my posts, and apologise for upsetting people.

Dougie.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

olley said:


> hi Dougie what gives with you? guy comes on offering advice and all you do is have a pop at him over his language skills. apart from being "off topic", its rude and unnecessary. Do you get a kick out of belittling people?
> 
> Olley


Can't agree with you there Olley. If it was just "_a guy offering advice_" I would be with you all the way, but this is someone who describes himself as "_an advocate and solicitor qualified in four jurisdactions (sic)_".

I think Dougie has a point here. Language is the primary tool of this chap's profession, and you would expect him to be pretty good at it. It's no different to expecting a mechanic to be handy with a spanner.

No wish to offend anyone, but that's my opinion.

Cheers

(Edit) Dougie types faster than me. His post appeared before this by the time I had finished it.


----------



## patman (Jan 1, 2007)

Zebedee said:


> olley said:
> 
> 
> > hi Dougie what gives with you? guy comes on offering advice and all you do is have a pop at him over his language skills. apart from being "off topic", its rude and unnecessary. Do you get a kick out of belittling people?
> ...


I agree.
Regards Patman


----------



## Fego (Nov 27, 2006)

*Update and invitation for opinions*

There has been movement and now I need to make a decision on what to do next (if anything).

Before becoming distracted by spelling and grammar issues, we left the situation at the initial stage of me being shouted at, called names and threatened with legal action where the buyer (Mr. Nasty) said he would sue me in the small claims court for the cost of repairs to make the car roadworthy (pass its MOT). He initially invited me to offer a contribution saying I had breached the Sale of Goods Act and that he would seek costs from me too if I didn't cough up.

The majority of responses I have seen on here seem to support the view that the guy bought the car warts and all so the problem is his to suffer and that so long as my ad was reasonably accurate, I shouldn't have anything to worry about. Even if the ad turns out to be horribly inaccurate and wrong, the damage done to the guy (the amount he can expect to sue me for) is probably limited to the difference between the value of the car and the amount he paid for it plus the amount then spent on it. As far as I can calculate (based on other adverts), the actual value of the car far exceeds the amount I sold it for even after adding the repair costs so, again I shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Unfortunately, the threat of being sued and the hassle and stress of having to defend and clear one's name is very daunting, even to someone like me who is familiar with the legal process. It's different when you are acting for rich corporations; it doesn't seem that real or important. When it's happening to you, it's very different and very uncomfortable. It feels like a cross between being told off and making a mega mistake that you hope no one finds out about. Not nice. The most unpleasant thing is the uncertainty of not knowing how it may turn out. Not from a 'I can't afford to lose' point of view but rather from a 'but that's unfair' point of view.

Anyway, I finally got Mr. Nasty to calm down and accept (verbally) that I didn't deliberately dupe him into buying a car with a problem. He accepted that the problems were unknown by me and therefore were a surprise to us both. He still however expected me to pay up. When I said no, he got angry again.

I thought about it for a while and tried to detach myself from the situation and act as a professional. I decided that the best thing to do was to lose a battle but win the war so I sent the following text to Mr. Nasty...

[this is exactly as it was sent including typos]

_First of all, let me assure you that iam surprised and sorry to hear that the mot was a problem. I said the tyres might be a problem but other than that, the car always worked fine for me. The car was priced low to sell and you bought yourself some contingency with the discount I agreed. You asked me if I would get it an mot and i said no because I didn't want the hassle. You knew you were buying a car effecively without an mot and had the choice to say no. I am an honest person and do not appreciate being called a ****. I am not a car sales and did not sell the car to you with any promise or guarantee. The warranty might cover whatever is wrong actually, maybe give that a try. I do not think I have any responsibility for any repairs but as a gesture of goodwill and without prejudice, I will tax the car for you. I appreciate how you must feel but I have honestly sold you the car in good faith._
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I figured that by highlighting my position and offering to pay for the tax that I would buy peace of mind and put this behind me and move on.

Later that day, I received the following text message...

