Recovering Funds from a private sales forum purchase

New Avon Arms
25 Sharps

25 Sharps

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Hello all

After a bit of help on my legal options with regards recovering money from a sale where the seller incorrectly described the item which is a rifle.

I have recently purchased a secondhand rifle that was advertised as having a shot count of around 500 rounds on a forum, there was correspondence via PM in which I queried the bore and crown of the rifle, the seller confirmed the bore was in excellent condition. The seller sent me some extra photo's (not of the bore) and a photo of the invoice for the rebarrel he had had done on the rifle dated 1998 - I called the next day to discuss the rifle and during that conversation I again queried the shot count, 500 rounds didn't seem many for 20 years. The response was that when he had the rifle built he was using it for foxing on a farm he had permission on and since getting his 7.62 he had not really used it on the range so the shot count was genuine and the bore was good, no expense was spared having this rifle built he told me.

We agreed I'd pay the asking price and he would include the RFD transfer cost his end within that price.

The rifle arrived at my RFD the following week, when I picked it up looked down the bore and there didn't look to be very pronounced (any) rifling ahead of the chamber. I got the rifle home and mentioned this to a couple of shooting mate's who said it probably needed a good clean and that would reveal the rifling. It was a few days before I had time but when I did clean it my fears were confirmed, even to the naked eye its was obvious ahead of the chamber the rifling was flat to the bore for the first couple of inches or so. This was confirmed by the fact that the cleaning rod, once clear of the rod guide, did not pick up the rifling and start spinning until around 3" into the bore. Basically the rifle has done far, far more work than advertised (I suspect several thousand rounds) and is quite clearly shot out. Another forum member can attest to this, he had been taking the mick out of me up to the point he looked down the bore and his exact words were 'that really is quite shocking'!

I tried calling the seller once but got no answer, I decided to get in touch via PM, the first message asking him to get in touch was ignored, as was the second for a day or so (even though the seller had been active on the forum). I then simply got a message entitled 'My mistake' and simply stating 'Sorry my maths was wong it will be 475 back, 525 paid, minus 50 to deliver both ends'.

This seems almost to be referring to a previous message but equally the maths was wrong could refer to the shot count (missing '0' maybe?) - either way he has the sale cost wrong by £25.00 and it seems is suggesting that I should be covering the cost of the transfers down and back. I have replied asking if he is saying that he will take the rifle back, and that though i will cover the costs my end (transfer on to my ticket and transfer off postage back) I feel the full £550.00 sale price should be refunded as the rifle is clearly not as described.

Its been a couple of days now and he has logged in at least twice but there is no response, I've bought lots off of the forum and others and other than some dodgy brass once all sales have been really good and as described, I feel a bit deflated by it all as I have been blatantly lied to, verbally and in writing, by a fellow shooter and forum user just so he can off load a shot out rifle for more than its worth.

What are my options legally - is the small claims court route viable, I have the confirmation of the excellent condition in writing, I could get a report on the actual condition easily enough?

Thanks in advance for any advice.
 
Boydy47 said:
Hello all

After a bit of help on my legal options with regards recovering money from a sale where the seller incorrectly described the item which is a rifle.

I have recently purchased a secondhand rifle that was advertised as having a shot count of around 500 rounds on a forum, there was correspondence via PM in which I queried the bore and crown of the rifle, the seller confirmed the bore was in excellent condition. The seller sent me some extra photo's (not of the bore) and a photo of the invoice for the rebarrel he had had done on the rifle dated 1998 - I called the next day to discuss the rifle and during that conversation I again queried the shot count, 500 rounds didn't seem many for 20 years. The response was that when he had the rifle built he was using it for foxing on a farm he had permission on and since getting his 7.62 he had not really used it on the range so the shot count was genuine and the bore was good, no expense was spared having this rifle built he told me.

We agreed I'd pay the asking price and he would include the RFD transfer cost his end within that price.

The rifle arrived at my RFD the following week, when I picked it up looked down the bore and there didn't look to be very pronounced (any) rifling ahead of the chamber. I got the rifle home and mentioned this to a couple of shooting mate's who said it probably needed a good clean and that would reveal the rifling. It was a few days before I had time but when I did clean it my fears were confirmed, even to the naked eye its was obvious ahead of the chamber the rifling was flat to the bore for the first couple of inches or so. This was confirmed by the fact that the cleaning rod, once clear of the rod guide, did not pick up the rifling and start spinning until around 3" into the bore. Basically the rifle has done far, far more work than advertised (I suspect several thousand rounds) and is quite clearly shot out. Another forum member can attest to this, he had been taking the mick out of me up to the point he looked down the bore and his exact words were 'that really is quite shocking'!

