dealing with a clocked car and one where the brakes are worn (a wear and tear item) would be a different ball game altogether.Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members
Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
I would say dealing with a clocked car and one where the brakes are worn (a wear and tear item) would be a different ball game altogether.
dealing with a clocked car and one where the brakes are worn (a wear and tear item) would be a different ball game altogether.Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
Century Motorsport wrote:Steve-O 2007 wrote:Century Motorsport wrote:I havent read all the thread but
The buyer took him to court and took him to the cleaners
Just beware and don't dismiss it thinking it'll go away as there is a chance it won't.
I would say thats alot different due to it being a Clocked vehical that was sold.
Were talking mechanical problems months after a sale, if you could legally
That wasn't my point.
So what ever the previous owner did before you, you are still held liable.
As others have said this is a completely different situation, your friend was involved all be it unwittingly in an illegal activity.
What he should have done was to have taken legal proceedings against the person who he bought the vehicle off.Alan.
..Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
I am inclined to agree with the general advice that he has little if any grounds to persue an action against you. His solicitor (If he has approached one) may be trying to encourage him to get his fee - unlikly as UK solicitors are usually very good.
Many years ago I was in a similar situation having bought a car from a garage without the warranty. On examination I found the front discs were badly scored and asked them to fit it. They told me to FO and I called the police in who read them the riot act and they fixed it. This was a case of the car has to be road worthy at the time of sale, in other words provided it is safe, good breakes/tyres etc then there is a case but from the thread this would not appear to be the facts in your case. Also there has to be a resonable time frame and as he drove it 350 miles plus and then stored it for several months in the winter (so he says) before making any complaint I would suggest there is not really a case to answer as I suspect the breakes may well have corroded on if the car was not used.
The cat is a different question but as the car had a valid MOT it is difficult to see how this could implicate you, also MOT stations do vary in their approach to things so what may be a pass in one may be a failure in another.
Last year my MR2 just passed due to emissions being a bit high, they told me to thrash it before the next MOT which I dis and no issues at all. If the car has been left standing some deterioration is certain.
If in doubt vist a solicitor if only to put your mind to rest- the first visit is sometimes free or in the region of £50 so may be worth while.
The new owner may be genuinly agrieved and have his mates telling him to go for it etc and not just trying it on.
Good luck but I recon you are in the clear.
G
To be on the sa
His solicitor (If he has approached one) may be trying to encourage him to get his fee - unlikly as UK solicitors are usually very good.Many years ago I was in a similar situation having bought a car from a garage without the warranty.
On examination I found the front discs were badly scored and asked them to fit it. They told me to FO and I called the police in who read them the riot act and they fixed it. This was a case of the car has to be road worthy at the time of sale, in other words provided it is safe, good breakes/tyres etc then there is a case but from the thread this would not appear to be the facts in your case. Also there has to be a resonable time frame and as he drove it 350 miles plus and then stored it for several months in the winter (so he says) before making any complaint I would suggest there is not really a case to answer as I suspect the breakes may well have corroded on if the car was not used.The cat is a different question but as the car had a valid MOT it is difficult to see how this could implicate you, also MOT stations do vary in their approach to things so what may be a pass in one may be a failure in another.
Last year my MR2 just passed due to emissions being a bit high, they told me to thrash it before the next MOT which I dis and no issues at all.
If the car has been left standing some deterioration is certain.If in doubt vist a solicitor if only to put your mind to rest
- the first visit is sometimes free or in the region of £50 so may be worth while.The new owner may be genuinly agrieved and have his mates telling him to go for it etc and not just trying it on.
Good luck but I recon you are in the clear.
G
To be on the sa
Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
You are under no obligation ro reply and no costs will be awarded against you for not replying. At the end of the day it is up to him to prove that at the time he bought the car he had been misled, sold a dodgy motor and you knew, sold an unroadworthy motor and you could have reasonably known about it.
Personally I'd write back and say you are not paying any money to him as the car was sold as seen and since it has been in his hands, as he admits, the vehicle has been altered. Therefore you cannot be held responsible for any problems arising as the result of any alterations he has made/paid for.
If he feels aggreived then it is up to him to name the figure he wants, the reasons why he is entitled to it together with any supporting evidence. If he fails to give you adequate information to assess the claim and it goes to Court then he will be the one looking at wasted costs.
If you get anything, feel free to contact me through IMOC, I am a(currently non practising) solicitor and used to specialise in litigation so am more than happy to give you some ammo to stick it to this knobber!
My other bit of advice, would be to take this off the public forum, if he reads any of this it may give him cause to think that you are going to cave in or something. These forums can be read without logging in, so its risky.
