Im being sued after I sold my car

Marktheshark

Big Scary "FACTS" ???
Do you actually know the difference between any of the courts ?
You were quoting Legalisation applicable in magistrates court and possible punishments she could face when it was a "county court" case.

Anyway, I can see you are not in the slightest ashamed or sorrowful for what you have done here.
The Poor woman.

Thats enough of my time wasted on arguing with you.

Marktheshark

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Like it or not he hasn't said anything that isn't true.

You want to back him up, fine, go sit in his corner with him.
I am sure you will both make good company.

Spicy_McHaggis

Marktheshark wrote: »

Big Scary "FACTS" ???
Do you actually know the difference between any of the courts ?
You were quoting Legalisation applicable in magistrates court and possible punishments she could face when it was a "county court" case.

Anyway, I can see you are not in the slightest ashamed or sorrowful for what you have done here.
The Poor woman.

Thats enough of my time wasted on arguing with you.

He never said it would go to court, if you recall he said it was probably not in the public interest.
However the fact remains it could have gone to magistrates.

matttye

Marktheshark wrote: »

Big Scary "FACTS" ???
Do you actually know the difference between any of the courts ?
You were quoting Legalisation applicable in magistrates court and possible punishments she could face when it was a "county court" case.

Anyway, I can see you are not in the slightest ashamed or sorrowful for what you have done here.
The Poor woman.

Thats enough of my time wasted on arguing with you.

Posts 97 and 121:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67250467&postcount=97
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67252021&postcount=121

As I've already said I fully understand the difference between the civil and criminal issues.

Why would I be ashamed? I didn't say she would be charged with anything I only said it was a possibility.

Spicy_McHaggis

Marktheshark wrote: »

You are as stupid as he is.

Why?

Please explain why you think it's not an offence to sell an unroadworthy vehicle.

matttye

Marktheshark wrote: »

You are as stupid as he is.

You can disagree with us without resorting to personal insults.

I'm not sure exactly what MSE's take on it is but a lot of forums won't allow such behaviour.

Joe_Horner

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Why?

Please explain why you think it's not an offence to sell an unroadworthy vehicle.

warehouse wrote: »

Absolutely spot on. Absolute fools on this place just cost the OP £350 with scare stories when there was absolutely no chance of losing this case.

Again, if you really believe any case has "absolutely no chance of losing" then, frankly, your opinion on the matter doesn't count for much at all.

Apart from anything else, refusing mediation when suggested, or refusing to engage meaningfully in it and "seeing them in court", has a natural tendency to !!!! judges off. Most of them are only human and tend to see it as wasting their valuable time if it could have been resolved out of court.

As for the whole thing about selling offences:

The OP mentioned it early on because that was part of what she'd been threatened with.

Many posters, incorrectly told her that either (a) there was no such offence, (b) there was but it only applies to traders and / or (c) there is, but only if you do it knowingly. All that advice was simply and absolutely wrong. There is such an offence, it can apply to any seller, and you don't have to know about the issues to be guilty of it*.

Given that the buyer already accused her of it and, despite the differences between civil and criminal courts, could very easily indeed have worked it effectively into his complaint, it was dangerous fr the OP to give her the impression that there was no such offence or that it couldn't apply to her, so she should ignore it.

All that said, if it had been me I would have gone to court







* For the wannabe pedants out there, being guilty of something and being found guilty of it are entirely different things. You can be guilty but not charged, guilty but found innocent, guilty and found guilty or even innocent but found guilty.

If I finish the bottle of whiskey in the kitchen and then go for a drive I'm guilty of drink driving. But, to be found guilty of it I have to be stopped, charged and convicted.

On the other hand, if I'm falsely accused of murdering my neighbour and a jury finds me guilty, that doesn't suddenly (and retrospectively) mean that I actually did it!

Spicy_McHaggis

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Again, if you really believe any case has "absolutely no chance of losing" then, frankly, your opinion on the matter doesn't count for much at all.

Apart from anything else, refusing mediation when suggested, or refusing to engage meaningfully in it and "seeing them in court", has a natural tendency to !!!! judges off. Most of them are only human and tend to see it as wasting their valuable time if it could have been resolved out of court.

As for the whole thing about selling offences:

The OP mentioned it early on because that was part of what she'd been threatened with.

Many posters, incorrectly told her that either (a) there was no such offence, (b) there was but it only applies to traders and / or (c) there is, but only if you do it knowingly. All that advice was simply and absolutely wrong. There is such an offence, it can apply to any seller, and you don't have to know about the issues to be guilty of it*.

Given that the buyer already accused her of it and, despite the differences between civil and criminal courts, could very easily indeed have worked it effectively into his complaint, it was dangerous fr the OP to give her the impression that there was no such offence or that it couldn't apply to her, so she should ignore it.

All that said, if it had been me I would have gone to court







* For the wannabe pedants out there, being guilty of something and being found guilty of it are entirely different things. You can be guilty but not charged, guilty but found innocent, guilty and found guilty or even innocent but found guilty.

If I finish the bottle of whiskey in the kitchen and then go for a drive I'm guilty of drink driving. But, to be found guilty of it I have to be stopped, charged and convicted.

On the other hand, if I'm falsely accused of murdering my neighbour and a jury finds me guilty, that doesn't suddenly (and retrospectively) mean that I actually did it!

I didn't think you were guilty until the court decided you were.

Cornucopia

Joe_Horner wrote: »

As for the whole thing about selling offences:

The OP mentioned it early on because that was part of what she'd been threatened with.

Many posters, incorrectly told her that either (a) there was no such offence, (b) there was but it only applies to traders and / or (c) there is, but only if you do it knowingly. All that advice was simply and absolutely wrong. There is such an offence, it can apply to any seller, and you don't have to know about the issues to be guilty of it*.

Who prosecutes this offence, and what is the prosecution process?

matttye

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

I didn't think you were guilty until the court decided you were.

You're guilty in fact as soon as you commit an offence, but only guilty in law once a court finds you to be guilty or you plead guilty.