Money Claim Online?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
So then, what will you be doing?

Not repenting, and I'm not sorry I bought it; I'm happy I'll be getting it even cheaper. MCOL here we go...

Gosh, Steve, what a wag you are; you should be on the stage.












Bring your own dust coat; a broom will be provided...
 
I think it'll all hinge on whether the trader knowingly sold you a bike that is slightly older than first thought.

Most traders will only go off the information they can find and if everything he's seen has shown it as a 2013 then I'd assume he's got at least one leg to stand on.
 
I think it'll all hinge on whether the trader knowingly sold you a bike that is slightly older than first thought.

Most traders will only go off the information they can find and if everything he's seen has shown it as a 2013 then I'd assume he's got at least one leg to stand on.

I agree that the trader can claim that it's the DVLA's fault for providing incorrect information.

But given that this is not B2B, and that as a consumer he has some protection, it is worth checking what the Consumer Protection Act says - it is quite feasible that it is still legally the trader's responsibility.

The other issue is obviously the value. Having two other 2010 bikes for sale at a lower price does not prove 'market value'... to be honest I would say that if the difference is small, then I would see what I can get from the trader but failing that I would not take it any further.
 
But if it was imported in 2012, and first registered in 2013, its not the dvla's fault, or the traders for that matter.
 
Mark, the claim is for £1250. A trader having two other identical 2010 bikes for sale at a lower price is, I suggest, a pretty good indication of relative market value, which is what is the issue here. if you really believe that the difference in value between a three-year-old bike and a six-year-old bike is small, I have a twelve-year-old E-class AMG that I'll sell you for only a little less than the market value of a six-year-old...:D

Nick, it's not a question of 'fault', though. Everybody along the line may have honestly believed the bike was a 2013 model, but it is not. The bike was not as advertised; that is a fact.

The trader takes a commercial risk with everything he sells, and if he sells something to a punter which is not as advertised, he is legally liable to make redress.

He in turn may have a case for compensation from the DVLA, which recorded the year of manufacture (incorrectly) as 2013, or from the original owner (British Transport Police) who undoubtedly put it into auction as a 2013, or from BCA. I rather doubt it, but I don't know how the law applies in those areas.

I've already seen what I can get from the trader; voluntarily, nothing. MCOL is designed to be quick and easy, and I have already drafted my submission. I have a valid case, and against the trader, and his initial reaction shows that he knows it. At the moment -typical trader reaction - he's just keeping his head down and hoping I'll be too busy, or lose interest, or emigrate, or die, or win the lottery, and that he won't hear from me again. I'm afraid he will, though, and that very soon...
 
Last edited:
Nick, it's not a question of 'fault', though. Everybody along the line may have honestly believed the bike was a 2013 model, but it is not. The bike was not as advertised; that is a fact.

The trader takes a commercial risk with everything he sells, and if he sells something to a punter which is not as advertised, he is legally liable to make redress.

He in turn may have a case for compensation from the DVLA, which recorded the year of manufacture (incorrectly) as 2013, or from the original owner (British Transport Police) who undoubtedly put it into auction as a 2013, or from BCA. I rather doubt it, but I don't know how the law applies in those areas.

But I thought it was imported in 2012, first registered in 2013, and presumably sold at auction this year?

Does the logbook under special notes have the words "Declared new at first registration"?

Won't the case hinge on actual use?

EG the 2010 bikes have been used for 6 years, and yours has been used for 3 years, meaning in theory it will last 3 longer than the older ones?

And aren't all non food manufactured goods a fair bit older than the date someone buys them?
 
I say again, the problem is that I bought it on the basis that it was a 2013 model. It isn't; it is a 2010 model.

There was a minor revamp to the FJR1300 for the 2011 model year, and a major facelift for the 2013. My initial thought was that it was a late 2012 model, registered in 2013, but it is not even that. Yamaha have confirmed it is a 2010 model, and actually manufactured in late 2009.

So far as use is concerned, it's not terribly relevant; it is mileage, not time, that wears vehicles out. If it wasn't, a 200,000-mile E63 would last longer, and be worth more, than a 50,000-mile 2010. I know which I would buy if I had to choose between them...

The issue is what year model the bike is, not when it was made. The ad clearly states "Model year: 2013". If it had simply been advertised as 2013-registered, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on; but it wasn't, so I have.

I have some sympathy for the dealer, but he takes a commercial risk when he trades. I'm not looking to screw him into the ground, just to reach a reasonable settlement. He's not helping by being incommunicado.
 
Last edited:
Everybody along the line may have honestly believed the bike was a 2013 model, but it is not. The bike was not as advertised; that is a fact.

Then why did you go ahead with the purchase then - so, with the greatest of respect ,it seems that you paid over the odds for a second hand machine that you didnt do your homework on prior to purchase, the machine was clearly a pre facelift model that you took ,on the advert info , as a later model. How many time have we all talked to a seller / dealer that clearly has no clue as to correct vehicle info who will take as much money off the customer as possible as that is what they are in business to do so as they say - buyer beware.

