Im being sued after I sold my car

lovinituk

matttye wrote: »

Another case:

http://news.warwickshire.gov.uk/blog/2013/05/29/unroadworthy-car-sold-for-400-cost-garage-owner-10000/

Car examined by independent expert one week after purchasing. Found to be unroadworthy. This time the seller pleaded not guilty and was found guilty after trial.

He's a trader and the car advert on eBay misdescribed the vehicle. Absolutely nothing like the case this thread is about.

matttye

lovinituk wrote: »

Oh I understand perfectly that you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks anyway!

If you say so

matttye

lovinituk wrote: »

He's a trader and the car advert on eBay misdescribed the vehicle. Absolutely nothing like the case this thread is about.

He was found guilty of selling a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition. That offence has nothing to do with the description that was given to the vehicle. Read section 75 of the Road Traffic Act - it doesn't say anything about the description of the vehicle anywhere.

He ALSO pleaded guilty to other trading standards offences - the article doesn't specify what the offences were but I'm guessing they had to do with falsely advertising the vehicle.

Edit:

Sorry, it does say:

"There were two offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008: one relating to providing a receipt stating the vehicle was ‘SOLD AS SEEN’; the other to placing an Ebay advertisement that was deceptive as to the car’s fitness for purpose. There was also one offence under The Companies Act 2006 of providing a receipt that did not include his name (he is a sole trader). He was fined £1500 for each of the consumer protection offences and £500 for the Company Act offence."

The false advertising offence is entirely separate to the selling the car in an unroadworthy condition offence, like I said.

marleyboy

matttye wrote: »

If you say so

I think you will find he is DEFINITELY not on his own in saying so.:D

matttye

marleyboy wrote: »

I think you will find he is DEFINITELY not on his own in saying so.:D

The law is complex, I understand that not everyone understands it. It's fine. You can all be forgiven for your ignorance.

There are clear similarities between the case I showed and what the OP is saying: -

1. Car sold as seen - CHECK
2. Expert report shortly after sale finds car to be unroadworthy - CHECK

The only thing I'm not sure about is how soon after the sale the claimant in the OP's case has commissioned the expert report. The article I linked to concerned an expert's report being commissioned one week after sale and the trader who sold the car was found guilty.

Again: section 75 of the Road Traffic Act does not say it is only an offence for traders to sell unroadworthy cars, it is also an offence for individuals to sell unroadworthy cars.

People are ASSUMING that the buyer has bought the car and thrashed it around for a few weeks, but who knows how much detail the expert's report goes into? They can probably even date some of the faults.

jimjames

matttye wrote: »

The law is complex, I understand that not everyone understands it. It's fine. You can all be forgiven for your ignorance.

There are clear similarities between the case I showed and what the OP is saying: -

1. Car sold as seen - CHECK
2. Expert report shortly after sale finds car to be unroadworthy - CHECK

You missed item 3 - Trader selling dodgy cars under false names - NO CHECK

There is a vast difference between a trader (who supposedly knows about cars) and a private individual selling a car.

Quoting articles relating to a trader being prosecuted by Trading Standards doesn't help the OP who from all the info has a very good case to defend against someone trying it on and is a small claims civil case not criminal.

Maybe if you can explain the similarity it might help people understand.

matttye

jimjames wrote: »

You missed item 3 - Trader selling dodgy cars under false names - NO CHECK

There is a vast difference between a trader (who supposedly knows about cars) and a private individual selling a car.

Quoting articles relating to a trader being prosecuted by Trading Standards doesn't help the OP who from all the info has a very good case to defend against someone trying it on and is a small claims civil case not criminal.

Maybe if you can explain the similarity it might help people understand.

The fact that they are a trader makes no difference - it is an offence for both individuals and traders to sell unroadworthy cars.

The similarity is that they sold a car which was subsequently deemed unroadworthy by an expert. The OP says in post #6 that the claimant has had an expert report commissioned shortly after buying the car which says the car is unroadworthy and dangerous to drive.

The only difference I can see is that I think it would be more likely deemed to be in the public interest to prosecute a trader than a private individual, and likewise it would be more likely to be deemed in the public interest to prosecute someone who knowingly sold an unroadworthy car.

The option would still be available to prosecute an individual who sold an unroadworthy car without any knowledge of it being unroadworthy, though.

matttye

Also, the law creates a strict liability offence. It therefore does not matter how much you know about cars, because it is the act of selling an unroadworthy car that is a criminal offence. You don't have to know/suspect/believe/etc. that it is unroadworthy.

It's a question of fact.

Was it unroadworthy when sold?
No -> Not guilty.
Yes ->

Did the seller have a reasonable belief that the buyer was not going to use it on a road?
No -> Guilty.
Yes -> Not guilty.

Remember that the standard of proof in criminal cases is 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and not 'absolutely certain.' If there is an expert report saying that in their expert opinion the car was unroadworthy at the time of sale, the prosecution is likely to succeed in the absence of evidence to the contrary - i.e. another expert report commissioned by the defence.

LoopyLocks

Im just catching up with all this. I think Im more confused now that I was when I first got the letter from the court lol. I shouldnt laugh really though if theres a chance I can be found a criminal if some expert says that there was something wrong with my car when I had it. If I thought there was anything unroadworthy about it I wouldnt dream of driving it around with my kids in the back in it but it was fine.
I remember my girlfriend saying she spoke to her mate at work who knows him and she said he loves the car. That was over 2 weeks after he bought it. So this expert examination would have been anywhere between 3 and 8 weeks after he bought it. He didnt give a date exactly when but it was certainly at least 3 weeks after.

fatbelly

LoopyLocks wrote: »

Im just catching up with all this. I think Im more confused now that I was when I first got the letter from the court lol. I shouldnt laugh really though if theres a chance I can be found a criminal if some expert says that there was something wrong with my car when I had it. If I thought there was anything unroadworthy about it I wouldnt dream of driving it around with my kids in the back in it but it was fine.
I remember my girlfriend saying she spoke to her mate at work who knows him and she said he loves the car. That was over 2 weeks after he bought it. So this expert examination would have been anywhere between 3 and 8 weeks after he bought it. He didnt give a date exactly when but it was certainly at least 3 weeks after.

The thread lost it's way a bit after a good start!

This is a civil claim, not a criminal one. It's a money claim in the county court. It's not establishing guilt but who owes who what. The other guy says you owe him money for some reason that doesn't make sense. You say you don't owe him anything.

So you respond to the court, and they put that response to him. Now he can choose to continue at further cost, and there will be a short hearing at your local court.

Or he can see that you have called his bluff and give up at that point.

But if you don't respond at all, he wins and can use bailiffs, or an attachment to earnings or a charge on your property, to recover the money.

So respond.