Vice Cachee Cauchemar
Strap in because this is one hell of a tale, sadly, it’s non-fiction.
I wish that I had known about this before and I sincerely hope that my sorry tale will prevent anyone else from suffering the same situation.
First off, I have been very fortunate throughout my lifelong love of Motorbikes. I have met best mates, had great times, gone to almost all the must do events, had a string of amazing bikes, raced on the track and offroad, been featured in a few Motorcycle magazines for events I’ve been at and the bikes I have built. Every time I have sold or bought a bike, the experience was honest and often led to new friendships.
I know an awful lot about bikes and I know exactly what I’m buying and selling.
That luck ran out with a vengeance in July 2020.
After a year of owning a Ducati Monster 796 (my 5th Ducati to date) I decided to sell it – honestly, it was a bit dull and lacked the character of Ducatis of the past – but it was low KM and in mint condition, never saw rain and lived indoors. I bought it from a French guy who also had other Ducatis and clearly knew about them, we had coffee and chatted about bikes. The bike was mint, frame numbers, engine numbers all present and correct, paperwork propre and it had just been serviced
by Ducati Poitiers.
The only variation from standard was the First-Generation model Ducati Monster (they were actually better looking and had actual character) headlight and small fairing, plus some nicer, far more expensive upgraded Fatbar handlebars, all of which enticed me to buy it in the first place. The standard headlight and parts were provided with the sale.
I changed the standard exhaust silencers for something more vocal whilst I had it and I uprated the clutch mastercylinder and slave for an Oberon upgrade (a very popular and not inexpensive option) a well-known improvement for this model. Plus, the big clunky numberplate holder was removed for a smaller mounting bracket.
The bike rode perfectly, my friends rode it, they know bikes. Apart from it being rather dull, and very unlike older Ducatis, there was nothing at all unusual about it. I rode it for around 400kms in total. It never saw anything other than a sunny day and dry roads, lived in the garage, obviously. I wasn’t using it in 2020 and decided to sell it on Leboncoin (again, never had a bad experience buying and selling on Leboncoin). The advert was very clear about the changes I had made to it.
Enter the bane of my life for the last 4 years. A Mr. Rithya Seng contacted me.
Firstly he asked me if the bike was destricted (bridee) because he only had an A2 35KW licence and was moving up from a 125cc, I said “no it’s full power – never mind, don’t buy it”. He asked for a copy of the Carte Grise to confirm the classification. At this point, I should have smelt a rat, but because of my previous experiences with buying and selling bikes, I defaulted to ‘people into bikes are alright’ mode. I sent him a copy of the carte grise along with the service history and a video of the bike running in the garage.
He adored the bike, particularly the exhaust sound. Still his problem was that his licence restricted him to a 35KW bike.
At this point, I had two other prospective buyers interested in the bike. Being old fashioned and having one of those moral compasses, I work on a first come first served basis when selling stuff. Rithya Seng really wanted the bike. He told me that he “had a friend at MotoMove Ducati in Limoges who could restrict it”. This involves a mechanical throttle restriction kit, like this:
He said he wanted to buy the bike but couldn’t legally ride it. Again, like an idiot, I offered to take it to Limoges on my bike trailer (because my son was learning to fly at Limoges Aeroclub and I was going there regularly – again, the whole naiive bike selling/friends thing). I met Seng at Limoges airport, with the bike. He spent an hour looking around it, checking the frame and engine numbers against the paperwork, started it up etc. Obviously he couldn’t legally ride it. He agreed to buy it, haggled to 5200 Euros, but asked if I could take it directly to MotoMove at Limoges to have the restrictor kit fitted. Asked me to put the standard exhausts back on it (which would be a condition of restricting it) I agreed, but it would have to be the following week when I was next taking my son to the Aeroclub. I then let the other prospective queue of buyers know the bike was sold in principle.
I generally thought I was helping out a youngish guy get his first ‘big’ bike.
I put the original standard silencers back on the bike, as per his request.
