Private car sale - being taken to court

[Mookes]

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

Edited by Mookes on Friday 12th February 20:19

Edited by Mookes on Friday 12th February 20:22

[Mookes]

MDMA . said:

Interupting Eastenders, but do a search. Recent one was quattrodave ??? Reply letter in the thread.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=155...

Edited by MDMA . on Friday 12th February 20:23

Thanks MDMA, very useful.

I cant even see how she has misrepresented the car by describing it as "excellent car in excellent condition" surely this is subjective and not factual. She has no mechanical knowledge in the slightest. Surely this is just puffery?

[Mookes]

Bungleaio said:

Go along to court and be 100% confident that you will win. There is no comeback for buyers for private sales.

Just be warned the buyer may take things into their own hands for recompense, which is obviously completely illegal. Have you got CCTV at home?

We are very confident, we have an MOT which was done (no advisory's) drove the car back 100 yards to her house and then it was sold. ridiculous really that it has got this far.

She has recently had a letter for her allocation which states that she needs to attend to consider the claimant's indication that expert evidence is needed?

[Mookes]

DrSteveBrule said:

He's obviously got time and money to waste. I can appreciate your initial concern but there is no way his claims can stand up, especially if what you're saying about the mileage he's covered in the interim is true. I hesitate to use the word extortion but that sounds very much like what he's trying to do.

Relax and if you do have a day in court, enjoy watching him squirm.

Absolutely agree with you, there are way to many inconsistencies in his story, I guess we will find out on the 18th March, I will certainly keep the thread updated. Lets just hope it goes my GF's way. One thing is for sure though, she wont cave in lol

[Mookes]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Normally on a private sale there should be nothing to worry about. However, the words in the ad'

"excellent car in excellent condition"

may come back to haunt you if the buyer can show they were untrue.

Yes I see what your saying, however wouldn't the seller have to prove that my GF knew about the faults to be able to back this up. After all she has no mechanical knowledge and an MOT backing up that the car was completely roadworthy with no advisory's. When the MOT was complete there were 101429 miles on the clock, it was then driven 100 yards back to her house and then sold, mileage on the V5C when sold was also 101429.

[Mookes]

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:

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

[Mookes]

vikingaero said:

There's been a few surprising threads on MoneySavingExpert where people have been taken to Court for a faulty car/motorhome and what we think is sold as seen/buyer beware isn't true in a Court of Law.

Probably explains why so many people are willing to punt their car to WBAC.

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.

[Mookes]

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)

[Mookes]

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.

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.

[Mookes]

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:

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

[Mookes]

V8LM said:

Mookes said:

I have just managed to obtain a copy of this from the garage, although I will need some help understanding it:

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

This is the measurement of smoke density in the exhaust. The limit is 1.5/m. The reading here was 0.43/m.

so would this reasonably give a good indication that the turbo was working fine at the time?

[Mookes]

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)

[Mookes]

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?

[Mookes]

QuattroDave said:

Morning Mookes,

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 Quattrodave

Yes I did have a look at your thread which was indicated by another forum member, its not the court date we have received as such, its a notice of allocation where we are required to attend to consider the claimants indication that expert evidence is needed.

What page of your thread can the letter that put the issue to bed so to speak be found, I'd be really keen to have a look at it.

Thankyou for your response

[Mookes]

Again thanks for all the replies, some very useful stuff there.

I guess what she would really need is an experts statement stating that a snapped spring and the turbo fault could have occurred at any time.

I am going to write some key points this evening, I will then draft up the basis of the argument when we go to court, Il post it hear and get everyone's thoughts (you can also tell me if there's something I should include which iv missed)

Again thank you all for your help, its much appreciated

Regards
Mookes

[Mookes]

So am I right in assuming my defence points should be, please feel free to point anything I should include:

Test Drive refused, full thorough inspection was taken by the claimant before purchase
Receipt given “sold as seen” along with text “that she was not aware of any mechanical issues with the car”
Vehicles mileage matched that of the MOT done prior to sale, showing vehicle had not done any mileage since MOT was done.
Claimant first complained that black smoke was coming from exhaust (we have emissions report showing the emissions were fine)
He then complained that the MOT was “bogus”, she advised him to take the issue up with the ministry of transport if he felt this was the case.
Health check which diagnosed faults was not done until 350 miles after purchase
He said car was off road more than on and that it was in a dangerous condition when we sold it to him (yet he was clearly driving the car as it did 705 miles before spring was changed and 918 miles before turbo change).
None of these faults were picked up by the mechanic who did the MOT, they weren’t noticed by her, and not even by the claimant (until he had health check done).
We did not agree to him having any work done, he did this off his own back
Car described as “excellent car in excellent condition” (Puffery surely), GF’s subjective view of a car that had served her brilliantly well in the past. Even provided receipts of all work done in the advert. Provided full clean MOT with no advisory’s.

[Mookes]

Also does anyone know a professional or company I can approach who would be able to state that springs and turbo's can indeed go at any time without warning signs. As another one of his arguments is that she must have known these faults were present on the car and that they are long term faults.

[Mookes]

Jasandjules said:

The easiest approach to take is to just stick to facts and not embellish anything i.e.

Red Passat 170 sport estate. 120,000 miles. Cambelt changed at 117,000. MOT'd until Jan 2017.

my GF nor myself will ever be selling a car privately again that's for sure lol

[Mookes]

Yea I have a feeling that this is going to come down to the judge on the day. hopefully we will get a good one.

Thanks for the MOT link too, most useful again.

To quote an old saying, she will have to go in hoping for the best and expecting the worst

Edited by Mookes on Tuesday 16th February 18:08

[Mookes]

Jimboka said:

Does your house/car insurance cover costs or legal advice against such muppetry?

Unfortunately I believe not.

That's something I also forgot to mention, he accused her of programing the EML so that it wouldn't show when the engine came on, UNBELIEVEABLE