Private car sale to trader - received court claim

[DTrebor]

Thanks, again. Will assemble my defence.

[GBExile]

Oh & my first line would be something like. Just to ram it into the Judge would be something like:

1: The Claimant is a vehicle trader.

Then do everything in date order. EG:

2: I had ******** vehicle for sale blah blah

3: Name of applicant contacted me on such & such date

[Amethyst]

He hasn't indicated he is a trader in his particulars.

Is the claim issued in his own name or his business name ?

Did he complete the V5 in his name ? Get a receipt made out in his name ?

You have the evidence he is a trader on gumtree/ eBay

Anyway Id start the defence with something like...

1: The Claimant is a motor trader carrying on business in buying / selling vehicles under the trading name of xxxx

2: The Defendant is a private individual

Just so it is clear from the off.

You dont include evidence at this stage, just the defence.

Did he bring the claim through the Beta service ? ( see examples https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...ts-court-claim )

[GBExile]

Hi AMETHYST I have just PMd you.

You might want to reassure the OP that you can advise & help him do his statement but OP knows the evidence is all over the internet.

It might be nice if you checked his statement out when he has completed it.

You are the expert but from what I have found out & from what the OP told me this is clear cut. The purchaser is a trader. Undeniable..

[DTrebor]

Claim issued in his own name, with his home address.

Business address not mentioned anywhere in claim. Business address is different to the home address.

V5C was made out in business name & business address.

No receipt unfortunately, I did ask about doing one and the guy said it wasn't necessary. Obviously regret that now but not much I can do about it - too trusting and limited experience of selling cars privately (have sold 4 in 25 years, all without issue)

Claim was done through the Business Centre service? Solicitor I spoke to thought this was odd as it was (her words) "generally reserved for larger organisations". She believed this to be an indication that this maybe was his modus operandi...

And yes - lots of evidence of online presence with historical sales etc pointing to trading. I have taken screenshots of all of it.

I spoke to DVLA to get some sort of confirmation that the car was registered to a trader (my email only confirms that the car has been registered to another party), they said I need to fill out V888 form. It sounds like that will come into play if for whatever reason he tries to dispute trade status.

[GBExile]

You had enough evidence to start with. I have just rammed it home.

Do yourself a favour & get absolutely ever screen shot you can get TONIGHT before it disappears.

Each one that I have mentioned on here or PMd you & all the ones you found out for yourself. Screenshot everything from top to bottom.

This bloke should be in prison.

[Amethyst]

He's trying it on because he knows as a trader he's pooped. Have a first draft defence wise and we can bash it into shape and remove anything that wants leaving for later witness statements.

You sold it to the business - he doesn't seem to be a ltd company just a sole trader so his business is a trading as name. He'd have to take court action in his name t/as xxxx car sales really so probably can't get him struck for that, but he appears to have purposely worded his claim to make himself sound like a private individual purchaser.

Business centre being Northampton ccbc ? I wouldn't read too much into that tbh - standard moneyclaims were done that way before the beta was set up. But yes it indicates he's done it before as a one off claimant would find the new system first on searching - you have to know the other one is there.

[Amethyst]

Oh & my first line would be something like. Just to ram it into the Judge would be something like:

1: The Claimant is a vehicle trader.

Then do everything in date order. EG:

2: I had ******** vehicle for sale blah blah

3: Name of applicant contacted me on such & such date

Sorry GB I crossed posts with that one... good to see we said virtually the same xxx

[Amethyst]

Also Your defence wants to mention that you have not been provided with a copy of the quote or diagnosis from the main dealer as alleged by the claimant And in the event the court finds you are liable, which is denied, that will be essential.

[DTrebor]

Have sent you a PM Amethyst, thanks.

[GBExile]

He's trying it on because he knows as a trader he's pooped. Have a first draft defence wise and we can bash it into shape and remove anything that wants leaving for later witness statements.

You sold it to the business - he doesn't seem to be a ltd company just a sole trader so his business is a trading as name. He'd have to take court action in his name t/as xxxx car sales really so probably can't get him struck for that, but he appears to have purposely worded his claim to make himself sound like a private individual purchaser.

Business centre being Northampton ccbc ? I wouldn't read too much into that tbh - standard moneyclaims were done that way before the beta was set up. But yes it indicates he's done it before as a one off claimant would find the new system first on searching - you have to know the other one is there.

