Sold Campervan buyer wants money back

Okell

Jenni_D said:

Re. MOT history mileage ... my partner's car was MOT'd recently and the garage made an error and recorded the trip odometer as the actual mileage. (They hadn't spotted the decimal point). This put the MOT mileage about 10k higher than the actual mileage. Fortunately we spotted the error and got the MOT records updated straight away. (Just in case this is an alternative reason for the MOT mileage being wrong).

If you look at this van's MOT history from May 2024 back to 2006 the mileage is consistently quoted in miles and not km except for 2010 and 2023.

I don't know which is correct, but if miles is the correct unit then the OP's advert might have misdescribed it.

So I wonder if the claimant has raised this in their claim

Jenni_D

Sorry - I just read the first few posts and then the last few; I didn't read through all 13 pages.  

Okell

Jenni_D said:

Sorry - I just read the first few posts and then the last few; I didn't read through all 13 pages.  

It's one of those where everybody - including me - has advised the OP to ignore empty threats of being sued unless the purchaser actually issues a court claim - and in this case the purchaser has.

There seems to be a dispute about how the vehicle was advertised and how the OP answered some pre-purchase questions from the buyer about whether the cam-belt had been changed.  It's not clear to me exactly what the purchaser asked and exactly what the OP answered.

The OP has complicated matters by giving us an answer to a question that somebody else who had purchased the van asked, but presumably that purchase fell through and the claimant subsequently bought it(?).

I dunno.

I dunno why so many OPs can't just give an accurate and complete timeline or chronology of all relevant events when asking a question here.

And there's a possible mileage discrepancy between the OP's advert and the van's MOT history.  But I don't know if the claimant is asking about that...

HHarry

Okell said:

The OP has complicated matters by giving us an answer to a question that somebody else who had purchased the van asked, but presumably that purchase fell through and the claimant subsequently bought it(?).

I don’t think they have.  The Claimant asked the question - was given an answer but told the van had been sold to A.N.Other.  That sale did fall through and the Claimant then purchased.

mandy1955

The vans mileage was logged in miles but due to being a Japanese import they are actually in kms with a mileage overlay. 

I am only wondering how to fill out the response, I've been on the links given but I can find an up to date version of the .gov civil money claim form that I've received. 

motorguy

mandy1955 said:

Willberry said:

Just a wee point. I have read this thread as it becomes updated. Has anyone considered that the guy wanting his money back may have access to this forum and may have been reading all the posts and advice offered which could let him know what your plans are. It's something to bear in mind.

It is possible as he stalked all my Facebook posts, but he is getting free legal advice from his company and I have sought help from this place being a pensioner. I haven't written anything that isn't true on here. 

i dont think hes getting free legal advice at all.

He's chancing his arm putting in a claim to the small claims court - anyone can do that.

If there is any justice and sanity in the world - IF this actually does get to court - it will be seen for what it is, the private sale of a 28 year old van with 120K miles on it.  Noone in their right mind would expect that to be perfect, no matter how well you have maintained it.

Heck, i've a 2014 Golf that i've spent £2,500 on this year with a recent full years MOT put on it, and i've no doubt that if someone went over it with a fine tooth comb - which this loser seems to have done with your van - theres probably £,£££'s more could be spent.  Doesnt mean it would have been mis-described when selling, doesnt make it unroadworthy.

Okell

mandy1955 said:

... I am only wondering how to fill out the response, I've been on the links given but I can find an up to date version of the .gov civil money claim form that I've received. 

Can you confirm that you've acknowledged service of the claim, but you haven't filed a defence yet?

What is the deadline for filing your defence?

Can you clarify what you are having difficulty with regarding the money claim form, and where you are in the process?

Did you do what I suggested might be helpful and start a thread on legal beagles?  They help people defend these claims all the time.  Several solicitors post there.

Jenni_D

You might want to take that image down, edit it and then reupload ... as you've included (what I presume to be) the Claimant's name.

Okell

Presumably it's this?

Claim against me civil money claim - LegalBeagles Forum

I'd suggest that as far as understanding and following the MCOL process is concerned, you follow their guidance.  If you get confused about what you need to be doing and when, ask on that thread you've started.

The example threads on legal beagles I linked to previously give you examples of how a defence should be structured and what a defence should look like.

We haven't seen the particulars of claim because you haven't posted them, but essentially your defence needs to answer the claimants POCs point by point in a logical way.

As regards your specific question about "Briefly explain why you disagree with the claim", ask on Legal Beagles.  I have no idea if you need to put anything in there or not.

All I know is that upon receipt of a claim the firts thing you do is acknowledge receipt to give you as much time as possible to put togtehr a defence. But you don't attempt to file a defence until you've got all your ducks in a row and know what you are doing.

Goudy

Have a read of this
Received a civil money claim - please help! - LegalBeagles Forum

Stick with it as there is some advise/detail regarding the part you posted about.

It appears to be the section where you briefly explain why you disagree with their claim.

There may be more parts to a claim, you might agree with some and others disagree, so you need to read and under stand what they are claiming and explain why you disagree with all/some of the parts.

For instance, if it's the rusty pipe breaking on the gearbox as mentioned before.
There's no evidence being offered of any "leak" on a previous MOT to the pipe breaking. There was a "leak" under the engine spotted X years ago on an old MOT (and never since) and a pipe breaking X years later. There is nothing to suggest the two are even remotely related.

Rust on a 28 year old vehicle is more than probably, vehicle anti perforation warranties only generally last X years and you never warrantied it in the first place.

And so on