Small claims for a misrepresentation of car

[mrsmac17]

Panamax said:

mrsmac17 said:

my husband told them we had a fault with the car and just back from the garage 3 days prior, he told them all he knew and said he couldn’t tell them what had been replaced as we’ve not had the invoice yet

That sounds rather unusual to me.

How was the "fault" described to the buyer?

What was the "invoice" sent a few days later and what did it say?

The invoice was from the garage , for the repairs on the car

[Panamax]

mrsmac17 said:

The invoice was from the garage , for the repairs on the car

That means nothing and simply confirms my view, endorsed by someone else above, that this is a troll post.

Post up a copy of the invoice with details of the how the fault presented itself and I will be happy to give you my unreserved apology....

[mrsmac17]

Panamax said:

mrsmac17 said:

The invoice was from the garage , for the repairs on the car

That means nothing and simply confirms my view, endorsed by someone else above, that this is a troll post.

Post up a copy of the invoice with details of the how the fault presented itself and I will be happy to give you my unreserved apology....

It won’t let new member post a link for the first 14 days

[mrsmac17]

When the 14 days are up I’ll quite happily post the invoice and await your apology,

[Super Sonic]

Richard-390a0 said:

I see Plain Jane is back trolling again as I thought this story (mum selling on behalf of child) sounded familiar...

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Odd conclusion to jump to.
It's not as if all the eg "ticket for 35 in a 30" threads are from the same person is it?

[snuffy]

Richard-390a0 said:

I see Plain Jane is back trolling again as I thought this story (mum selling on behalf of child) sounded familiar...

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

I started reading this thread and then thought it's deja vu all over again.

[Driver101]

Super Sonic said:

Richard-390a0 said:

I see Plain Jane is back trolling again as I thought this story (mum selling on behalf of child) sounded familiar...

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Odd conclusion to jump to.
It's not as if all the eg "ticket for 35 in a 30" threads are from the same person is it?

I think he is spot on. Not only is the subject the same both posters speak/type exactly the same way.

[mrsmac17]

Omg I join a site and ask a question, I’m now being accused of being a troll !!
When my 14 days are up I’ll post my invoice as requested not quite sure what that’s going to prove
Oh no she even speaks the same as the troll !!
It’s deja vue
What are you grown men like, all sitting on your phones bhing about me like little kids, I think your all trolls
I will prove I’m genuine when I can up loads things then I expect an apology!!!
Thanks to all the people who have actually helped me with my question there were some good points , mediation is in 2 weeks and I’ll let u know what happens

[SIMON67]

I'm in the middle of a court claim and have mediation booked next week. I initially thought that the mediator would be looking at the details of the case and apportioning blame / liability. This is clearly not how it works. The mediator has no prior evidence and will accept no evidence on the day. They simply listen to a very brief description of the case from both parties. They are not a judge, weighing up evidence. They are simply there to facilitate a compromise from both parties to avoid the case progressing to court. If you are defending a claim that you believe you have zero liability, you can only lose out as you would be expected to compromise. He claims 2k, you start at zero :- mediator would like everyone to shake hands at 1k. You don't have to accept mediation or to come to an agreement. If you believe zero liability, your best bet is to get to court and present your evidence to a judge who will make an informed decision. Good luck!

[mrsmac17]

SIMON67 said:

I'm in the middle of a court claim and have mediation booked next week. I initially thought that the mediator would be looking at the details of the case and apportioning blame / liability. This is clearly not how it works. The mediator has no prior evidence and will accept no evidence on the day. They simply listen to a very brief description of the case from both parties. They are not a judge, weighing up evidence. They are simply there to facilitate a compromise from both parties to avoid the case progressing to court. If you are defending a claim that you believe you have zero liability, you can only lose out as you would be expected to compromise. He claims 2k, you start at zero :- mediator would like everyone to shake hands at 1k. You don't have to accept mediation or to come to an agreement. If you believe zero liability, your best bet is to get to court and present your evidence to a judge who will make an informed decision. Good luck!

Thank you for your reply, in his claim he wanted the cost of the car plus £205 claim fees,
Good luck on your case

[OutInTheShed]

mrsmac17 said:

Court action for faulty private sale

Here goes
I put an advert on marketplace to sell my sons car
Volvo c30 r design, 79k miles, full service history, leather seats, 2 keys mot til dec, 2009 model very basic !
A lady and her husband came to view, my husband told them we had a fault with the car and just back from the garage 3 days prior, he told them all he knew and said he couldn’t tell them what had been replaced as we’ve not had the invoice yet, the husband test drove the car and inspected it,
Was happy with the car, and got a family member to transfer the money to my son also gave me there email address so I could forward invoice on to them for there records
Fast forward 16 days I sent invoice within 45 mins a demand for a full refund was made and wanted it in 4 days, as there was a fault with the car, apparently this fault happened on there drive home when they got the car
There saying we never told them about a previous fault and that it had been in the garage
2 days later they sent me a fault code read of a suspected egr valve and turbo needs replacement
On our invoice we have the valve replaced so this makes it a faulty turbo , this wasn’t faulty when we had it
I’ve told them the garage will replace the valve under parts warranty if deemed faulty
My son has now had a small claims through the post
What are our chances of winning this

Sounds like there could have been misleading things said?

It's very easy to talk at cross purposes with some people.

Seller says 'it's been to the garage and repaired'
Buyer takes that to mean that the known fault has been dealt with.
Reality is, the garage's repair didn't fix the problem.

Seller has to be very careful what they say, buyer has to be careful interpreting the seller's words, it's easy to hear what you want to hear.


The other thing is, even as a private individual, it's often a criminal offence to sell an unroadworthy car.
In my view, the buyer may have been carless, but the car had a major defect which the seller knew about so was probably not worth what the buyer paid.

The seller may have been entirely honest, but may have a hard time proving it.

This could get messy and expensive.

Buyer should have been in touch as soon as the fault occurred.

[Sir Bagalot]

mrsmac17 said:

SIMON67 said:

I'm in the middle of a court claim and have mediation booked next week. I initially thought that the mediator would be looking at the details of the case and apportioning blame / liability. This is clearly not how it works. The mediator has no prior evidence and will accept no evidence on the day. They simply listen to a very brief description of the case from both parties. They are not a judge, weighing up evidence. They are simply there to facilitate a compromise from both parties to avoid the case progressing to court. If you are defending a claim that you believe you have zero liability, you can only lose out as you would be expected to compromise. He claims 2k, you start at zero :- mediator would like everyone to shake hands at 1k. You don't have to accept mediation or to come to an agreement. If you believe zero liability, your best bet is to get to court and present your evidence to a judge who will make an informed decision. Good luck!

Thank you for your reply, in his claim he wanted the cost of the car plus £205 claim fees,
Good luck on your case

The claim fees are automatically added to the claim. Along with interest.

If it progresses to court the buyer will have another fee to pay.

[Brassblaster]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

More importantly, given the stated 79k mileage, if it's the 16v "1.6D" engine (rather than the 1.6l 8v "D2" - iirc that engine came in in 2010/11 ish though?) then the fact that DPF replacement and DPF additive fluid are both due at 75k (DPF itself every 75k, fluid twice as often) is probably a more likely culprit of reduced performance (if it's in limp mode, especially), assuming that it's that engine and it's on its original DPF, that is.

[Monkeylegend]

mrsmac17 said:

When the 14 days are up I’ll quite happily post the invoice and await your apology,

I would love to see an apology but we need to see the invoice first

[fido]

If you replied honestly to all their questions - then I'd say "see you in court". I wouldn't have even entertained a mediation. Private sale. They are trying it on as they have a potential £2k+ win (however unlikely).

[Caddyshack]

To be fair the car could have also had a problem with the turbo, there were quite a few things wrong with it. The fixes on the invoice do not guarantee a 100% fixed car.

I had a £4k bill from an independent on my car at the last service - when it came back it had things wrong with the car that were not there when I sent it in…it now has to go back for more work.

[samoht]

Caddyshack said:

To be fair the car could have also had a problem with the turbo, there were quite a few things wrong with it. The fixes on the invoice do not guarantee a 100% fixed car.

Whether or not the turbo has now failed is irrelevant to the legal position in a private sale. The seller's only obligation is that the car is roadworthy at the point of sale, and not to have lied about it to the buyer. That's it.

[maz8062]

This is a very tricky case. I’d settle if I were in your shoes.

You and your husband sold your son’s car and disclosed what you knew about the car to a prospective buyer. But it’s your son’s car - what did he disclose about it, or was he hiding behind his parents? Your son could have known about the issue but didn’t disclose it because he wasn’t there. It’s not a good look and I suspect a judge will ask why you know more about the car than your son.

You could win the case of course, but your son really needs to step up and say what he knew or didn’t know. My guess is there was an issue with the car that your son was trying to hide.

[samoht]

maz8062 said:

This is a very tricky case. I’d settle if I were in your shoes.

You and your husband sold your son’s car and disclosed what you knew about the car to a prospective buyer. But it’s your son’s car - what did he disclose about it, or was he hiding behind his parents? Your son could have known about the issue but didn’t disclose it because he wasn’t there. It’s not a good look and I suspect a judge will ask why you know more about the car than your son.

You could win the case of course, but your son really needs to step up and say what he knew or didn’t know. My guess is there was an issue with the car that your son was trying to hide.

There is no obligation on a private seller to disclose anything.

Anything they do say must be true, but they're not required to disclose anything they aren't asked about.

It is a very simple case. Private sale, no allegation the seller has lied or that the car was unroadworthy, no liability.

So simple that there's a sticky thread in GG for exactly this common case.

ETA:

AA said:

The only legal terms that cover a private sale contract are:

• The seller must have the right to sell the car.
• The vehicle should match the description given by the seller.
• The car must be roadworthy

https://www.theaa.com/car-buying/legal-rights

Edited by samoht on Friday 7th July 00:03

[biggbn]

snuffy said:

Richard-390a0 said:

I see Plain Jane is back trolling again as I thought this story (mum selling on behalf of child) sounded familiar...

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

I started reading this thread and then thought it's deja vu all over again.

So deja deja vu...?