Advice with Court Claim received please?

gazfocus

cootuk wrote: »

tbh i would offer the buyer a full refund on return of the satnav in working order - that way they are put back to the same financial situation they were in before. Forget about cables and partial refunds.

I have already done that on 3 occasions now.

1. I offered a full refund as soon as the buyer alerted me to the fact that the sat nav was not as expected - buyer asked me to request different cable from retailer.

2. Retailer refused to help so offered buyer 50% of the cost of the cable, he emailed back asking for an extra £10 (in hindsight I should have accepted), I refused and reiterated 50% or return of the sat nav for refund - buyer ignored offer and submitted court claim.

3. Emailed buyer yesterday, again, offering a full refund or offering to pay for a new cable. Buyer replied saying doesn't want me to source new cable, wants money shown on court claim.

That's 3 separate occasions where the buyer has refused to return the sat nav for a full refund.

RFW

gazfocus wrote: »

I have had a response from the buyer saying that if I pay the money into his bank (the £99.99 plus court costs) he will return the original cable.

Well I certainly wouldn't be doing that, even if I wanted to refund. You'd need to at least do that through the court to make sure you didn't end up paying twice. The court may be able to advise on the way forward there.

If you do defend that will cost the claimant more money to go to court, (I think telephone mediation is offered first). If you lose then there are those extra costs you would likely end up paying. Defending will also drag it out for another few months (depends on your local court), so you'll probably be waiting until the new year to sort it.

I personally think that any offers to replace/repair/refund at this stage will have a judge see it as admitting liability.

gazfocus

RFW wrote: »

Well I certainly wouldn't be doing that, even if I wanted to refund. You'd need to at least do that through the court to make sure you didn't end up paying twice. The court may be able to advise on the way forward there.

If you do defend that will cost the claimant more money to go to court, (I think telephone mediation is offered first). If you lose then there are those extra costs you would likely end up paying. Defending will also drag it out for another few months (depends on your local court), so you'll probably be waiting until the new year to sort it.

I personally think that any offers to replace/repair/refund at this stage will have a judge see it as admitting liability.

Thanks, I definitely won't be paying the £99.99 plus court costs just on his say so.

The problem is, he has it in black and white (and so do I), that prior to him filing the court claim, I offered to make a part payment toward the new cable. I think my chance of winning the case is going to rest on the fact that I offered on two occasions prior to the court claim being issued, to refund the buyer on safe return of the sat nav in the condition he received it in.

Looking at the dates, I offered to refund the buyer on 28th and he filed the claim on 30th.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

If the seller has offered a full refund upon return, even if return costs weren't mentioned (which can't be more than 15 quid), how has the buyer mitigated their loses by spending £100 on cable?

Cheapest option would have been return unit and sue for the return cost if not offered.

cootuk

There has to be mediation before Court...there is an option to use the court’s small claims mediation service.
If the buyer refuses a full refund then what are they suing for?
Loss of bargain as if the OP has offered a full refund (inc P&P) then there's no financial loss.

RFW

cootuk wrote: »

If the buyer refuses a full refund then what are they suing for?

As I see it, the buyer is suing for money he has had to pay to get the item to be in the condition he believed it should have been when he bought it. I don't know what arguments the buyer would use to say this was the best option open to him. I can think of several arguments that would lead to a judge finding in the buyer's favour.

cootuk

The buyer only has to be put back to the same financial condition as before the deal - the offer of a full refund would do that.
If the OP decides to supply the cable then that is a second option which could be agreed.
it would be unreasonable for the buyer to spend £100 on a cable first then try claiming the cost back, without prior agreement.

If the seller has already offered a full refund then how does going to court (costing money) mitigate the buyer's expenses?

I would also check the wording on the original advert as many of the satnavs have descriptions such as "digital ready" which means they will accept the digital cable but aren't neccessarily supplied with it.
"Lifetime traffic antenna/vehicle power cable" is what should be included in the box description if the digital cable is provided I believe.

delirious

RFW wrote: »

As I see it, the buyer is suing for money he has had to pay to get the item to be in the condition he believed it should have been when he bought it. I don't know what arguments the buyer would use to say this was the best option open to him. I can think of several arguments that would lead to a judge finding in the buyer's favour.

But what gives the buyer the right to make that decision and then expect the seller to pay? In my view, the seller offered to refund the buyer as soon as the buyer complained about the sat Nav being wrong. The buyer chose not to accept that offer, and subsequent offers of a full refund that were made prior to the buyer starting the court claim. That's not the sellers fault.

RFW

delirious wrote: »

But what gives the buyer the right to make that decision and then expect the seller to pay? In my view, the seller offered to refund the buyer as soon as the buyer complained about the sat Nav being wrong. The buyer chose not to accept that offer, and subsequent offers of a full refund that were made prior to the buyer starting the court claim. That's not the sellers fault.

It depends what the reasons are that the buyer puts before the court. I think most of us on here are tending to side with the seller as he has posted his side here, it may be a different story if we see the buyer's side, as a judge would.

It doesn't really matter what I think, or even what the buyer or seller think is right, it boils down to one person listening to both sides, seeing evidence and making a decision. However it was arrived at, it could seem as though the buyer is out of pocket because of either misleading or misselling on the seller's part. (I'm not saying that I think that, merely that it could be seen that way)

cootuk

Usually things end up in court becasue the buyer can't get the seller to refund, so unusual that the buyer is insisting on the £100 cable. rather than a refund...unless they got the item at an extremely massive discount.
Almost wonder if they can buy an Ebay special for £30 and pocket the rest.

tbh this might not even get to court if the judge looks at the documents submitted and decides in favour of the buyer straight away. A lot would depends on their actual case put forward, though a lack of letter before action doesn't help their cause as they havent followed recommended procedures.