Help needed with a samll claim against a trader

Sir_Pigalot

My dad thought he was doing me a favour (as my hb, a carpenter, is unable a to work at 42 due to a back problem - surgery on the 17th though) and we have been in a rotten state financially. He bought a car through e-bay classified ads from a 'trader'.

He went to see the car (Citroen C5) which was advertised as 'used', he accepted that it was a bit neglected and in need of tyres (which he allowed him £100) and a good service. When my dad asked where the screen for the radio was he said that this model never had one fitted. This turns out to be the screen for the whole computer system and is located on the dash. The space was covered with plastic mesh my dad accepted this.

I live in France and when I got the car home it appears that there was a screen hidden behind the mesh (the whole central computer or suchlike) and once it was plugged in it showed serious problems that will cost about £800 to repair, a mechanic friend and the local dealership agree on that costing.

As a 'trader' on ebay I am sure that we were mis-sold the car, had we known about the screen and it's problems my dad never would have bought it. I have contacted the seller and he telling me that because he wrote 'sold as seen' 'spares or repairs' on the bottom of the ad and in the clear.

My husband found a printout of the original, date stamped, ad from Ebay. This is the one my dad responded to. There is no mention of 'Spares or Repairs'. The one that is now showing was altered at a later date. Having spoken with Ebay they said that "[FONT=Arial, Verdana]This has now been escalated to a specialized team for investigation and proper action on their account."[/FONT]

My dad has sent him a 'letter before action' which his has ignored. The next step is the small claims court. Does anyone know where we might find a 'standard letter' about mis-sold cars that we can adapt.

Thank you

Quentin

You don't need to send any more letters now the LBA has been ignored, you can go straught for the court claim.

Though why not await the ebay response, as the court case will cost you court fees upfront, which you will only get back in the event you win the case and the defendant has the means to pay up, whereas if ebay rule in your favour presumably they will arrange a refund.

Sir_Pigalot

Thanks for your reply.

The problem is as the car was sold under the classified section of Ebay, although they have agreed to investigate the ad (which took more than a little effort to achieve) they cannot force him recompense. I would be very happy just for them to look at his 'trading' methods, which imho are not ethical.

The only option my dad has is through the courts. He is really annoyed, aged 70, and trying to help out his daughter, then this 'person' does this.

Quentin

I see.

In that case he can carry on with his claim (assuming this definitely is a car trader - if it was a private seller he will have difficulty winning).

But make sure the defendant is someone who can pay if he wins, otherwise using the court will just be good money after bad.

Sir_Pigalot

Apparently he is quite proud of the fact he is a 'trader' according to my dad. He has several cars listed on ebay at the moment and with a bit of research (ie his mobile phone number) I have found that he also has two other business'. He describes himself as an entrepreneur on his Facebook page!

Is it worth mentioning his other business' on the claim?

Gavin83

I would suggest taking copies of other adverts he has posted in the event he attempts to deny being a trader. This will likely be his main defence as he is probably aware what his obligations are as a trader.

Quentin

Sir_Pigalot wrote: »

Is it worth mentioning his other business' on the claim?

Not really.

If he subsequently denies being a motor trader, pointing out he has other business interests is irrelevant.

arcon5

Is the trader Ltd company or an individual?

Sir_Pigalot

My dad found an article from 'Honest John' which mentions that it is illegal to sell a car with the DPF filter missing. This means that the car cannot legally be re-sold, I would not pass this problem on in any event. An application to the courts has been made mentioning this. Thanks so much for all you decent advice.

colino

While HonestJohn frequently should step away from the keyboard when he has a go at discussing anything technical, I think your Dad is confusing the fact that petrol cars, if originally fitted with catalytic converters, need them fitted at MOT time. It doesn't mention DFPs because although the smoke test has been tightened, most good diesels pass the smoke test with or without the DPF in place and in either case, there is nothing illegal with selling a petrol car without its originally fitted cat or a diesel sans DPF.