What are my chances?

[MSP Motors 39]

Hi Guys,

First-time poster here, love the site and I'm after a bit of advice;

I sold a 12-year-old Renault Megane a while back for £1500 to a real problem customer, the car had no service history, but a fresh MOT was put on for the customer. After a few weeks, I replaced the spark plugs for him as he came back shouting due to the slightest misfire.  A few days later but within the dreaded first 30 days, he contacts me to tell me he's rejecting the car. I asked why and was told, "I don't need a reason, I'm rejecting as the goods aren't fit for purpose". I politely informed him that I would need a reason to validate the claim. After much back and forth they tell me that the car had come up with a  gearbox fault on the display and the car was in limp mode. ( having sold many an automatic french car, 99% this will be the simple fix of the pressure regulator) I suggested that they drop it to me so I could take a look at it for them. Once again I was told no, they didn't have too and they wanted their money back. They had supplied no garage report, would not let me look at the car, so naturally, I refused the claim.

Roll on a few months and the customer has taken this matter to the small claims court. His account of the situation is a complete fabrication. But worst of all, there is a "report" by his local back street garage that was undertaken 5 weeks after the initial 30 days had expired. The customer also admits they took the car to the garage. The report states "there is a problem with the gearbox and it could cost up to £1000 to fix"

Now obviously, the "report" is a complete waste of paper, as it's not a report in the slightest, but in my opinion, it's evident that the customer has been driving this car after they have rejected it, even though they had accused me of selling him a deathtrap (it's really not!). They have also not supplied this information to me (just with the court papers). To make matters even more complicated, they have not taken my LTD company to court, but me personally. In my defence I stated that I think the  customer has made a mistake as I did not sell this car personally to them and when the mediation team called to see if I was willing to try and resolve the matter before court, I explained the situation and he said that if the wrong entity had been chosen by the claimant then he could not help.

I would just be real interested to know what you guys think about my chances in court.

 

Phil

[Cornish Guy 45]

Talk to Lawjistics.

[It's me 611]

you need to diligently fill in the papers to the court and ask for it to be thrown out too as its against you not your business

it probably wont though because this happened to me

[trade vet 697]

Hi Phil,

I have had several small claim court experiences and this is what could happen.Firstly the judge will probably just look at the established facts of the case.Forget your 30 day warranty or whatever you give,new MOT,forget the LTD company defence,that is a clerical error,it's not the high court.The car was returned for repair within 30 days.Subsequently,the customer called to reject the car on the grounds it was unfit for purpose.The judge may want to know why you did not collect the car and inspect it.The customer will probably say he could not return it because it was too dangerous.The customer will say because you rejected his claim,he was forced to get an independent inspection.He may bring his mechanic as a witness.

While the reality is that your customer has probably been put off the car and has been unreasonable,the judge may differ in his opinion.While I have won small claims prosecuting banks,architects and others,I have tried to defend some rediculous car sales small claim cases ,even offered proven evidence showing the claimant has lied.I have never won one yet.The bottom line is judges do not like car dealers and you are taking a chance by defending the case.

 

 

[MSP Motors 39]

Thanks for your reply guys. I understand your points above, but surely the new legislation clearly outlines a procedure to help in claims like this. How can you reject an item, provide no evidence that it has a fault, not let the supplier inspect the product, then take the wrong person/entity to court. 

There is no mention of my business name on the court papers even though on all the paperwork there is only reference to the business (ltd company).

With hindsight it would have been a lot easier to buy the car back, but in my opinion this customer has gone about everything completely wrong. I guess we will soon see!

[andymc1973 199]

they are magistrates and  a law to themselves, there is no precedent or case law and the 2015 act is as grey as my Grandad's balls, absolute piss take and you need a motoring solicitor or your pants will be pulled down time and time again

[MSP Motors 39]

I have heard horror stories yet I have also heard of victory's, I guess it's a chance, but I am in it now. I know that it all comes down to the individual judge on the day..... Which is fundamentally wrong, however I couldn't even enter into mediation because the entity the customer has put on the court papers is the wrong one.

[andymc1973 199]

im sure you have to give the garage a chance to inspect

[M.J 35]

Unfortunately this is why i refund at the first instance, i know it shouldn't be that way and i know i should fight a lot of the cases but the law is simply not on our side since the introduction of the consumer rights act. 

Good luck with it mate.

[MSP Motors 39]

You would like to think, but as others have suggested, it all depends on the judge on the day. I obviously think I am correct, and that I being reasonable in wanting to know there is a fault before returning money, wether the judge does, well that's the question!

[Mojo121 229]

All I can say is best of luck and definitely resurrect this thread to let us know how it turns out. 

In contrast I know of a car dealer who in the last few months was taken to court in his name rather than the LTD company and it was thrown out. If your invoice states your ltd company it's worth mentioning.

My advice would be to make sure you stress the point that you have experience with these types of cars, you suspected the fault to be minor (it didn't affect the vehicle performing it's duty as an A-B car), you wanted to rectify it and that you refute their garage's "report". You say they're "backstreet" so I assume you could call into question their validity; are they VAT registered? Ltd company?

