Im being sued after I sold my car

tykesi

LoopyLocks wrote: »

Ok thanks a lot. I had to google what a plaintiff is and what caveat emptor was lol. I dont understand it completely I have to say but I get the jist of it. So thats what I put as my defence?

Yes but if you don't understand it you really need to do some more research. If this goes to court and you intend to defend yourself you need to know and understand your entire case so that you can present it.

Car_54

Marktheshark's suggested response is far too long winded, and full of obsolete legal jargon. The term 'plaintiff' hasn't been used since 1999: he's a 'claimant'.

Keep it simple, and in plain English. Apart from anything else, you'll find it easier to understand!

JethroUK

Quentin wrote: »

All you need say in your defence is that you deny owing the claimant any money.!

The most important fact to.include.in your defence is having zero KNOWledge of any problems with the gear box

Any prior KNOWLEDGE shows intent to.deceive

MikeMouse

Assuming all the information is in the thread you have no case to answer. This car was 'bought as seen and had an MOT.

You need to stop offering to contribute to repair costs and hiring mediation companies. Its likely this is encouraging him and it demonstrates that you feel you are partially liable.

Return the claim form with the one sentence denying any liability as per the other posters advice and sit back and wait.

Wig

LoopyLocks wrote: »

But he had the car for over 2 weeks so by that line of reasoning you could buy a car and wreck it and then go back to the person you bought it off and tell him that it was unroadworthy and get your money back. .

No, because he still has to show that it was unroadworthy at the time of sale.

At the time of sale he inspected it and drove it without any problems with the clutch and the gearbox, so we know for a fact that at the time of sale the clutch and the gearbox were working. If the clutch and gearbox subsequently develop problems then that is HIS problem NOT yours.

Then there is the crack on the wheel(s), again, he inspected it and found no issue, there is nothing to say that the crack did not occur after sale.

Then you have that rubber thing on the steering, we would need to know more about that, but the same argument will apply.

If it was severely corroded on the chassis/axle then he would have a case, because corrosion like that can't occur within 2 weeks.

I also thought Mark Sharks statement was too long winded. Keep it simple. I would use the first paragraph (ammended)

The vehicle Registration XXX 123 was sold to the claimant on 12/10/2014, in a private sale following an inspection by the claimant.
The claimant examined and satisfied themselves of the condition of the vehicle including a test drive, before buying and driving it away. There were no faults found or concerns raised whilst driving the vehicle at that time, The vehicle's clutch, gearbox and steering all worked safely at that time.

The vehicle was not unroadworthy at the time of sale. I deny the claim.


(Is that last bit ok "I deny the claim"?) anyone?

I think the most imortant thing to say is that "the vehicle was roadworthy at the time of sale", I think having knowledge or not having any knowledge of any defects at the time of sale muddies the waters.

Car_54

Wig's proposed statement seems just fine.

Clive_Woody

No disrespect to those involved in either of the discussions but getting an inspection done after you have purchased the vehicle then following up with the seller seems a very odd way of doing things.

Buying a second hand car is always a risk, you can mitigate the risk by getting someone who knows about cars to check out the car before you agree to a sale. Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted is the expression that springs to mind.

Marktheshark

Just to point out, all this rubbish about road traffic acts.
You will be going to a commercial claim court, where you will sit down in a room together with a district judge.
All the judge will hear is why the claimant "plaintiff" in the case thinks you owe them money and why you think you do not.
The judge can not decide you have broken laws based on claims made by this buyer, he will be told to shut up or get out.
All you have to do is file the defence, turn up and let the judge decide who has responsibility.
Personally, I dont think it will last two minutes and if you file your expense claim and make sure you state the case has caused you to lose earning / pay childcare, take timing writing letters, you should get the £90 in expenses from the idiot trying to sue you.
As to do you mention the gearbox, clutch steering ?
Simple, no and if asked, the claimant tested the car and satisfied themselves it was road worthy.
It matters not if something drops off in months, years, decades, it is not your car, it belongs to the bloke that bought it.
What is likely is the Judge has to read his case statement and yours and make a decision if the case has merits.
I doubt the judge will see any merit in the case.
To be honest once the buyer gets the defence, he would have to be totally stupid to risk going forward unless he wants to pay extra court fees for a hearing and lose £90 for your expenses.

TBagpuss

Car_54 wrote: »

Marktheshark's suggested response is far too long winded, and full of obsolete legal jargon. The term 'plaintiff' hasn't been used since 1999: he's a 'claimant'.

Keep it simple, and in plain English. Apart from anything else, you'll find it easier to understand!

I agree. And you don't even need to use 'claimant' and defendant if you don't want to. It would be fine to say

"The vehicle [make, model and reg. number] was sold by me [name] to [Mr *****] in a private sale on [date].

Mr ******* examined the car, and test-drove it, before deciding to buy it. He did not raise any concerns or state that he had found any faults in the vehicle, and as a result of his inspection and test drive chose to buy the vehicle.

Before he bought the vehicle, I pointed out to him [minor faults you drew to his attention].

I was not aware of any other faults with the car at the time it was sold and to the best of my knowledge and belief it was roadworthy at that time. At no time did represent to Mr **** that there were no other faults nor did I make any claims, or offer any warrenty as to the condition or state of repair of the vehicle.

I deny that I am liable to Mr **** for the amount claimed or at all. To the best of my knowledge, the faults complained of were not present at the time the vehicle was sold to him, [when was the report done - if there was a significant gap, state - the vehicle was sold on [date] and the report was completed on [date] and the claimant / Mr **** has not provided any evidence to show that the defects / faults complained of were present at the time the vehicle was sold, ] but in any event, the vehicle was sold to him 'as seen' and he had, and took, the opportunity to fully inspect and drive it, before choosing to buy the vehicle."

I would not put this in your defence but if you made your offer to refund him in writing (incl. by text) you may want to write to him (or send a text, if that is how you communication before ) saying "for the avoidance of doubt, my offer to you of [date] to refund you for the vehicle was made purely a gesture of goodwill and on the basis that the vehicle would be returned to me in the same condition as when it was sold to you. As you chose not to accept, and in any event it appears that the vehicle is not longer in the condition it was in when you bought it, that offer is no longer available"

As others have said, check the date of issue of the claim form and make sure that you comply exactly, and in plenty of time with the time limits. Keep copies of everything you send to the court. If a hearing is listed then you can ask for this to be trnasferred to the county court local to you.

Wig

Marktheshark wrote: »

Just to point out, all this rubbish about road traffic acts.

Another one who does not back up his claims. This thread is full of people who are totally ignoring the CAB unroadworthy webpage without putting up a single bit of evidence as to why the CAB is wrong or why they are misleading....

Mark,
Can you answer these qu's?
1. Is section 75 an absolute offence? What do you base your answer on?

2. If someone is guilty of a S75 offence and it was a private sale, is the buyer entitled to sue that person for damages and will they win? If your answer is "no" what do you base your answer on?

All this "rubbish about road traffic acts" is what the claim is based upon. The claimant is not saying that things broke soon after they bought it, they are saying because it was sold with these defects that make it unroadworthy the seller is liable to his damages.