I do not sell bikes to anyone unless I would be happy riding them myself. As I hadn’t ridden the bike in a while I gave it a once over check before selling it. The battery was a little tired, and the rear brake action was a bit spongy. They worked but I ordered a new battery. Annoyingly, the battery arrived 10mm wider than the correct one (an ‘X’ on the reference). Therefore, at Motomove, I explained to Seng that I was not happy with the action of the rear brake and battery, so offered him 200 Euros to cover the cost of bleeding the brake and a new battery. He rode the bike around the MotoMove carpark (the only legal place he could ride it) a couple of times, commented upon “how heavy and powerful it was compared to his 125cc”. His MotoMove friend came out and looked at the bike, I explained the rear brake and he said “yeah they are difficult to bleed because they’re upside down) but it transpired that the 200 Euros more than covered the costs. My son was with me
the entire time.
Seng bought it, I went home.
One week later, I received a wassap from Seng claiming a MotoMove bill of almost 500 Euros for items like new rear view mirrors, numberplate holders etc. In order to “restrict the bike”. He also stated that the frame numbers could not be read (even though he had read them the previous week, I had read them, Ducati Poitiers read them etc.) Knowing that the restriction involved a mechanical restrictor, I assumed, not least by the way in which he wobbled around MotoMove carpark that he had an accident on the bike and damaged the parts he was claiming for, so I immediately jumped in my car and drove to MotoMove to see if the bike had been damaged.
I found the bike around the back of MotoMove and it was fine, I even read the frame number!
The bike was fine, so I assumed that this was some sort of situation where MotoMove had overcharged/ripped off Seng for parts that he didn’t need to restrict the bike.
I politely replied that I can’t be held responsible for things like MotoMove charging him 150 Euros for a rear view mirror that is 10mm larger diameter than the one you bought.
In the normal world, this would be the end of it. En France, there’s a thing called a “Vice Cachee” (hidden defect). Seng wrote me a handwritten letter on the 29th July 2020 explaining that MotoMove had refused to restrict the bike as it wasn’t in fully standard condition and that he was claiming a “Vice Cachee”. I had to then look up what a “Vice Cachee” was and it’s definitely a real thing under the Code Civile. On the 5th August 2020, I responded, by recorded delivery to him thanking for his
letter, but could not be liable for his inability to derestrict it (and there’s no need to change things like rear view mirrors). However, I very clearly asked him to confirm the exact nature of the Vice Cachee, so that I could repurchase the bike. At least I could then sell if to the other people who wanted to buy it.
On the 13th August, I received a second letter from Seng stating that he had not received a response to his first letter. He stated that MotoMove would not restrict the bike unless it was returned to the condition it was in when it left the Ducati Factory in 2011 and that it had a cracked front mudguard.
At this point I contacted my AXA Insurance bureau and spoke to the franchise owner David Atkins, who provided all of our insurances, car, health, cars, bikes etc. and explained the situation. He was obviously surprised and did some digging for me. A few days later, he sent me an insurance history for the bike confirming that it had no accident history. Dave is a petrolhead and good guy.
The same day, I immediately replied by recorded delivery letter to Seng’s second letter, explaining that as he had instigated a recorded delivery method of correspondence, I was left with no alternative but to respond to him via recorded delivery letter and that he needed to allow at least a couple of weeks to allow this to happen. I again asked him to confirm the Vice Cachee so that I could repurchase the bike. I attached the AXA confirmation.
On the 25th August 2020, I received a third letter from Seng explaining that I had not replied to his previous letters (I had all the accuse de receptions) and that I had spoilt his dreams of going on holiday on the motorbike. Again, no confirmation of the Vice Cachee was given.
On the 10th September 2020 I received a letter from Experium Experts appointed by Seng’s Insurers Mutuelle des Motards that they would be inspecting the bike and asked if I wanted to appoint my own expert.
On the 2nd Octobre 2020 I replied to Expermium that I would have faith in the independent inspection of Expermium and would not need my own Expert.
You’ll note that at this point I was still working on the naiive assumption that the facts mattered.
