Im being sued after I sold my car

Wig

Marktheshark wrote: »

Section S75 is a summary offence, no summons for section 75 has been issued to the op and therefore they can not be guilty in absence of a charge.
If you do not understand that you can not be guilty of an offence you have not been found guilty of then there is not a lot of point me going any further.
I would suggest reading a introduction to O-level law to help understand how a summary offence and conviction works.
A member of public can not use the possibility that someone might have committed an offence for which they were never reported as evidence in any county court.
I am very confused as to how you have arrived at such a conclusion it could be.

Jeez mate, answer the f question... **if** someone is guilty of a S75 offence... would the buyer be able to obtain damages from a civil court?

After you had replied to that question, I would have asked a further question.

If you replied "yes" as I believe the correct answer would be "yes"....
I would then ask......... in the OPs case i.e. in the absence of a S75 conviction.... the buyer is relying on the civil court to make a determination on the roadworthiness of the vehicle at the time of sale. If the civil court believes that the car was sold in an unroadworthy condition i.e. that an offence had been committed by the seller, then, would the civil court be able to award damages to the buyer?

If anyone has ANY evidence of such cases going to court whether or not a S75 conviction had been made. I would be very interested to read about them.

Wig

Marktheshark wrote: »

Poor woman came here for advice defending rather a silly CCJ claim.
She got the life scared out of her by people spouting random criminal acts.
What relevance these had to her question I am baffled.
Totally baffled.

The relevance of the S75 offence (which I assume you are referring to) is obvious, ... S75 is the basis of the case being made against her. If I was the OP, I would want people (like me) to challenge those who just say "nothing to worry about" to discuss and provide reasons why they are just dismissing the case out of hand.

Wig

jimjames wrote: »

Being prosecuted for a S75 unroadworthy vehicle is totally separate to a Small Claims court process. One will not lead to the other.

Muddling the two up doesn't really help much.

I don't think anyone is suggesting one would lead to another. The only reason this subject has come up is that it is the basis of the case against the OP (and therefore it is very relevant to discuss it here), the fact that it is a offence to sell an unroadworthy vehicle. The buyer will not be asking the civil court to find the seller guilty of a S75 offence for that would not be within the civil court's remit, the buyer will be asking the court to establish if in the courts opinion, the car was sold in an unroadworthy condition.

If the court decides that it was sold in an unroadworthy condition the buyer will be asking for damages on the basis that the seller did something unlawful.

What is your opinion on this?

Wig

Hintza wrote: »

Come on then provide a link to this?

OMG the replies being given to Mattye beggar belief from supposedly knowledgeable posters on here.

Everything Mattye has said is correct. "His link" for all of this has already been quoted by me, S75 RTA, It's the law, what Mattye is saying is written in the law which has been quoted in this thread.

All he is saying is that Joe Public can be prosecuted for selling an unroadworthy vehicle, If the vehicle was unroadworthy at the time of sale there can be only one defence, That Joe reasonably believed that at the time of sale the vehicle was not going to be driven away and was not going to be subsequently used on the roads (before repair).

*******Link to another thread on the same subject, if you are interested in this subject you should read this other thread aswell.*********
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5139381

From the other thread

I don't see what difference having a contract that says "car to be roadworthy" makes. All cars -in all sales of those cars whether private or trade- must, under the law, be roadworthy, *unless: the seller specifically has reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle will not be used on the road unless first repaired to be roadworthy. Knowledge or ignorance of the unroadworthiness of the vehicle is irrelevant.

*This exclusion clause obviously does not exclude any †"normal private sale" where the obvious intention is that the car is being sold for use on the road and is usually to be driven away.

Therefore there is an implied contract for all of the above private sales that the car will be roadworthy. To be otherwise, would be unlawful.

All that is left to determine is whether or not the vehicle was actually unroadworthy on the day of sale. This is not an easy thing to prove, certainly, severe corrosion in safety critical areas, noticed soon enough after sale, would be clear cut evidence that the car was unroadworthy at the time of sale. anything else would be much more difficult.

The buyer's report only mentions the fact that the gear jumping out of gear would make it unroadworthy, It doesn't say that it has jumped out of gear, only that in the mechanic's opinion, it is a possibility that it *might* jump out of gear. I would be asking. (when the time comes).. given that the car never jumped out of gear up to the day of sale and during the test drive, how and when has it been witnessed that it "jumps out of gear", and what evidence do they have that it jumps out of gear? Video evidence for example. And for your own independent engineeers report to be made on the vehicle to see if this jumping out of gear can be witnessed.

