Sold Campervan buyer wants money back

Frozen_up_north

mandy1955 said:

It only had 120,000 km on the clock.

The MOT history shows miles in all but 2 of the entries... A friend personally imported his own car and the Government test station (on import) required the instruments to be changed to UK specification ones, ie showing MPH and mileage, before issuing a UK registration plate. It is odd as to why the vehicle still has KM readouts. Maybe the buyer wanted to reject the vehicle for that reason and came up with all manner of other "reasons"?

facade

Frozen_up_north said:

mandy1955 said:

It only had 120,000 km on the clock.

The MOT history shows miles in all but 2 of the entries... A friend personally imported his own car and the Government test station (on import) required the instruments to be changed to UK specification ones, ie showing MPH and mileage, before issuing a UK registration plate. It is odd as to why the vehicle still has KM readouts. Maybe the buyer wanted to reject the vehicle for that reason and came up with all manner of other "reasons"?

Not really.

It depends on when it was imported, and how old it was at the time of UK registration.

A few years ago it was acceptable to have a nasty sticker on the speedo glass with MPH markings. Once the inspection was passed you remove it and use simple maths/memory 20MPH=32KPH, 30=48, 40=64 etc.

DLSA assume that drivers are too stupid to cope with this (it isn't exactly rocket science, and the worst that could happen is reading KM as miles and only driving at 63% of the limit...) and now require the speedo to be permanently marked with MPH and the markings have to be illuminated. Stickers on the glass don't comply.

It is sometimes possible to fit a new speedo face with MPH markings and leave the odometer as km

I've had a few 'bikes with KPH only speedos, they MOT fine.

A vehicle above 10 years old doesn't need to be inspected anyway.

powerful_Rogue

Anyone else remember a similar thread from quite a few years back? Sadly it went in the purchasers favour when it got to court. Tried searching for it but no joy.

Ibrahim5

I went to court and the judge was totally unprofessional and completely incompetent. A total disgrace to the profession. There is no complaints mechanism because they say that anyone who loses would complain so you can't complain about them. You can appeal but then the costs mount even more so you don't bother. Can't really trust a judge to make the right decision. More a random decision maker.

Mutton_Geoff

Mandy, I reckon the judge already looked through the paperwork and has made a decision but disappointed he couldn't deliver his verdict directly to the claimant. This is likely why he asked you if it was OK as he wants to drag the time waster into court to give you your day in the sunshine.

The claimant could of course choose to drop the claim now you've demonstrated your willingness to see this through. Well done! And keep us posted.

Mildly_Miffed

facade said:

Frozen_up_north said:

mandy1955 said:

It only had 120,000 km on the clock.

The MOT history shows miles in all but 2 of the entries... A friend personally imported his own car and the Government test station (on import) required the instruments to be changed to UK specification ones, ie showing MPH and mileage, before issuing a UK registration plate. It is odd as to why the vehicle still has KM readouts. Maybe the buyer wanted to reject the vehicle for that reason and came up with all manner of other "reasons"?

Not really.

It depends on when it was imported, and how old it was at the time of UK registration.

A few years ago it was acceptable to have a nasty sticker on the speedo glass with MPH markings. Once the inspection was passed you remove it and use simple maths/memory 20MPH=32KPH, 30=48, 40=64 etc.

DLSA assume that drivers are too stupid to cope with this (it isn't exactly rocket science, and the worst that could happen is reading KM as miles and only driving at 63% of the limit...) and now require the speedo to be permanently marked with MPH and the markings have to be illuminated. Stickers on the glass don't comply.

It is sometimes possible to fit a new speedo face with MPH markings and leave the odometer as km

I've had a few 'bikes with KPH only speedos, they MOT fine.

A vehicle above 10 years old doesn't need to be inspected anyway.

MOT doesn't care. The only test is "not obviously broken".

IVA for a <10yo car without an EU certificate of compliance checks for Construction and Use compliance - which requires dual mile/km marked speedo, with miles as primary.

For a <10yo car with EU CoC, most of the IVA doesn't apply, but rear fog light position and speedo markings still need to be checked.

Odometer isn't ever part of that check - there doesn't even need to be one. Remember, lots of primarily off-road stuff has an hour meter, not a distance odometer.

My LHD camper has a mile/km dual-marked overlay on the dash, but km odo.

