Feeling Violated

[mp1962]

Im feeling violated
Bought a "stunning" Herald Insignia from a dealer. got the MH home to find the haulier that delivered it had put diesel in the fresh water tank, the driver side door lock was faulty the leisure battery isn't even connected to the van and now I find the toilet pump is not working. I contacted the seller and made a claim via paypal and he told me if I didn't drop the claim he would not send me the log book....Like an idiot I dropped it. .Sneaky didn't do the sale through ebay so I don't have a leg to stand on to get him to replace the faulty parts of this STUNNING motorhome, What I can do is warn other prospective buyers to be very careful with dealers who advertise on Ebay.

 

[Damian]

First of all I have removed the name of the dealer from your post.
Look at the Forum Etiquette and abide by the rules.

Presumably you went in person to view the motorhome and made sure everything was working?
If not, why not?

You cannot blame the dealer for actions of the delivery haulier.
Why did you not get the V5 slip when you went to the dealer and bought the van?

Or did you not go anywhere near the place and relied on the listing?

 

[Mogwyth]

And why allow yourself to be blackmailed by the dealer and why against all sensible advice do the deal outside eBay?

 

[ProfJohnL]

This seems a very unfortunate story. I am surprised that anyone would be as naive when spending what is probably quite a large sum of money.

I certainly agree with most of Damian's post.

Regardless of the method of the transaction a contract was struck and money was exchanged for goods, as the writer describes the person as a dealer, the contract falls under the Consumer Rights act 2015, and you should look up that act and how to use it.

We are not given enough information to know if the OP's claim about the delivery driver is correct, but such a claim would need to be substantiated with irrefutable evidence. Could it have been someone else, even a previous owner?

I do take issue with Damian on this:

...You cannot blame the dealer for actions of the delivery haulier...

But on the premise the OP's claim is accurate, then the delivery company is responsible, but who the customer claims from will depend on who engaged them. If the OP contracted the delivery then he should claim direct from the delivery company. If the dealer arranged the delivery as a sub contract, then the customer claims against the dealer as the main contractor.

 

[Damian]

Just taking the last posting.
Before referring to consumer law and the rights and wrongs of it, we do not know any of the circumstances surrounding the "purchase" of said vehicle.
Therefore, until we know BOTH sides of the situation we cannot suggest a remedy which may not exist.

My personal view is that the purchase was made on an advert on EBay, which as we all know does not have the most reputable reputation as far as some of the advertisers are concerned.
I am also of the opinion that the buyer did not even view the purchase, if he had, why did he not drive the vehicle back himself instead of using a haulier.

I may be totally wrong (not the first time) but until we know exactly what the transaction was there is nothing we can suggest.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Damian.

I totally agree we don't know all the ins and out of mp1962's experience, and throughout my previous response I made that issue clear by looking beyond what had been offered. But based on the information provided we are told the OP is in possession of the MH and its highly unlikely a seller of any type would allow the goods to be transferred unless the payment had been made. So it seems more than likely the transaction has taken place which means a CRA contract does exist.

This poster seems to be asking what should they do and the answer is to refer to consumer law which lays out customers and sellers rights especially as the OP refers to the seller as a "Dealer" then the law is more relevant.

Just becasue we may consider the OP's purchase methods to be flawed, doesn't disenfranchise him from receiving information about his rights, and who to address the claim too. Offering information about statutory rights is not the same as offering a remedy. The remedy ( if one is justified), will be produced when due process has run its course and the true facts are exposed to judgment.

 

[MichaelE]

Paypal doesn't offer seller protection when using their service to purchase a vehicle, so to try and claim against the seller would be a waste of your time.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Michael,

Just because Paypal may not support the action does not preclude trying to claim against the seller with whom the contract was struck. Its a contract just like any other.

 

[Parksy]

I'm no expert on consumer law but many vehicles advertised on E-bay for a fixed (buy it now) price state that the listing is a classified ad.
Classified ads for vehicles are common on E-Bay, especially from traders who don't want to auction their goods. The sales are not protected through any E-Bay mechanism but I should imagine that they are protected under the SOGA like any vehicle sale from a dealership or commercial trader.
The O.P. seems to me to be trying to warn other potential buyers to take great care when buying via an online auction website rather than asking for advice. A motorhome is an expensive item so surely some written evidence for this sale exists?
If E-Bay have been cheated out of their commission because of the dealers insistence on dealing outside E-bay even though the motorhome had been advertised on that site the O.P. could use the threat of reporting the unpaid commission to E-Bay as leverage instead of just sitting back being brushed off.

