Ebay Sale

lovinituk

John1282 wrote: »

No it is not an x type, but yes it has been confirmed for me that the outer sills are not structural so end of story. In terms of sill the mot tester will fail it unless he can confirm the sill corrosion hasn't affected the inner seals, but this requires them to remove parts which they are not allowed to do. Much the same as an mot tester failing brake pads for being below 1.6mm, even though they cannot remove them and measure them on digital calipers.

Can you not just tell them the make/model of the car and put this argument to bed once and for all?!

John1282

lovinituk wrote: »

Can you not just tell them the make/model of the car and put this argument to bed once and for all?!

I don't need to, it's been confirmed for me by two qualified people who have actually stood in front of the car and looked at it. I came on here simply to see if anyone on here had taken similar action against a delinquent ebay buyer. I'm not interested in some armchair expert trying to suggest I sold an un roadworthy car, or some numpty trying to claim he's more knowledgeable about structural engineering that the chaps I've already spoken to. As for the people saying I should have sold it to the other chap the day after, I also entered into a contact of sale with the buyer, if I had sold the car to someone else on day two I would have broken the contract.

lovinituk

John1282 wrote: »

I don't need to, it's been confirmed for me by two qualified people who have actually stood in front of the car and looked at it. I came on here simply to see if anyone on here had taken similar action against a delinquent ebay buyer. I'm not interested in some armchair expert trying to suggest I sold an un roadworthy car, or some numpty trying to claim he's more knowledgeable about structural engineering that the chaps I've already spoken to.

You're really not doing yourself any favours. You could easily state the car but by choosing not to are fuelling the others suspicions that you are either wrong or are lying.

And for someone who really isn't interested in what others have to say, why on earth do you still keep arguing with them the points you say you're not interested in?!

It's turned in to a very bizarre thread!

AndyMc.....

John1282 wrote: »

I don't need to, it's been confirmed for me by two qualified people who have actually stood in front of the car and looked at it. I came on here simply to see if anyone on here had taken similar action against a delinquent ebay buyer. I'm not interested in some armchair expert trying to suggest I sold an un roadworthy car, or some numpty trying to claim he's more knowledgeable about structural engineering that the chaps I've already spoken to. As for the people saying I should have sold it to the other chap the day after, I also entered into a contact of sale with the buyer, if I had sold the car to someone else on day two I would have broken the contract.

So you taken them to court with you, but your problem is it didn't pass the mot. You sold a car with no mot and the issues would have been there when you first advertised it so it was as you said for spares or repair. It was for spares or repai when you did sell it.

So the question is, what are you taking them to court for?

paddyandstumpy

Because spares and repairs only with 7 days worth of MOT means the car was worth so much more... :rotfl:

Spoof bids are a fact of life on eBay. If you don't like it, only sell on auto trader where you can choose to accept an offer when the buyer is in front of you.

OP, give up. I've had spoof bids on items sold on eBay, it's frustrating, but par for the course. As suggested even if you get a court order, enforcing it is a different matter. How much time and money do you want to spend, chasing after bad debt? Be pragmatic...

lovinituk

AndyMc..... wrote: »

So you taken them to court with you, but your problem is it didn't pass the mot. You sold a car with no mot and the issues would have been there when you first advertised it so it was as you said for spares or repair. It was for spares or repai when you did sell it.

So the question is, what are you taking them to court for?

Bl00dy hell give it a rest and stop encouraging it!! That's already been answered several times. We know you don't agree as that's been stated several times too!!

AndyMc.....

lovinituk wrote: »

Bl00dy hell give it a rest and stop encouraging it!! That's already been answered several times. We know you don't agree as that's been stated several times too!!

The story and numbers don't add up, he's in for a shock if he takes it to court.

lovinituk

AndyMc..... wrote: »

The story and numbers don't add up, he's in for a shock if he takes it to court.

You know that, I know that...let him find out by himself. He's not going to change his stance no matter how many times people go on at him.

John1282

Interesting comments, clearly either you don’t understand my posts, don’t know !!!!!! all about consumer law or cars, or just think you should walk away when someone does you a wrong turn.

To clarify this once and for all...

The mot.... the car was taken for an early mot as I was planning on putting it for sale. It failed on three points, non of which deemed it unroad worthy (checked out last week with an experienced Lincolnshire Traffic Officer to put my mind at rest). The car was advertised as spare or repair as the existing mot was due to expire. I listed the mot report, the date it ran out, and that an offer should not be placed if the person could not collect the car before the expiry date, and that no offers from anyone with less than 150 feedback would be considered.

Ebay... other people can use your account but the named account holder is solely responsible for any transactions. Even if the chap didn’t make the offer himself, he would have been aware of it due to all the correspondence. If he was dead / incapacitated, I expect his wife would have probably mentioned this when I called. If he discovered the purchase but hadn’t made it himself, it was his obligation to contact me and explain, as said earlier though he has not responded to any communication. Out of interest, his account has been used several times since the sale for purchases, and the LBA that I sent was collected by the chap himself at his sorting office.

Cost... I turned down another offer which was £100 less to accept this one. When it became clear the buyer wasn’t going to honour his purchase I couldn’t just sell it someone else as I would have been breaking the contract. I had to go through ebay to let them try address it, and also to ensure I didn’t get hit with selling fees for an item I didn’t actually sell.

The legalities of selling the car are not in question, it was accurately described and would have stood any inspection. If the buyer had collected the car within the timelines listed on the advert, which he agreed to when he placed his offer, there would not be an issue. As he did not do this we have a problem, cause and effect.

As explained earlier, he did not contact me about paying for and collecting the car, this left me in the position
where I had to go through ebays resolution centre. The timing of all this meant the mot expired on the car, which voided the insurance, and thus I couldn’t leave it parked on the road. I had to put the car in storage until things worked themselves and a new buyer was found, and then sell the car for a reduced amount as it could not be legally driven away as the mot had expired. In total, this whole carry on left me just over £300 out of pocket. Some people may say take it on the chin but as the chap is still shopping on ebay I think it’s only fair he should be brought to account. When you place an offer on ebay you are entering into a contract of sale, ebay doesn’t want to lose members so it doesn’t exactly go out if it’s way to police matters like these, but they still fall under the consumer contracts regulations, so are enforceable in court if necessary.

I’ll say thanks for the comments, it’s always helpful to have some constructive criticism and it has brought up a few angles I didn’t see but on the whole I walk away knowing I have an extremely strong case. The LBA timescale ends back end of next week so if I haven’t had a response form him I’ll start the ball rolling. I’ll update the post with some screen shots when I get a response, wouldn’t want you all thinking I was making it up when I win :beer:

[Deleted User]

Principles can end up being expensive, but we would all welcome update when the case goes to court it could prove interesting and/or expensive