He hasn't pooped nothing

When a rear diff catastrophically beaks it will make a bang bang bang sound those bangs will be about 3 per second. It will then rip the rear diff housing apart within minutes.

Bloke is a bull******.

He is after money. the bloke never had a problem with the rear diff failing in the way he says. When you have a chunk of lose metal in a rear diff (or front diff) it makes one hell of a noise.

It simply cannot happen the way he described. He is attempting to rob the op.

[GBExile]

Have sent you a PM Amethyst, thanks.

She is the legal bod but on this occasion if you tell her all the evidence you have already hopefully she will probably tell you not to hold back.

No one can deny the proof. It is overwhelming & I really do think it is important to tell the court at the earliest possibility that you are being conned.

[GBExile]

.....

[DTrebor]

Below is my current Defence statement, with identifying information redacted.

The Particulars of Claim, for reference, was:

I bought a car from X for £18500 on the 31/7/2019. After 40 mins of purchasing the vehicle. I reported a noise to him after paying for the vehicle. I have a text from X saying "get it looked at and we can go from there" I booked the vehicle into MAIN DEALER and it has been reported the internal bearing on the rear diff has completely disintegrated with a cost of £3600 to repair. X said to me this vehicle we not need anything doing to it until the next mot before purchasing it. I am now left with a car of great value with a bill not far off £4000 after driving 40 mins after collecting it. I've spoken to X who has made it clear he has no intention of contributing nor paying for the repair of the vehicle.

---

Notwithstanding the fact that the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocol, the Defendant pleads to the entirety of the Particulars of Claim as follows:

1. The Claimant is a motor trader carrying on business in buying & selling motor vehicles under the trading name of COMPANY NAME, located at COMPANY ADDRESS.
2. The Defendant is a private individual, with no mechanical knowledge or expertise.
3. The Defendant accepts that he sold a vehicle to the Claimant on 31/07/2019 for the sum of £18,500.
4. The vehicle was advertised and sold as a private sale, with the registration of the vehicle being transferred to the Claimant in his company’s name – COMPANY NAME, at the address: COMPANY ADDRESS.
5. The Defendant does not accept the Claimant reported a "noise" to him 40 minutes after paying for the vehicle. The first contact from the Claimant post-sale was a text message 1 hour and 26 minutes after full payment had been received for the vehicle.
6. The Defendant refuses to admit and makes no admissions as to the “noise” the Claimant claims to have heard, as he did not bear witness to it himself, and has not seen any evidence confirming its existence.
7. The Defendant does not accept that he said “"get it looked at and we can go from there"” in a text message. The Defendant said verbatim “"Well if you get it looked at we’ll have to work out what’s what from there I guess?”" which was in context of neither the Defendant nor Claimant knowing what the alleged fault was at that time, and the Defendant having no mechanical expertise with which to offer competent advice.
8. The Defendant refuses to admit and makes no admissions as to the assessment that it was "reported the internal bearing on the rear diff has completely disintegrated with a cost of £3600 to repair”". The Defendant has seen no evidence of any such report, nor any estimate or invoice for cost of repair.
9. The Defendant accepts that it was said to the Claimant that the vehicle would not need anything doing to it until the next MOT before it was purchased but disputes the scope of the statement. The statement was made in context of the vehicle having received its full service in January 2019, including 4 new tyres fitted, with its next MOT due in November 2019, and therefore no scheduled maintenance was expected before that date. It would be impossible for any individual to guarantee that a vehicle could not develop a fault at any time due to wear and tear or misuse, a fact the Claimant would have been acutely aware of as an experienced motor trader.
10. The Defendant refuses to admit and makes no admissions that the Claimant has a “"bill not far off £4000"” as he has not seen any evidence of any report, estimate or invoice.
11. The Defendant accepts that he indirectly informed the Claimant that he had no intention of contributing nor paying for the repair of the vehicle by ceasing communication with him.
12. The Claimant purchased the vehicle in person and inspected the vehicle in full prior to purchasing it.
13. The Claimant test drove the vehicle himself for no less than 7 miles (with Defendant in passenger seat) during which time no faults or problems were identified.
14. The Defendant was not aware of the alleged fault prior to sale and would not have had the competence to identify it.
15. The Claimant stated in multiple text messages that he did not blame the Defendant for the fault, and that he believed the Defendant was not aware of the fault at point of sale.
16. The Claimant listed the vehicle for sale on several online sales channels with no mention of the alleged fault, and with a description that includes the following verbatim statements that undermine the integrity of his claim:
    • “"The Previous Owner Spared No Expense Maintaining This Car Religiously & Only Went To MANUFACTURER To Have Everything Done”"
    • “"Drives Like New”"
    • “"Incredible Car That Sounds Incredible & Is Ballistically Fast”"
    • “"Struggle To Find A Nicer Example Than This”"