2nd December 2020, I received a letter from Mutuelle des Motards, advising that they were acting as intermediaries for Mr. Seng and that a Vice Cachee was present. Expermium Expert’s report citing a broken front mudguard and an indentation in the frame rail on the right hand side near the head stock.
5th December 2020, I responded to Mutuelle Motard’s letter, by recorded delivery letter, to advise that this is the first correspondence I have received from any of Mr. Seng’s representatives and attached my email to my insurer’s expert of the 2nd October confirming that I would not require their services. I then asked, for the third time, for a report for the frame to allow me to (a) repurchase the motorcycle and (b) make a claim from the vendor I purchased the motorcycle from. I received no response to this letter or received any other documentation.
Shortly afterwards, I was at the excellent bike shop EB Motors in Perigueux and I explained my predicament to him. He gave me a piece of advice that I regret not taking. “Just buy the bike back”. I explained the nonsense of the claim to him, but he said “trust me, I’ve been there, this is not about facts or truth, you’ll just end up writing checks and it won’t end”. I was stupid enough to ignore this advice. I actually thought he was a bit silly, because who could argue with facts right?
27th January 2021, A representative from Seng’s Avocat, Julien Maret, arrived at my house and submitted an Assignation en Refere Devant Monsieur Le President Du Tribunal de Limoges, enclosing a black and white copy of an original report from Mr. Seng’s Expertise confirming the modifications as advertised and as requested by Mr. Seng (silencers). As I had requested three times, a frame
geometry report to confirm if the frame was distorted was not provided.
The premise being that I am liable for the modifications made to the motorcycle and that I should not have sold the bike with any upgrades. I was being punished for selling a slightly modified motorcycle.
Obviously, the pressing issue was the Expermium report stating that the mudguard was broken (like that wouldn’t be obvious) but moreover the frame having an indentation in it.
This then ended up with a court date and a statement that I had remained silent throughout (although I had all the recorded delivery letter confirmations) which is a total breach of the Code Civile procedure, let alone a lie.
I then approached David Atkins again at AXA and he recommended an avocat in Limoges, Maitre Damien Verger. I then met with him at his bureau in Limoges, paid him in cash. He was surprised and amazed and told me that this was “the easiest case in history” showed me his copy of The Code Civile, boasted about how well he knew it and told me that he would win the case and obtain 3000 Euros for me in damages. Bouyed with this, I definitely decided to ignore the advice of EB Motors.
I provided the historical facts for Verger’s defence. In court, Seng stated that he never rode the bike at MotoMove and it had no petrol in it. The blatancy of the lies began. The court decided that the Expermium expert was not able to determine the extent of the vice cachee and that a new Super Expert, Renee Chastaing, had to be commissioned to inspect and review the Expermium findings.
At this point, Damien Verger morphed into Julien Maret’s personal assistant.
You might want to stop for a drink here, cos this is where it gets wild.
Chastaing’s Inspection at MotoMove
Rene Chastaing convened an inspection of the motorbike at MotoMove on the 21st June 2021. The instruction being for Chastaing to review the results of the Expermium inspection. Again, I was absolutely happy to have a vice cachee confirmed, as this would at least provide some sanity to the situation. There were at least 10 of us in attendance and we recorded the entire inspection.
The Expermium report mentioned that the front mudguard was cracked, this turned out to be untrue. More importantly and the crux of the reason Chastaing was involved was the “deformation in the right frame rail”. This turned out to be a normal indentation from the factory and was exactly replicated on the left hand frame rail.
At this point, Chastaing should have annulled and voided the Expermium report. Then, he noticed a “Marchesini” sticker on the front wheel and declared that the front wheel was a Marchesini wheel and that the only reason it would have been changed was because of a frontal accident.
I openly laughed at him, purely as a physical reaction. For those who are not au fait with Ducatis, the 796 Monster, is very much a ‘cooking’ bike in the range. It has “Enkei” wheels. Marchesini wheels are very expensive and have serrated spokes, the standard ones, these ones, are smooth and, frankly, if it had genuine Marchesini wheels, I would have been very pleased about it. Although amazed that an apparent ‘Expert’ would say such a bizarre thing, I calmly opened my laptop and showed him the Ducati Microfiche proving that it was the standard wheel along with a photograph of the standard bike:
He ignored this, so I did a search for a Marchesini Sticker:
These are genuine Marchesini wheels for a Monster 796, ribbed spokes and definitely not cheap ebay stickers.
