Approximately 18 months after the purchase of the car here is the summary of the alleged faults we identified:
His description of the vehicle was wrong on several points (date, model, history, VCR eligibility). For us, based on his writings alone, the desire to deceive was obvious.
We noted a large number of inaccuracies, approximations and lies on his part during the various exchanges we had with him, up to and including his silence.
He had sold the car before buying it.
He had not kept his written commitment to buy back the car in case of non-eligibility for VCR.
He had an FFVE certificate and a registration document drawn up based on information that he knew to be false.
Mr. C.’s side:
He had the FFVE issue a certificate based on false statements
He had transformed the car to make it look like a “Brighton car”
He had received the sum paid by the dealer whereas the car belonged to an association
Finally, the FFVE had been deceived and had every reason to file a civil suit.
It was a good start for us.
We were relatively satisfied with the arguments we had accumulated and we were serenely awaiting the response to our complaint that we had filed, a year earlier, that is to say on June 1, 2011.
(To be continued…)
Related posts –