Family friend is a car trader. Buys at auction then sells from a lot. Sold a car to someone who travelled a good distance to buy it. Buyer found a fault, garage fixed fault and also carried out a timing belt change FOC as a goodwill gesture and paid for a tank of fuel.
Buyer demanded money back. Garage refused as they had fixed the fault and this is all they are required to do.
Buyer sued, garage defended the action. Buyer lost and was presented with a bill for £17,000 in legal fees, buyer now bankrupt.
If you want to sue ensure you are going to win.
Family friend also concurs that auction prices are increasing which is raising prices on the lots.
{small typo in header corrected}
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 16/03/2009 at 00:17
|
The buyer sounds like a prat who deseved to go bankrupt.
|
The buyer sounds like a prat who deseved to go bankrupt.
Well Said!
|
|
|
|
And your family friend may be out of business soon unless auction prices improve. I feel the credit crunch is easing a little as it seems a little easier to get credit now, this is making new cars more attractive, I have seen a lot of 09 prices. I am not paying the silly money traders currently one for cars, £2k for a 10 year old hatchback I don't think so.
Either traders have to reduce their margins or face cars stuck on their yard for ages.
Back to topic I never under stood why peoople take people to court over small amount of money it seems more hassle than its worth unless its small claims.
|
Rattle, auction prices are rising because dealers lots are empty. It is simple supply and demand.
Prices are still well below where they were 12 months ago, even at auction, it is just that the incredibly low prices of late 2008 are no more because the trade is back buying in volume again. If dealers are such a rip off why don't you get down the auctions? Of course, you may find you have to buy 3 £500 cars to get one which works......
At the end of the day you still haven't bought a car - well many people HAVE to buy a car like they have to buy milk and if supply/demand pushes prices up they still pay them.
|
Rattle auction prices are rising because dealers lots are empty. It is simple supply and demand.
2nd hand cars are in demand as less new cars sold =>less trade-ins
Cars have accidents/breakdowns which are uneconomic to repair.
So even in a downturn there is a demand for replacements - people have to go to work etc etc so demand for certain cars rise demand for new ones is still well down.
|
|
|
|
... Buyer lost and was presented with a bill for £17,000 in legal fees, buyer now bankrupt. ... >>
Hang on, if buyer has been declared bankrupt, does that not mean that whoever was awarded the legal fees has lost?
I know someone who regularly [every 2 or 3 years] declares bankruptcy and seems to make a living doing so. I have no idea how he easily seems to bypass all the safeguards built in to the system to protect people's money going to ex-bankrupts.
Edited by jbif on 15/03/2009 at 21:15
|
There will become a point though when people decide cars are too expensive to buy and will either wait or use alternative means if they can.
I would imagine the reason this person is now bunkrupt is they have had to sell their assets to pay the legal fees?
|
Used cars, to buy, are still very cheap. The UK is about the cheapest place in the world to buy a used car.
They have gone up about 15% or more in whole sale price since January but are still cheaper than this time last year both at wholesale and retail.
The cheapest point was October to December 2008 when auction halls were deserted and you could get some quite stupidly good buys. Some of these cars are still available at retail at prices below current wholesale so if you spot one my advice is to buy it quick.
Used prices always rise between January and Easter and then slowly decline post-September. Happens every year just that last year the drop was larger and this year the increase has been correspondingly larger.
|
jbif makes the key point. If this geezer has declared bankruptcy then the dealer will end up bearing his own portion of the legal costs.
Might have been easier and cheaper to just settle with the guy even if he was in the wrong.
I have sued successfully in the Small Claims court twice where legal fees are only awarded in the most extreme of situations and would happily do so again but a full court hearing? Dodgy...
|
If this geezer has declared bankruptcy then the dealer will end up bearing his own portion of the legal costs.
Depends how much money he had, surely - there may be enough to get a decent proportion paid?
|
|
|
|
|
Beware of sueing anybody. If they haven't got any assets you're bound to end up financially worse off. I found this out the hard way 30 years ago when I sued a driver (who damaged my car) in an attempt to get reimbursement of uninsured losses.
|
|
Small Claims Court (up to £5K) in Scotland, at least, the max costs awarded against youif you lose is £250!
|
Small Claims Court (up to £5K) .... the max costs awarded against youif you lose is £250!
I thought that too, unless
1. the trader described by daveyjp [">> Family friend is a car trader. Buys at auction then sells from a lot. >> "] is dealing in cars worth over £5000.
2. or the trader is telling tall tales.
3. or the buyer did NOT use the Small Claims Court.
|
I just don't believe the story.
What did the buyer think he was suing the trader for?
So I don't believe there was a case, so I don't believe there were legal fees.
|
Mapmaker - I'd be interested to hear who you think decides if there is a case for a civil claim.
The buyer was suing for return of cash paid for the car - he lost.
Edited by daveyjp on 16/03/2009 at 10:34
|
The buyer was suing for return of cash paid for the car - he lost.
I agree with Mapmaker.
daveyjp:
Was it in the Small Claims Court?
How much cash was the Buyer claiming? [ "return of cash"].
Was the the buyer using a solicitor?
Was the buyer a private individual?
Who declared the bankruptcy? [i.e. was it voluntary or forced on the buyer?]
How much of costs did your dealer friend recover?
Warnings against trivial lawsuits are in HJ's FAQ no. 5 [eg. "A recent hearing highlighted the importance of seeking sensible early legal advice in order to save unnecessary expense." ]
Edited by jbif on 16/03/2009 at 10:44
|
|
|
|
I contemplated suing an individual, many years ago when insurance rules were different and if you did not say you'd had an accident, the insurance did not apply, even if there was a valid policy in force. There was such a policy and the insurance company admitted they'd pay if "told". (I was rear ended at a red light, even after taking the left hand lane of two, biker just followed and hit me).
But the important bit is, I think it was legal cover I had, were able to investigate the credit worthiness of the biker and were able to see that in legal terms, he was a man of straw. Sure I would have won, but I'd never have seen a penny.
Something here though says we're not getting the whole story.
|
Something here though says we're not getting the whole story.
Agreed. We are getting a one-sided, even then incomplete, story from a "family friend" of a dealer.
Edited by jbif on 16/03/2009 at 10:47
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree MM - at least as the story was told to the OP - not that I doubt the veracity of the OP - but just maybe the trader was in slightly, let's say, apochryphal mode.
The £17K sounds a lot even by solicitor standards (even between two parties) & I doubt barristers were involved.
Also the interpretation of SoGA by qualified persons should have revealed, before any 'trial' or hearing stage, the likelihood of success or not. Surely legal representation of the litigant would have advised of this at consultation stage. It's not a weighing of evidence type case or one where 'swaying of juries' would be an effect - just a very straightforward reading of SoGA clauses.
|
Assuming the tale is true, then the litigant was badly advised. He must have got to a point where he was risking more in legal fees than the car was worth. Any decent solicitor/counsel would have pointed this out, and made sure the buyer was creditworthy should he lose in court.
I think there's a bit more we don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
