Help!! eBay buyer threatening court action

pulliptears

utab007 wrote: »

Can you please expand on your answer? what does the law say about private sales

You can't say 'sold as seen' for one. You don't have many rights in a private sale but the car does have to match the description, if it doesn't you could argue the case under the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

I tend to agree with others though, get him to agree to a cancellation request, you'll get your fees back. Scrap the car and be done with. Probably worth it to rest easy.

Big_W

There is an argument that this buyer has unreasonably high expectations of what you can get when buying a 12 year old car.

I'm currently on my 5th mk2 Mondeo. As the last ones were registered in early 2001, and the cambelt change is 90k miles / 10 years (Haynes manual) every mk2 Mondeo is supposed to have had at least one cambelt change. I've spent a lot of time looking for these cars on a multitude of web sites - you hardly ever find one that has had the belt done, even if spending £1k at a dealers.

I've sold 3 of mine, with short MoTs and all due a cambelt change for around £350 each. No comebacks from the buyers, all of whom were mechanics. The current one cost me £700 - cambelt due, but not done, so I paid £200 to have it changed.

£215 for a Mondy Zetec with 6 months MoT and 2 newish tyres (on saleable 16" alloys if the factory ones) is an absolute bargain. The buyer is extracting the wee wee.

sham63

Anyone remember the caravan thread from a few years ago?

Seem to remember the buyer won in court even though the caravan was 'sold as seen'?

utab007

Cambelt change interval is 80,000 miles on this car. When I bought the car it had 112,000 miles, so looks like previous owner was responsible. As I only did 38,000 miles I should be fine. It was not due to be changed whilst I owned it.

So i reckon it's ok for me to say it was well maintained with FSH. I don't see how this can be misrepresentation on my part. I can't responsible for what previous owner did. Do you agree?

I could save myself hassle and do as most of you suggest, but I think this bully needs to learn a lesson.

My understading is by defending it move to my local court. Is that correct?

Strapped

If he wanted a warranty then he should have bought a car from a garage.

Take the neg and wear it with pride.

He's so NOT going to take you to small claims.

No_Eye_Deer

utab007 wrote: »

Cambelt change interval is 80,000 miles on this car. When I bought the car it had 112,000 miles, so looks like previous owner was responsible. As I only did 38,000 miles I should be fine. It was not due to be changed whilst I owned it.

So i reckon it's ok for me to say it was well maintained with FSH. I don't see how this can be misrepresentation on my part. I can't responsible for what previous owner did. Do you agree?

I could save myself hassle and do as most of you suggest, but I think this bully needs to learn a lesson.

My understading is by defending it move to my local court. Is that correct?

I cant see what the previous owner did or didn't do with it as a defence.

Stick to the facts as you know them.

To be honest I would wait until the court papers turn up (if he's serious) and then go to arbitration.

What is he basing the £50 costs on?
What happened to the car?
What are is his losses?

For example: If he bought it for £215 and then sold it for scrap for £190 his loss would be £25.

RFW

Just to add another tuppence worth in, he doesn't appear to have ever asked to return it, so I would leave that as an option.
If it were me I would ask him to return it and say you will refund in full and give him £20 for petrol. Chances are he's just after £50 from you. It's unlikely he'd go to court, his being a bailiff and knowing circuit judges would be more likely to put him off.

Mindless_Clone

utab007 wrote: »

Cambelt change interval is 80,000 miles on this car. When I bought the car it had 112,000 miles, so looks like previous owner was responsible. As I only did 38,000 miles I should be fine. It was not due to be changed whilst I owned it.

So i reckon it's ok for me to say it was well maintained with FSH. I don't see how this can be misrepresentation on my part. I can't responsible for what previous owner did. Do you agree?

I don't think it quite works like that. As the owner, you are responsible for maintaining it. You can't say "well the previous owner didn't do his part so it's his fault." Or else up and down the land, people would be being sued for dodgy cars they sold on fully working years ago.

He might argue that as the previous owner, it was your responsibility to check if the cambelt needed replacing and to replace it as per guidance. And he'd be right. Except he can't really base a case on it since you told him when you sold it that you were unsure if it needed replacing or not.
In short, leave what the previous owner should or should not have done out if this, and stick to the facts of your case. i,e, that he was aware that YOU had never replaced the belt and that you were unsure if the previous owner had.

I could save myself hassle and do as most of you suggest, but I think this bully needs to learn a lesson.

Principles are fine, until they cost you more time and money that you can agreeably afford to give.
I'm not suggesting you roll over and give in to his pretty unreasonable demands for more than scrap value in compensation, but it may work better for you to reach some compromise.

Although, I suspect the court action thing is bluff and bluster. Otherwise, why has he not raised a dispute yet?

My understading is by defending it move to my local court. Is that correct?

Absolutely no idea. Sorry.

Strapped wrote: »

He's so NOT going to take you to small claims.

Inclined to agree. I do think it likely to be a bit of an empty threat.

No_Eye_Deer wrote: »

To be honest I would wait until the court papers turn up (if he's serious) and then go to arbitration.

What is he basing the £50 costs on?
What happened to the car?
What are is his losses?

For example: If he bought it for £215 and then sold it for scrap for £190 his loss would be £25.

Well that's the point. He's asking for £50 compensation and £100 scrap value of the car. Presumably he then wants to keep it and scrap it himself. So his £215 investment becomes £250. How does that work then?
If the OP is correct, he could get £165 scrap for it, so the OP could reasonably expect to "owe him" £50 for the car. All in all, cancelling the transaction and him returning it is a better option.

OP I still think you would be well advised to at least offer this solution to the buyer. Simply because if he does refuse it, then it's likely to reflect better on you in court if it did get there. Which, as has been said, I suspect it won't.

No_Eye_Deer

Mindless_Clone wrote: »

so the OP could reasonably expect to "owe him" £50 for the car.

Yes. The buyer has only asked the OP for £50.

Return costs can be added to a claim.

.

Taadaa

I would tell them to bring it back for a refund, cancel the transaction and scrap it yourself if he is telling the truth. He might be out of pocket in terms if petrol but he will be oop if you only refund £50 and he scraps it. If he is bluffing, he will refuse to bring it back. And the fact you have offered a refund can only go in your favour if he does take it further ( which he probably won't).

A car with no record of a cambelt change is not a car with fsh and should not have been described as well maintained. Just my humble tuppence worth.