Im being sued after I sold my car

Retrogamer

Wig wrote: »

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....

The link i posted earlier contained advice from a solicitor on the subject who specialises in motoring offences, both criminal and civil.

I'll take their advice over CAB any day. Their advice (Lawyer) seems to contradict how you're interpreting the CAB's information.

Wig

Retrogamer wrote: »

The link i posted earlier contained advice from a solicitor on the subject who specialises in motoring offences, both criminal and civil.

I'll take their advice over CAB any day. Their advice (Lawyer) seems to contradict how you're interpreting the CAB's information.

What link? What post?

That's all I have been saying all along in this thread, for the nay-sayers to back their comments up with some evidence.

As it is........ this comes too late for me, I am not going to be back for about 8 days now, so hopefully some of the nay -sayers will provide some evidence for the OP. and hopefully someone else will take up the position of devil's advocate that I was occupying.

And I hope Mark or any other nay-sayer will answer the 2 questions I posed in the above post.

au-revoir.

Retrogamer

Post with the link seems to have vanished.

Perhaps was deleted as had a link to other forums giving motoring advice.

The jist of it was respond to the claim as suggested in this thread. I.e "caveat emptor"

scaredofdebt

Since when did members of the public have to abide by the Sale of Goods act or other such legislation?

The OP has nothing to worry about, buyer is trying it on. Any evidence to say the letter or the reports are genuine?

If he didn't like the car he shouldn't have bought it, simple as.

If the OP is a trader then of course that's different.

Aretnap

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Since when did members of the public have to abide by the Sale of Goods act or other such legislation?

Members of the public have been subject to the Sale of Goods Act since it was introduced in 1979. SoGA imposes certain duties on all sellers - it just imposes additional ones on someone who is selling goods in the course of a business.

andygb

I am totally on the side of the OP here, but would exercise a word of caution to anyone who says that the claimant does not have a case.
The fact is that the law is not set in stone and is still open to interpretation if it goes to court.
I hope that it gets thrown out, but the OP has to be very careful as to how his case is presented.
He must stress the age and mileage of the car, and also stress the condition at the point he sold it - with a long MOT and no known mechanical faults.
The claimant drove the car away, and then did not contact the OP until two weeks later - plenty of time for inconsiderate driving (ragging the car) and lack of mechanical sympathy (useless gear changing and riding/slipping the clutch constantly) to take its toll.
I wish the OP the very best of luck and hope that he gets a positive result.

Marktheshark

Wig wrote: »

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.

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.

londonTiger

colino wrote: »

As long as MSE doesn't check dodgy IP addresses, queries like this profuse.

yuo cant ban IP addresses majority of internet users use dynamic IPs and they will have so many false positives and !!!! off genuine users.

londonTiger

A bad gearbox is binary. It either works as it should or it doesn't work. it doesn't have good days and bad days. If the buyer test drove the car and felt the gearbox was sound on the journey back, he has no case at all. The fault developed afterwards.

Herzlos

Not quite; you can have a gearbox that is going but not quite gone. That said, it's relatively easy to check for and impossible to prove after the fact. It's still buyer beware.

Buyer could have easily trashed the gearbox between purchase and inspection