Dated this 30th day of August 2019.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

---

Keen to get feedback, amendments etc on the above. The statement I have a slight concern over is number 9 - I can't deny that I said that I didn't think the car would need anything spending on it until the next MOT, but that was - as stated - meant to relate to expenditure that is known on the car, e.g. the next MOT, next service, etc.

[Amethyst]

How did he pay?

Also not sure if we found out whether you had a copy of the advertisement you placed that led to the purchase ( he doesn't appear to be claiming it wasn't as described, instead seems to be relying on your vague statement that nothing should be needed until next MOT etc. But think the advert would help.

Just a couple other basic comments to get things in order a bit.

1. The Defendant does not accept the Claimant reported a noise to him 40 minutes after paying for the vehicle. The first contact from the Claimant post-sale was a text message 1 hour and 26 minutes after full payment had been received for the vehicle.

Sounds a little bit picky but I understand why you have put it in. Maybe...


The Claimant collected the vehicle on xxxxxxxxxxxxx at xxxx pm.

The Claimant paid the sum of £xxxxxx for the vehicle by xxxxxxxxxxx on xxxxx at xxxx pm.

The Defendant received a text message from the Claimant on xxxxxxxxxxxx at xxxxx pm which stated " ".

1. The Defendant refuses to admit and makes no admissions as to the “noise” the Claimant claims to have heard, as he did not bear witness to it himself, and has not seen any evidence confirming its existence.

You don't refuse to admit, you are unable to admit or deny....but in any case he isn't pleading that you heard the noise, just that he informed you of it....

maybe....

The Defendant did not witness the noise as described by the Claimant and no evidence of the noise, or the subsequent diagnosis of the source of such noise has been provided to the Defendant.

1. The Defendant does not accept that he said “get it looked at and we can go from there” in a text message.The Defendant said verbatim “Well if you get it looked at we’ll have to work out what’s what from there I guess?” which was in context of neither the Defendant nor Claimant knowing what the alleged fault was at that time, and the Defendant having no mechanical expertise with which to offer competent advice.

The Claimant's statement of case pleads that the Defendant replied to his text message

"get it looked at and we can go from there" however the Defendant retains a copy of the text message which stated "

Well if you get it looked at we’ll[sic] have to work out what’s [sic] what from there I guess?"

Really I think its much of a muchness and better saved for the witness statements if you feel pedantic

It is admitted that the Defendant responded to the Claimant's text message stating that if the Claimant had the vehicle looked at he would consider the way forward from there.

1. The Defendant refuses to admit and makes no admissions as to the assessment that it was “reported the internal bearing on the rear diff has completely disintegrated with a cost of £3600 to repair”.The Defendant has seen no evidence of any such report, nor any estimate or invoice for cost of repair.

Maybe....

1. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny the Claimant's assertion that it was “reported the internal bearing on the rear differential had completely disintegrated with a cost of £3600 to repair”. The Claimant has not produced evidence of any such report, nor any estimate or invoice for cost of repair.

which also covers para 10

para 9 sounds fine to me for the moment.

leave out para 11

para 12 and 13 put higher up … around para 4 before the date / time of payment and collection bits.

Para 16

The Claimant listed the vehicle for sale on several online sales channels with no mention of the alleged fault, and with a description that includes the following verbatim statements that undermine the integrity of his claim:

• “The Previous Owner Spared No Expense Maintaining This Car Religiously & Only Went To MANUFACTURER To Have Everything Done”
• “Drives Like New”
• “Incredible Car That Sounds Incredible & Is Ballistically Fast”
• “Struggle To Find A Nicer Example Than This

Upon receipt of the claim in this case the Defendant had a look online and has found the Claimant listed the car for sale on Ebay, Gumtree and xxxxx on xxxxxxxxx (if you know the date listed ), with no mention of the alleged fault or any issues with the vehicle. (nb: no need to quote word for word here that can come later in evidence and WS's). The adverts have been placed under the name of xxxxxx Motors and further demonstrate that the Claimant is in fact an experienced motor trader.

Something like that anyway for the moment.