Vehicle found to be non road legal

[Getitdone]

Thanks efpom and des8 for the info regarding company representation. Duly noted .
The indexes for the proposed 2 part PDF bundle ( we asked the court and were told it was acceptable to split it to allow email transmission , but with continuous page numbering.) was sent to the defendant ( not LD) along with the case summary last Thursday 24th.
We requested that they let us know by Dec 1st if they wanted to make any changes in order that we can meet the court bundle submission deadline of December 5th, as per the directions we received on October 13th 2 weeks after the triage hearing.
Received an email from LD this afternoon telling us they want "it" sent in word format so "they" can make changes and stating that whilst they know that the court like a PDF bundle prepared for court , they don't know what the dates that we referred to are.

When the defendant ( not LD) sent their witness statements they included the letters they'd received from the court and on closer inspection it appears that the third page of four which includes orders regarding the preparation of a trial bundle and the deadline for submission is missing . There's no page numbering on either their letter or our letter so it's impossible to tell whether the court included it .

He's really starting to test our patience. What's his gripe? The bundle's done and we'll send it to them as per the order. Aside from the 200 word case summary which they've now got , there's nothing going into the bundle that wasn't included in the witness statements and exhibits and they were sent those on November 14th. Is he just stalling?
We've sent the defendant an email stating that the court letter of Oct 16th that they sent with the witness statements has a page missing . As far as we understand it there's no requirement for the claimant to contact LD. The witness statements weren't sent via LD ( and it's hoped that they had nothing to do with putting their "bundle" together as it's a mess) If his role in this matter is as a legal advisor to the defendant then surely he needs get on with advising them rather than needling claimant ?

[des8]

I would have sent them (defendant &;LD) a full copy of the court directions ... then they will know the dates.

Tell them that you have prepared the bundle as per court directions, but Iif they want it in "word" format it is for them to convert it.

If they want the bundle amended they should send you the details so you can follow court instructions.

LD really are a shower, but you don't want to appear too unco-operative

[Getitdone]

des8 thank you. We sent the same email to LD last night.

Received an email from LD today saying " maybe I'm missing a page" . It's clear there's a page missing as the end of the second page is part way through a sentence and the next page starts with bullet pointed text)

Also stating he wasn't aware that the claimant and defendant had to agree the contents of the bundle, but could we please send the bundle to the defendant and LD so they can pass it to COUNSEL ,
As stated previously , we asked on 2 occasions if the defendant would have representation in court as this dictated who produced the bundle . They failed to respond.

They've virtually completely rewritten the "neutral" case summary , which appears ( to our laypersons eyes) to include a legal argument a) states that the vehicle was advertised as a Track car when they've already admitted in their response to claim that it wasn't advertised as such.
b) quoted part of the advert which they've quoted previously as evidence that the claimant knew the vehicle had no Cat' ie the wordage which begins with the name of a well known London vehicle modification company ;
"STAGE 2 . We now address the exhaust system. At this stage we remove the restrictive cats"
In the past they've never quoted the next sentence from the blurb, which says " We remove the first cat completely, and then for the second cat EITHER offer a sports cat OR a decat. "
This time they have quoted that and insist that the claimant was fully aware .


Maybe we got it wrong with the neutral case summary and we should have said that the Stages of modification blurb in the advert didn't directly relate to the vehicle , or any other specific vehicle , and regardless , it provides 2 options regarding modifying the secondary cat.

We won't agree the part which states that the vehicle was advertised as a Track car, but I don't think the rest of it, although appearing to us to be argumentative , makes much of as difference to anything. The EITHER / OR sentence being included in the case summary may even be a good thing .

Any thoughts please? If we can't agree on the summary presumably we send our version and if it would be viewed as acceptable, we could add that the advert states either ,or regarding the secondary cat.

Thank you.

[Getitdone]

des8 (and anyone else who might be interested) The Judge didn't find in the claimants favour today.
The Judge at the triage hearing was of the opinion that it would come down to whether the advert stated it was a Track car, which it didn't, only that is was Stage 3 tuned.
The Judge today was of the opinion that the advert didn't state that the vehicle WAS road legal and that it was up to the claimant to make it so after the purchase.
The defendant didn't make an appearance but they were represented by a solicitor who tried to claim legal costs saying it was an unreasonable claim . Thankfully the Judge didn't agree

Their solicitor stated that a Stage 3 car can never be road legal and is only ever suitable for use on the track, to which our son replied that that wasn't the case , as the vehicle is still a Stage 3 car and is now road legal.
He also asked why the defendant included a video of the vehicle being driven on a public road in the advert if it wasn't road legal. The answer was that the video might have been made before the vehicle was tuned Stage 3 so would have still had a catalytic converter at the time the video was made!
He also said that a track car isn't necessarily not road legal because many are driven to the track.

Regarding the advert text which started with GCAP and listed the Stages of modification ,with the words " at this stage WE...., and, At Stage 3 ..... we either replace the secondary cat with a sports cat or perform a full decat , the Judge seemed to take that as the defendant informing the claimant that the vehicle didn't have a cat

The judge also stated that the MOT certificate ( which were produced as exhibits by the defendant, despite the fact that MOT was never mentioned in their response to the claim or witness statements) meant nothing as the car could have been modified after the MOT . Now in hindsight , the argument there could have been that the car was advertised in 2019 as Stage 3 with a valid MOT, therefore the 2020 MOT must have been carried out when it was Stage 3!
I thought the Judge might think that stating " next MOT due" was at least misleading.
The Judge didn't comment on the fact that the witnesses had submitted statements that were untruthful and the wording didn't match the wording in the WhatsApp message ie using the phrase "road legal" , as opposed to "more road legal".
OUr son did try to explain to the Judge that there's no limit on the amount of power a road legal car can have.

Unfortunately after a 7 hrs false start the night before my son was delayed by 28 hrs flying back from India and only landed in London 2 hrs before the hearing so he couldn't manage to get the 250 miles home and ended up having to book a hotel room , so he was tired and completely thrown by the change in the Judges "way of thinking" ( I'm not sure how you would describe it in legal terms)
I'm not sure if I'd have done any better in convincing the Judge as it seemed to fly in the face of everything I thought I understood about the Consumers rights legislation.

So a disappointing and frustrating outcome.
Can't believe the 2 of us spent about 15 hours preparing the bundle when the defendant should have been the one to do it, as per the court order.
That's another system that be we've now got little faith in to add to the NHS , Local authority and private social care providers

Thanks to everyone who helped us out, especially des8 .

[des8]

Sorry to hear the result, but it is often pointed out that small track claims is often a bit of a lottery, especially if a litigant in person is up against a professional.

If it is of any consolation the defendant has probably substantially lost out financially by instructing a solicitor to defend a c£1,000 claim

[Getitdone]

des8 definitely. Fair to say we were fairly astounded.
I hope it was more than that
Thanks again for sharing your knowledge and advice. We've certainly learnt a lot in the process.
On the positive side , he loves the car and it's perfectly road legal now