Personally, I would not go through the expense of having an independent engineers report done unless they win a case against you in court and you then take it to appeal, the problem here, is that by then, the car might have been repaired.

Most people on these sorts of threads (we have just had a previous thread here which the OP probably found on google) http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5134663
Just dismiss out of hand that a buyer has any recourse under the law without providing any evidence to back up their comments. I don't think that this is a very useful way to provide advice on a forum.

Let me make my position clear,

• I believe that S75 RTA requires all †'normal privately sold cars' to be roadworthy,
• I believe that if it can be shown to a civil court that the car was NOT roadworthy at the time of sale then the buyer will be awarded damages by the civil court.
• I believe that "sold as seen" etc, would afford no protection to the seller.
• I believe this because the law is clearly written, and if someone incurs a loss because you have broken a law, then that someone is entitled to compensation.
• I believe that you need not have a conviction under S75 in order for a civil court to decide that the law was broken by you and thus to be able to award damages against you.
• I believe that no court would go against a private seller unless the evidence is clear cut and substantial.
• I have NO EVIDENCE to back up my comments EXCEPT Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act, and Tort law.
• No one else provides any evidence to the contrary, no case records or case law have been provided.
• I am simply saying, I don't believe that it is as simple as saying "private sale you have nothing to worry about"
• If it were me, I would defend the case on the basis that the car was roadworthy at the time of sale and play on the fact that the mechanic's report provides no evidence that it jumps out of gear, and no evidence that it jumped out of gear before the sale took place. And that the mechanic is not a Certified Civil Engineer.

Retrogamer

Wig any chance you could use multi quote, as it stops the thread being bumped every time you post.

LoopyLocks

Hi I hope you all had a good christmas and new year.
I got a form from the court and also the fella who is claiming sent me a copy of his form in the post. Its a N180 form directions questionnaire. It looks pretty straightforward so I just have to fill it in and send a copy to him and another copy to the court. I rang the court just to ask about the form and a couple of bits I wasnt sure of. They said it will most likely be referred to mediation service before it goes into court now.

patman99

This is where you get to make the guy look like a total idiot.

You will have to file a defense pack. This will be easy in your case.

'On xxxx Date, I sold vehicle xxxx to Mr xxxx. The sale was as a private individual.
At the time of the sale, the vehicle was as-described with any faults known to me mentioned.
The buyer, having taken the vehicle for a test-drive, was happy with it and the deal was completed.
The purchaser had every chance to engage the services of an independent vehicle inspection service, but was happy-enough with his own judgement of the vehicle's condition to complete on the sale without using such a service.

I therefore submit that as a private sale, it was completed in good faith and as such, the purchaser has accepted that in such sales, it is buyer beware'.

andygb

Well done Patman99, lets keep helping the OP against the "chancer" who bought her car.
In the past I have had a couple of what you could only call "bizarre" comebacks from people who I sold a car to. One guy had a 10 year old Volvo 264 estate for over four months, before coming back to me saying that he took it for servicing at a main dealer, who told him the cylinder head needed replacing (they were notorious for tappet adjustment) and the clutch was slipping and would need replacing - four months of a stupid driver riding the clutch.
There are more and more chancers in this World and they need to be stopped.

LoopyLocks

Hi, Im glad to say this is all over now. The mediator phoned me up and asked how much would I settle for so I told him that I offered £200 in the beginning and I would give him that. He rang again a little while later and said the guy wanted at least £400. We settled on £350 in the end and now I got confirmation that its all over. Its still £350 that I have lost but at least I dont have to go to court now and I can put it behind me and move on. Thanks to everyone for the brilliant advice and help.

Marktheshark

LoopyLocks wrote: »

Hi, Im glad to say this is all over now. The mediator phoned me up and asked how much would I settle for so I told him that I offered £200 in the beginning and I would give him that. He rang again a little while later and said the guy wanted at least £400. We settled on £350 in the end and now I got confirmation that its all over. Its still £350 that I have lost but at least I dont have to go to court now and I can put it behind me and move on. Thanks to everyone for the brilliant advice and help.

So you let him have you over ?
!!!!!!, did you actually read ANYTHING ?

What on earth have you done ?
You should have let this Idiot get his backside kicked by the judge.