At the end of the day it is up to him to prove that at the time he bought the car he had been misled, sold a dodgy motor and you knew, sold an unroadworthy motor and you could have reasonably known about it.Personally I'd write back and say you are not paying any money to him as the car was sold as seen and since it has been in his hands, as he admits, the vehicle has been altered.
Therefore you cannot be held responsible for any problems arising as the result of any alterations he has made/paid for.If he feels aggreived then it is up to him to name the figure he wants, the reasons why he is entitled to it together with any supporting evidence.
If he fails to give you adequate information to assess the claim and it goes to Court then he will be the one looking at wasted costs.If you get anything, feel free to contact me through IMOC, I am a
(currently non practising) solicitor and used to specialise in litigation so am more than happy to give you some ammo to stick it to this knobber! My other bit of advice, would be to take this off the public forum, if he reads any of this it may give him cause to think that you are going to cave in or something.
These forums can be read without logging in, so its risky.I am going to live forever, or die trying!
-
attackoftheeddiemunster
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:29 pm
Re: Legal advice
sam1176uk wrote:Does anyone know his/my situation with this??
Thanks
Firstly, ignore the nonsense regarding "sold as seen", "caveat emptor" etc: the law is quite clear in that you must always disclose any material facts that are relevant to the sale, or indeed material to the price of said item. "Sold as seen" and the like are absolutely no defence in court if you have deliberately mislead the purchaser. The only clause that a court would come close to accepting is "without further redress", but even that isn't guaranteed.However, the fact that you were totally unaware of the
"faults", and that you were not responsible for said faults/modifications means that you're not culpable.Do not ignore any correspondance, always act upon it.
Explain that you were not aware of any such faults, and that any such modifications were undertaken by the previous owner. If you feel that you're being harrassed, simply issue a "cease and desist" letter outlining that you have explained your position and wish no further contact. If they continue to contact you, issue the same letter. In the event of court you can satisfy the court that you have been reasonable.Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
I had a clown similar a few years ago when we sold our speed boat. After coming down, checking it over and then agreeing to have it he claimed to have taken it for a service and it was a 'death trap'.
He'd pretty much decided that he wanted some money back.
After a few emails and letter he tried the same line about going to court and said that CAB had said X,Y and Z. I replied to his last letter informing him that i'd been to see a solicitor who had advised that as he came down and checked the boat over he had agreed to buy it in the condition it was sold in. He had opportunity to question anything or refuse to buy it but he agreed to buy it as it was.
the next letter i got back was that he'd passed my letter on to the CAB and they agreed that he had agreed to buy that boat in that condition and had ample time to change his mind.
After coming down, checking it over and then agreeing to have it he claimed to have taken it for a service and it was a 'death trap'. He'd pretty much decided that he wanted some money back.
After a few emails and letter he tried the same line about going to court and said that CAB had said X,Y and Z.
I replied to his last letter informing him that i'd been to see a solicitor who had advised that as he came down and checked the boat over he had agreed to buy it in the condition it was sold in. He had opportunity to question anything or refuse to buy it but he agreed to buy it as it was.the next letter i got back was that he'd passed my letter on to the CAB and they agreed that he had agreed to buy that boat in that condition and had ample time to change his mind.
Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
Tiamat - thanks for the offer, i'll let you know.
Conflicting advice but i haven't replied to his so far, i have really already said all there is to say and would just be repeating myself.
Quite annoyed now at this guy going on about the brakes to be honest, i think if there was something wrong with them he'd have noticed during his 325 mile journey home!
The MOT fail sheet advised that there was a leaking brake pipe and sticking calipers- probably due to being frozen when it was "hardly used".
- thanks for the offer, i'll let you know.Conflicting advice but i haven't replied to his so far, i have really already said all there is to say and would just be repeating myself.
Quite annoyed now at this guy going on about the brakes to be honest, i think if there was something wrong with them he'd have noticed during his 325 mile journey home!
The MOT fail sheet advised that there was a leaking brake pipe and sticking calipers
- probably due to being frozen when it was "hardly used".UPDATE****
Ok, a long winded UPDATE, i hope someone takes the time to have a read and pass on their thoughts 
:
Received a Claim Form yesterday although this is dated 31st March since i have now moved house, this has been sitting at my old address for the past 2 months, it says on it that i have 28 days to respond or it will be assumed that i accept the courts jurisdiction and judgement may be entered against me.
Can anyone advise on my best course of action here?
