Sold Campervan buyer wants money back

mandy1955

Jenni_D said:

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.

Thank you 

mandy1955

I am happy to post the allegations as long as I'm not breaking any rules with the court. 

motorguy

Surely fundamentally your defence is - "i sold a 28 year old van that was my pride and joy and that i had put a lot of time and effort in to maintaining in a private sale, where the buyer had time to examine the van and puruse any supplied receipts and papers which he did and i agreed a price with him below asking price based on his view of its value and condition.  I described the vehicle as best i could and answered any questions faithfully and as honestly as i could.  As per any private sale and particularly of an old vehicle like this no warranty was implied or given"

Unless you are required to respond to each of his points specifically, i'd be summarised as per the above.

I dont think the buyer has done themselves any favours listing these in "allegation" form and i'm not sure whats to be gained by getting in to tit for tat replies for each line item.  

This really needs to be positioned as what it is - an unreasonable buyer with unrealistic expectations harrassing a retiree for more money off.

mandy1955

motorguy said:

Surely fundamentally your defence is - "i sold a 28 year old van that was my pride and joy and that i had put a lot of time and effort in to maintaining in a private sale, where the buyer had time to examine the van and puruse any supplied receipts and papers which he did and i agreed a price with him below asking price based on his view of its value and condition.  I described the vehicle as best i could and answered any questions faithfully and as honestly as i could.  As per any private sale and particularly of an old vehicle like this no warranty was implied or given"

Unless you are required to respond to each of his points specifically, i'd be summarised as per the above.

I dont think the buyer has done themselves any favours listing these in "allegation" form and i'm not sure whats to be gained by getting in to tit for tat replies for each line item.  

This really needs to be positioned as what it is - an unreasonable buyer with unrealistic expectations harrassing a retiree for more money off.

Thank you so much for your post,  I am so stressed about the whole thing,  you have literally put it in a nutshell and you are right, it was my absolute last gift from my mum who left me just short of £10,000 and I bought the van with it.  Everyone who knows me thought I went overboard getting every advisory fixed, I had it resprayed when the sills and arches were done while other Bongo owners said I spoil that van 😊 and I did, cos it was for my retirement but it was in the best condition as a result of my maintaining it.   
The only reason I sold it was because I now only have state pension so had to sadly downsize for financial reasons.   

This is an excerpt of another thing he's trying to claim for:

The other issue is that we had a major gear box oil leak it literally blasted the oil onto the road!The pipework from the gearbox to the cooler was severely coroded,pictures to follow and video. I did see some other issue from the MOT about oil leaking ,miss ******* told me before buying the van , all advisories had been fixed . however looking on a receipt for work carried out 25/01/2021 leaks engine- auto box pipes, this work was not carried out and Miss ******* knew fair well ,this was an issue and has been dishonest once again in my opinion she refuses to discuss?

I did not own the van until July 2021.  He says he's looking at a receipt for work carried out on 25/01/2021   then says the work was not carried out and I knew this.  He's claiming just under £800 for gear box repair and cam belt change. CAB advised me not to respond to his contact with me. 

Okell

mandy1955 said:

I am happy to post the allegations as long as I'm not breaking any rules with the court. 

Without knowing exactly what his Particulars of claim are, it's difficult to suggest approaches to defending them.  Just redact any details that could possibly identify you, the claimant and anyone else who might be identifiable

I see from Legal Beagles you have drafted a defence.  Why don't you let us see it for constructive advice

motorguy

mandy1955 said:

motorguy said:

Surely fundamentally your defence is - "i sold a 28 year old van that was my pride and joy and that i had put a lot of time and effort in to maintaining in a private sale, where the buyer had time to examine the van and puruse any supplied receipts and papers which he did and i agreed a price with him below asking price based on his view of its value and condition.  I described the vehicle as best i could and answered any questions faithfully and as honestly as i could.  As per any private sale and particularly of an old vehicle like this no warranty was implied or given"

Unless you are required to respond to each of his points specifically, i'd be summarised as per the above.

I dont think the buyer has done themselves any favours listing these in "allegation" form and i'm not sure whats to be gained by getting in to tit for tat replies for each line item.  

This really needs to be positioned as what it is - an unreasonable buyer with unrealistic expectations harrassing a retiree for more money off.

Thank you so much for your post,  I am so stressed about the whole thing,  you have literally put it in a nutshell and you are right, it was my absolute last gift from my mum who left me just short of £10,000 and I bought the van with it.  Everyone who knows me thought I went overboard getting every advisory fixed, I had it resprayed when the sills and arches were done while other Bongo owners said I spoil that van 😊 and I did, cos it was for my retirement but it was in the best condition as a result of my maintaining it.   
The only reason I sold it was because I now only have state pension so had to sadly downsize for financial reasons.   

This is an excerpt of another thing he's trying to claim for:

The other issue is that we had a major gear box oil leak it literally blasted the oil onto the road!The pipework from the gearbox to the cooler was severely coroded,pictures to follow and video. I did see some other issue from the MOT about oil leaking ,miss ******* told me before buying the van , all advisories had been fixed . however looking on a receipt for work carried out 25/01/2021 leaks engine- auto box pipes, this work was not carried out and Miss ******* knew fair well ,this was an issue and has been dishonest once again in my opinion she refuses to discuss?

I did not own the van until July 2021.  He says he's looking at a receipt for work carried out on 25/01/2021   then says the work was not carried out and I knew this.  He's claiming just under £800 for gear box repair and cam belt change. CAB advised me not to respond to his contact with me. 

I would be incorporating some of that in to your response as it gives good background and describes well how you looked after the vehicle.

I would also consider adding something like "Being neither a mechanic nor an expert, i answered all his questions as best i could and as honestly as i could".

I'd also definitely put that the reason you stopped contact with the buyer is that you were advised to do so by CAB.

IF IF IF this isnt thrown out of court and the weasel does win, i'd be asking for payment terms, given you are living on state pension (not sure if thats possible in this case but i'd definitely be finding out).  Offer to pay a minimal amount - £10 a month.

You want to be setting the narrative here that you're a pensioner living on state pension who sold a 28 year old van that you'd cherished during your ownership.  

motorguy

mandy1955 said:

motorguy said:

Surely fundamentally your defence is - "i sold a 28 year old van that was my pride and joy and that i had put a lot of time and effort in to maintaining in a private sale, where the buyer had time to examine the van and puruse any supplied receipts and papers which he did and i agreed a price with him below asking price based on his view of its value and condition.  I described the vehicle as best i could and answered any questions faithfully and as honestly as i could.  As per any private sale and particularly of an old vehicle like this no warranty was implied or given"

Unless you are required to respond to each of his points specifically, i'd be summarised as per the above.

I dont think the buyer has done themselves any favours listing these in "allegation" form and i'm not sure whats to be gained by getting in to tit for tat replies for each line item.  

This really needs to be positioned as what it is - an unreasonable buyer with unrealistic expectations harrassing a retiree for more money off.

The other issue is that we had a major gear box oil leak it literally blasted the oil onto the road!The pipework from the gearbox to the cooler was severely coroded,pictures to follow and video. I did see some other issue from the MOT about oil leaking ,miss ******* told me before buying the van , all advisories had been fixed . however looking on a receipt for work carried out 25/01/2021 leaks engine- auto box pipes, this work was not carried out and Miss ******* knew fair well ,this was an issue and has been dishonest once again in my opinion she refuses to discuss?

Again, you are not an expert or a mechanic, you answered any questions as best you could prior to the sale.  Its a 28 year old van that will always required some element of ongoing maintenance due to its age.  

You werent dishonest, you answered as best you could and you were advised by CAB to break all contact with the buyer due to their unreasonable, persistent and aggressive demands.

I would be constantly be reinforcing the "i answered as best i could and as honestly as i could".  Any information you gave was based on its current MOT status and anything your mechanic may have told you.  You've never personally been underneath the van to know the condition of every pipe and oil seal.

mandy1955

Claimant:
however looking on a receipt for work carried out 25/01/2021 leaks engine- auto box pipes, this work was not carried out and Miss ******* knew fair well ,this was an issue and has been dishonest once again

He says he has a receipt for work carried out then says this work was not carried out??  He then says I knew about this... this was 6 months before I owned the vehicle.   He says the receipts are for work done, you don't get receipts for work not done. 

eskbanker

mandy1955 said:

Claimant:
however looking on a receipt for work carried out 25/01/2021 leaks engine- auto box pipes, this work was not carried out and Miss ******* knew fair well ,this was an issue and has been dishonest once again

He says he has a receipt for work carried out then says this work was not carried out??  He then says I knew about this... this was 6 months before I owned the vehicle.   He says the receipts are for work done, you don't get receipts for work not done. 

Isn't he trying to make the case that there was an advisory at that time, but that there is no evidence of the work being done on the receipt for (other) remedial actions, and that this contradicts your position that everything reported on advisories was fixed?  Not saying that his position is tenable, and obviously if this was before your ownership it's an even weaker argument, but I think that's what he's trying to say?

mandy1955

eskbanker said:

mandy1955 said:

Claimant:
however looking on a receipt for work carried out 25/01/2021 leaks engine- auto box pipes, this work was not carried out and Miss ******* knew fair well ,this was an issue and has been dishonest once again

He says he has a receipt for work carried out then says this work was not carried out??  He then says I knew about this... this was 6 months before I owned the vehicle.   He says the receipts are for work done, you don't get receipts for work not done. 

Isn't he trying to make the case that there was an advisory at that time, but that there is no evidence of the work being done on the receipt for (other) remedial actions, and that this contradicts your position that everything reported on advisories was fixed?  Not saying that his position is tenable, and obviously if this was before your ownership it's an even weaker argument, but I think that's what he's trying to say?

I don't think so, he says he's looking at receipt for work done, not an advisory. 

During the time the van was in my ownership all advisories were done anyway and there were none on the most recent MOTs as I had it maintained throughout the year.