Jump to content

buyer trying it on


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Wildwood said:
4 hours ago, caro1510 said:

 

 

we made it clear in both the ad and in our conversations with them that dry meant not having used the shower, as we always used the site's facilities.

 

 

The words "dry van" might be a weakness, as that should refer to the whole of the caravan.

From the OPs post.

 

 

It would appear that the buyer is attempting to get a 14 year old caravan at a reduced price.

2014 SsangYong Rexton W towing a 2017 Sprite Major 4EB. (After June 9th).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'll base my judgements on professional knowledge, experience and expertise, not speculation or insulting stereotyping of legal professionals. I don't own a luxury car and I don't smoke.

Not at all, but if the OP has stated that the van is "dry" and that subsequently turns out not to be the case then the van was misrepresented at the time of sale, if the purchaser can provide evidence

Assuming you made no misleading claims and gave no misleading information you should have no need to be concerned. The fact that problems have arisen since their purchase that you were unaware existed

Whatever you meant by "dry", unless you were aware of structural damp you were not misrepresenting the van.

Caveat emptor!

  • Like 1
  • I disagree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Legal Eagle said:

Is the OP on trial here?

 

Not at all, but if the OP has stated that the van is "dry" and that subsequently turns out not to be the case then the van was misrepresented at the time of sale, if the purchaser can provide evidence that any damp has been present since before the sale. 

 

If selling a caravan privately never make any attestation of it's condition. 

  • I disagree 4
  • I agree completely 3

Mercedes E350 CDi AMG Cabriolet, Lunar Freelander 640EW Twin Axle @1700kg

********* Naughty Step Aficionado And Grand Collector Of Naughty Points *********

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a very interesting discussion and just goes to show that buying and selling caravans is full of pitfalls. When selling you have to be very careful what you put in print and when buying privately its almost imperative that you get a third party report from a specialist engineer on the state of the caravan.

  • I agree completely 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of legal Talk in here which is great as a foundation but what about the ultimate foundation of common sense on behalf of the buyer. Buying a 14 year old used caravan and then being shocked there is damp there smacks of not doing any homework on caravans, like zero, or just somebody trying to get something for nothing, either way unlucky. Iv bought a few lemon cars before privately and not once did I go back months later for a new problem that Iv found.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PMW said:

 

Not at all, but if the OP has stated that the van is "dry" and that subsequently turns out not to be the case then the van was misrepresented at the time of sale, if the purchaser can provide evidence that any damp has been present since before the sale. 

 

If selling a caravan privately never make any attestation of it's condition. 

That is for a Court to question and judge, not us.

Edited by Legal Eagle
  • I agree completely 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Legal Eagle said:

That is for a Court to question and judge, not us.

 

it is all for a court to judge, but a statement has been made which might not be true. Might is of course a big word in legal terms and keeps solicitors and barristers in their luxury cars and fat cigars. 

 

At the start of this thread the situation was clear, caveat emptor. Now a fact comes to light which might give the purchaser a valid claim. there's that word might again. 

Edited by PMW
  • I disagree 2
  • I agree completely 2

Mercedes E350 CDi AMG Cabriolet, Lunar Freelander 640EW Twin Axle @1700kg

********* Naughty Step Aficionado And Grand Collector Of Naughty Points *********

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PMW said:

 

it is all for a court to judge, but a statement has been made which might not be true. Might is of course a big word in legal terms and keeps solicitors and barristers in their luxury cars and fat cigars. 

 

At the start of this thread the situation was clear, caveat emptor. Now a fact comes to light which might give the purchaser a valid claim. there's that word might again. 

I'll base my judgements on professional knowledge, experience and expertise, not speculation or insulting stereotyping of legal professionals. I don't own a luxury car and I don't smoke.

  • Like 5
  • I agree completely 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, caro1510 said:

our engineer told us that if we were selling it, there was no requirement to provide a damp report, as it was the buyers repsonbility to have an inspection of the van prior to sale to make sure everything was okay, not just the damp levels.

 

23 hours ago, caro1510 said:

we made it clear in both the ad and in our conversations with them that dry meant not having used the shower

As this story continues, I can see, as others have pointed out, where the confusion may have come from. I did think you were getting a bit of a hard time, but there is some confusion. 

 

Normally, when we see 'dry van' on an advert or description for a caravan, we mean or assume there is no water ingress. A damp report would back this up and would normally be given to the buyer at the time of sale, with all the other service reports, manuals and other documentation. Most sellers would do this. Your engineer is correct in so far as there is no requirement to provide a damp report. Vans dont have to be serviced.

 

But the only thing now is that there is damp in the overhead locker, which your damp report could show, at the time or service and sale, was not present. Unfortunately, you chose not to give this to the seller, which would have provided documentary evidence that this was a dry van in the commonly accepted meaning.

 

Moving forward, maybe you could provide the buyers with a copy of this to prove your point.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Legal Eagle said:

I'll base my judgements on professional knowledge, experience and expertise, not speculation or insulting stereotyping of legal professionals. I don't own a luxury car and I don't smoke.

 

Oh my dear Legal, I have offended you, and I'm truly sorry. I enjoy reading your insights into legal matters here, even on subjects which otherwise don't interest me. My oldest friend is a solicitor, more accurately a barrister. I have made that same comment to him and he will never deny it, just snicker. Those barrister types love legal argument. He was my vice captain of the grammar school first XI, the roles were reversed on the rugger pitch. We went off to Oxford together and whilst he studied with great gusto I expended similar vigour recreating the Oxford excesses of Waugh (Evelyn, not Steve). He studied Butterworth's, I studied form. He'd spend weekends in the library, I spent them on the cricket field, or the river. He left with a first in Law, I with a lower second in History, a.k.a. a dishonourable discharge. He was best man at my wedding, then went off to London and the Inns of Court to make his fortune, I began my career with a major high street name, which promptly went bust. 

 

He spends his time defending BP when they puke Gulf crude all over Florida, I spend mine painting the factory floor so it looks more attractive to potential buyers! We still get the occasional round of golf in, 

 

He smokes hand rolled cubans and drives a DB6 Volante which has has just had completely rebuilt by Aston at the cost of a modest family house in the home counties. I applaud you for your good sense in avoiding the tobacco weed, though am somewhat disappointed for you that there is no sportscar or roller in the garage, you are shattering my illusions. 

Edited by PMW
  • Haha 1

Mercedes E350 CDi AMG Cabriolet, Lunar Freelander 640EW Twin Axle @1700kg

********* Naughty Step Aficionado And Grand Collector Of Naughty Points *********

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PMW said:

 

Oh my dear Legal, I have offended you, and I'm truly sorry.

 

:goodpost:

Experience is an awful teacher who ends up sending you simply horrifying bills

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ian16527 said:

 

As this story continues, I can see, as others have pointed out, where the confusion may have come from. I did think you were getting a bit of a hard time, but there is some confusion. 

 

Normally, when we see 'dry van' on an advert or description for a caravan, we mean or assume there is no water ingress. A damp report would back this up and would normally be given to the buyer at the time of sale, with all the other service reports, manuals and other documentation. Most sellers would do this. Your engineer is correct in so far as there is no requirement to provide a damp report. Vans dont have to be serviced.

 

But the only thing now is that there is damp in the overhead locker, which your damp report could show, at the time or service and sale, was not present. Unfortunately, you chose not to give this to the seller, which would have provided documentary evidence that this was a dry van in the commonly accepted meaning.

 

Moving forward, maybe you could provide the buyers with a copy of this to prove your point.

 

 

actually, that is not what i said....i said that the buyers have said there is ingress in a cupboard, some 2 months after buying the van.  nothing to do with damp.  bearing in mind the storms there have been where we are, it is quite possible that a 14 year old van has succumbed to it.  the point is at the time of sale, as far as we were aware, there was none.  

 

in order to satisfy ourselves that the buyers were indeed trying it on, i went to the caravan, which is on the same storage facility as ours and had a thorough look underneath for the so called badly blown ply next to the shower drain.  it was a)bone dry and b)not in the slightest spongy.  neither had it been touched since our engineer serviced it last year, rectifying some work a previous engineer had cocked up.

 

We recommended our engineer to the buyers, along with getting them a space on the storage facility.

 

Would we have done that, knowing there were faults with the van? they would have been discovered readily enough.

14 hours ago, Legal Eagle said:

I'll base my judgements on professional knowledge, experience and expertise, not speculation or insulting stereotyping of legal professionals. I don't own a luxury car and I don't smoke.

the statement we made was that it was dry in terms of the shower not being used in our ownership.  this was explained in the ad. we made no comment regarding damp at all.  they could have then asked about the common term of dry as in damp.  they didn't.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PMW said:

He smokes hand rolled cubans and drives a DB6 Volante which has has just had completely rebuilt by Aston at the cost of a modest family house in the home counties. I applaud you for your good sense in avoiding the tobacco weed, though am somewhat disappointed for you that there is no sportscar or roller in the garage, you are shattering my illusions. 

Don't be disappointed, it's our outward life style choice. I don't need flash cars, expensive foreign holidays or any other reason to flaunt wealth. We are very comfortable thank you. I bet your rugger chum doesn't own a caravan and has never heard of a self-catering holiday. With all that fun he is missing that is who you should be disappointed for.