For those who are interested here is his claim and in bold would be my defence! Apologies for the long-windedness but any neutral feedback would be appreciated!:
I made a private purchase of a Toyota MR2 registration number V****** on 11th December 2010 in response to an advertisement on Pistonheads.com. The advertisement proved to be seriously misleading on three statements: a) the car was in excellent condition (the car was actually mint i would say! 10 years old) b) the PPE engineering exhaust system was complete and legal (the ad stated PPE Engineering racing Exhaust manifold, downpipe and backbox (over £1k worth)) see link here http://www.imoc.co.uk/forums/viewtopic. ... highlight=
c) That the brakes and callipers were in full working order after being refurbished (the ad stated Tarox disks, Mintex pads, goodridge hoses, brake fluid recently replaced and refurbed callipers blue, no mention of dates replaced or full working order?)
The car failed to match the description in the advertisement on which i had relied. Before exchanging contracts (which states sold as seen) I made a specific question on the condition of the brakes and the reply was, quote, the brakes are better than any brakes I have ever had on all my previous cars. (Correct! The brakes were excellent! They would stop you on a 2p piece and i thought they were superb.)
Mr******** failed to reply to a pre-sale email asking whether the car had been raced. (The car has never been raced, i took it down the ¼ mile strip at Crail to see how it performed once and im sure i told him this over the phone prior to purchase). After the sale i found another advertisement that included details of his success in winning (?!) a standing quarter mile test at Crail racetrack. The MOT station which issued the test certificate passed to me (wont name the garage) confirmed that the PPE exhaust had been removed for a standard one with a cat for the emissions test after which the PPE exhaust was replaced thus making the certificate void or illegal (this was all done prior to my purchase, i had no knowledge that this had happened, or even the face there was no cat). This is common practice amongst drivers who race and wish to maximise the power or their engines by running them without cats. At the outset of his brief ownership Mr ******* enjoyed excellent brakes on the racing track (?!) but failed to undertake the maintenance stated in the advertisement (surely this is subjective, there is no evidence to suggest i didnt maintain the brakes or that they required any work).
Owing to poor weather the car was not used from my home except to attend a MOT test on 25th January 2011(the mileage on the MOT test was 74453, as opposed to 73467 miles at time of sale!). The failure of this test and subsequent repairs and modifications confirmed the unroadworthy condition of the car at the time of purchase. The MOT test station manager believed the inoperable brakes made the car too dangerous to drive (the car had, as stated, been sitting stagnant for over a month now during the coldest winter for years, seized brakes!? Or wear and tear from his driving) and that the exhaust was illegal having failed the emissions test due to the absence of a catalyst (can anyone confirm it is actually ILLEGAL to not have a cat on a 1999 car?).
The car was taken to(a garage) for the necessary work to make the car roadworthy and legal. Replacement callipers, brakehose and handbrake cables were fitted. A borrowed exhaust was fitted to enable me to use the car whilst waiting for a cat for my exhaust. The work was completed on the 18th March when i was able to drive my car with a fully legal exhaust and brakes that had passed a second MOT test.
I have discovered from discussions on the MR2 Owners Club website that problems with MR2 rear brakes especially the callipers and hand brake have been endemic from the first model in 1985 and that repairs should be left to Toyota mechanics(what has this to do with me, so he thinks every car should be taken to Toyota every time?!). Mr ****** has owned a number of MR2s and will have been aware of the risks in attempting any work himself (didnt attempt any work myself as there was nothing wrong with them in my opinion, all i carried out was I have carried out the servicing myself and have just replaced (less than 1000 miles ago) the oil (mobil 1 synthetic), filter and spark plugs (ngk iridium) so you will be good for at least another 6000 miles. I have receipts for the coilovers/brakes (discs/pads & braided goodridge hoses)/wheels/exhaust/manifold etc and have just put 2 x brand new toyo tyres on the back.).
I received a few invoices on work by the previous owner, who bought the car from the importers some years ago. He has assured me that his considerable file for all invoices for work on the car were passed to Mr ******* including that for the PPE exhaust system for £1000. This would have shown up the absence of a catalyst (how can i be expected to go through a hugh pile of invoices and pick up on details like that? I also made the invoices available to him to look through prior to sale, so surely he should have noticed this also?!). There are no invoices for work on the callipers prior to Mr ****** buying the car in Sept. He produced no invoices paid during his brief period of ownership.
My claim is for the cost of all of the work and parts relating to the brakes and exhaust system shown on the invoices and report attached(£1300!). I am not making a claim for loss of use of my car or incidental travel and other expenses.
There are a few discrepancies in the Mot reports he has sent also where it looks like duplicate work has been carried out, the car failed its first one so the brake hoses were replaced only to find it failed again, so the handbrake cables were changed and then it passed, so sounds like the hoses were ok. Also, in changing the handbrake cables it was identified that the rear callipers were seizing also although this wasnt mentioned at the first test? He has also included the bill for the PPE cat at nearly £200, surely a 2nd hand cat would be sufficient to make the car road legal, not a top of the range racing cat!?
Also states on the MOT test,cat missing more than likely why it failed emissions test, nothing conclusive there to say it is illegal or definitely the reason?
Another point to mention is that he phoned me up after getting the car home(320 mile trip!) to say how happy he was with it and to thank me and wish me all the best.
:Received a Claim Form yesterday although this is dated 31st March since i have now moved house, this has been sitting at my old address for the past 2 months, it says on it that i have 28 days to respond or it will be assumed that i accept the courts jurisdiction and judgement may be entered against me.
Can anyone advise on my best course of action here?
For those who are interested here is his claim and in bold would be my defence! Apologies for the long-windedness but any neutral feedback would be appreciated!:
I made a private purchase of a Toyota MR2 registration number V***
*** on 11th December 2010 in response to an advertisement on Pistonheads.com. The advertisement proved to be seriously misleading on three statements: a) the car was in excellent condition (the car was actually mint i would say! 10 years old) b) the PPE engineering exhaust system was complete and legal (the ad stated PPE Engineering racing Exhaust manifold, downpipe and backbox (over £1k worth)) see link here http://www.imoc.co.uk/forums/viewtopic. ... highlight= c)
That the brakes and callipers were in full working order after being refurbished (the ad stated Tarox disks, Mintex pads, goodridge hoses, brake fluid recently replaced and refurbed callipers blue, no mention of dates replaced or full working order?)The car failed to match the description in the advertisement on which i had relied.
Before exchanging contracts (which states sold as seen) I made a specific question on the condition of the brakes and the reply was, quote, the brakes are better than any brakes I have ever had on all my previous cars. (Correct! The brakes were excellent! They would stop you on a 2p piece and i thought they were superb.)Mr
******** failed to reply to a pre-sale email asking whether the car had been raced. (The car has never been raced, i took it down the ¼ mile strip at Crail to see how it performed once and im sure i told him this over the phone prior to purchase). After the sale i found another advertisement that included details of his success in winning (?!) a standing quarter mile test at Crail racetrack. The MOT station which issued the test certificate passed to me (wont name the garage) confirmed that the PPE exhaust had been removed for a standard one with a cat for the emissions test after which the PPE exhaust was replaced thus making the certificate void or illegal (this was all done prior to my purchase, i had no knowledge that this had happened, or even the face there was no cat). This is common practice amongst drivers who race and wish to maximise the power or their engines by running them without cats. At the outset of his brief ownership Mr ******* enjoyed excellent brakes on the racing track (?!) but failed to undertake the maintenance stated in the advertisement (surely this is subjective, there is no evidence to suggest i didnt maintain the brakes or that they required any work).Owing to poor weather the car was not used from my home except to attend a MOT test on 25th January 2011
(the mileage on the MOT test was 74453, as opposed to 73467 miles at time of sale!). The failure of this test and subsequent repairs and modifications confirmed the unroadworthy condition of the car at the time of purchase. The MOT test station manager believed the inoperable brakes made the car too dangerous to drive (the car had, as stated, been sitting stagnant for over a month now during the coldest winter for years, seized brakes!? Or wear and tear from his driving) and that the exhaust was illegal having failed the emissions test due to the absence of a catalyst (can anyone confirm it is actually ILLEGAL to not have a cat on a 1999 car?).The car was taken to
(a garage) for the necessary work to make the car roadworthy and legal. Replacement callipers, brakehose and handbrake cables were fitted. A borrowed exhaust was fitted to enable me to use the car whilst waiting for a cat for my exhaust. The work was completed on the 18th March when i was able to drive my car with a fully legal exhaust and brakes that had passed a second MOT test.I have discovered from discussions on the MR2 Owners Club website that problems with MR2 rear brakes especially the callipers and hand brake have been endemic from the first model in 1985 and that repairs should be left to Toyota mechanics
(what has this to do with me, so he thinks every car should be taken to Toyota every time?!). Mr ****** has owned a number of MR2s and will have been aware of the risks in attempting any work himself (didnt attempt any work myself as there was nothing wrong with them in my opinion, all i carried out was I have carried out the servicing myself and have just replaced (less than 1000 miles ago) the oil (mobil 1 synthetic), filter and spark plugs (ngk iridium) so you will be good for at least another 6000 miles. I have receipts for the coilovers/brakes (discs/pads & braided goodridge hoses)/wheels/exhaust/manifold etc and have just put 2 x brand new toyo tyres on the back.).I received a few invoices on work by the previous owner, who bought the car from the importers some years ago.