I tried calling the seller once but got no answer, I decided to get in touch via PM, the first message asking him to get in touch was ignored, as was the second for a day or so (even though the seller had been active on the forum). I then simply got a message entitled 'My mistake' and simply stating 'Sorry my maths was wong it will be 475 back, 525 paid, minus 50 to deliver both ends'.

This seems almost to be referring to a previous message but equally the maths was wrong could refer to the shot count (missing '0' maybe?) - either way he has the sale cost wrong by £25.00 and it seems is suggesting that I should be covering the cost of the transfers down and back. I have replied asking if he is saying that he will take the rifle back, and that though i will cover the costs my end (transfer on to my ticket and transfer off postage back) I feel the full £550.00 sale price should be refunded as the rifle is clearly not as described.

Its been a couple of days now and he has logged in at least twice but there is no response, I've bought lots off of the forum and others and other than some dodgy brass once all sales have been really good and as described, I feel a bit deflated by it all as I have been blatantly lied to, verbally and in writing, by a fellow shooter and forum user just so he can off load a shot out rifle for more than its worth.

What are my options legally - is the small claims court route viable, I have the confirmation of the excellent condition in writing, I could get a report on the actual condition easily enough?

Thanks in advance for any advice.
Click to expand...
As one of the other people who has seen the rifling I can confirm the description if the barrel is not consistent with 500 rounds , you can clearly see the start of the rifling several inches past the chamber ! As the seller appears to be active mainly in selling gear on this forum , and always seems to be claiming his stuff is first rate I would be very loath to become involved with any of his current or future "bargains"
 
I wouldn't be looking at resolving this via legal options. It seems as though he has agreed in writing to take the rifle back and to the principle of refunding you, the only problem being a disagreement over £75 of transfer fees and inability to count. Filing a small claim will cost more than this, and be more of a hassle. I'd suggest that if you can't resolve it with him directly, that you write to him saying that three courses of action are available:
1. He does exactly what you want, or proposes an alternative you find acceptable.
2. You start a small claim (and phrase the letter so that it serves notice of an intention to do this if the situation has not been fully resolved, the rifle returned and repayment made - googling will help you with this)
or 3. You both accept mediation from some mutually agreeable and independent individual and agree in advance to be bound by his decision. Possibly one of the group admins might agree in return for receiving a charitable donation of £20 from each of you for a suitable charity?

This sort of thing is always disappointing, but to play devil's advocate: you had suspicions about this, and accepted an explanation that - the way I read it, doesn't sound wholly convincing to say the least. That doesn't excuse mis-description, but it should reduce your indignation. There's always a risk buying like this, and this time it hasn't worked out. The small claims court is an option, but it's the most undesirable of those above, and you will be expected to have offered mediation or some form of alternate dispute resolution first.
 
I would try and resolve it directly. Small claims works and is definitely a route to go down and the vendor will end up paying your costs as well if it proves successful. The court expects you though to have tried to settle prior to bringing the claim.

Distance seller regulations do allow you to inspect the goods and to return for a full refund within 14 days, but you need to cover the postage return costs. Frankly not even any need to get into the argument as to whether or not its as advertised etc - simply its not what you want so return it to the RFD who posted it to you - and get receipts for the postage.

If he doesn't return your money then go down the small claims court, stating that goods were received, where not as advertised and where returned. You will have to pay a fee to the court, but in your application to the court you should ask for the defendant to cover costs if he looses. You, or a representative needs to turn up to court on the day of the hearing. If the court upholds your claim the court will make a judgement against him for the claim and your costs and it will show as a CCJ until you inform the courts it is settled in full.
 
Heym SR20 said:
I would try and resolve it directly. Small claims works and is definitely a route to go down and the vendor will end up paying your costs as well if it proves successful. The court expects you though to have tried to settle prior to bringing the claim.

Distance seller regulations do allow you to inspect the goods and to return for a full refund within 14 days, but you need to cover the postage return costs. Frankly not even any need to get into the argument as to whether or not its as advertised etc - simply its not what you want so return it to the RFD who posted it to you - and get receipts for the postage.

If he doesn't return your money then go down the small claims court, stating that goods were received, where not as advertised and where returned. You will have to pay a fee to the court, but in your application to the court you should ask for the defendant to cover costs if he looses. You, or a representative needs to turn up to court on the day of the hearing. If the court upholds your claim the court will make a judgement against him for the claim and your costs and it will show as a CCJ until you inform the courts it is settled in full.
Click to expand...

You may then also have the hassle of trying to collect on the CCJ, and instructing and agent or bailiff or whatever they're called to help with this. Hopefully, the other party might read this thread and realising that he's on unsound ground sort it out properly and honourably. It's a silly situation to be stuck on over £75, which is really not enough to be worth digging in over.
 