[again, verbatim]

_Kelly, I am pleased to hear that you do have integrity and that you are willing to meet me part way. Let me sleep on it and give you an answer in the morning. I apologise for the name calling but your intransigence was far from helpful. Bob_- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I assume the intransigence was me saying no. Whatever.

A couple of days later I received the following...

_Kelly, After hours of wasted time yesterday I have a best quote of 1120 inc VAT from a spec jag repairer in Surrey. As you dropped the price at sale by 395 and have offered to pay the tax of 180 I will accept but I could have done without all this and just hope that this garage doesn't find any more faults to fail it on. Bob_

I didn't reply.

Today I got this one...

_Kelly,
Jag passed MOT after paying 1452 pounds - an extra 150 from you would be appreciated. Bob_

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My initial reaction has been to ignore it. I have seen no paperwork from any Jag place demonstrating whether or why he has paid this much money to get an MOT done. However, even if I take it at face value, I can do the following calculations:

Cost of car - 14,600
cost of MOT - 1,452

Total cost: - 16,052

Approx value of car = £18,000 so where's the loss?

His request of me currently:

Repairs - £1,452 or split 2 ways - £726 each

My 'bit' -

Tax - £180
extra - £150
disc	- £395

total £725

Ergo, he has asked me for half.

Part of me says 'it's only £330 quid, get over it and move on by buying certainty', but another part of me says that's not fair, especially when you consider that a big part of the repair cost would probably have been made up by the new tyres. However, that said, I can't help feeling that there is this guy who thought he had bought a really nice car for £14,600 only to find that it actually cost him about £16k. I'm sure he feels ripped off too.

What would you do ??????


----------



## 96299 (Sep 15, 2005)

I would stand my ground and let him take it all the way.To be honest I wouldn`t of thought he would see it through for the little amount of money involved.He` just trying it on in my book ( feeling ).

steve


----------



## dbh1961 (Apr 13, 2007)

Trying to look at this objectively:

He thought he was getting a car in "superb condition" for a bargain price.

After negotiation, he thought he was getting a car in superb condition, apart from tyres, for £395 below a bargain price.

I don't agree that you have a defence by pointing out it was a bargain (below book price) - that was already part of the deal. You didn't say "it's cheap 'cos it might need a load of work" you said "it's cheap, and it's in superb condition, apart from the tyres". He could reasonably expect that its cheapness was for some reason other than condition, possibly a personal one.

I think his claim now (after all the sillyness) is fair. Don't bring the tyres up, because you're gaining on that bit - in effect, he's now paying half of the tyre cost (trust me - he is).

I'd send him a cheque for £250, and tell him he can bank that, or sue you. Add a condition that banking the cheque constitutes acceptance that this is full and final settlement.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

I can only offer you an opinion like anyone else, and here it is.

You've offered £180 more than I would have done in the circumstances you've outlined, and therefore in my view are being more than reasonable. Instead of the buyer being reciprocally reasonable, he is still asking for more, although nowhere near what he says it will cost him. I take the view that if his bark was bad as his bite, he would be instigating legal proceedings for the full amount less (say) £395. The fact he is now insisting on a further £150 is to me ridiculous, and gives me a further flavour of where he's actually at (i.e. nowhere near instigating legal proceedings).

You've made your £180 offer. Weighing up whether or not he will choose to fight on this hill, I would let it stand and tell him that's your full and final offer, made on the basis of goodwill and without prejudice.

Dougie.


----------



## Fego (Nov 27, 2006)

Thanks Dougie (for this and your previous contributions)


----------



## RAH (Apr 22, 2007)

I would definitely send him a check for GBP 180.00, which you offered, and he accepted after a good nights sleep. He "hoped" that the garage would not find more expense, but so is life: we all hope and get it wrong some times.

Send him the check, since it was your offer, noting that by cashing it he reaffirmness his prior acceptance of your good will.

Boy, this is much more fun than the "slower" American RV topics, which as a US visitor I have an interest in following.


----------



## 101776 (Nov 13, 2006)

Ask him for a copy of the repair invoice and mot failure list. If you are contributing towards it you are entitled to see what you are paying for.


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

Just to point out that sending a cheque for a smaler sum and saying paying it in will be deemed acceptance and settlement does not work in law. He can cash in in part satisfaction and come after you for the balance he is due (if any)

I understand that because I will not bother spell checking no one will believe me even although I am legally qualified and that everyine will rush in with a quote from the Bills of Exchange Act etc

Practically I think you are over paying him. Its diminution in value, not cost of repair, that is the measure of damages.

its a bit like Poker. I suspect he will accept the cheque and he will never contact you again.

Never ever describe anything secondhand as superb. A lesson for us all.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

thieawin said:


> Never ever describe anything secondhand as superb. A lesson for us all.


To end my contribution on this one on a positive note - I agree with you. 

(I believe anything I read provided it's schpelt korrectly... )

Dougie.


----------



## G2EWS (May 1, 2006)

What a great thread that I seemed to have missed!

Seems you have the problem solved now, well done!

A final note for anyone who does want to try and pull the wool over others eyes. I have been told that if you put a vehicle in for an MOT and it fails, the information is kept. Whatever garage you go to next has access to this information!

Regards

Chris


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

asprn said:


> thieawin said:
> 
> 
> > Never ever describe anything secondhand as superb. A lesson for us all.
> ...


A Daily Mail or Sun reader then? Couldn't be the Grauniad for obvious reasons


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

thieawin said:


> A Daily Mail or Sun reader then? Couldn't be the Grauniad for obvious reasons


I only read autobiographies. Newspapers are for suckers. In my opinion.

Not that I believe the autobiographies either though....

Dougie.


----------



## Fego (Nov 27, 2006)

G2EWS said:


> What a great thread that I seemed to have missed!
> 
> Seems you have the problem solved now, well done!
> 
> ...


----------



## Fego (Nov 27, 2006)

Remember this one.....?

Well, I sorted it out in the end.

Despite being asked for more money, I stuck to my original offer and following a written acceptance I sent a cheque for £180 along with a spleen venting missive. The cheque has long since cleared and no further contact has been received. So the minor saga ends. Integrity and honesty intact.

I probably could have got away without paying anything, but the hassle wasn't worth it. I bought peace of mind for the price of a tumble drier.

I feel like naming and shaming the to$$er really but not sure that will achieve anything. Perhaps I'll just post my (long) letter to him on here for everyone to enjoy...


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

Hi Fego

Yes, I remember it. Sometimes giving a little brings an end to a deal of hassle, and turns out to be a sound investment.

Gerald


----------



## Greggy (Nov 13, 2007)

I'm sure you've made a lot of us a wee bit wiser.

Glad to hear it's behind you.

Cheers,

Greg


----------



## flyboy (May 10, 2005)

I am glad you got it sorted, and a lesson learned.
Always give a gate guarantee once its through the gates the guarantee ends!!


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

This thread has certainly taught me alot.


So, heres a question, when advertising anything, how should it be described?
Adverts are s'posed to attract potential buyers, how does that work if I have to describe the item as " I think its in superb condition, but that may not be the case"

I think if a car, for instance , is advertised by a dealer, then its reasonable to expect him to be an " expert" and therefore he should be exactly accurate in the description, me as a private bloke, my idea of superb, would be different from somebody elses after all I'm not an expert.

I accept, if I know about a fault, then its honest that I should make this fault known, but there again, I've also read that unless the buyer actually asks me," are there any faults with this that you know of" I dont actually have to tell him, and if as apparently, the OP didnt know the rack was knackered, hows he being dishonest?
It seems, that everything would have to given away, just in case an umjarthrumjit didnt worksome unspecified time after the sale.
Now, I'm not being controversial, but it genuinely concernes me that from now on I've got to be so fussy about the description of an object I sell, I may have to have the dscription written by a solicitor.


----------



## ingram (May 12, 2005)

Well, consider if *you* were the person coming to look at the object that you are describing: would *you* be happy with the description ..... that's the first step ........  

H


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

yeah, fair enough, but thats what has apparently happened to the OP, it wasnt until a time after that the grief started with the buyer.


----------