He has assured me that his considerable file for all invoices for work on the car were passed to Mr ******* including that for the PPE exhaust system for £1000. This would have shown up the absence of a catalyst (how can i be expected to go through a hugh pile of invoices and pick up on details like that? I also made the invoices available to him to look through prior to sale, so surely he should have noticed this also?!). There are no invoices for work on the callipers prior to Mr ****** buying the car in Sept. He produced no invoices paid during his brief period of ownership.My claim is for the cost of all of the work and parts relating to the brakes and exhaust system shown on the invoices and report attached
(£1300!). I am not making a claim for loss of use of my car or incidental travel and other expenses.There are a few discrepancies in the Mot reports he has sent also where it looks like duplicate work has been carried out, the car failed its first one so the brake hoses were replaced only to find it failed again, so the handbrake cables were changed and then it passed, so sounds like the hoses were ok. Also, in changing the handbrake cables it was identified that the rear callipers were seizing also although this wasnt mentioned at the first test? He has also included the bill for the PPE cat at nearly £200, surely a 2nd hand cat would be sufficient to make the car road legal, not a top of the range racing cat!?Also states on the MOT test,
cat missing more than likely why it failed emissions test, nothing conclusive there to say it is illegal or definitely the reason?Another point to mention is that he phoned me up after getting the car home
(320 mile trip!) to say how happy he was with it and to thank me and wish me all the best.Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
Wow, sounds like a con artist, sorry to hear about this, best of luck with it! 
Be a joke if he got anything from it, sold as seen for a start, what does he expect? 
Be a joke if he got anything from it, sold as seen for a start, what does he expect?
Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
Right, get this up on Pistonheads now.
Post it in the Speed, Plod& the Law forum.
There are a few legal eagles on there(actual lawyers) who will likely step up and help with an official response. A couple of members always offer to help people out in your situation.
Also no, its not illegal for any car to not have a cat so long as it passes the requisite emissions test.
edit: is it an actual county court claim form, or just something he's knocked up himself?
Can you scan it?
http://www.justclaim.co.uk/index.php?fi ... index.page
Thats the official form.
now.Post it in the Speed, Plod
& the Law forum.There are a few legal eagles on there(actual lawyers) who will likely step up and help with an official response.
A couple of members always offer to help people out in your situation.Also no, its not illegal for any car to not have a cat so long as it passes the requisite emissions test.
edit: is it an actual county court claim form, or just something he's knocked up himself?
Can you scan it?
http://www.justclaim.co.uk/index.php?fi ... index.page
Thats the official form.
Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
Hahaha that would be going straight in the bin 
, it honestly sounds like something hes knocked up himself (but do scan it anyway for us to see), but IMHO just bin it, hes a chancer!
, it honestly sounds like something hes knocked up himself (but do scan it anyway for us to see), but IMHO just bin it, hes a chancer!Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
Yes it is an actual county court claim form, any suggestions?
Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
most of what he is saying seems to have no actual relevance to his claim, such as you taking it down a drag circuit once - i cannot see how that can possibly have any bearing whatsoever. Also seems to think that a lot of stuff that happened prior to your purchase of the car is your fault - again cant see the relevance.
looks like he is clutching at straws ](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
- i cannot see how that can possibly have any bearing whatsoever. Also seems to think that a lot of stuff that happened prior to your purchase of the car is your fault - again cant see the relevance.looks like he is clutching at straws
Slarty wrote:
it's just that we subscrible to the theory of hitting it harder until it works.
Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
It's ridiculous he's persisting with this, he has paid £75 for the claim form by the looks of it.
What happens now i've missed the 28 days to respond with my case though?
£75 for the claim form by the looks of it.What happens now i've missed the 28 days to respond with my case though?
Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
Post it up on Pistonheads. You'll get some sound legal advice.
You'll get some sound legal advice.Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
Cool, I see a couple of the legal eagles have already replied
Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
Lolololol!!!! Quality.
Anyone can file a claim, it doesn't mean they will actually get anywhere with it
Anyone can file a claim, it doesn't mean they will actually get anywhere with it
Re: Legal advice - NEW DEVELOPMENTS - Further Update!
I have no legal knowledge etc but this guy sounds like a tool, if he gets anything from you it's an injustice. I think once this is all solved you should publish his name etc on Piston heads and here so some other unlucky person doesn't harassed.
I think once this is all solved you should publish his name etc on Piston heads and here so some other unlucky person doesn't harassed.