Incidentally, never call a barrister a solicitor, they might not like it!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that the term "dry van" could be regarded as wrong but the OP says quite clearly that this was clarified as meaning that the shower had never been used. If a court accepts that was made clear then there should be no problem but essentially the courts would make there own mind up on this. 

Again we only have an allegation of problems and the purchaser would need to provide proof before he could take it further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Legal Eagle said:

and I don't smoke.

This just reminded me of the Carry On Screaming film where Fenella Fielding asks if you mind if I smoke - an example link of a clip to the scene 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Legal Eagle said:

Incidentally, never call a barrister a solicitor, they might not like it!

 

I know ..... ;)

Mercedes E350 CDi AMG Cabriolet, Lunar Freelander 640EW Twin Axle @1700kg

********* Naughty Step Aficionado And Grand Collector Of Naughty Points *********

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wildwood said:

I do agree that the term "dry van" could be regarded as wrong but the OP says quite clearly that this was clarified as meaning that the shower had never been used. If a court accepts that was made clear then there should be no problem but essentially the courts would make there own mind up on this. 

Again we only have an allegation of problems and the purchaser would need to provide proof before he could take it further.

to be honest, the dry aspect isn't the issue. they're hung up about the service side, the ad stated that it was serviced and would be prior to sale. it was done in july 2019, and we didn't use it since. our engineer looked at it in sept this year and said that nothing needed doing other than remedial works that were outstanding, along with one new item.  The invoice showed what had been done, and we had told them this twice.  we could have been sharp about it and said it had been serviced, we just didn't say it was 2019 when it was. but we didn't, we got it looked at again before the sale.

 

It turns out that they have made repairs to the shower drain, and replaced the alarm battery, so in effect, they have taken away the option to a)show us the faults and b)give us the chance to resolve them.

 

i have photographic evidence that shows that there is no blown ply under the van as they claim, so along with the above, do they appear genuine? i think not.

 

From looking at it, they do not appear to have taken it out, as there still isn't a number plate on the rear.  which means that as they have stated that they have hooked it up, it must have been to a generator, with the likely even that they didn't wait for the power to balance out, resulting in blowing the heating electrics.  hence why they won't answer my question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Silversurf said:

I wonder if they are first time caravanners who thought, " This isn't for me " ?

you may be right.  they said they wanted one because they do re-enactments, and got fed up of camping.  to not have taken it out in 2 months, especially with the good weather we've had is strange, even for a weekend.

 

if that's the case, then they should sell it, rather than try and con us two months later.

  • I agree completely 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just tell them, in the nicest possible way, that you don’t accept their assertions or complaints and you will not be refunding/paying for anything.  They bought a 14 year (not month) old caravan at a fair price. Would they expect a 14 year old car to be totally pristine? 

Experience is an awful teacher who ends up sending you simply horrifying bills

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Legal Eagle said:

Don't be disappointed, it's our outward life style choice. I don't need flash cars, expensive foreign holidays or any other reason to flaunt wealth. We are very comfortable thank you. I bet your rugger chum doesn't own a caravan and has never heard of a self-catering holiday. With all that fun he is missing that is who you should be disappointed for.

Incidentally, never call a barrister a solicitor, they might not like it!

am i right in that you don't get to produce a witness statement for small claims, unless asked for? so i would need to put everything down in the defence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caro1510 said:

am i right in that you don't get to produce a witness statement for small claims, unless asked for? so i would need to put everything down in the defence?

If you are referring to a claim being made against you, you would not be a witness, you would be the defendant.

The Court would send you details of the claim against you and a time limit (14 days) to file your defence. It's important to read everything very carefully and to respond before the deadline.

https://www.smallclaimscourtgenie.co.uk/help-ive-been-sued/

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Legal Eagle said:

If you are referring to a claim being made against you, you would not be a witness, you would be the defendant.

The Court would send you details of the claim against you and a time limit (14 days) to file your defence. It's important to read everything very carefully and to respond before the deadline.

https://www.smallclaimscourtgenie.co.uk/help-ive-been-sued/

i know i'd be the defendant. i meant that do i only file  a defense, as opposed to doing the equivalent of a witness statement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caro1510 said:

i know i'd be the defendant. i meant that do i only file  a defense, as opposed to doing the equivalent of a witness statement?

To quote from the link in my last post - The defence is not intended to be a witness statement setting out all your evidence. It is to deal with the allegations and legal issues.

 

The link provides what you need to know in the event a claim is made against you.

Edited by Legal Eagle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...