I think you've a good chance. As I say, good luck.

[have a word with the wife 299]

5 hours ago, MSP Motors said:

Hi Guys,

First-time poster here, love the site and I'm after a bit of advice;

I sold a 12-year-old Renault Megane a while back for £1500 to a real problem customer, the car had no service history, but a fresh MOT was put on for the customer. After a few weeks, I replaced the spark plugs for him as he came back shouting due to the slightest misfire.  A few days later but within the dreaded first 30 days, he contacts me to tell me he's rejecting the car. I asked why and was told, "I don't need a reason, I'm rejecting as the goods aren't fit for purpose". I politely informed him that I would need a reason to validate the claim. After much back and forth they tell me that the car had come up with a  gearbox fault on the display and the car was in limp mode. ( having sold many an automatic french car, 99% this will be the simple fix of the pressure regulator) I suggested that they drop it to me so I could take a look at it for them. Once again I was told no, they didn't have too and they wanted their money back. They had supplied no garage report, would not let me look at the car, so naturally, I refused the claim.

Roll on a few months and the customer has taken this matter to the small claims court. His account of the situation is a complete fabrication. But worst of all, there is a "report" by his local back street garage that was undertaken 5 weeks after the initial 30 days had expired. The customer also admits they took the car to the garage. The report states "there is a problem with the gearbox and it could cost up to £1000 to fix"

Now obviously, the "report" is a complete waste of paper, as it's not a report in the slightest, but in my opinion, it's evident that the customer has been driving this car after they have rejected it, even though they had accused me of selling him a deathtrap (it's really not!). They have also not supplied this information to me (just with the court papers). To make matters even more complicated, they have not taken my LTD company to court, but me personally. In my defence I stated that I think the  customer has made a mistake as I did not sell this car personally to them and when the mediation team called to see if I was willing to try and resolve the matter before court, I explained the situation and he said that if the wrong entity had been chosen by the claimant then he could not help.

I would just be real interested to know what you guys think about my chances in court.

 

Phil

the mediation team i would have thought would tell the claimant seeing as theyve told you that the wrong entity has been chosen, to change this requires a judges permission, and/or a fee, so the case may fizzle out on its own accord, they might not want to spend twice on costs !

Your very best defense=

is you offered to repair the car, they refused.

they carried on using the vehicle thereby causing further damage.

its a 12 year old car

they have not contacted you before referring it to the court.

see if you can get it struck out on the basis of = 1 in wrong name 2 no contact before court action [ frowned upon by the courts letter before action]  3 pointless claim with poor evidence.

and if that doesnt work send a letter [ recorded] to the claimant explaining how you tried to help, no faults were present at time of sale, they refused to return the vehicle for you to repair it, and you are considering a counter claim against them for no more than a thousand pounds for your inconvenience, time spent replying to court action etc etc 

and see if they drop it ..

[NoMargin 11]

4 hours ago, have a word with the wife said:

Your very best defense=

is you offered to repair the car, they refused.

no faults were present at time of sale, they refused to return the vehicle for you to repair it, and you are considering a counter claim against them for no more than a thousand pounds for your inconvenience, time spent replying to court action etc etc 

 

4 hours ago, have a word with the wife said:

 

I thought if the car develops a fault within 30 days, the customer can reject the car, we have no right to try to repair it and have to give a refund. 

This customer sounds like he will lie through his teeth to get his way. 

Good luck hope you win. 

Edited May 16, 2017 by NoMargin

[MSP Motors 39]

Hi,

Yes they can reject the car within the first 30 days, but it's my understanding that the onus of proof is on them to show there is a fault within the first 30 days..... In this scenario, they told me they were rejecting the vehicle and at first they sold me they didn't even need to tell me why they were rejecting the vehicle. When pressed on the matter, they revealed a fault with the gearbox. It was at this point I offered to have a luck at it, this was refused my the customer (after he accused me of breaking the law, by not giving his money back) and no evidence was sent to me that the car had a problem.

It's extremely frustrating this situation, and if I lose then so be it, but the car was a cheap, old car sold with no history. After 3 weeks it developed the slightest misfire, which required the plugs changing.... I did this then I got the rejection letter. Then it transpires that 5 weeks later the customer has taken the car to his garage and they have mentioned a gearbox fault. Surely if you reject something, you don't keep driving it. If it's unsafe to use on the road, then don't drive it!

Let's hope the judge hasn't had any bad luck with cars recently! I will keep the thread alive once I have more information.

 

Thanks

[MSP Motors 39]

I do plan to go all the way, my only fear is that I submitted my defense some time ago, which was that there must have been a mistake as I didn't sell the car personally. Which the court date looming, I'm slightly concerned that because I haven't submitted any other evidence, if the judge decides to proceed with the case I will be left to defend myself without showing that I tried to resolve this matter in a reasonable time/manner.

[MrC 142]

I look back 10 years, and customers where reasonable people. They accepted they where buying used old vehicles and was an element of expectation that something minor might go wrong and they just delt with it.  

But now we seem too live in a society that doesnt like to take much responsibility. To quick to let someone else pay or deal with a problem. Few clicks on Google or a Facebook moan and everyone is Rumpole of the Bailey. 

I heard an advert on the radio the other day offering to sue such and such a body if they had lost on the stock market.  WTF!! That's the fecking risk you take, that's like sueing the bookie because your horse didn't come in.

Anyway im chatting crap..I need my morning coffee.

 

 

[umesh 336]

51 minutes ago, MrC said:

 "I look back 10 years, and customers where reasonable people. They accepted they where buying used old vehicles and was an element of expectation that something minor might go wrong and they just delt with it.  "

 

 

 

Think you're spot on , But then cars were not as complicated and expensive to repair ! these days lights ping on for no reason PLUS I Think people have no money to repair them either - , they are all signed up to new phones, sofa,s, TV,s,  designer clothes etc etc etc ..so the only way is have a go at the dealer without being in the real world! 

[Rory RSC 596]

Sorry to hear of your situation. Its not all doom and gloom though as I have just had an ongoing matter looming over me for the last 12 months which has finally been struck out.

Remember a lot these claimaints have had bad advice from citizens advice and don't know what they are doing. Anyone can take you to court does not mean they are right.

For what its worth I really would sign up with lawgistics and take no delay in getting some advice. Cost for them is very low and they offer some very strong and robust advice surrounding the court process.

I really, really can't ever fathom the whole bought a car, light popped on and dealer says no problem I will take a look and customer throws toys out of pram wanting to reject it.

They are then going to go and buy somewhere else, and I always hope they buy from someone else who throws the sim card away after the sale and offers no come backs. 

Sometimes you just can't argue or reason with stupid.

[MSP Motors 39]

MrC and umesh, you are both completely right. People are so used to sending back a product, that when it comes to a used car that they bought for next to nothing they expect that I should just cave in and return there money.

If they had provided any evidence from a garage that they had an issue, then for a sake of an easy life then I would have most probably refunded at the time. However, because nothing was sent to me and I was not permitted to look at the car, then genuinely what would people traders be  expected to do? He wouldn't even tell me a fault at first and his emails to me were riddled with lies.

The truth is the car could have a really serious fault (I really doubt this), could need a sensor/pressure valve or could have no fault at all. The fact is, many months down the line it is still not clear what the actual fault/if there is a fault, yet I am expected by this customer to pay them back in full. Failing that, I can get taken to court and run a good chance of losing the car amount plus costs and interest, depending on the individual views/feelings of the judge. In my opinion, if the CRA 2015 is applied to this scenario, then the claimant shouldn't stand a chance. Yet I am left wondering if I have made the correction decision in defending this claim.

Win lose or draw I will post the outcome.

[It's me 611]

You most certainly have made the right decision to defend

these people hope you dont turn up in court

get all your key points down in order, the main one being customer has NOT specified fault,this is very important,this should prove your case as you have not had the opportunity to see what the problem even was/is

have every bit of evidence at your fingertips for the day

have a good nights sleep (yes i know that bit is hard)

go to court think carefully what you say

show your clear defence

the judges are good at seeing liers

i think you should win

if you lose remember to ask for the car back or you lose it 

 

[andymc1973 199]

these people really can't afford to be driving

[It's me 611]

1 hour ago, andymc1973 said:

these people really can't afford to be driving

yes

you know your on a hiding to nothing when people buy these old autos

if they had any money they would buy much newer or go on the old invalidatory 

[trade vet 697]

Small claims court- true account of our own experience - beware!

Case 1

A guy comes in ( wearing overalls) saying he is a mechanic and has a small garage business.We sell him an unprepped car at a reduced price and mark the invoice Trade Sale-Not Returnable - which he signs.He later sends us a bill for £300 for repairs he has carried out.We go to the small claims court and he says he is not in the trade but does his own repairs.

Result-    Came 2nd - cost  about £370

The judge said we were negligent because we failed to check out his trade ID

Case 2

Without prior notice,we get a bill for over £2k.The punter says he had broken down and was unable to contact us.( we are open 7 days a week).He was towed in by the AA to his friends garage who did the repair.We make enquiries with parts suppliers by quoting reg no and establish that his diesel Passat had 2 new injectors supplied at £500 each.These were not included on the repair bill.Also,we establish he was not towed in by the AA. The punter was a liar ! It appeared to us that he had been adding chip fat oil or something and blocked his injectors so we declined the claim under the terms of our own warranty agreement which he had signed.We went to court full of confidence.

Result -   Came 2nd - Cost about £2700

The judge said - as it was an agreed fact that the car had broken down,we were liable.He had either ignored our evidence or did not understand it.

Thats why I stated in my earlier post- Judges don't like used car dealers

[grant8064 219]

Best of luck with it!

These days I just refund and move on. Saves a lot of agrro even if I know i'm in the right.

[metcars 394]

2 hours ago, trade vet said:

Judges don't like used car dealers

They are on a mission to save the general public from this scourge. After all everyone knows all car dealers are lying douchebags, it's common knowledge.