 

[MichaelE]

Hello Michael,

Just because Paypal may not support the action does not preclude trying to claim against the seller with whom the contract was struck. Its a contract just like any other.

Hi Prof

Yes agreed i was just saying that you cant use Paypal to fight the case for you.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello again Michael,

You actually mentioned Ebay in your first post, and now you refer to Paypal in your second. Legally these are separate companies and have different terms of reference.

Ebay is principally a shop window and auction site, and in itself does not handle the financial transaction, so its not controlled in the same way as Paypal.

Paypal offers transaction and it also does offer some credit facilities, and as such within the UK it is subject to the controls set out by the Financial Services Authority (FSA)

Where as Ebay can set its own limits of liability, Paypal can't, it has to comply with the FSA requirements. Consequently if the OP's payment was made through Paypal ( and his post suggests this) and depending on how the payment was financed, Paypal will have some clout in the matter, and if its credit facilities were used, then section 75 of the consumer credit act may place Paypal jointly liable for the goods sold.

 

[Raywood]

If the purchase was from a trader then The Consumer Rights legislation should apply. The details given are not detailed enough to give firm advice but I would suggest as a first step you ring Citizens Advice helpline and they can ask the relevant questions and advise you on this.

 

[MichaelE]

Hello again Michael,

You actually mentioned Ebay in your first post, and now you refer to Paypal in your second. Legally these are separate companies and have different terms of reference.

Ebay is principally a shop window and auction site, and in itself does not handle the financial transaction, so its not controlled in the same way as Paypal.

Paypal offers transaction and it also does offer some credit facilities, and as such within the UK it is subject to the controls set out by the Financial Services Authority (FSA)

Where as Ebay can set its own limits of liability, Paypal can't, it has to comply with the FSA requirements. Consequently if the OP's payment was made through Paypal ( and his post suggests this) and depending on how the payment was financed, Paypal will have some clout in the matter, and if its credit facilities were used, then section 75 of the consumer credit act may place Paypal jointly liable for the goods sold.

Hello Prof

I didnt mention Ebay as i know if the item had been purchased through Ebay then he would have some protection and as soon as you file a claim they hold the paypal transaction.

For some reason paypal dont offer buyer protection on vehicles, this info is on their webpage.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Sorry Michael you didn't mention Ebay.

If the payment was made through paypal using money from the consumer's own source, then Paypal is not acting as a creditor, and so they ar not obliged, But if credit had been sourced from Paypal, then paypal cannot avoid joint liability for faulty goods under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

[MichaelE]

Thats ok , paypal are not creditors, they are basically middle men so you can accept payment by using an email address, your paypal account can be funded by either payment to you, by adding money from your bank account or using a credit card, so the later he might be able to get some help?

 

[Dustydog]

No idea how much the OP paid but we do know the identity of the Dealer which quite rightly Damian had to remove.
How strange the Dealer wouldn't send on the V5 unless the OP dropped his claim via Paypal. Details of that are unknown but as Michael says if the OP's credit card provided the purchase power via Paypal then he does have Rights under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.
Maybe the OP can give more detail of the whole transaction.
No names but Damian give us an indication of the type of Dealer involved , ie Premiership or Bucket Shop?

 

[mp1962]

thanks for your input
Problem is I am/was a trusting person, when someone "a trader" advertisers as "stunning" really that's how it should be. the nice trader was very honest with me, everything worked as it should LOL.
No I didn't go to view the van but to be honest some of the faults would not have come to light until a through inspection - anyhow that's my stupid fault. What I am trying to say is be very careful when buying anything If just 1 person does not buy a van from him because of what I'm telling you, well that's his fault..

The company does have quite a few MH on Ebay and has good feedback (don't know where that came from)
The log book has still not arrived, I do have the other part and am in the process of sending for the log book. I have also included a letter to the DVLA, with a copy of the text regarding the trader threatening not to send the paperwork in.

Regarding the diesel in the fresh water tank -, when I contacted him to tell him about the diesel he said it will be ok nobody uses the fresh water for drinking (another topic) just rinse it out a couple of times and it will be fine!!!

The van is what I wanted , the design I wanted and will scrub up rather well

Cheers Mi dears

Moderator Note: Name of seller/dealer removed for the second and LAST time.
Any more trying to name him/them will result in the poster being banned and the whole posting removed.