For some reason, pride, or more nefarious, he did not accept that this. So I showed him the standard bike as it leaves the factory:
Again, he was adamant the front wheel was not the standard wheel! I basically said “what the f**k is going on here?” which made Chastaing harden down and emanded that the entire front of the bike was stripped down. So, I watched in amazement as they dismantled the wheels, forks (all of which came apart perfectly, no distortion, which would be obvious if the bike had been damaged)
Eventually, Chastaing said something sensible, that the head stock bearings in the frame would be deformed if the bike had had a frontal accident. He then saw that the head bearings had been replaced and stated that this would only have been necessary if the bike had been in an accident.
The bike was 10 years old and if they hadn’t been replaced (recommended 3 to 5 years) I would have been very surprised. But, because someone had obviously maintained it, they had been replaced and he was adamant that this was due to an accident. However, the bearing recess, which is the most fragile and thin part of the frame and absolutely would have been deformed if it had a frontal accident, was not ovalled and Chastaing admitted this. He even put it in his report.
Finally, an end to the nonsense, we can go……
I left thinking this was now done and dusted, the Expermium report findings were null and void.
Apart from a weirdness, the frame was clearly not subject to a frontal impact.
Expecting a report to confirm the findings, Chastaing maintained his position that the frame was bent, the front wheel was from another bike and the only reason the upgrades were made is due to it having suffered a severe accident (of such magnitude that it didn’t affect any other parts of the bike, I still had the original parts which were upgraded and there was no insurance record of any accident damage)
Additionally, Chastaing took at total face value all of Seng’s claims about not riding the bike, all of the changes like larger rear view mirrors etc. added them to a total bill, but this wasn’t quite enough to write the bike off, so he concluded that the exhaust silencers were from another bike.
Again, here’s the Ducati Fiche, oh, and an email confirmation from Ducati dealerships that they are standard:
Chastaing List
- Why should I pay for items that were clearly as advertised?
- The bike was made in 2011.
- Why did MotoMove need to change items like mirrors and numberplate holders?
A restrictor kit is just a mechanical device.
- What possible responsibility do I have to restrict the motorbike, especially as I confirmed to Seng that it was full power and he pressed me to sell it to him?
- Seng requested that I put the original Ducati silencers on the bike for him. It was advertised with aftermarket silencers.
- Seng’s Insurers April Moto, claimed in court that I had remained silent although I have 2 recorded delivery letters to them, they never responded to me.
- The April Moto expert’s findings were non existent.
- It is only Chastaing’s errors and lies that has perpetuated this charade.
- Chastaing states that the front wheel is a Marchesini. It is not. It is an “ENKEI” standard wheel. It matches the Ducati Fiche. Ducati confirm this. Marchesini wheels would not be on this model and have ribbed spokes. The standard front wheel has smooth spokes and has “ENKEI” lettering on the hub.
- Chastaing states that the silencers are from a different model, they are not, they are the original silencers, Ducati confirm this. They even have the ZDM Ducati model stamp on them.
- I have the original headlight and clutch. They are not damaged.
- The assertion that the frame number was not visible is absurd. I checked the frame and engine numbers against the carte grise.
- How could the bike be in such an accident and it not be recorded on the paperwork?
- How is it that the frame had been repainted with exactly the same paint as it left the factory?
- The frame dimension checks were flawed, fundamentally just wrong and given the method used was still with 0.5 degrees, not 1.0 degrees claimed by Chastaing. The manufacturers of the equipment used to measure it, confirmed this.
- If the frame had suffered a frontal impact, then the head bearing recesses would have been out of tolerance and they were not.
- How could the forks and front wheel spindle be straight and undamaged at MotoMove, then bent and damaged at the breakers inspection?
