Sold a van - now buyer wants his cash back

waamo

I would also add that any claim will result in a counter claim for all and any expenses incurred by this unreasonable and unfounded action.

motorguy

I would remove "In one conversation you advised me that you had reinsured your old vehicle so that you could work while you had this van looked at – so loss of earnings?"

As if you ask a question, he may feel he has the right to respond. Keep it factual.

Also, i would note in the letter that the vehicle was advertised at £2495, which was the going rate for the vehicle, however he negotiated a substantial discount down to £1650 (or whatever), which you reluctantly accepted.

ttc39

ok thanks both of you. how does this now seem?


Further to your letter dated 10th May 2013 I write to respond to you.

I am, as I have mentioned to you on the telephone conversations, genuinely sorry that you have had trouble with the van. The van served me well over the years and was sold to you in good faith and in fully working order as described.

I am under no legal obligation under any legislation to refund you the cost of the vehicle.

Please note that I am also under no legal obligation to refund you the cost of any repairs or loss of earnings.

You addressed your letter to me using my company detailsbut I must point out to you that this was a private sale to you, not through mybusiness. I am not a trader and therefore did not offer any warranty or enter any contract with you.

You came and test drove the van which you were obviously happy with as you paid for it in cash at a heavily discounted price. The van was up for sale at a price of 2,500.00 pounds but you negotiated a substantial discount of this to 1,650.00 which I reluctantly accepted after you told me of your problems with your previous vehicle

This would conclude that you were happy with the vans drive and performance and that it was in a satisfactory condition.

You then called me a few times and each time told me how happy you were with the vehicle.

I therefore request and insist that you refrain from sending me any more of your seemingly threatening and abnormal amount of texts and stop contacting me in this matter.

If you do not stop this harassment then I will take this matter further myself with the police asI do not appreciate your claim that I have broken a non existent law or legislation.

Any claim made by yourself will result in a counter claim for all and any expenses incurred by this unreasonable and unfounded action.

arcon5

ttc39 wrote: »

My husband had been driving said van right up until week it was sold as it was fine.

In his letter he states he has took van to two independent garages who state we should refund? But does not give us their details!

Garages rarely know the ins and outs of the law - some don't even abide by them.

He is saying the gearbox has broken and as such the fault is excessive and has inhibited use of the vehicle .

Even if this was a trade sale you could maybe defend it on the grounds its down to wear and tear - depending on age, mileague and SH?

arcon5

alcot33uk wrote: »

Guys...

Apologies but I wanted to add a flip side to this.

I sold a car in 2006 to a guy privately, with the invoice stating 'sold as seen, buyer has tested' etc etc.

4 months later I get a recorded delivery letter stating that the car had sprung a leak and that he wanted £1800.

I replied stating 'please see copy of invoice', '4 months later' etc etc.

I ended up in court and £1800 lighter....

The judge sided with him, even though he had sold the car on....

After 4 months even a trader can reject a refund request if the cost is disproportionate to a replacement or repair.

I suspect you didn't defend the claim adequately if this was in fact a private sale.

scheming_gypsy

ttc39 wrote: »

Lots of words.

i'd say that you've spoken to a solicitor who has advised that you inspected the car, and made a counter offer based on the condition that you found it.... which is why you accepted a lower amount.
You don't even have to speak to a solicitor but when you're faced with a chancer, they'll pretty much back down when they think you've taken legal advice.

shaun_from_Africa

i'd say that you've spoken to a solicitor who has advised that you inspected the car, and made a counter offer based on the condition that you found it

Doing something like this could backfire if it did ever end up in court.
If the judge asked the OP which solicitor stated this, or asked for proof that this occurred, what would they say?

The law is firmly on the OP's side so there is no need for them to lie in any letters/emails and all they should do is to be factual and truthful in any correspondence.

sharpy2010

I can't see why anyone is advising even bothering to get back into contact with the buyer.

Just ignore, and he will very soon go away bored and try to harass someone more gullible.

robatwork

What does he have in writing about the van?
Advert
Receipt
Anything else?

This is what he can produce in court in the unlikely event it ever happens. As long as those don't say anything about "this van will run for miles without problems" then he'd had it. He had the chance to have it inspected before he bought and it's his risk. I would send 1 short letter and that's it.

scheming_gypsy

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Doing something like this could backfire if it did ever end up in court.
If the judge asked the OP which solicitor stated this, or asked for proof that this occurred, what would they say?
.

they wouldn't need to give any proof, they're not sending a fake solicitors letter... just giving the buyer the impression that they've taken legal advice.