 

[Damian]

First rule of buying any caravan/motorhome/boat/vehicle NEVER believe the seller !!!!!!!

Second rule: ALWAYS see the proposed purchase in the flesh !!!

Third rule: ALWAYS make sure everything works as it should !!!!

Fourth rule: NEVER part with any money unless you are completely happy with the results of rules 1, 2 and 3 . and have all the paperwork in your hand !!!!

I have lost count of the number of times I have been called out to various leisure vehicles etc because when the purchaser actually comes to use the thing, actually none of the on board equipment works, despite being told by the seller "Of course everything works perfectly "!!!! and the purchaser BELIEVING them !!!!!

As far as your last posting is concerned, and the answers given by the seller it is very obvious that they/he is NOT a genuine Dealer but a cowboy.

 

[Raywood]

Thats ok , paypal are not creditors, they are basically middle men so you can accept payment by using an email address, your paypal account can be funded by either payment to you, by adding money from your bank account or using a credit card, so the later he might be able to get some help?

If you knowingly use a credit card to pay Paypal you lose the cards protection as Paypal are then a middle man and any rights you have are against them. They are registered abroad and they take responsibility due to an agreement between them and the government.

 

[Dustydog]

Didn't know that Ray.
I thought my credit card gave me world wide cover even via PayPal.
So much for trying to protect yourself!
No matter what , surely good old English Law is there to protect the OP?

 

[Mel]

No matter what , surely good old English Law is there to protect the OP?

Sorry DD didn't quite catch that, your Tongue seems to be in your cheek. Are you trying to say Caveat emptor :evil:
Mel

 

[Dustydog]

No Mel.
For get credit cards PayPal and eBay.
If you have been cheated the good old English Law is or should be available to the OP to pursue restitution.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Sadly Ray is correct.

The Consumer credit act only places liability on the credit card company for the goods or service their funds are used to purchase. So using a credit card to fund a Paypal purchase, the credit card is only liable if Paypal fails to pass the money on. As Paypal are not providing credit in these circumstances is only passing money on and not providing credit, Paypal's transaction does not fall under tte Consumer Credit Act and section 75 does not apply.

This thread has thrown up some important consumer points, which don't only apply to the OP's position but to most of us.

The first point is who is liable if a delivery goes wrong. I have recently had a number of issues with deliveries from suppliers who charge me P&P. That means that delivery is part of the contract with the supplier. As I haven't arranged the carriage I have no contract with the courier, I have no rights to claim, that is the responsibility of the supplier who contracted the courier. This includes using the post office. The basis of this is that a main contractor is responsible for the actions and performance of any sub contractor they use and that includes the post and couriers they engage.

This contractor subcontractor relationship has ramifications for all purchases and especially new purchases, where a manufacturers guarantee is all so set up. I have often pointed out that the manufacturers guarantee is also a contract but it is a contract with the manufacturer and not the dealer. So if you have work carried out under the manufacturers guarantee the dealer is acting in the capacity of a sub contractor to the manufacturer. But if you have work carried out under your statutory rights under you purchase contract, and the dealer involves the manufacturer, legally the manufacturer is acting as sub contractor to the dealer, and cannot therefore dictate to the outcome the dealer.

Interesting isn't it!

 

[Dustydog]

Prof.
Almost fully understand the dilemma you illustrate.
Do you think the manufacturers guarantee is an additional protection that should not over ride your basic legal rights in tort or contract against the supplying dealer?
Maybe time for PCv to have a monthly legal page?

 

[Damian]

Prof.
Almost fully understand the dilemma you illustrate.
Do you think the manufacturers guarantee is an additional protection that should not over ride your basic legal rights in tort or contract against the supplying dealer?
Maybe time for PCv to have a monthly legal page?

Taken from one of the makers T&C's:

The purchaser has statutory rights in addition to this warranty and this warranty does not affect those statutory rights.

However, in the situation as described the buyer failed to take due diligence in the buying process.
He failed to even see the vehicle before purchase, failed to ascertain whether the "dealer" was a genuine dealer, failed to check the history of the vehicle, failed to ascertain whether everything was working or not.

He also stated that the problems "would probably not have been picked up by a mobile engineer", but I have to disagree as the problems reported are all part of the inspection process.

I would very much doubt the chances of any legal recourse.