As we know the sticker price is no guarantee of "actual" market value so basing your claim amount on the older machines price may not be the most accurate method . There are too many variables when valuing similar second hand bikes like condition , wear on consumables , time of year , colour ,owners and loads of other factors.

Good luck with your claim and i genuinely do hope it works out for you.

Kenny.
 
What are the "significant higher specifications" of the 2013 over the 2009 models?

You say you're happy with the bike and want to keep it but you're not happy with the price you paid. It's a bit like seeing a product just purchased cheaper in another shop, a bit galling but that's life. I feel the opinion of the 'court' might just see your model misrepresentation as an excuse?
 
So far as use is concerned, it's not terribly relevant; it is mileage, not time, that wears vehicles out. If it wasn't, a 200,000-mile E63 would last longer, and be worth more, than a 50,000-mile 2010. I know which I would buy if I had to choose between them...

It is, because you have to back up the reason for getting £1250 back from the trader.

Do you have anything in writing from Yamaha to prove the 2009 thing, would someone from Yamaha UK be prepared to go to court on the day?

Seems odd that Yamaha would build something in 2009 and only import it 3 years later??
 
What are the "significant higher specifications" of the 2013 over the 2009 models?

Not much really :rolleyes:

For 2013[8] the FJR1300 received a substantial number of updates, becoming the 'Gen-III' version. Bodywork is all new on the front half of the bike for better airflow and engine heat management, and a new faster-acting windshield mechanism was introduced. Front turn signal/position lights are now LEDs and there are LED accent lights around the headlights, and there is now one horn instead of two on prior years. In markets outside the US and Canada the AS (AutoShift) model received electrically adjustable suspension and inverted front forks - those suspension changes were introduced into the North American models in the following year as a model option known as the 'ES'.

The dash is also revised and now includes three user-customizable informational pages that allow the rider to select what information is displayed on each page, from the following list: Odometer, Trip 1, Trip 2, Coolant Temperature, Air Temperature, Range (to empty), Average MPG, Current MPG, Timer 1. There are two other timers and two other distance meters for tracking maintenance intervals which can be reset, but not displayed on the information pages.

Mechanically, the engine now has plated-on (rather than pressed in) cylinder linings for better heat dissipation. The ECU is new and now employs Yamaha Chip Controlled Throttle (YCCT) system, which is a ride-by-wire system. The implementation on the FJR1300 includes 'D-Mode', which incorporates two driving modes, 'Sport' and 'Touring', the primary difference being smoothness of throttle response. In addition to that, the new ECU incorporates as standard has an integrated Traction Control System (TCS) which can be disabled, and Cruise Control.

In addition to new controls for D-Mode and cruise control, several controls are different. There's a new rocker on the left hand grip that controls the heated grips and which page is displayed on the information panel; which function the rocker provides is controlled by a trigger switch near the left forefinger. The stop/run rocker is now stop/run/start with the last position being momentary; the hazard flasher button is where the starter button was previously located. A similar rocker switch for headlight control provides high/low/flash controls.


I`ll get my coat - Kenny
 
Not much really :rolleyes:

For 2013[8] the FJR1300 received a substantial number of updates, becoming the 'Gen-III' version. Bodywork is all new on the front half of the bike for better airflow and engine heat management, and a new faster-acting windshield mechanism was introduced. Front turn signal/position lights are now LEDs and there are LED accent lights around the headlights, and there is now one horn instead of two on prior years. In markets outside the US and Canada the AS (AutoShift) model received electrically adjustable suspension and inverted front forks - those suspension changes were introduced into the North American models in the following year as a model option known as the 'ES'.

The dash is also revised and now includes three user-customizable informational pages that allow the rider to select what information is displayed on each page, from the following list: Odometer, Trip 1, Trip 2, Coolant Temperature, Air Temperature, Range (to empty), Average MPG, Current MPG, Timer 1. There are two other timers and two other distance meters for tracking maintenance intervals which can be reset, but not displayed on the information pages.

Mechanically, the engine now has plated-on (rather than pressed in) cylinder linings for better heat dissipation. The ECU is new and now employs Yamaha Chip Controlled Throttle (YCCT) system, which is a ride-by-wire system. The implementation on the FJR1300 includes 'D-Mode', which incorporates two driving modes, 'Sport' and 'Touring', the primary difference being smoothness of throttle response. In addition to that, the new ECU incorporates as standard has an integrated Traction Control System (TCS) which can be disabled, and Cruise Control.

In addition to new controls for D-Mode and cruise control, several controls are different. There's a new rocker on the left hand grip that controls the heated grips and which page is displayed on the information panel; which function the rocker provides is controlled by a trigger switch near the left forefinger. The stop/run rocker is now stop/run/start with the last position being momentary; the hazard flasher button is where the starter button was previously located. A similar rocker switch for headlight control provides high/low/flash controls.


I`ll get my coat - Kenny

Better make that an anorak Kenny.
 
Kenny, it's not a case of 'buyer beware' (caveat emptor). I say yet again, the issue is what year model the bike is, not when it was made. The ad clearly states "Model year: 2013". It is a 2010 model.

