Consumer law
- Thread starter Innocence
- Start date
JC seems to know a bit about small claims court, at least starting proceedings but I think more in relation to tenants not paying rent. Don't know if this is any different to consumer law though. Sorry I'm not much (okay, any!) help.... :redface:
I have a little bit of experience with Small Claims, what is it you're thinking of? I have a *rough* idea how long things are supposed to last and the bearing that that can have on the outcome.
As some of you know, i bought my Vec C in June and the day after i picked it up i had to have the car recovered because of CIM failure. The CIM unit had suffered a power overload because the care had been in an undeclared accident and the airbag and airbag control unit was missing. The seller knew there was an issue with the car and offered to pay for the repair if the fault returned which obviously it did....
Anyway to cut a long story short the bill came to over a £1000 and the seller refused to pay the bill even though he said he would. I have since taken action to start court proceedings and filed all my particulars with the court and the seller. Also text and wrote to the seller before starting court proceedings to see if that would do anything but he failed to respond.
I found out yesterday the seller has issued a defence (don't know what as haven't seen the paperwork) but obviously this puts doubt in my mind that he will get away with not paying even though he said he would and i have written proof plus witness to say he did!
My partner has just rang with the defence and the seller has simply stated the car was sold as seen, i had the opportunity to get the car inspected by an expert prior to purchase and that i had the opportunity to buy a warranty for the car and that in his opinion the claim is excessive and not what the original fault was when he sold the car.
The receipt does not state sold as seen on it.
Anyway to cut a long story short the bill came to over a £1000 and the seller refused to pay the bill even though he said he would. I have since taken action to start court proceedings and filed all my particulars with the court and the seller. Also text and wrote to the seller before starting court proceedings to see if that would do anything but he failed to respond.
I found out yesterday the seller has issued a defence (don't know what as haven't seen the paperwork) but obviously this puts doubt in my mind that he will get away with not paying even though he said he would and i have written proof plus witness to say he did!
My partner has just rang with the defence and the seller has simply stated the car was sold as seen, i had the opportunity to get the car inspected by an expert prior to purchase and that i had the opportunity to buy a warranty for the car and that in his opinion the claim is excessive and not what the original fault was when he sold the car.
The receipt does not state sold as seen on it.
I tried something similar when I bought my 4x4 and the gearbox went a month later.
Garage were compete ar*eholes and wouldnt even contribute. We were in the middle of moving house, partner had been made redundant etc etc etc
Went through the Scottish version of the small claims and basically got laughed out of court. Bought as seen. Cost me a fortune getting there and in fees etc.
Garage were compete ar*eholes and wouldnt even contribute. We were in the middle of moving house, partner had been made redundant etc etc etc
Went through the Scottish version of the small claims and basically got laughed out of court. Bought as seen. Cost me a fortune getting there and in fees etc.
It is quite common for somebody who is experienced in Small Claims matters (ie, that they've had claims filed against them before) to issue a Counter Claim. It sometimes works in that it puts *off* the person such as yourself who started proceedings. My advice would be how sure of your claim are you? If you really think you can win then I'd continue, but of course, without seeking proper legal advice (which costs a small fortune I know) you'll still not be sure.
Would just like to add, you are entitled to be shown all documentation relating to your claim prior to the court day. Any paperwork NOT shown to both parties will be excluded by the judge on the day - so, you're neither parties are allowed any surprises. So, I am guessing if they've issued a defence then you will be sent copies in due course - always assuming you persue and get a court date set.
I have a copy of his defence, it basically says what i said above. The garage are willing to support me in the case and even confirmed that the car was not fit for purpose because the car was issued with airbags as standard and NONE of them worked, including driver's side.
I'd go for it. If you win you'll (hopefully) get compensation - and he'll be liable for the court costs too.
Ditto Trewsers.
Under the Sale of Goods Act items sold should be fit for purpose which this clearly isn't. Did you buy the car from a dealer or private seller?
This is a useful link: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governm...ights/Buyingacar-yourconsumerrights/DG_183047
Under the Sale of Goods Act items sold should be fit for purpose which this clearly isn't. Did you buy the car from a dealer or private seller?
This is a useful link: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governm...ights/Buyingacar-yourconsumerrights/DG_183047
Oh gosh I don't know about consumer law I'm afraid. Sorry. I do hope you get it sorted out soon though, not a nice situation.
If you have proof that he said he would pay for it to be done, ie: in writing, then that should be a pretty easy case, as it can be classed as a contract between you both.
Get ITV2 on at 5- 7pm...Judge Judy is brilliant:giggle:
Get ITV2 on at 5- 7pm...Judge Judy is brilliant:giggle:
I would say he,s trying to put you off. If the item is not fit for purpose then its not as simple as sold as seen if you cant see the faults.
If you have legal cover on your home insurance might be worth a call as it doesnt cost anything.
Years ago i took an old landlord through small claims as he kept part of my deposit saying I had damaged the carpet, shower tray and he had to clean the oven. When it came to court day he hadnt replaced or had reciepts for any of the said problems and the judge made him return the money. So for example sometimes its not totally laughed out.
Good luck.
If you have legal cover on your home insurance might be worth a call as it doesnt cost anything.
Years ago i took an old landlord through small claims as he kept part of my deposit saying I had damaged the carpet, shower tray and he had to clean the oven. When it came to court day he hadnt replaced or had reciepts for any of the said problems and the judge made him return the money. So for example sometimes its not totally laughed out.
Good luck.
Well i popped into the garage this morning to ask their opinion and they clearly say the car was not fit for purpose for the following reasons;
The passenger airbag and airbag control module (this controls all the airbags) were completely missing
Any vehicle that comes of the productions line with airbags fitted should have them and be working at time of sale.
It is a legal requirement from Jan 2012 to have a visible airbag light or it will fail an MOT, effectively he has only sold me a car that would be legally allowed to be on the road till Jan.
Insurance wouldn't pay out in the event of a claim if the airbags didn't deploy because they were missing.
The seller said it wasn't same fault but in fact it was the same fault because the CAN-bus network damaged the CIM because the signals were wrong due to the missing components.
The mechanic agreed that the fault was intermittent and wouldn't necessarily show up on a test drive.
He is willing to do a full report on the car for me, I love my garage :cloud9:
The passenger airbag and airbag control module (this controls all the airbags) were completely missing
Any vehicle that comes of the productions line with airbags fitted should have them and be working at time of sale.
It is a legal requirement from Jan 2012 to have a visible airbag light or it will fail an MOT, effectively he has only sold me a car that would be legally allowed to be on the road till Jan.
Insurance wouldn't pay out in the event of a claim if the airbags didn't deploy because they were missing.
The seller said it wasn't same fault but in fact it was the same fault because the CAN-bus network damaged the CIM because the signals were wrong due to the missing components.
The mechanic agreed that the fault was intermittent and wouldn't necessarily show up on a test drive.
He is willing to do a full report on the car for me, I love my garage :cloud9:
The Sale of Goods Act does not apply to private sellers, the first three points listed for buying from a dealer are the basic tenents of the SOG Act and I'm afriad that includes being fit for purpose - the garage may say it's not, but there is no obligation on a private seller for it to be fit for purpose. From that link:
If you buy a car from a private seller or at a car auction for traders, you have fewer rights. The car only has to:
- match the description given by the seller
- be theirs to sell, eg the car isn't stolen or owned by a finance company because the car loan hasn't been paid off
It think it does have to be road legal though - worth following up on and finding out if that is the case as if it won't pass an MOT perhaps they have to declare that? It's a minefield.
newrider.com