Buyer wants his cash back?

Page 6 / 14
kcc55a, Dec 27, 2:42pm
I love the words"good condition" for its age. Which could mean absolutely anything.
Who knows what sort of interpretation a tribunal adjudicator might put on them despite the no mechanical check before buying. Surely a rust repair to a X member isnt a really big deal why dont you offer to share the cost and save the hassles!

kazbanz, Dec 27, 2:50pm
What DT is this --MVDT or just normal DT!

tgray, Dec 27, 3:06pm
I have just re read all this in it's entirety and frankly, it makes me angry.
Mr Dickead, it's a PRIVATE SALE FFS!
The car is probably older than you are and you didn't even bother to check out the car first. Where is your "duty of care' in all this!
I can just imagine what you look like, I really can.
Poster, please let us know how is goes and don't give in to this tosser.
He might have a way with words, but he has no case!

tigra, Dec 27, 3:20pm
DT only goes to $15000 unless agreement from both parties and it can go to $20K

mitsiboy69, Dec 27, 3:21pm
Dude tell this guy to piss off. The issue of weather or not the wof should have been issued is a seperate issue and not one that involves you. Even if the car broke down the day after he bought it he has no rights in this situation. So stop wasting your time listening to this guy, if he wants to waste his time chasing the wind that's his problem but don't let it bother you.

bmwnz, Dec 27, 3:32pm
Says it all. I'm amazed its been allowed to go this far. Don't forget to apply for costs when he loses.

llortmt, Dec 27, 3:40pm
I don't think you can in the DT.

tigra, Dec 27, 3:44pm
You can put in a counter claim to be heard at the same time. OP should be counter claiming forthe use of the vehicle for "9 months"Lets say $500 per month! Plus any incidental costs related to inspecting the car.

mitsiboy69, Dec 27, 3:52pm
I can't believe this has gone anywhere. If you end up paying for anything in this case you are a sucker. Should have told him to bugger off right from the start.

daryl14, Dec 27, 4:08pm
Do not expect ANY sort of technical knowledge from the adjudicator, Chances are YOU will have to PROVE your side of the story. If you can back yourself with written statements from professionals you have a chance.

Also remember, if you come to an agreement then the adjudicator has done their job. They don't care who is right or wrong, just that they get you to agree to something at the end. It's entirely up to you how much you're willing to fight or let your case slide. End of story.

I think you're in for a hard slog, sorry mate.

hutchk, Dec 27, 4:36pm
Go to the hearing. Stay calm. State your case. Let him make a dick of himself (this will not be difficult). You'll 'win' easily. If you don't I hereby pledge $50 toward your costs.

llortmt, Dec 27, 4:36pm
That's not the same thing as costs.

hutchk, Dec 27, 4:36pm
"Promulgated"!

What a dick.

xpfairmont, Dec 27, 5:54pm
Have you seen this guy in action! Every sentence he says starts "is it possible."

trogedon, Dec 27, 6:17pm
Excellent advice.
Keep in mind that this is an 'interesting' process. Enjoy yourself.but keep that to yourself.

fordcrzy, Dec 27, 6:25pm
also please remember that "good condition for age" does not mean That it will get a warrant or be legal on the road.
We have some awesome old fuel pumps that are in good conditon for age but totally illegal to be used on a service station.
take some photos of the car along from around the time you sold it and even some of some knackered cars to show what "good condition"means.

sw20, Dec 27, 6:38pm
Ugh you poor bastard. The disputes tribunal is where no one wins.

It is all about being "fair" from the adjudicators point of view.

I wish you the best of luck.

tigra, Dec 27, 6:42pm
Grounds for a rehearing are extremely limitedand dont relate to the result but how the Adjudicator ran the hearing. Appeals to the District Court are even harder to establish and seldom work. Best to rely on having a well reasoned case in the DT.

bmwnz, Dec 27, 8:04pm
I stand corrected. I know 'naff about things legalese.
I deal in common sense.

carclan, Dec 27, 8:08pm
What a wank

mike77, Dec 28, 9:43am
What he said, good luck - go in prepared with copies of everything.

lyonruge, Dec 28, 10:43am
Incorrect. I was taken to the DT for a boat/trailer I sold, 2 weeks later the guy found the trailer was rusty. he tried to do me for a new trailer. Had he asked me to repair it, I would have. he accused me of misrepresenting the sale, which i didnt. i had photos of the trailer from when id bought it 6 years prior that show tape around the chassis which was where the rust was. he said id put the tape there to hide it. he had the trailer without the boat on it to check over, he bought it as it looked sweet. I proved that the tape was their when i bought it, got a letter from the previous owner saying he had remembered the tape there too, but didnt put it there, long story short, case dismissed, and the wof that was issued at time of sale was done at my work! luckily, not by me!

elect70, Dec 28, 3:40pm
Just prayyou dont get a femaleadjudicator, she wont understand & just rulefor half each , been there had thatstupid dumb bitch

shane191, Dec 28, 5:35pm
The buyer has no case. Stick to your guns. Sounds like the buyer will just give the DT a major headache over the way he speaks! and the junk he spins off. DO NOT agree to anything! (Other than the fact the guy is to keep the car and you will not be paying him). Keep your case simple and easy to understand. Clearly the buyer will not be able to afford to take the case higher (Since he has to get finance for a car), so don't give in. Your not in the wrong anyway so there is no reason for you to have to make any arrangments to please him. Oh and karma will get him.people like the buyer eventually do this crap to the wrong person and it bites them!

market1, Jan 17, 10:46pm
Has either the applicant or respondent thought of naming the company that issued the wof prior to sale as a second respondent. Had they detected this issue in their checks to issue, the sale may not have proceeded. That then allows the referee to look at all parties involved.