- All of my responses, with substantiating evidence from Ducati, Motoliner and the Ebay “Marchesini” sticker, were provided to Chastaing, which he then removed them from his final court submission.
[editors note - Henry’s email address removed from this and some of the subsequent imaged by cropping the top a little ]
Oh yes, here’s a later Leboncoin advert for a 796 Monster at MotoMove, no less, you couldn’t make this up, and guess what? The same front wheel, albeit they had non standard silencers on it.
Alors……
Although he had proven himself to be correct that the head bearing recess was not deformed and would have been in an accident, Chastaing stated that because the head bearings had been replaced at some point in 10 years, this would only be due to an accident. Therefore, had taken upon himself to write to Ducati to ask for frame tolerances and how he could test the geometry.
Ducati wrote back to him, the gist being ‘don’t be daft, we only have tolerances for frame geometry for a frame in free-air (before the engine and everything else is bolted to it’ – which obviously changes them slightly).
My avocat, Verger, acting in his professional capacity as Seng’s avocat’s personal assistant sent me this request from Chastaing, to which I wrote a strongly worded email reply to Verger in no uncertain terms that there’s no way this would ever be accepted in a Court report, Chastaing is making a total fool of himself and there’s no way he could be this impartial or vindictive.
So, Verger copied Chastaing into this confidential email…
Chastaing was now on a mission. Unsurprisingly, no mainstream motorcycle dealer would entertain Chastaing’s quest to check the frame geometry, for the very reasons that Ducati explained.
After a lot of searching, Chastaing found a breakers yard at Soulignac, BC Motos, who had a very old Motoliner Jig they use to check the general alignment of motorbikes. On the 15th November 2021, we all arrived at BC Motos. The bike arrived without its front end, the wheels and forks separately.
Surprise, surprise, the forks were bent and leaking oil. The front wheel axle was bent like a banana.
Chastaing was delighted. As before, we videoed the entire session. I was able to show Chastaing the “Enkei” logo cast into the front wheel. He ignored it. I also asked him how it would have been possible for the front wheel and forks to have been dismantled like butter, if the are now bent and leaking oil.
Again. Total waste of effort.
Some photos of the Motoliner jig frame ‘check’. They checked it once, used modified/improvised components and did not take an average of the readings. As Ducati said, it’s irrelevant as the frame dimensions they provided are for a frame in free-air. Even with these anomalies, the frame was 0.5 degrees out of tolerance. The BC Motos even remarked that it was “very good’ and that “good job it
wasn’t a Kawasaki, because they are worse than this when new”.
Chastaing noted that it was “Enorme” and we all left.
On the 30th Novembre 2011, Chastaing wrote his report up, confirming everything he wished for, included all the Seng narrative as fact and ignored all the evidence to the contrary.
Now the lovely thing about the Code Civile system is that the defendant, moi, has the opportunity to reply to this “Pre-Rapport” and this must be include in the final court submission. I responded with 20 pages to this report, including a long email from Motoliner who made the testing jig and they confirmed that it was modified, and fundamentally incorrect way of measuring the frame. Plus, basically, everything that’s in this article.
I almost felt sorry for Chastaing having to make a fool of himself with the final report submission, but pride, and falls etc.
I literally heard nothing for over a year. I assumed that it was dismissed.
Then, in April 2023, I received a Court decision stating that Seng had won his case. (If you might infer that Chastaing didn’t include my response, as he has a code civile stage obligation to do, in the final report, then I would not disagree with you) Limoges Court completely held up Chastaing’s report and decided that I should repurchase the motorcycle for 5000 Euros and pay an Article 700
fee of 2000 Euros.
I then contacted David Atkins again at AXA. I told them that I need a “really scary lawyer, who can speak English, cause, clearly there was some serious xenophobic issues” – Chastaing upon receiving the Motoliner email (Motoliner being an English company) stated that “oh he would use an English company” – AXA recommended Philippe Pejoine in Bordeaux.
In June 2023 I visited Pejoine with my son, who recorded the meeting, as he has recorded every part of this whole bizarre episode. He told me to “Pay the 7000 Euros, chalk it up, learn from it, get the bike back, repair it and move on and make it go away”. He explained that “they were crooked in Limoges, you’ve been scammed”.
