Ebay Sale

paddyandstumpy

AdrianC wrote: »

Even without anything else, you are trying to claim compensation for not being able to continue doing something that you could not legally do anyway.

In my mind this is the same as an arrested drug dealer trying to sue the police for lost income from illegal activities :rotfl:

John1282

Herzlos wrote: »

Morally, you're in the right here; buyer agreed to buy and then didn't follow through, costing you the 2nd place offer.

Realistically, you'd likely struggle to (a) win in court, unless they ignore that too and you win by default and then (b) actually get any money back. It might mean paying for bailiffs who still can't take anything, because there's nothing to take.

I'm not sure you'd be able to charge them for storage fees etc, as it's not their fault you sold it with a few days MOT. You can maybe chase them for the difference between what they offered and what you sold it for, plus your relisting fee (which I thought was free the first time) and a few pence in interest.

How did you get their address for the LBA?

The chaps name and address are on the seller invoice ebay generated when the sale completed, thats also where I got his phone number.

John1282

AdrianC wrote: »

Umm, no. The outer sill on the vast majority of monocoque shell designs most certainly IS structural.

A properly welded repair is not a bodge or dodgy. A badly welded repair is just as much an MOT fail as an unwelded, rotten sill.

The reasons for rejection are quite clear that they only apply to "load-bearing structural members".
https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/manuals/m4s06000101.htm


If it's in a "prescribed area" (30cm radius sphere of seat mounts, suspension mounts, seatbelt mounts - which most of a sill will be), then that same test still applies.

So these mythical non-structural, cosmetic-only outer sills should not fail. Where they genuinely are cosmetic and not structural - so the plastic over-cover, or the cosmetic sections on a Land Rover series/Defender, they can be as damaged as you like or even missing completely, with no problem at all.

Apologies for the late reply, work has habit of getting in the way sometimes.

In terms of the sills, let me explain again as you clearly are in possession of wrong information. A lot of cars have outer sills, these are not structual, but are there to protect the inner sill from corrosion and to allow plastic covers to be fastened on, that way the inner sill doesn't have to be weakened by having support holes drilled into it (that explanation came from a jaguar technician). The mot tester is not allowed to remove parts, so he taps the underside of the sill and sees corrosion in the prescribed area (ie... seat belt mounting point), but he can't cut into the rust to see if it has spread to the inner sill so has to record it as a failure. After the mot i ask the garage to remove the plastic cover and have a look how bad the rust was. They cut two inspection holes, roughly 2"x1" in the area that is covered by the plastic skirt. They found the that the inner sill were unaffected by corrosion but advised that the best option for a long term repair was to cut away the outer sills and replace them. This work would ensure that the rust was gone but on a cost basis as I don't know how to weld the labour time involved would have made the bill too high and not worth while, it was more cost effective to just sell it on as a going concern.

In terms of being road worthy, I had a chat with one of the road traffic team tonight. They advised that whilst the car had an existing mot that was still valid, that would allow the car to be parked or driven. If the car was pulled over for any reason, or was involved in an accident, they would assess the road worthiness of the car based on it's ability to steer, stop, state of the tyres, or if it had any protruding edges that may cause harm in the event it collided with a pedestrian, and yes that is Police guidelines!

Summing up, this post has gone way off topic. I came on here simply to see if anyone else had challenged an ebay buyer who had failed to complete a purchase. My case is very simple, an offer was placed on the vehicle, I turned down another offer to accept this one. The buyer then failed to make contact. The buyer has been back on ebay and has bought a further 6 items as of this evening, so they can not state they were unaware of the car purchase. I have spoken to the chaps wife when I called his number, she advised she'd let him know I'd called and ask him to ring me back so again it's unlikely that it is a purchase made without his knowledge. And yes I did have to move the car to a storage facility after he didn't turn up as my insurance policy, which I signed and agreed to, states that my policy is void if the car holds no valid mot.

The outcome of all this is quite simple, the buyer not collecting or paying for the car put me in a position I would not have been in had he of collected and paid for the car as he should have done.

If anyone has any worth while comments or experience in dealing with matters like this, please feel free to comment. Anything else leave it be.

John1282

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

In my mind this is the same as an arrested drug dealer trying to sue the police for lost income from illegal activities :rotfl:

Just seen this one... very comical :j

Struggling to see the relevance but as you said, 'In my mind'... Are you one of these people that gets f@@ked over but just turns the other cheek? or do you just sit behind your pc screen feeling empowered by trying to put other people down?

esmerobbo

Getting back to the original question from the OP, I once sued someone who bid on an online auction (not ebay) on a low loader trailer, he paid the £200 deposit but never followed through with the purchase. I won by default as they never defended, however somewhere in my records I still have the judgement, but I never received any money.

Unfortunately a judgement says you have the right to anything a court orders, it doesn't mean you get paid. If the person isn't bothered about a CCJ and they know how to dodge bailiffs, and have no assets you can grab then you can not really get anything from them.

For the sake of £300 I would take it on the chin, unless you want to simply cause him/her a bit of grief.

For future reference if I sell on ebay anything that needs collecting I include in the listing that a deposit paid through paypal is paid within 24 hours. I sold another trailer on ebay the first bidder paid £200 deposit then contacted me saying he didn't want to go through with the deal, I made £200 from him and sold it to the next lowest bidder. Ended up £150 better off.

AdrianC

John1282 wrote: »

Summing up, this post has gone way off topic.

You aren't wrong there.

It's quite clear that you're not going to brook any fact, logic or reason that interferes with your point of principle.

Good luck. You're going to need it.

wgl2014

As above, sometimes it's best to let it go. Going on a course of action based on principal could end up achieving nothing more than a load of wasted time and effort. Life's too short.

Quentin

esmerobbo wrote: »

For future reference if I sell on ebay anything that needs collecting I include in the listing that a deposit paid through paypal is paid within 24 hours. ....

No good for motor sales - no seller protection using PayPal for motor sales.

So a waste of PayPal charges as they refund buyers without question

lovinituk

esmerobbo wrote: »

For future reference if I sell on ebay anything that needs collecting I include in the listing that a deposit paid through paypal is paid within 24 hours. I sold another trailer on ebay the first bidder paid £200 deposit then contacted me saying he didn't want to go through with the deal, I made £200 from him and sold it to the next lowest bidder. Ended up £150 better off.

Not the most sensible idea. The buyer just has to raise a PayPal dispute stating nothing received, you can't provide proof of delivery, you lose, PayPal takes money from you and gives it back to buyer.

Sounds like you just got lucky last time.

John1282

AdrianC wrote: »

You aren't wrong there.

It's quite clear that you're not going to brook any fact, logic or reason that interferes with your point of principle.

Good luck. You're going to need it.

Fact, logic or reason... I beg to diffe...
You were wrong about the outer sills... unless you are more knowledgeable than a Jaguar technician with 20 years experience.
Your were wrong about the 'road worthiness' unless you know more than a Road Traffic Team Sergeant.
And you were also wrong about the wording of my insurance policy.

There is a case to answer, and no I didn't break any rules or laws in selling the car. I have limited the amount of information I have provided on here because this matter will most likely end up in court. I appreciate the opinions that have been put forth on here, it always helpful to have a third party point out things you may have missed but to fair in terms of law it is an open and shut case, the only issue I need to consider is how much time and effort I invest pursuing it.