Private car sale - being taken to court
Discussion
The Mad Monk said:
How would the buyer know that the seller had no mechanical knowledge?
I sympathise, but it does show how careful one has to be.
Yes indeed, as I stated above, I cant believe it has gone this far, she generally was just trying to sell a car that had been a good servant to her. Surely the general assumption has to be that that the seller would not have known if they are not a competent person (IE mechanic or works in the car trade) she works in financial services. And trust me when I say this has absolutely no idea when it comes to cars whatsoever (believe me I know lol)I sympathise, but it does show how careful one has to be.
Mookes said:
I was under the understanding that "sold as seen" indeed has no basis in law. However buyer beware "caveat emptor" is still a legal defence. It was when I watched judge Rinder a few weeks ago anyway.
Not sure that Judge Rinder is an actual real judge.Your description of excellent car in excellent condition could come back to bite you.
The fact that you keep saying your girlfriend knows nothing about cars means she is not really qualified to say it was in excellent condition, so be careful what you/she says when you go to small claims.
Mookes said:
an MOT backing up that the car was completely roadworthy with no advisory's.
Unfortunately the MOT is not anything remotely resembling an assurance of excellent condition. Essentially it just says the car complies with emissions and isn't a complete death-trap. It could be utterly knackered in many ways get still win a clean MOT certificate.As previously mentioned it's unusual for a private seller to have any liability. However, a court might feel sympathetic towards a buyer who was not a car expert and is able to turn up with a technical reports showing the car was knackered and that any reasonable seller (not just a car expert) must have known it was not "an excellent car in excellent condition". At the end of the day it will come down to the evidence.
It would considerably strengthen a seller's defence, for instance, if the car had undergone a recent service at a reputable garage with proper work sheet, invoice etc.
Anyway, the starting point remains that a private seller doesn't usually have anything to worry about.
Monkeylegend said:
Mookes said:
I was under the understanding that "sold as seen" indeed has no basis in law. However buyer beware "caveat emptor" is still a legal defence. It was when I watched judge Rinder a few weeks ago anyway.
Not sure that Judge Rinder is an actual real judge.Robert Rinder’s practice focuses primarily on international fraud, money laundering, and other forms of financial crime. He also advises on and appears in cases involving regulatory allegations against businesses and their directors and officers.
Robert is also increasingly instructed, predominantly for the defence, as sole or leading counsel in cases involving allegations of serious and complex crime across the full spectrum of offences.
On the other hand: "I can live with being criticised personally, but no one has criticised the underlying legal basis from which I arrive at my view on the show.”
Mookes said:
Good evening all, I'm after a little advise on the above issue.
But first allow me to set the scene.
My girlfriend recently sold her car (Ford S-Max, 58 plate) in September last year as a private sale. She advertised the car on Ebay and someone offered us a cash amount which we accepted. Please see below the advert.
Ford S-Max for sale in black, selling due to being given a new company car.
17" alloy wheels
rear tinted windows as standard
new 12 month MOT with not a single advisory
valeted inside and out
all tyres have excellent tread left
new clutch
new CAM belt
just over 101,000 miles on the clock
excellent car in excellent condition
radio will require resetting but unfortunately I don't have it
Anyway.. the buyer was provided with all receipts for the work which we stated, did a thorough check of the car and refused a test drive, paid the cash and drove off.
The next day I had a text saying that the car was blowing black smoke on acceleration, engine management light was on and the car was leaking oil. I stated that I was not aware of any such faults (which I genuinely wasn't) and came to the view that he was trying it on to get more money out of me. Based on this I politely informed him that the car was sold in good faith and that I would not be doing anything to assist him.
After a week or so I was informed that he would be taking the car to get it health checked, a week after this we had the results where he stated that there was an issue with the turbo, one of the rear springs, and that the car was leaking oil
Anyway... a few weeks later the buyer informed me that unless I paid him £1500 to rectify the faults, he would be taking me to court (which we have now got to the allocation hearing next month).
Anyway a few interesting points:
The buyer thoroughly looked over the car and refused a test drive
When we had the MOT done, which did not pick up any faults whatsoever, the car did 100 yards back to her house where it waited on our drive until it was sold (the same mileage was on the MOT as was on the log book when the car was sold proving the car had not done any mileage since its MOT)
Firstly the buyer claimed that there was black smoke was coming out of the exhaust, however he then changed his story to misrepresentation now that his original claim isn't going to stand up as the health check picked no issues up with the emissions.
The buyer has stated that my GF (who owns the car) must have known about the faults, yet a qualified mechanic who did the MOT picked up nothing before the car was sold. However he drove the car 344 miles before getting the health check done.
He stated that the car had been off the road more than it had been on it and that it was unsafe to drive, yet he had done 705 miles before having the spring changed and 918 miles before having a new turbo fitted. Surely if he had such grave concerns about its safety he wouldn't have driven this distance on it.
I believe that my GF (who has absolutely no mechanical knowledge at all) as the private seller did everything she needed to do legally by making sure the car was hers to sell, she did not misinterpret the car, and made sure it was roadworthy before selling it.
His only argument now which is what has come through in the court documents, is that my GF misrepresented the car by statin "excellent car in excellent condition", to me this is her subjective opinion of a 58 plate car with over 100000 miles on the clock, she made sure if was fully roadworthy and professionally valeted before selling, in her opinion it was an "excellent car in excellent condition" (it certainly had been for her in the time she had owned it)
Any thoughts would be most welcome, what she be doing next, what do we thing her chances are?
Kind regards
Mookes
oil leak and spring would have been picked up on the MOT, did the last MOT have these as advisories?But first allow me to set the scene.
My girlfriend recently sold her car (Ford S-Max, 58 plate) in September last year as a private sale. She advertised the car on Ebay and someone offered us a cash amount which we accepted. Please see below the advert.
Ford S-Max for sale in black, selling due to being given a new company car.
17" alloy wheels
rear tinted windows as standard
new 12 month MOT with not a single advisory
valeted inside and out
all tyres have excellent tread left
new clutch
new CAM belt
just over 101,000 miles on the clock
excellent car in excellent condition
radio will require resetting but unfortunately I don't have it
Anyway.. the buyer was provided with all receipts for the work which we stated, did a thorough check of the car and refused a test drive, paid the cash and drove off.
The next day I had a text saying that the car was blowing black smoke on acceleration, engine management light was on and the car was leaking oil. I stated that I was not aware of any such faults (which I genuinely wasn't) and came to the view that he was trying it on to get more money out of me. Based on this I politely informed him that the car was sold in good faith and that I would not be doing anything to assist him.
After a week or so I was informed that he would be taking the car to get it health checked, a week after this we had the results where he stated that there was an issue with the turbo, one of the rear springs, and that the car was leaking oil
Anyway... a few weeks later the buyer informed me that unless I paid him £1500 to rectify the faults, he would be taking me to court (which we have now got to the allocation hearing next month).
Anyway a few interesting points:
The buyer thoroughly looked over the car and refused a test drive
When we had the MOT done, which did not pick up any faults whatsoever, the car did 100 yards back to her house where it waited on our drive until it was sold (the same mileage was on the MOT as was on the log book when the car was sold proving the car had not done any mileage since its MOT)
Firstly the buyer claimed that there was black smoke was coming out of the exhaust, however he then changed his story to misrepresentation now that his original claim isn't going to stand up as the health check picked no issues up with the emissions.
The buyer has stated that my GF (who owns the car) must have known about the faults, yet a qualified mechanic who did the MOT picked up nothing before the car was sold. However he drove the car 344 miles before getting the health check done.
He stated that the car had been off the road more than it had been on it and that it was unsafe to drive, yet he had done 705 miles before having the spring changed and 918 miles before having a new turbo fitted. Surely if he had such grave concerns about its safety he wouldn't have driven this distance on it.
I believe that my GF (who has absolutely no mechanical knowledge at all) as the private seller did everything she needed to do legally by making sure the car was hers to sell, she did not misinterpret the car, and made sure it was roadworthy before selling it.
His only argument now which is what has come through in the court documents, is that my GF misrepresented the car by statin "excellent car in excellent condition", to me this is her subjective opinion of a 58 plate car with over 100000 miles on the clock, she made sure if was fully roadworthy and professionally valeted before selling, in her opinion it was an "excellent car in excellent condition" (it certainly had been for her in the time she had owned it)
Any thoughts would be most welcome, what she be doing next, what do we thing her chances are?
Kind regards
Mookes
Edited by Mookes on Friday 12th February 20:19
Edited by Mookes on Friday 12th February 20:22
www.totalcarcheck.co.uk, put the reg into there
Hope common sense prevails and despite the "excellent car in excellent condition" phrase in the advert, the miles covered before the supposed "pre-existing" faults being found and rectified should see him fail in his claim.
Do the mot station have a copy of the emissions test done as part of the test? This should help to show Turbo was fine when vehicle sold.
Do the mot station have a copy of the emissions test done as part of the test? This should help to show Turbo was fine when vehicle sold.
andymc said:
oil leak and spring would have been picked up on the MOT, did the last MOT have these as advisories?
www.totalcarcheck.co.uk, put the reg into there
No nothing at all, the car was given a completely clean bill of health, not even a single advisory was picked up, the only movement the car did when after the MOT was the 100 yards back to her house, there it stayed until it was sold.www.totalcarcheck.co.uk, put the reg into there
Personally I think its down to just back luck that these things have happened after we sold the car. the buyer himself did not mention anything about the turbo or spring until it was brought up on the health check 2 weeks later. At this point when the health check was done nearly 350 miles.
Getting more and more common this, people who dont want to pay for the added security of buying from a good dealer (and yes it does cost), buying the cheapest car possible off ebay or the like and bullying the seller into giving them money back.
IF the judge in the county court feels this has no chance of success he may award costs against the buyer, although as laways in these county court cases it would depend on the judge on the day.
Mookes said:
The Spruce goose said:
'£1500 to rectify the faults'
What are the list of faults to back up his misrepresentation claim.
I don't have the letter to hand at the moment, but it was something like:What are the list of faults to back up his misrepresentation claim.
250 on new spring (drove 705 miles before getting it changed)
450 turbo (drove 918 miles before getting this changed)
400 labour charges
66 health check
87 ford report
105 to hire a car for a week when this car was off the road
120 loss of a days earnings
If the buyer was unhappy with the car he would ask for his money back which as far as I know he has not.
I an assuming that you have not got invoices for the faults just a letter.
You have a very recent MOT with no mileage since and sure things like an obvious oil leak would be mentioned.
The buyer did not have a test drive which scammers tend not to do as you cannot say when you test drove it these faults were not present.
He is trying to worry you by taking it to court so you will pay him.Do nothing and he will cancel the court case just before the date.He knows he has a 1% chance od being successful in court.
Edited by btcc123 on Saturday 13th February 11:07
Mook. Without being too critical of you and GF - you are taking all of this far too seriously. Your buyer has little or no chance of any court coming down in favour of his claim. He IS trying it on.
One email or letter stating "see you in court" should either put him off pursuing you or he is a hell of a gambler.
If he wishes to take you to law - be confident that the odds are in YOUR favour.
Now move on with your life.
One email or letter stating "see you in court" should either put him off pursuing you or he is a hell of a gambler.
If he wishes to take you to law - be confident that the odds are in YOUR favour.
Now move on with your life.
davamer23 said:
Hope common sense prevails and despite the "excellent car in excellent condition" phrase in the advert, the miles covered before the supposed "pre-existing" faults being found and rectified should see him fail in his claim.
Do the mot station have a copy of the emissions test done as part of the test? This should help to show Turbo was fine when vehicle sold.
I have just managed to obtain a copy of this from the garage, although I will need some help understanding it:Do the mot station have a copy of the emissions test done as part of the test? This should help to show Turbo was fine when vehicle sold.
Test limit applied: 1.50 1/m
Absorption coefficient: 0.45 1/m
Zero drift: 0.02 1/m
Absorption coefficient after correction: 0.43 1/m
Test Type Applied: Fast Pass
Test result: Pass
Monkeylegend said:
Your description of excellent car in excellent condition could come back to bite you.
The fact that you keep saying your girlfriend knows nothing about cars means she is not really qualified to say it was in excellent condition, so be careful what you/she says when you go to small claims.
I'm not so sure, I'd be inclined to say it's a subjective description from a non expert. However, at this stage it's probably the time for the OP to get a letter sent from a real solicitor. The fact that you keep saying your girlfriend knows nothing about cars means she is not really qualified to say it was in excellent condition, so be careful what you/she says when you go to small claims.
I my be covering old ground and it may have already been covered earlier but are you sure its a genuine court letter?
Unless the claimant has documented proof that they asked you a question directly to which you misled them I can't see you having anything to worry about on a private sale.
Unless the claimant has documented proof that they asked you a question directly to which you misled them I can't see you having anything to worry about on a private sale.
Super Slo Mo said:
I'm not so sure, I'd be inclined to say it's a subjective description from a non expert. However, at this stage it's probably the time for the OP to get a letter sent from a real solicitor.
Sales puff. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Puff...
Being threatened with court is very stressful but you have to realise that some people are just vile and they have scumball solicitors all too eager to take their money for non cases.
Respond to the letter without going into any detail and saying that the solicitor's client has no case and that any further correspondence will be considered as harassment.
It's a pity that you cannot sue for wasting your time / stress.
Respond to the letter without going into any detail and saying that the solicitor's client has no case and that any further correspondence will be considered as harassment.
It's a pity that you cannot sue for wasting your time / stress.
Mookes said:
....Anyway.. the buyer was provided with all receipts for the work which we stated, did a thorough check of the car and refused a test drive, paid the cash and drove off.
Didn't really need to read further then that. He accepted the condition of the car, it's condition and is basically agreeing that it matches the description sold from ebay.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff