Ebay Sale

AdrianC

John1282 wrote: »

the car required quite a bit of work to get through the mot so it was advertised as spares or repair. As I have explained above, I listed it so that it would be sold before the existing mot ran out, thus giving any potential buyer the chance to test drive it, and the buyer a couple of days to be able drive the car away

So, despite needing "quite a bit of work to get through the MOT" and being explicitly sold as "spares or repair", you were 100% confident that it was in a roadworthy condition?

The roadworthiness question is absolutely apposite, because if it was not in a roadworthy condition - and advertising it with so little MOT, and with that description, suggests you knew full well it was not - then you were committing an offence under the Road Traffic Act by allowing it to be driven.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/75

AndyMc.....

John1282 wrote: »

Only someone who hasn't read the entire post, or someone just being a !!!!!, would write that comment.

Why? You advertised it spares or repairs with a short mot. It wouldn't pass the next mot due to the defects present at the time of sale. It shouldn't have been on the road and it could be argued it was unroadworthy. You ended up selling it as that so where is your loss?

John1282

rich13348 wrote: »

So how far are you really willing to take this. The non-buyer didn't respond to your attempts to get in touch, or ebays.

So you have issued LBA with no response.

Next is a court summons. What if that is ignored?

You go to court the guy is a no show, you request a judgement in default.

The guy now has 30 days to pay.

No payment so you have to go back to court to enforce the order, more fees.

That doesn't get paid. Do you instruct bailiffs?

This could get expensive for you before you get your money back.

It's become a matter of principle now, my LBA listed the actual costs I have incurred because they didn't collect or pay for the car when they should of, but coupled with the time it has cost me and all the hassle this chap has caused I think I'm quite happy to take it as far as nessesary.

AdrianC

John1282 wrote: »

It's become a matter of principle now

Oh, dear. Always dangerous.

my LBA listed the actual costs I have incurred because they didn't collect or pay for the car when they should of

Would you be so kind as to list them with approximate figures?

but coupled with the time it has cost me and all the hassle this chap has caused I think I'm quite happy to take it as far as nessesary.

And how much more good time and money are you prepared to throw after bad?

John1282

AdrianC wrote: »

So, despite needing "quite a bit of work to get through the MOT" and being explicitly sold as "spares or repair", you were 100% confident that it was in a roadworthy condition?

The roadworthiness question is absolutely apposite, because if it was not in a roadworthy condition - and advertising it with so little MOT, and with that description, suggests you knew full well it was not - then you were committing an offence under the Road Traffic Act by allowing it to be driven.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/75

And clearly you know what the car failed on? I'd suggest you read up a bit more. The cars mot ran until two days after the listing ended. It had been in for an early test which it failed, it was not cost efficient for me to have the work done as the car was due to be sold anyway. The advert was written very carefully so it fully explained that the car could be insured and driven away legally on the existing mot. As the buyer didn't collect the car within that time frame the existing mot expired, so when I had to re advertise it I had to factor in that the new buyer would have to arrange transportation for moving the vehicle which devalued it. Feel free to check the above points with your own insurer and you will see that I am correct.

AdrianC

John1282 wrote: »

AdrianC wrote:

So, despite needing "quite a bit of work to get through the MOT" and being explicitly sold as "spares or repair", you were 100% confident that it was in a roadworthy condition?

And clearly you know what the car failed on?

No, obviously I don't. Hence the phrasing of my post. But my mind is open - perhaps you'd enlighten me as to what fails would entail "quite a bit of work" to rectify to MOT standard, but do not render the vehicle unroadworthy?

I'd suggest you read up a bit more.

I'd suggest you read the link I posted.

The cars mot ran until two days after the listing ended. It had been in for an early test which it failed, it was not cost efficient for me to have the work done as the car was due to be sold anyway. The advert was written very carefully so it fully explained that the car could be insured and driven away legally on the existing mot.

So you are 100% positive that - substantial fail notwithstanding - the car WAS in a fully roadworthy condition? Because, whether there was a valid MOT in existence or not, it is not only illegal to use an unroadworthy vehicle on the road, but it is also illegal to sell one unless you take reasonable steps to ensure the buyer does not drive it away.

If you are claiming costs arising from having to take it off the road, then you are confirming that it was on the road at the time of the sale, and that you were expecting the buyer to drive it away. You've explicitly stated as much...

John1282

AdrianC wrote: »

Oh, dear. Always dangerous.

Would you be so kind as to list them with approximate figures?

And how much more good time and money are you prepared to throw after bad?

On the subject of principle... Yes I will stand by this. It cost me a great deal of time, caused a great deal of frustration knowing that the buyer knew fully well that they had bought the car but rather than just contact me and say there was a problem they chose to ignore me and left me with my hands tied whilst ebay tried address the matter.

In terms of money... the vehicle eventually sold for £120 less than the buyer had agreed to pay for it. On top of this I had to pay the relisting fee, and as explained above as the mot expired whilst I was stuck in the situation of waiting for the buyer to return my call and then ebay to address the matter, I had to pay to have the car stored as i couldn't leave it on the road outside my house. In total this cost me £315. Had the buyer of not put an offer in and agreed to purchase it, it would have been sold to the second highest offer which was only £50 less than the offer I accepted.

On the final point... I feel I have a strong case, if it means throwing some cash at it to reach a conclusion I'm more than happy to do that.

AdrianC

John1282 wrote: »

and as explained above as the mot expired whilst I was stuck in the situation of waiting for the buyer to return my call and then ebay to address the matter, I had to pay to have the car stored as i couldn't leave it on the road outside my house.

So you are adamant that it was roadworthy?

What were those fails?

On the final point... I feel I have a strong case, if it means throwing some cash at it to reach a conclusion I'm more than happy to do that.

If you won, you'd get the fees back.

But, if you lose, this will just increase your losses of time and money.

What do you think your chances of winning are?

Don't forget your legal duty to mitigate the losses of others. What sort of sale value are we talking about here, for a substantially MOT-failed car? Would simply scrapping it have reduced the losses you're attempting to recover?

John1282

AdrianC wrote: »

No, obviously I don't. Hence the phrasing of my post. But my mind is open - perhaps you'd enlighten me as to what fails would entail "quite a bit of work" to rectify to MOT standard, but do not render the vehicle unroadworthy?

I'd suggest you read the link I posted.

So you are 100% positive that - substantial fail notwithstanding - the car WAS in a fully roadworthy condition? Because, whether there was a valid MOT in existence or not, it is not only illegal to use an unroadworthy vehicle on the road, but it is also illegal to sell one unless you take reasonable steps to ensure the buyer does not drive it away.

If you are claiming costs arising from having to take it off the road, then you are confirming that it was on the road at the time of the sale, and that you were expecting the buyer to drive it away. You've explicitly stated as much...

I'm not going to go into the mot specifics on here, it's not necessary. However, the car failed on some points that required work but was still legally road worthy and safe, as confirmed by my garage in writing who put together an estimate of work required. This work would need to be carried out before the car could be retested. This was all explained in the advert. To drive or park a car on the road, the law requires that the car is taxed insured and holds a valid mot certificate. I had left the car insured and taxed, to be cancelled when the new buyer came to collect it and arranged their own tax and insurance. For the tax and insurance to be valid the car needs to hold a valid mot certificate, as this was due to expire (as explained in the advert) I had arranged the sale so that the new buyer would have a window of time to purchase and move the car whilst the mot certificate was still valid. When the buyer did not turn up or answer my calls or messages, they left me in a position of limbo where I could not sell the car to someone else and as the mot expired during this waiting period I had no alternative but to move it to an off road storage facility.

AndyMc.....

John1282 wrote: »

I'm not going to go into the mot specifics on here, it's not necessary. However, the car failed on some points that required work but was still legally road worthy and safe, as confirmed by my garage in writing who put together an estimate of work required. This work would need to be carried out before the car could be retested. This was all explained in the advert. To drive or park a car on the road, the law requires that the car is taxed insured and holds a valid mot certificate. I had left the car insured and taxed, to be cancelled when the new buyer came to collect it and arranged their own tax and insurance. For the tax and insurance to be valid the car needs to hold a valid mot certificate, as this was due to expire (as explained in the advert) I had arranged the sale so that the new buyer would have a window of time to purchase and move the car whilst the mot certificate was still valid. When the buyer did not turn up or answer my calls or messages, they left me in a position of limbo where I could not sell the car to someone else and as the mot expired during this waiting period I had no alternative but to move it to an off road storage facility.

Unless we are talking bulbs or wiper blades it probably wasn't and the fact you advertised it as spares or repair will tip the balance in the non buyers favour.