Explained how he knew all about motorbikes etc.
I asked how I pay the 7000 Euros, he told me I had to pay CARPA (an official Escrow account for each avocat, to ensure no funny business) I asked Pejoine if I could pay him directly into his CARPA account, he said no and gave me and literally wrote CARPA on his pink Post-it note:
He charged me 150 Euros, in cash, I left and felt relieved if a bit done over.
On the 7th August 2023 I made a wire transfer payment for 7000 Euros to Julien Maret’s CARPA account. I followed this up with an email a week later asking for receipt of payment, but did not get any response. In November, I received a Hussier demand for the 7000 Euros, so I sent it to Pejoine, who requested a receipt from Maret. I was not copied-in but Pejoine received confirmation that payment had been made.
I sent an email to Maret asking how I would recover the motorcycle. Again, no response.
Seng appealed the original decision, so I visited Pejoine, because, it hadn’t “gone away” I asked Pejoine to use our Juridique cover as this was an appeal and should be covered. I still ended up having to pay up front (and I haven’t seen any compensation/remuneration).
Unfortunately, Pejoine had also deposed an appeal not questioning Chastaing (because, contrary to the discussion we had in person, which if he thinks I didn’t record, then I’d be as stupid as he thinks I am) report, citing that Chastaing is an Expert of the Court de Cessation and beyond reproach. Still, he would null and void the appeal and obtain 1500 Euros in damages for me. Hussiers arrived and
demanded another 1000 Euros for not stopping the appeal. I attended court on the 12th June with my son, who also has attended all the meetings to date. The deputyPhilippe Bourra I paid to represent me at Limoges did not attend. I was not able to see my appeal and the colleague of Bourra admitted that she had not read my appeal.
Pejoine has refused to confirm the reason for dropping me and I have asked many times. After paying the first CARPA account deposit of 7000 Euros on August 7th 2023 I requested receipt of payment, received nothing. After the hussier’s visit, I wrote recorded delivery letters to CARPA and the Battoniers at Limoges. These are the gatekeepers for CARPA and the Avocats.
On April 16th 2024 Hussiers broke into our property, whilst my wife was on her own, identified themselves as police and literally forced my wife to transfer 7500 euros for the amount that had been previously paid to Maret’s CARPA account in August 2023. Despite my wife explaining to them that this was paid in August last year, they made her transfer her own money on her iPad, asking “do you have that kind of money?“
And tapping her ipad.
They refused to provide any ID but at least they were dressed just like the police (yes that’s a door ram):
So, we went to the police. Spent 3 hours, my wife cried, which she never does, when recanting the events. They refused to prosecute. Although the Hussiers admitted that this amount was taken in error, as Limoges court approved the recovery, they have not returned the money. Pejoine advised my wife that they were going to keep the money because there was an appeal. Understandably my wife was very upset and criticised him, he then used this as an excuse, to stop representing me.
They both ignored me. Eventually, my son and I went to Limoges CARPA and asked to be seen and they told us that we would have a response in 2 weeks. They have ignored us.
In August 2024, one year after having paid the 7000 Euros, I went to the police in Piegut Pluviers to explain to them that I paid to have the bike back and haven’t received it. It’s basically, stolen. They reviewed the case, admitted it appeared to be an arnaque, confirmed that the motorcycle ownership has never been changed and that I am still liable for it. I asked them to find out where it is and requested an official letter confirming that I would not be liable for anyone’s use of it. They
refused. I have asked them again last week and they still refuse.
On Octobre the 21st this year, a hussier arrived with a court decision confirming that Seng had been awarded a further 6500 Euros. I then approached a 3rd avocat, Philip Gluckstein in Perigueux, met him, paid him, recorded him, obviously. He was, as were the previous 2 avocats, amazed by the history. He explained that it was illegal to have taken the money from my wife and called the hussiers who took it.
The hussiers explained that it was taken in error and thought that it had been
returned to my wife, which it has not.