There is no onus in law on a buyer to do extensive research before buying anything from a trader; he or she is entitled to expect goods to be as advertised. The bike is not as advertised; that's a fact. The dealer is legally liable to make redress; that's a fact too. I bought it off eBay, and apart from the price I paid, I'm quite happy with it.

So far as the prices/valuations are concerned, the comparison is between identical bikes, in identical condition, with identical histories, advertised for sale by the same trader on the same day. I'd say that's about as good a basis for comparison as you could get.

Whitenemesis, specifications? See above (thank you, Kenny; I was just going to post the link...).

"It's a bit like seeing a product just purchased cheaper in another shop, a bit galling but that's life."

Er, no, it's not. It is in fact exactly like seeing a product, wrongly-described as a later model and just purchased, correctly-described as a previous model, and cheaper, in another shop.

ISTR your initial thought was that it would be necessary to show that the dealer knowingly mis-described the bike. That's wrong too.

Misrepresentation as an 'excuse'? If your Lexus was six years old, but advertised as three years old, and you had paid for it as a three-year-old, then found out its true age, you think a judge might reject a claim against the dealer, do you? I don't.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand this thread.

You specifically asked for opinions but are getting the hump because you don't like them.
 
But if the fairings are completely different, and the later model has led lights etc, would this not be similar to going out to buy a facelift 212 and coming home with a pre facelift by mistake?
 
Kenny, it's not a case of 'buyer beware' (caveat emptor). I say yet again, the issue is what year model the bike is, not when it was made. The ad clearly states "Model year: 2013". It is a 2010 model.

There is no onus in law on a buyer to do extensive research before buying anything from a trader; he or she is entitled to expect goods to be as advertised. The bike is not as advertised; that's a fact. The dealer is legally liable to make redress; that's a fact too. I bought it off eBay, and apart from the price I paid, I'm quite happy with it.

So far as the prices/valuations are concerned, the comparison is between identical bikes, in identical condition, with identical histories, advertised for sale by the same trader on the same day. I'd say that's about as good a basis for comparison as you could get.

Whitenemesis, specifications? See above (thank you, Kenny; I was just going to post the link...).

"It's a bit like seeing a product just purchased cheaper in another shop, a bit galling but that's life."

Er, no, it's not. It is in fact exactly like seeing a product, wrongly-described as a later model and just purchased, correctly-described as a previous model, and cheaper, in another shop.

ISTR your initial thought was that it would be necessary to show that the dealer knowingly mis-described the bike. That's wrong too.

Misrepresentation as an 'excuse'? If your Lexus was six years old, but advertised as three years old, and you had paid for it as a three-year-old, then found out its true age, you think a judge might reject a claim against the dealer, do you? I don't.

I think I would have politely told the dealer that they had made an obvious mistake and not purchased the car.... :dk:

The "significantly higher specifications" of the 2013 bike may not have been that obvious but as you said you're happy with the bike you purchased, I think you'll be lucky to get any monies back. Had you said you wanted to reject the bike and get what you thought you had purchased, might be different?
 
Nick, I do indeed have specific written proof - an email exchange with Yamaha, and they will provide a dating letter if required - that the bike is a 2010 model. It's not at all unusual for cars, and bikes, to sit around for some time after manufacture before they are sold.

Almost certainly nobody from Yamaha will be required to give evidence; the essence of the MCOL (previously small claims court) procedure is that minor claims are sorted out quickly, with the minimum of formality, and as little expense, as necessary. It is open to either side to call witnesses, and employ solicitors, if the wish, but only entirely at their own expense.

The claim, if I have to file it, will be for £1250 plus the filing fee. If it does go that far, unless the trader is really pig-headed and unreasonable, and I don't think he is, he will make me an offer of settlement, which if reasonable I will accept, and it will never go in front of a judge. I rather hope that once he sees that I am not going to give up, he will make me a reasonable offer before the claim is filed.

Whitenemesis, early on in the process I offered the trader the opportunity to take the bike back for a full refund; he declined.

Lewyboy, I did indeed ask for opinions, and some are mostly based on misapprehensions or misunderstandings, so I am correcting and rebutting as necessary. Your misapprehension is that I am getting the hump...:D
 
Last edited:
..............

Whitenemesis, early on in the process I offered the trader the opportunity to take the bike back for a full refund; he declined.

..............

Ah, I must have missed that bit. What was his reason for declining?

It's this bit I find difficult to reconcile..

"I want to keep it; there's nothing wrong with it except the price. "

Had you not seen his other bikes would you still think this too expensive for the year?
 
Last edited:
But if the fairings are completely different, and the later model has led lights etc, would this not be similar to going out to buy a facelift 212 and coming home with a pre facelift by mistake?

From an earlier post: "My initial thought was that it was a late 2012 model, registered in 2013". 'Twas only the handbook issue that set me to digging in the first place.
 
From an earlier post: "My initial thought was that it was a late 2012 model, registered in 2013". 'Twas only the handbook issue that set me to digging in the first place.

So the spec and model is correct after all?

From what I can gather from earlier posts, Yamaha imported it in 2012, and sold new in 2013?

You were not expecting the later model, its just the not being first registered for a while thing that's the issue?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom