Another Caveat Emptor Thread - with a slight twist

[walm]

In fairness, slightly odd that he put the advert up on the 8th Aug if the errors only started on the 18th.
Nevertheless he is clearly going with the "I'm ignorant, just look at all the flashy lights" or "it wasn't me driving at the time" defence.
Which is cobblers, obviously.

[chriswg]

Yes that is a little odd. I guess he may have noticed that the clutch acts a bit funny (kinda clunky) at stop and go when it's warm, Googled it and figured he should get rid quickly.

Alternatively, he may have had a mate with a VAG cable take a look at it and advise him to sell it ASAP after he wiped down the codes - only for them to happen again on the 18th Aug.

If I was a b*****d I could get the codes wiped, put it up for sale and know that the car will behave for 20 - 30 mins during a test drive, then claim ignorance afterwards with very little chance of getting caught.

Luckily I was brought up better than that!

[anonymous-user]

chriswg said:

Yes that is a little odd. I guess he may have noticed that the clutch acts a bit funny (kinda clunky) at stop and go when it's warm, Googled it and figured he should get rid quickly.

Alternatively, he may have had a mate with a VAG cable take a look at it and advise him to sell it ASAP after he wiped down the codes - only for them to happen again on the 18th Aug.

If I was a b*****d I could get the codes wiped, put it up for sale and know that the car will behave for 20 - 30 mins during a test drive, then claim ignorance afterwards with very little chance of getting caught.

Luckily I was brought up better than that!

Did you take a mechanic and look over it for an hour?

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

The seller described the car as 'running beautifully', which it was when you left his drive.
Surely anything that happens after leaving the private sellers drive is nothing to do with the seller, it's no longer his to worry about. Otherwise, how long is the seller obliged to warrant the car as 'a beautiful runner'...5 minutes, 5 hours, a day, a week?

Most people wouldn't have access to the stored ECU faults. The seller's mate may have been driving when the faults occurred [and he may have forgotten to mention it to the owner].

It's a stty situation - but I can't think how you could possibly win a case against the vendor?

So he's going down the route I thought he would!
It'll be really interesting to hear how this pans out. PLEASE keep us up updated.

I still don't think you've got any chance of getting any money back - but good luck anyway.

[ModernAndy]

chriswg said:

Alternatively, he may have had a mate with a VAG cable take a look at it and advise him to sell it ASAP after he wiped down the codes - only for them to happen again on the 18th Aug.

I was going to post something along those lines. The whole 'oh, I'm just a regular guy. What do I know about these magic car-codes?' thing is highly suspect to me as well. Of course, it's very possible the codes did start after the vehicle was up for sale and even if they did start before the advert was taken you'd find it very difficult to prove.

Was their advert definitely taken out on the 8th?

[chriswg]

V6Pushfit said:

Did you take a mechanic and look over it for an hour?

I took the husband of a friend of my wifes does some work on cars as I was concerned about driving it without having proper insurance. He didn't even look under the bonnet. I must admit I thought he was going to take some stuff with him to plug into the car but alas not. Cost me £60 too! To be fair, the car drives great when cold, it's only after about 20 mins that you get the sense something isn't right.

All-in we were there for about an hour which included the test drive and haggling.

[eldar]

V6Pushfit said:

Did you take a mechanic and look over it for an hour?

Good question. If an 'expert mechanic' failed to spot the error, it raises a few questions.

[chriswg]

ModernAndy said:

I was going to post something along those lines. The whole 'oh, I'm just a regular guy. What do I know about these magic car-codes?' thing is highly suspect to me as well. Of course, it's very possible the codes did start after the vehicle was up for sale and even if they did start before the advert was taken you'd find it very difficult to prove.

Was their advert definitely taken out on the 8th?

I can't prove when the advert was put on there, but either way it shouldn't make a different. What matters is what the advert said when I agreed to buy the car which is what I posted earlier.

Also, he knew enough to get the car modified by APR and swap between programmes so he should know a little bit about magic codes! Also, it's a pretty hard to miss warning!

[_dobbo_]

Is it just me that thinks the seller is reading this thread? Only his letter contains every potential excuse that has been offered here. All of them!

[ModernAndy]

chriswg said:

I can't prove when the advert was put on there, but either way it shouldn't make a difference. What matters is what the advert said when I agreed to buy the car which is what I posted earlier.

It might make a difference if you can prove it's a lie designed to cover their arse.

[eldar]

chriswg said:

I can't prove when the advert was put on there, but either way it shouldn't make a different. What matters is what the advert said when I agreed to buy the car which is what I posted earlier.

Also, he knew enough to get the car modified by APR and swap between programmes so he should know a little bit about magic codes! Also, it's a pretty hard to miss warning!

Your paid expert failed to spot any errors or warnings. Perhaps you should be suing him.......

[funkyrobot]

_dobbo_ said:

Is it just me that thinks the seller is reading this thread? Only his letter contains every potential excuse that has been offered here. All of them!

Off topic. I went to look at a Mazda MPS years ago. Posted on here about my thoughts etc.

Went back to the dealers a week or so later and he said he had seen my thread on here.

I didn't buy it in the end. However, stuff does generally filter through to PH.

[anonymous-user]

chriswg said:

I took the husband of a friend of my wifes does some work on cars as I was concerned about driving it without having proper insurance. He didn't even look under the bonnet. I must admit I thought he was going to take some stuff with him to plug into the car but alas not. Cost me £60 too! To be fair, the car drives great when cold, it's only after about 20 mins that you get the sense something isn't right.

All-in we were there for about an hour which included the test drive and haggling.

I once took a pissed mate once to be the 'mechanic' on the purchase of an MG Midget. He feigned looking over it in almost complete darkness in the rain all so I could knock the seller down which I did by £150 which we then spent in the pub after. In the light of day the bloody car was 90% filler so I took it up with the seller to be told sod off you had a mechanic with you! Classic own goal.

[walm]

chriswg said:

Also, it's a pretty hard to miss warning!

I honestly believe this is the crux of the whole issue.

It isn't some "flashy lights on ignition" or "something that comes on and goes off again when you start the car" or whatever.
The car (as it is designed to do) gives you visual and audible WARNINGS and THEN cuts the power.

Ignorance at that level is well beyond reasonable doubt and that's all there is to it IMHO.

[JustinP1]

Conspicuous by its absence:

"At no time when I drove the car did I receive a warning as you describe, or the effect of that warning."

He skirts around that, giving circumstantial reasons why he might not, but never actually says it. From experience, people who can tell the truth in a simple way, tell the truth in a simple way, they don't need to skirt round it and come up with fluff.

What to do now?

Give up, or call his bluff. That's the poker game he's playing.

He has not yet directly stated that he saw a warning. If that's his response to your letter before action, you've got the option of pressing ahead, your claim form being not much different in substance to your letter.

The seller is then put in the position that you've effectively told him you don't believe him in as many words. For some reason he doesn't want to directly deny seeing the warning, and kind of indicates he might. If his gameplan is to go to a hearing, he will know that he'd going to have to sit in front of a judge and answer the questions:

"Did you at any time see this warning?" and

"Are you saying that at no time anyone informed you that the car was hindered by this warning?"


Slight comment on the solicitor's letter, technically if the statement was 'reckless' then this would come under the scope of fraudulent misrepresentation so it wouldn't be either/or. There's a case law that I've not seen or thought about for about 15 years, but from memory its from the 1860's to 1880' and it essentially lays out that even an opinion can be classed as a misrepresentation if the author knows it to be false.

The relevance of that is that you have the angle that if he is admitting that warning lights were coming up at various times, then the argument is that even a layman should not give the opinion of 'running beautifully'.

ETA - Some of the new info in the letter is relevant. Your case hinges on the fact that you in some way relied upon his statement. If you turned up, trusted the advert and bought the car then that's one thing. A downer on your case is showing that you relied upon the advert when you also brought a mechanic to check the car, playing devil's advocate, that's the defence I'd run with. Did you tell your solicitor that you brought a mechanic to check the car?

Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 5th October 17:08

[TooMany2cvs]

We can talk round in circles for as long as we all want.

You've sent him a letter.
He's replied and denied everything.

So... the ball is in your court. Literally. Your next step is to either issue a court proceeding or chalk it up to experience. You have no other options. Except frozen sausages.

[Burwood]

chriswg said:

ModernAndy said:

I was going to post something along those lines. The whole 'oh, I'm just a regular guy. What do I know about these magic car-codes?' thing is highly suspect to me as well. Of course, it's very possible the codes did start after the vehicle was up for sale and even if they did start before the advert was taken you'd find it very difficult to prove.

Was their advert definitely taken out on the 8th?

I can't prove when the advert was put on there, but either way it shouldn't make a different. What matters is what the advert said when I agreed to buy the car which is what I posted earlier.

Also, he knew enough to get the car modified by APR and swap between programmes so he should know a little bit about magic codes! Also, it's a pretty hard to miss warning!

I believe he will be required in court prep to show that the Autotrader or other Debit to his account happened on the 8th August. The seller is a worm and is obvious he knows what he did.

[chriswg]

TooMany2cvs said:

So... the ball is in your court. Literally. Your next step is to either issue a court proceeding or chalk it up to experience. You have no other options. Except frozen sausages.

I have emailed a mediator and advised them of the background of the case.

They replied saying they would be happy to mediate as long as both parties are willing to participate.

I replied to them and CC'd in the seller asking if he would be willing to sort this via the mediator rather than waste a courts time. I also stated that for the record I would be more than happy to sort it out this way.

Let's see if he is man enough to meet me and talk through the case in front of a mediator.

[JustinP1]

chriswg said:

Let's see if he is man enough to meet me and talk through the case in front of a mediator.

It'll be on the phone.

IMHO mediation will also be your best bet here.

Due to the issue I mention in the last para of my post above, if this case runs through to a hearing with the facts as I understand them today and a judge who sees it the same way, I think the fact that you had a mechanic with you at the sale will nullify that you relied upon the seller's representation, as in effect, you relied upon your mechanic's opinion. I think that would stuff your claim, unfortunately.

As always, happy to open that to the floor for opinion.

Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 5th October 17:22

[Burwood]

Chris- have you looked closely at various Audi Forums using the car reg and his name to see if he posted something about the fault. I have a strong feeling the proof is out there on the inter web
. were the cars reg plate hide on the advert. You can use certain apps to search the web for a pic of the actual car. search his Facebook account.

I would be writing back asking some specific questions, the answers to which 'may' prevent legal proceedings.

1. Provide evidence of the advert listing date. A screen print of the bank account and email, including header from auto trader
2. Privide a photo of the warning and ask him whether he ever saw it. Then ask whether anyone who uses the car saw it.
3. how many people use the car and did any of then report a problem.....
4. Did he visit any garage about a fault or insert a code reader into OBD port to read or wipe any codes.

He can ignore all of this but it's only things he will have to swear in court if he doesn't