• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Bought an R129 unseen - a Cautionary Tale...

If you are seeking accuracy why leave out the bit where he takes it away?

I think you'll find that's the going to be the important bit.

Really? I think we can safely say that was presumed under the terms of the correction, unless one is attempting to be deliberately obtuse.
 
Last edited:
d) if he insists on getting it back, I'll put his old knackered bits back on

Now be careful. Very easy for the seller to say you took it (200 MILES AWAY NO LESS) without consent. If he doesn't get a deal to his liking (but I suspect judging by what you say he will deal) it would only require one trip to the cop shop and file a theft report. I'm sure the police would be the first one's to tell you that you actually stole the car. Yes, there's plenty of other mitigating/non-mitigating facts/points to take into consideration but it's not your car, simples. Also too he might call your bluff and demand it back...Hope all goes well.

Anyway, it looks good in the photos :thumb:
 
Misfire could be down to several things. Despite the low voltage repair there may be a fault there. More likely is that a fault with the HT coils has blown one or more of the ignition control transistors in the ECU---- they can be repaired by DIY for someone competent with a soldering iron [ I posted a HOW TO some time back] Other companies such as BBA Reman will offer a repair/exchange service at a price less than a replacement ECU. Other possibility is a blown head gasket- This can be checked by removing the spark plugs and examining the top of the pistons.

ps sometimes ignition HT faults can simply be due to faulty plug extenders under the coils = Easy repair=buy new ones AGAIN removing the plugs and examining them may help pinpoint the problem
 
Last edited:
OP:How much was the car if you don't mind me asking??

I'm sure it'll look nice once sorted
 
Who's got the log book?
Probably the seller has, but I'm beginning to wonder who exactly is the registered keeper at the moment. I think I'll see if the DVLA will tell me that.

John, so far as I am aware theft requires an intention permanently to deprive the owner of their property. That is manifestly not the case. In effect, I am simply holding the car as security for the money I already paid pending agreement on the final deal. If he refunds the deposit, I will return it, but in the condition it was originally in.

He's already stated that he is willing to negotiate once the cost of putting it into running order is known. I want to deal; he wants to deal. Simples also?
 
Mind you, the name on the log book is technically the registered keeper not the actual owner.

Sounds like it'll get sorted one way or another though, all the best with it, you've not been having much luck buying blind just lately have you?
 
Probably the seller has, but I'm beginning to wonder who exactly is the registered keeper at the moment. I think I'll see if the DVLA will tell me that.

John, so far as I am aware theft requires an intention permanently to deprive the owner of their property. That is manifestly not the case. In effect, I am simply holding the car as security for the money I already paid pending agreement on the final deal. If he refunds the deposit, I will return it, but in the condition it was originally in.

He's already stated that he is willing to negotiate once the cost of putting it into running order is known. I want to deal; he wants to deal. Simples also?

Yeah, I know where you're coming from alright and you obviously know the seller at this stage so I could be making a bit more of a drama out of the current situation than there really is.

Still, I for one would not have gone down the path you've taken. Anyway, as I said earlier I hope all goes o.k..
 
Mind you, the name on the log book is technically the registered keeper not the actual owner.

Sounds like it'll get sorted one way or another though, all the best with it, you've not been having much luck buying blind just lately have you?

Yes, I know. No, not much. :wallbash:
 
Yeah, I know where you're coming from alright and you obviously know the seller at this stage so I could be making a bit more of a drama out of the current situation than there really is.

Still, I for one would not have gone down the path you've taken. Anyway, as I said earlier I hope all goes o.k..

If I had known what was going to happen, I'd never have started in the first place , but in the circumstances I found myself in :wallbash::wallbash:, what would you have done? I couldn't think of any other course of action without kissing my deposit goodbye...

(By the bye, the seller didn't reappear on the scene until the following afternoon. A little bird tells me that he was in police custody till then...)
 
Last edited:
If I had known what was going to happen, I'd never have started in the first place , but in the circumstances I found myself in :wallbash::wallbash:, what would you have done? I couldn't think of any other course of action without kissing my deposit goodbye...

(By the bye, the seller didn't reappear on the scene until the following afternoon. A little bird tells me that he was in police custody till then...)

Well, being very candid I'd never hand over a deposit never mind a 60% deposit on the basis of collecting an unknown car from an unknown seller 2-3 months later as that's a commitment too far, it's simply letting the seller have carte blanche to do as he feels fit. The exception I would make is only if I knew the seller previously.
 

Well the ebay photo was clearly taken on Rutland Street, a few yards from Trade Car Centre. If you look on Google there is even a SL on the street (same colour, different wheels/indicators).

I'd be worried about the ownership of the car - the guy is no longer part of Trade Centre, so was he selling his own car through their ebay account as an employee at the time, or was it actually a trade to the trade centre that he has no entitlement to ?

Anyway I hope you can resolve the deal successfully, legally own the car and fix the issues economically
 
Let's be honest...buying a 20+ year old V8 convertible Mercedes unseen was never a good idea.

Heart ruling head at some point i'm guessing?

Anyway, what's done is done, just have to move on and try and make the best of a very bad situation. Good luck.

I remember seeing the car on ebay at some point and remember thinking it was strong money but you can never tell from the ad what the car is really like.
 
Let's be honest...buying a 20+ year old V8 convertible Mercedes unseen was never a good idea.

Heart ruling head at some point i'm guessing?

Anyway, what's done is done, just have to move on and try and make the best of a very bad situation. Good luck.

I remember seeing the car on ebay at some point and remember thinking it was strong money but you can never tell from the ad what the car is really like.

I rather think it was advertised for £6K originally. That's certainly silly money, and I'm not paying anywhere near that.

Heart ruling head? Yes, to a degree; it was love at first sight...:o Unrequited love so far, but I think I may have worked out what the running problem is, and it shouldn't cost much to fix. Once it's running properly, we'll see...

As you say, what's done is done. I don't think I'm in a bad situation at all, though; I physically have the car, I've paid less than it's worth as a runner so far, even including the distributor caps and rotors and the new battery, and the seller wants to reach an accommodation. The only potential fly in the ointment is if he doesn't have good title to it, and I'm looking into that.

Fortunately, if it comes to it I can afford to lose all it has cost me so far, but I don't think it will come to that.

Have faith, oh ye of little faith. More anon...
 
1) The V5C on shows who is registered keeper, and DVLA do not keep details on owner.

2) The only way to prove ownership in a court of law is through receipts, except land and property which has owner registration at LR.

3) If the other party claims the vehicle is stolen, and you convince the Police that you own the vehicle, they are more likely to refer both parties to the civil courts rather than use criminal law, especially when it is hard to prove who is the actual owner.

4) I am surprised that there isn't an actual owner's database alongside the registered keeper's database. This would resolve a lot of issues.
 
Jeez thats some read and heartbreaker too.

Will keep my eye on this thread for sure. I suspect the seller will not want too close a legal pair of eyes investigating this or his other dealing and you may just get away with 60% deposit as full price. You have not deprived the seller of his car (something at the back of my mind says this is theft) you have merely taken it for inspection. methinks the seller will just say "Gentlemens small round things" to it and walk away and find his next victim. In all this fuss and bother - Did you not have a conversation with the seller and agree a 40% reduction on the asking price. Apply for the log book and be done with this. Good Luck.
 
1) The V5C on shows who is registered keeper, and DVLA do not keep details on owner.

2) The only way to prove ownership in a court of law is through receipts, except land and property which has owner registration at LR.

3) If the other party claims the vehicle is stolen, and you convince the Police that you own the vehicle, they are more likely to refer both parties to the civil courts rather than use criminal law, especially when it is hard to prove who is the actual owner.

4) I am surprised that there isn't an actual owner's database alongside the registered keeper's database. This would resolve a lot of issues.

Yes, I know, but the V5C is as good an indication of good title as you (almost) ever get with a car.

I am sure I could convince the police the vehicle is not stolen, but I am not the owner. Wish I were...

I agree it's surprising that there is no DVSA database of owners.

Trapperjohn, that's a tempting thought, but since communication has been re-established, if I were to apply for a logbook that would rather imply that I intended permanently to deprive the seller of the car, and that WOULD suggest theft.

At the moment, I suppose, I could at worst be described as having Taken Without Consent. Now that would be a first; instead of a low-life thrashing a stolen banger round a council estate, a highly respectable OAP twocker pays a low-life a hefty deposit on an emerging classic and takes it away on a low loader :D

I'm happy to pay a fair price for the car, anyway; it's just the assessment of its true condition to inform that fair price that is taking the time, but I'm getting there.

Actually, having got over the initial hassle, I'm quite enjoying it...
 
Last edited:
In the eyes of the law if the person you are dealing with is not the owner, you have a charge of TWOC (Taking Without Owners Consent) hanging over you, different to theft as you quite rightly point out no intent to deprive owner of assets.

SWMBO did two family cases in court similar to this, one a car bought cash that was still on finance (even though checks showed it clear) and a car that was sold by a persons brother who was not the owner and did not want it selling. In both cases the court ruled in favour of the owner (and in 99% of cases always does)

Guess what I am saying is tread very carefully as if it all goes pear shaped and gets into court the original owner will win hands down.
 
Considering you don't have the log book and the seller is providing a story of no longer trade but private, coupled with the "little bird" police story. What makes you think he even owned it to start with?

It's not beyond the realms of possibility you are now in possession of a stolen vehicle, never mind the suggestion you have TWOC hanging over you.

This has shambles written all over it.

Too whom did you pay the deposit? A private individual or a business?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom