Private car sale - being taken to court
Discussion
AL5026 said:
I'll happily give you a different slant on it. I bought a second hand car, unseen, well I obviously saw the advert photos. Numerous text messages were exchanged and a deal was done at the asking price. I arranged for it to be transported to me as it was close on 300 miles away. What became apparent very quickly was a number of issues with the vehicle, I had it inspected at my local garage and was disappointed with both the issues identified and the rough idea of cost to rectify.
I approached the seller about this and tried to get my money back for the vehicle or at least for the remedial work required, and I was given the caveat emptor quote too, along with the sold as seen etc etc.
Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I took him through the small claims court. Mainly because I was unhappy that his 'in excellent condition' quote in the advert wasn't quite true. His defence was similar in that a) it had an MOT with no advisories and b) he had no mechanical knowledge therefore he believed his MOT cert validated the vehicle accordingly.
I claimed for the cost of the inspection, the cost of transporting it to me and the difference in selling prices (after he refused to take the vehicle back, I sold it on with all the faults highlighted).
I did win the case; my inspection report from the garage and his 'excellent condition' words from the original advert were the key points of the case; quite simply, the vehicle was not in excellent condition. The judge did say something about his Caveat Emptor defence, something along the lines of it being superseded or less relevant, but don't quote me on that though as this was 5 years ago.
Different kettle of fish - you were covered by distance selling rules.I approached the seller about this and tried to get my money back for the vehicle or at least for the remedial work required, and I was given the caveat emptor quote too, along with the sold as seen etc etc.
Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I took him through the small claims court. Mainly because I was unhappy that his 'in excellent condition' quote in the advert wasn't quite true. His defence was similar in that a) it had an MOT with no advisories and b) he had no mechanical knowledge therefore he believed his MOT cert validated the vehicle accordingly.
I claimed for the cost of the inspection, the cost of transporting it to me and the difference in selling prices (after he refused to take the vehicle back, I sold it on with all the faults highlighted).
I did win the case; my inspection report from the garage and his 'excellent condition' words from the original advert were the key points of the case; quite simply, the vehicle was not in excellent condition. The judge did say something about his Caveat Emptor defence, something along the lines of it being superseded or less relevant, but don't quote me on that though as this was 5 years ago.
The OP's case is different insomuch that the buyer had the option to actually inspect the car. This is the crux.
confused_buyer said:
I presume the purchaser has actually provided copy invoices of the diagnosis and work done from a proper VAT registered garage?
I'd also hope to see the old parts; while it's reasonable that the turbo might have been sent away for exchange purposes, the spring won't be reconditioned.Regardless of that, you have no way of knowing what happened to the car in the 700 miles between selling it and the spring breaking, or the 900 miles before the turbo had to be replaced. A spring can break in a one-off incident with no warning, and if a turbo seal blew that would be pretty much unforeseeable too.
Pennyroyal Tea said:
AL5026 said:
I'll happily give you a different slant on it. I bought a second hand car, unseen, well I obviously saw the advert photos. Numerous text messages were exchanged and a deal was done at the asking price. I arranged for it to be transported to me as it was close on 300 miles away. What became apparent very quickly was a number of issues with the vehicle, I had it inspected at my local garage and was disappointed with both the issues identified and the rough idea of cost to rectify.
I approached the seller about this and tried to get my money back for the vehicle or at least for the remedial work required, and I was given the caveat emptor quote too, along with the sold as seen etc etc.
Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I took him through the small claims court. Mainly because I was unhappy that his 'in excellent condition' quote in the advert wasn't quite true. His defence was similar in that a) it had an MOT with no advisories and b) he had no mechanical knowledge therefore he believed his MOT cert validated the vehicle accordingly.
I claimed for the cost of the inspection, the cost of transporting it to me and the difference in selling prices (after he refused to take the vehicle back, I sold it on with all the faults highlighted).
I did win the case; my inspection report from the garage and his 'excellent condition' words from the original advert were the key points of the case; quite simply, the vehicle was not in excellent condition. The judge did say something about his Caveat Emptor defence, something along the lines of it being superseded or less relevant, but don't quote me on that though as this was 5 years ago.
Different kettle of fish - you were covered by distance selling rules.I approached the seller about this and tried to get my money back for the vehicle or at least for the remedial work required, and I was given the caveat emptor quote too, along with the sold as seen etc etc.
Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I took him through the small claims court. Mainly because I was unhappy that his 'in excellent condition' quote in the advert wasn't quite true. His defence was similar in that a) it had an MOT with no advisories and b) he had no mechanical knowledge therefore he believed his MOT cert validated the vehicle accordingly.
I claimed for the cost of the inspection, the cost of transporting it to me and the difference in selling prices (after he refused to take the vehicle back, I sold it on with all the faults highlighted).
I did win the case; my inspection report from the garage and his 'excellent condition' words from the original advert were the key points of the case; quite simply, the vehicle was not in excellent condition. The judge did say something about his Caveat Emptor defence, something along the lines of it being superseded or less relevant, but don't quote me on that though as this was 5 years ago.
The OP's case is different insomuch that the buyer had the option to actually inspect the car. This is the crux.
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but I recently took a dealer to court, and we eventually settled through the arbitration process provided by the court.
In your circumstances, don't enter into arbitration as the claimant has no legal basis for the claim. Sadly it means you'll have to attend court but it'll be thrown out in 5 minutes - it's a private sale and the legal principle of 'caveat emptor' prevails almost 100% of the time in these cases (rare exceptions being dealers posing as private sellers etc).
You'll be fine.
In your circumstances, don't enter into arbitration as the claimant has no legal basis for the claim. Sadly it means you'll have to attend court but it'll be thrown out in 5 minutes - it's a private sale and the legal principle of 'caveat emptor' prevails almost 100% of the time in these cases (rare exceptions being dealers posing as private sellers etc).
You'll be fine.
AL5026 said:
Pennyroyal Tea said:
AL5026 said:
I'll happily give you a different slant on it. I bought a second hand car, unseen, well I obviously saw the advert photos. Numerous text messages were exchanged and a deal was done at the asking price. I arranged for it to be transported to me as it was close on 300 miles away. What became apparent very quickly was a number of issues with the vehicle, I had it inspected at my local garage and was disappointed with both the issues identified and the rough idea of cost to rectify.
I approached the seller about this and tried to get my money back for the vehicle or at least for the remedial work required, and I was given the caveat emptor quote too, along with the sold as seen etc etc.
Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I took him through the small claims court. Mainly because I was unhappy that his 'in excellent condition' quote in the advert wasn't quite true. His defence was similar in that a) it had an MOT with no advisories and b) he had no mechanical knowledge therefore he believed his MOT cert validated the vehicle accordingly.
I claimed for the cost of the inspection, the cost of transporting it to me and the difference in selling prices (after he refused to take the vehicle back, I sold it on with all the faults highlighted).
I did win the case; my inspection report from the garage and his 'excellent condition' words from the original advert were the key points of the case; quite simply, the vehicle was not in excellent condition. The judge did say something about his Caveat Emptor defence, something along the lines of it being superseded or less relevant, but don't quote me on that though as this was 5 years ago.
Different kettle of fish - you were covered by distance selling rules.I approached the seller about this and tried to get my money back for the vehicle or at least for the remedial work required, and I was given the caveat emptor quote too, along with the sold as seen etc etc.
Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I took him through the small claims court. Mainly because I was unhappy that his 'in excellent condition' quote in the advert wasn't quite true. His defence was similar in that a) it had an MOT with no advisories and b) he had no mechanical knowledge therefore he believed his MOT cert validated the vehicle accordingly.
I claimed for the cost of the inspection, the cost of transporting it to me and the difference in selling prices (after he refused to take the vehicle back, I sold it on with all the faults highlighted).
I did win the case; my inspection report from the garage and his 'excellent condition' words from the original advert were the key points of the case; quite simply, the vehicle was not in excellent condition. The judge did say something about his Caveat Emptor defence, something along the lines of it being superseded or less relevant, but don't quote me on that though as this was 5 years ago.
The OP's case is different insomuch that the buyer had the option to actually inspect the car. This is the crux.
The Spruce goose said:
Indeed, but he was also paid by Munich Legends to give them a bit of publicity.
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
Morning Mookes,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
Really sorry to hear you're going through what I went through before Christmas. There's a lengthy thread on the subject that's already kindly been referenced near the start of this thread.
I'm really surprised to hear you've already got a court date, that's really very unusual that a court would allocate a date for such an issue as this considering they're all so massively busy.
I won't regurgitate what's already been mentioned in my thread but if you want to chat to someone who's been through the same thing by all means PM me and I'll send you my number and we can talk it through.
My thread not only includes the original letters received from the claimant but the responses kindly drafted by another forum member whose words finally put this debacle to bed.
I've only had a chance to skim read it thus far but the thing you need to keep at the front of your mind is that you've done nothing wrong and as such it's overwhelmingly likely that nothing bad will come of it. It's difficult to keep an eye on that when you've been accused as you have though.
Hi All
Thank you comments so far,
A few things have been asked several times so I will just clarify those bits below.
The OP did contact me the day after sale to say that the EML had come on, this was approx. 30 miles after he drove away, he asked did we know anything about it to which we generally didn't, so we replied no, as either of us could pin point the reason for it, this is where he decided to go and get the health check completed. It was 2 weeks later when this got completed (350 miles after buying the car) where the report indicated that the turbo may be lacking power (so not broken), that the rear off-side spring had snapped and that there was oil leaking.
He has provided invoices for the work done (this is how I was able to ascertain the mileage he had done when the work was done)
Thank you comments so far,
A few things have been asked several times so I will just clarify those bits below.
The OP did contact me the day after sale to say that the EML had come on, this was approx. 30 miles after he drove away, he asked did we know anything about it to which we generally didn't, so we replied no, as either of us could pin point the reason for it, this is where he decided to go and get the health check completed. It was 2 weeks later when this got completed (350 miles after buying the car) where the report indicated that the turbo may be lacking power (so not broken), that the rear off-side spring had snapped and that there was oil leaking.
He has provided invoices for the work done (this is how I was able to ascertain the mileage he had done when the work was done)
'sold as seen' and 'caveat emptor' are the favourite PH stock responses in this scenario and while it ought to be this straight forward when discussing a private sale it simply isn't. If the buyer takes it to court and tries to argue misrepresentation or whatever you are at the mercy of the judge and quite frankly some make it up as they go along.
I would take it seriously and try to prepare a strong defence. I certainly wouldn't stroll in and smugly expect the case to be dismissed as some here have suggested.
My view (FWIW) is that you have done nothing wrong OP, what you have written in your advert is basically sales puff and as a private seller it is your subjective opinion, not an expert's view like it would be coming from a dealer. The buyer is obviously trying it on..... I mean apart from anything else they have proceeded with repairs without even giving you reasonable chance to rectify the issue in a cost effective way.
I would take it seriously and try to prepare a strong defence. I certainly wouldn't stroll in and smugly expect the case to be dismissed as some here have suggested.
My view (FWIW) is that you have done nothing wrong OP, what you have written in your advert is basically sales puff and as a private seller it is your subjective opinion, not an expert's view like it would be coming from a dealer. The buyer is obviously trying it on..... I mean apart from anything else they have proceeded with repairs without even giving you reasonable chance to rectify the issue in a cost effective way.
Mookes said:
Hi All
The OP did contact me the day after sale to say that the EML had come on, this was approx. 30 miles after he drove away, he asked did we know anything about it to which we generally didn't, so we replied no,
If true it sounds like you have been deceitful because what are the chances the EML comes on for the first time only 30 mins after he leaves, HOWEVER..........it is still 100% his problem and you shouldn't worry. The OP did contact me the day after sale to say that the EML had come on, this was approx. 30 miles after he drove away, he asked did we know anything about it to which we generally didn't, so we replied no,
Nah, your right its perfectly normal for the EML to show up just as you buy a car.I'll make it clear now though that i dont think the seller has done anything wrong, or has anything to worry about.
I bet he bought the car, gave it a good kicking up the motorway hence the black smoke, and the EML is the result of a bad sensor which only rears its head from big boost.
I bet he bought the car, gave it a good kicking up the motorway hence the black smoke, and the EML is the result of a bad sensor which only rears its head from big boost.
Edited by BuzzBravado on Monday 15th February 10:15
I completely appreciate where your coming from, but surely if there was a fault with the turbo when she sold the car, then the EML light would have come on straight away (I'm no car expert so I wouldn't know), surely that's just logical. I do sympathise with the OP as this could have happened to anyone, but she cannot be held responsible for a fault that arises after the car was sold, no matter what the timeframe. whats to say he wasn't slamming the car around testing it out on the way home, this could have easily happened on the journey home from her house to his
With regards to the spring, not even the OP noticed there was anything wrong until the health check picked it up 2 weeks later, now if a qualified mechanic who did the MOT didn't see it, we didn't notice it, and not even the OP noticed it (until the health check). How on earth can she be done for misrepresentation?
With regards to the spring, not even the OP noticed there was anything wrong until the health check picked it up 2 weeks later, now if a qualified mechanic who did the MOT didn't see it, we didn't notice it, and not even the OP noticed it (until the health check). How on earth can she be done for misrepresentation?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff