Is this a car dealer con?

LightFlare

If all the paperwork is in your name (especially the purchase receipt) then you are the owner
 

prowla

Sad__Sam said:

Something I just thought of, an wondered if it made a difference.

The contract is between me and the dealer.
However the Lexus was owned/registered keeper was my wife.

Hence the dealer is asking me to indemnify him for a issue before my wife's ownership of the car, and from me who didn't own the car?  My wife is never mentioned in the contract or the dealers claim! 

Note that the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner (it says "This document is not proof of ownership" on the V5C).

MX5huggy

So you have any legal cover with your home, car insurance, union membership or anything else? 

While you’re on the hook for multiple of thousands I would want some qualified help. 

Sad__Sam

Hi Prowla

I looked into the same.  The examples that returned where: a car on finance, is owned by the finance co. the keeper is the driver, or a company car, the owner is the company the keeper is the employee.

In this case the trade in is owned and registered to my wife. This is the vehicle the dealer is sueing me on.  I am neither the owner or keeper, but merely authority to sell!

The new car is registered to me on the V5C.

 

MX5huggy I have RAC legal cover and perhaps Legal on my car, I will check.

motorguy

Sad__Sam said:

Something I just thought of, an wondered if it made a difference.

The contract is between me and the dealer.
However the Lexus was owned/registered keeper was my wife.

Hence the dealer is asking me to indemnify him for a issue before my wife's ownership of the car, and from me who didn't own the car?  My wife is never mentioned in the contract or the dealers claim! 

You are seriously over thinking this.

The dealer is considered the expert.  He did not do his due diligence before he bought the car off you.

If you bought the car off him and traded your wifes car in and your name is on the paperwork of the deal i wouldnt be trying to form any sort of defence on who owned the car.

I would be speaking to your solicitor for the sake of a half hour fee, to get your side of events clear, but i would have thought it would be as simple as you answered any questions the dealer asked as truthfully as you could, however it appears the dealer (who is deemed the expert) did not do their due diligence.  

Mutton_Geoff

I wonder if this situation will develop like the poor lady who sold her campervan privately but kept the communication going until the buyer had the will to file a court claim.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Mark Twain.

Sad__Sam

Thank you Motorguy, in the middle of nursing my wife, this is just hassle I don’t need, and being so close to the situation, I can’t see the easy solution. My time and dedication better invested elsewhere. But the mind does subconsciously try to solve issues.

 

Mutton_Geoff – Mark Twain had a better quote, “Never Argue With Stupid People. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level and Then Beat You With Experience”.

Top post page 3, I came on here looking for help and advice as the dealer has commenced a court claim!

Sad__Sam

Dear All

By way of update, the Court hearing was today.

The claimant failed to supply signed copies of their Claim documentation and defense to my Counter claim to the court, failed to supply documentation and witness statements to either the court or myself.

I did highlight that the Appeal Court decision in Reece Gladwin v. Adrian Bogescu [2017] EWHC 1287 (QB) reaffirming the critical importance that parties comply with Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), specially Witness Statements.

Now like the initial Gladwin v. Bogescu, the Court has adjourned the case for a later date, whereby the Claimant gets to cross examine me on my witness statement/claim and I can cross examine him on his unsigned defense documentation, that the Judge would let him sign there and then!

I feel a little vindicated to be skeptical of the Judicial system.

The Judge stated that other cases have followed Gladwin v. Bogescu allowing those that don’t follow court procedures to continue!

What is the point then of CPR 32.10 -  If a witness statement or a witness summary for use at trial is not served in respect of an intended witness within the time specified by the court, then the witness may not be called to give oral evidence unless the court gives permission.

In summary this car dealer doesn’t follow any mandatory procedures:

·       Under take Provenance Checks on Vehicles before he purchases them, is the car owned by a finance company, clocked, more owners than stated, a write off! etc

·       Undertake independent Checks on Vehicles offered for sale, to ensure their Road Worthiness of Test Drives.

·       Undertake independent Checks on Vehicles Sold, to ensure their Road Worthiness.

·       Aggressively threatens Court Action to maximise Customer concern.

·       Advertises car with false information

·       Fails to adhere to Court directions.

I was wondering if others were aware of cases allowing claimants to be so blasé?

 

Any advice welcomed, thank you