Okell

Mutton_Geoff said:

Mandy, I reckon the judge already looked through the paperwork and has made a decision but disappointed he couldn't deliver his verdict directly to the claimant. This is likely why he asked you if it was OK as he wants to drag the time waster into court to give you your day in the sunshine.

The claimant could of course choose to drop the claim now you've demonstrated your willingness to see this through. Well done! And keep us posted.

If that were the case - which I strongly doubt - then the judge needs to be admonished.

If they are content on the papers that have been served that the defendant should win the case then they should simply dismiss the claim.

It's extrememly unpleasant and stressful to be sued and I'm sure any judge who wanted to be seen to be acting correctly would already have decided for the defendant if that was the correct decision.

They shouldn't be denying the defendant an outcome simply to satisfy some misplaced and vicarious vindictiveness to "drag the time-waster" into court.

Emmia

Okell said:

Mutton_Geoff said:

Mandy, I reckon the judge already looked through the paperwork and has made a decision but disappointed he couldn't deliver his verdict directly to the claimant. This is likely why he asked you if it was OK as he wants to drag the time waster into court to give you your day in the sunshine.

The claimant could of course choose to drop the claim now you've demonstrated your willingness to see this through. Well done! And keep us posted.

If that were the case - which I strongly doubt - then the judge needs to be admonished.

If they are content on the papers that have been served that the defendant should win the case then they should simply dismiss the claim.

It's extrememly unpleasant and stressful to be sued and I'm sure any judge who wanted to be seen to be acting correctly would already have decided for the defendant if that was the correct decision.

They shouldn't be denying the defendant an outcome simply to satisfy some misplaced and vicarious vindictiveness to "drag the time-waster" into court.

Completely agree, also given the court backlogs in many parts of the justice system, I'm pretty sure judges want to be working their way through cases as efficiently as possible - so if they were just going to find in favour of the OP as an open and shut case, they may have just done so.

Grumpy_chap

Okell said:

If that were the case - which I strongly doubt - then the judge needs to be admonished.

If they are content on the papers that have been served that the defendant should win the case then they should simply dismiss the claim.

It's extrememly unpleasant and stressful to be sued and I'm sure any judge who wanted to be seen to be acting correctly would already have decided for the defendant if that was the correct decision.

They shouldn't be denying the defendant an outcome simply to satisfy some misplaced and vicarious vindictiveness to "drag the time-waster" into court.

There may already be a tentative decision based upon the papers presented.

I don't think the Judge will take a vindictive approach to "drag a time-waster" into Court - that would be making the Judge the time-waster.

Although, I might take a different view to Emmia as to what, if anything, might be inferred from allowing the second opportunity for the Claimant to attend:
 - If this was certain to go against the Defendant (OP), then the Court might just as well give the OP to make any additional comments, but then conclude an outcome.
 - If this was certain to go against the Claimant, then the Court would probably see value in allowing a second date to be set so that the Claimant can make comments prior to an outcome being concluded.
 - If this was more balanced, then the Court would see value in allowing both parties to make verbal representation.

This is about justice being done and being seen to be done.  The Judge will be aware that individuals in these cases are (generally) not legally trained and may not be experienced in preparing papers but may express themselves better in a verbal manner (others will be the exact opposite).  A decision against an amateur Claimant without making every effort to follow process may be poor optics.

I sympathise with the OP for the whole matter extending but think the agreement to a second date was the correct thing for the OP to do.

nottsphil

mandy1955 said:

Hi all.
Well I got to the court in good time and sat with my witness who was with me on day of van sale.  At 10:15 we were called into the court and there was just myself, my witness and the judge. The judge then told us the claimant has not been able to attend due to being stuck on isle of man because of the recent storms.  No idea how much notice he gave the court but I had no notice at all.  The judge asked me if it would be a huge problem to postpone to a future date as in cases like this he'd like to hear from both parties in person.  I said it wouldn't bother me.  So it could be another couple of months.  Disappointed.  x

Sounds to me like the claimant wanted free hire of your camper van. He's extremely annoyed that you have contested this, so is now causing you as much expense and inconvenience as possible, with no intention himself was ever turning up. Why did you tell the judge it wouldn't bother you? Do you actually believe the claimant was stuck on the Isle of Man?!