Advice with Court Claim received please?

gazfocus

trukdiver wrote: »

The OP has already said that their eBay listing was inaccurate because they mistakenly thought it was digital. The problem is that the buyer wouldn't accept a refund (twice) and has already bought the digital receiver to bring it up to the spec of the item they thought they were receiving. Also, they waited two months before complaining.

An alternative scenario might be:
1) OP sells item which was correctly described.
2) After two months, buyer decides to say they had received the wrong item in order to get a partial refund.
3) Buyer finds highest price for the digital version and claims to have bought it to replace the original analogue receiver.

How would you decide which one was telling the truth?

Possibly if the buyer has the receipt for the replacement from Halfords?

The thing that frustrates me more than anything is that I have the original receipt from the retailer confirming that I had ordered the digital version (denoted by a 'D' in the model number). I do not know enough about Sat Navs to have known the difference in the time that I had been using it.

I never questioned the buyers claims, I believed what he said without question and have tried to be very reasonable and help to resolve the complaint, all this without even asking for him to send the sat nav back for me to investigate (so that he could still use the sat nav in the meantime) and now he is being completely the opposite.

I still don't understand how he could possibly win the case when he has a) refused to return the sat nav for a full refund twice before filing the claim and b) told me numerous times by email that the replacement cable was £60 and then goes on to claim to have bought one for £99.99.

RMS2

gazfocus wrote: »

The thing that frustrates me more than anything is that I have the original receipt from the retailer confirming that I had ordered the digital version (denoted by a 'D' in the model number).

Then write to Garmin outlining this, when they fob you off, then write an LBA, then take them to court.

gazfocus

RMS2 wrote: »

Then write to Garmin outlining this, when they fob you off, then write an LBA, then take them to court.

Why should I write to Garmin? It's not their fault if the retailer sent me the wrong product, but I was not mentioning it to say 'it's not my fault sir', I was just explaining that I feel I have been very fair in not questioning the buyer, not asking for proof, simply taking his word for it, etc.

martindow

gazfocus wrote: »

The thing that frustrates me more than anything is that I have the original receipt from the retailer confirming that I had ordered the digital version (denoted by a 'D' in the model number). I do not know enough about Sat Navs to have known the difference in the time that I had been using it.

You could use this to defend your claim, couldn't you? Maybe it is a digital one and your buyer can't tell the difference either.

gazfocus

martindow wrote: »

You could use this to defend your claim, couldn't you? Maybe it is a digital one and your buyer can't tell the difference either.

The buyer claims to have spoken to Garmin about the differences. It makes me question whether he already had an 'analog' version and wanted my digital version without paying any money for it, but then I don't understand why he would've refused to send the sat nav back for a full refund.

To be honest, all sorts of thoughts are going round in my head at the moment about what the buyer could be trying to pull but I've filed my defense, going to agree to the mediation and see where that goes.

As far as I can tell, he would have to provide the court with an extremely good reason for having not returned the sat nav for a full refund when offered, bearing in mind it was only after he filed the claim that he had claimed to have bought the digital cable, so he can't use the excuse that he had already gone to the expense of buying a cable.

trukdiver

gazfocus wrote: »

The buyer claims to have spoken to Garmin about the differences. It makes me question whether he already had an 'analog' version and wanted my digital version without paying any money for it, but then I don't understand why he would've refused to send the sat nav back for a full refund.

To be honest, all sorts of thoughts are going round in my head at the moment about what the buyer could be trying to pull but I've filed my defense, going to agree to the mediation and see where that goes.

As far as I can tell, he would have to provide the court with an extremely good reason for having not returned the sat nav for a full refund when offered, bearing in mind it was only after he filed the claim that he had claimed to have bought the digital cable, so he can't use the excuse that he had already gone to the expense of buying a cable.

Is it possible that the buyer lives in an area that doesn't have digital coverage, so it reverts to analogue? (as with phones switching to 2G where there isn't any 3G coverage)

cootuk

Looking at the Garmin website

"Lifetime maps¹ and traffic² (indicated by “LMT-D” after model number on the box)"

This doean't actually mean you get the digital cable in all the kits, which is listed "in the box" on their website as
"Lifetime traffic antenna/vehicle power cable"

The 3598 appears to get it, the 2799 doesn't..and these are the two in your sort of price range, despite both having the LMT-D model number.

So, OP, what was the model number?

I would check the wording of your advert on whether you state HD traffic is working or an option...and the actual model number you sold.
Could be a case of caveat emptor like buying a HD ready tv and not having a HD source.

gazfocus

The Sat Nav was indeed the 3598 LMT-D, however, the buyer is claiming it's actually the 3598 LMT, which is the same sat nav but without the digital antenna cable.

The buyer apparently spoke to Garmin who told him the only difference between the two is the included cable hence he is claiming for a replacement cable.

At the end of the day, I am going to let the court case run its course. As far as I can see, he has no valid reason for refusing to return the sat nav.

His last email prior to issuing the court claim stated he wanted £40 to end the matter otherwise he would take legal action. I responded saying he either accepts the £30 or send the sat nav back for a full refund and then 2 days later he files the claim. He would not have offered to settle at £40 if he had already spent £99.99 on a cable, so I believe it's fair to say he had no valid reason for refusing to return the sat nav.

DoctorFoster

gazfocus wrote: »

The Sat Nav was indeed the 3598 LMT-D, however, the buyer is claiming it's actually the 3598 LMT, which is the same sat nav but without the digital antenna cable.

The buyer apparently spoke to Garmin who told him the only difference between the two is the included cable hence he is claiming for a replacement cable.

At the end of the day, I am going to let the court case run its course. As far as I can see, he has no valid reason for refusing to return the sat nav.

His last email prior to issuing the court claim stated he wanted £40 to end the matter otherwise he would take legal action. I responded saying he either accepts the £30 or send the sat nav back for a full refund and then 2 days later he files the claim. He would not have offered to settle at £40 if he had already spent £99.99 on a cable, so I believe it's fair to say he had no valid reason for refusing to return the sat nav.

Other than the fact he would still be £100 out of pocket for the lead.


His argument appears to be you sold him something that cost him an extra £100 to get what was advertised, is it not?

gazfocus

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Other than the fact he would still be £100 out of pocket for the lead.


His argument appears to be you sold him something that cost him an extra £100 to get what was advertised, is it not?

I offered him a full refund on two occasions prior to him supposedly purchasing a cable for £100, so that should not be a valid reason as he made the decision to purchase the lead after a full refund was offered. If he chose to spend £100 to get the item to what was advertised rather than return it for a refund, why should I bear that cost?

When I was reading up before filing my defense, I was reading about the sales of goods act, etc, and while I'm not a business and was not selling the sat nav as a business, the sales of goods act states that if an item is not as described, the buyer is entitled to a A full refund or repair, and to claim for consequential loss.

As I offered a full refund (as soon as the buyer alerted me to the fact it was not as described), the only consequential loss the buyer should be entitled to claim for is the cost of returning the sat nav.