Sorry to hear this Scott.

500 rounds through a .223 doesn’t strip the first two inches of rifling from the throat in my opinion either.
 
Apthorpe said:
I wouldn't be looking at resolving this via legal options. It seems as though he has agreed in writing to take the rifle back and to the principle of refunding you, the only problem being a disagreement over £75 of transfer fees and inability to count. Filing a small claim will cost more than this, and be more of a hassle. I'd suggest that if you can't resolve it with him directly, that you write to him saying that three courses of action are available:
1. He does exactly what you want, or proposes an alternative you find acceptable.
2. You start a small claim (and phrase the letter so that it serves notice of an intention to do this if the situation has not been fully resolved, the rifle returned and repayment made - googling will help you with this)
or 3. You both accept mediation from some mutually agreeable and independent individual and agree in advance to be bound by his decision. Possibly one of the group admins might agree in return for receiving a charitable donation of £20 from each of you for a suitable charity?

This sort of thing is always disappointing, but to play devil's advocate: you had suspicions about this, and accepted an explanation that - the way I read it, doesn't sound wholly convincing to say the least. That doesn't excuse mis-description, but it should reduce your indignation. There's always a risk buying like this, and this time it hasn't worked out. The small claims court is an option, but it's the most undesirable of those above, and you will be expected to have offered mediation or some form of alternate dispute resolution first.
Click to expand...

The explanation was wholley convincing, he went on to tell me all the other rifles he has and that it simply hadn't used it that much, I trusted him, that was my mistake and clearly I was niaive. I am trying to resolve this but he is not responding so I now have to look at other alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Heym SR20 said:
I would try and resolve it directly. Small claims works and is definitely a route to go down and the vendor will end up paying your costs as well if it proves successful. The court expects you though to have tried to settle prior to bringing the claim.

Distance seller regulations do allow you to inspect the goods and to return for a full refund within 14 days, but you need to cover the postage return costs. Frankly not even any need to get into the argument as to whether or not its as advertised etc - simply its not what you want so return it to the RFD who posted it to you - and get receipts for the postage.

If he doesn't return your money then go down the small claims court, stating that goods were received, where not as advertised and where returned. You will have to pay a fee to the court, but in your application to the court you should ask for the defendant to cover costs if he looses. You, or a representative needs to turn up to court on the day of the hearing. If the court upholds your claim the court will make a judgement against him for the claim and your costs and it will show as a CCJ until you inform the courts it is settled in full.
Click to expand...

The complication with firearms is I can't return directly to the seller and and RFD will only accept the rifle under the seller's instruction.
 
1. In the Small Claims Court i.e claims under £10K , even if you are successful, legal costs awarded are minimal. That is the point of the small claims court to prevent small claims spiralling out of control with legal costs.
2. Distance selling regulations only apply to businesses, not sure what the legal position of the RFD is in this situation but you would probably only end up shafting the RFD.
3. You will almost certainly not get back what it costs you whatever the outcome. If you do go down the legal route it will take months then you will have to go through mediation, a court visit i.e time off work, stress, travel costs etc!

With my business I have been down this road several times, not for the money but out of principal. I feel I have won in the end but never financially but they do get a CCJ for being a scumbag!

Frustrating as it is it will not be worth for it for £75.00 unless you want to make a point, I know it is too late but for larger amounts I would always insist on some sort of secure payment method i.e Paypal even if I have to cover the cost of the fees.
 
johngryphon said:
Maybe the rifle did 500 rounds but with the absolute amount of powder crammed into the cases.
Click to expand...

Boydy47 said:
Maybe 500 rounds of milsurp on the trot, point is the bore was described in the negotiation as being in excellent condition which it definitely is not
Click to expand...

There's a little bit of a clue in the advert "chambered for SS109". That stuff if fairly hot and if long strings of that ex-mil round was shot in quick succession such as on the range then I wouldn't be surprised to see rapid wear to a barrel and he could well be telling the truth when the figure of 500 rounds was mentioned.

Legally I think it would be difficult to prove to the court that the description given was deliberately misleading as it was a private sale (caveat emptor) and it may have been the seller's honest, even if incorrect opinion, that the bore was in good condition. Unfortunately it's one of the chances you take when buying unseen from a private seller.
 
8x57 said:
There's a little bit of a clue in the advert "chambered for SS109". That stuff if fairly hot and if long strings of that ex-mil round was shot in quick succession such as on the range then I wouldn't be surprised to see rapid wear to a barrel and he could well be telling the truth when the figure of 500 rounds was mentioned.

Legally I think it would be difficult to prove to the court that the description given was deliberately misleading as it was a private sale (caveat emptor) and it may have been the seller's honest, even if incorrect opinion, that the bore was in good condition. Unfortunately it's one of the chances you take when buying unseen from a private seller.
Click to expand...
and with 20/20 hindsight everything the seller advertises is described as in excellent/as new/good/superb condition or equivelant words, as to the bore condition, this is not a subtle wearing of the lands, more an absence of them for some inches! if you can do that in 500 or even a 1000 rounds then most if not all military firearms would be goosed in the first year of service!
as an aside my stalking Howa has had some thousands of .308 rounds down the barrel, on one occasion over 200 milsurp in a day! yet its rifling is still crisp and visible and it shoots sub MOA
 
Kenny I had a .222rem Tikka rifle that frankly I lost count of the number of rounds that I fired through it but in the range of 12,000 over 14 years. It shot particularly well (consistent 1/2" groups) right up until the day that I loaned it to four other shooters so that they could shoot the small deer rifle event of the H4H shoot. So in total we put 50 rounds through it in fairly rapid succession, say 20 minutes. That cooked it and the best I could get out of it after that was a 2" group. Incidentally I've heard a couple of other shooters mention that rather than a gradual deterioration in accuracy they have experienced a sudden loss of accuracy as Sako barrels have suddenly given up the ghost.

As you are probably aware military weapons are normally designed with high resistance to wear barrels rather than accuracy in mind. That is why special steels and ceramic linings are used. You simply don't get the opportunity to slow down and pace yourself in a hot situation.

I'm not taking sides in this argument but simply pointing out that if it did come to a matter for the court to decide it just could be rather difficult for Boydy to make his case.
 
Last edited:
I think there seems to be lack of focus on what the problem actually is.
Whether or not it is possible to trash a barrel to this degree in 500 rounds is irrelevant.​
The vendor has apparently accepted the rifle wasn't as described and the condition of the rifle is not contested. The only point of disagreement is who should pay the associated costs. It's not a large sum of money and there is a risk of both sides being somewhat unwise and digging in over this. Going to court over this would be most unwise for both parties. At the moment, poor communication seems to be creating much of the trouble.
 
8x57 said:
Kenny I had a .222rem Tikka rifle that frankly I lost count of the number of rounds that I fired through it but in the range of 12,000 over 14 years. It shot particularly well (consistent 1/2" groups) right up until the day that I loaned it to four other shooters so that they could shoot the small deer rifle event of the H4H shoot. So in total we put 50 rounds through it in fairly rapid succession, say 20 minutes. That cooked it and the best I could get out of it after that was a 2" group. Incidentally I've heard a couple of other shooters mention that rather than a gradual deterioration in accuracy they have experienced a sudden loss of accuracy as Sako barrels have suddenly given up the ghost.

As you are probably aware military weapons are normally designed with high resistance to wear barrels rather than accuracy in mind. That is why special steels and ceramic linings are used. You simply don't get the opportunity to slow down and pace yourself in a hot situation.

I'm not taking sides in this argument but simply pointing out that if it did come to a matter for the court to decide it just could be rather difficult for Boydy to make his case.
Click to expand...


its not a sako barrel its a Shillen Stainless..
 
Last edited:
Apthorpe said:
I think there seems to be lack of focus on what the problem actually is.
Whether or not it is possible to trash a barrel to this degree in 500 rounds is irrelevant.​
The vendor has apparently accepted the rifle wasn't as described and the condition of the rifle is not contested. The only point of disagreement is who should pay the associated costs. It's not a large sum of money and there is a risk of both sides being somewhat unwise and digging in over this. Going to court over this would be most unwise for both parties. At the moment, poor communication seems to be creating much of the trouble.
Click to expand...

The seller has made an offer and I have accepted, I am covering all transfer fees, so £100.00 out of pocket - I hope he comes good and refunds the money rifle will be sent from my RFD as soon as funds clear.
 
Boydy47 said:
The seller has made an offer and I have accepted, I am covering all transfer fees, so £100.00 out of pocket - I hope he comes good and refunds the money rifle will be sent from my RFD as soon as funds clear.
Click to expand...

I am glad it is to be settled Boydy47. It is wrong you should have to pay the transportation cost imo. The fellow sent you faulty goods,he should pay the costs, did he think you wouldn't notice the damage. I wonder what Shillen thinks about one of their bbl's being goosed in 500 shots. john
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Notifying purchase of rifle
Replies
14
Views
1K
Trickyd66
T
English RFD to Northern Ireland RFD transfer
Replies
15
Views
570
Accurate 1
A
Professional or recreational insurance - homeloads
Replies
3
Views
312
finnbear270
finnbear270
FAC Grant Time
2
Replies
22
Views
976
Stephenbuck2489
Stephenbuck2489
Becoming a carer
Replies
11
Views
813
Bowland blades
Bowland blades
Back
Top