Private Car Sale
Discussion
charltjr said:
The text of that claim makes it even clearer that they don't understand the difference between a private sale and buying from a trader.
As others have said I'd just refute their statement point by point. One thing though, you still haven't posted the original text of your advert and that's about the only place you might come unstuck if you've made too many claims about the car.
Hi the original advert went: As others have said I'd just refute their statement point by point. One thing though, you still haven't posted the original text of your advert and that's about the only place you might come unstuck if you've made too many claims about the car.
Very low genuine milage Mazda 5. Excellent condition throughout.
Full Mazda Service History. MOT until April 2015 with no advisories, Tax until end Jan 2015. Insurance group 6.
Lovely to drive, very comfortable and very spacious.
Very well looked after car. Ideal for families with 2+ children, lots of room to put all the things that come with kids
Only selling because we have another MPV and we have no need for 2.
Cheapest of this model with low milage online.
Any further questions or to arrange a viewing please contact me.
I would reply as follows:
The defendant is not connected to, or in the motor trade, and sold the car to the claimant privately. The defendant is not a mechanic, did not conduct a mechanical inspection on the car, and made no representations as to the mechanical condition of the car. The claimant inspected and test drove the car prior to sale, and the defendant made no alterations to the car between claimant's inspection and the collection of the vehicle. The defendant had used the car only a week prior to sale and encountered no problems during a 200-mile journey.
As a private sale, the defendant made no explicit or implied warranties as to the car's fitness for purpose or quality, and as such the claimant's claim that the car had mechanical faults at the time of sale is not a basis for action, and therefore the defendant rejects the claim in its entirety.
The defendant is not connected to, or in the motor trade, and sold the car to the claimant privately. The defendant is not a mechanic, did not conduct a mechanical inspection on the car, and made no representations as to the mechanical condition of the car. The claimant inspected and test drove the car prior to sale, and the defendant made no alterations to the car between claimant's inspection and the collection of the vehicle. The defendant had used the car only a week prior to sale and encountered no problems during a 200-mile journey.
As a private sale, the defendant made no explicit or implied warranties as to the car's fitness for purpose or quality, and as such the claimant's claim that the car had mechanical faults at the time of sale is not a basis for action, and therefore the defendant rejects the claim in its entirety.
B'stard Child said:
So who gutted the DPF??
Sorry missed your statement that you weren't aware of any DPF removal whilst in your ownership
Not a clue mate. I even wondered whether they'd changed their mind about the car & their mechanic friend did the necessary stuff for them to complain??? I don't knowSorry missed your statement that you weren't aware of any DPF removal whilst in your ownership
Edited by B'stard Child on Monday 13th October 14:10
B'stard Child said:
So who gutted the DPF??
Or is the DPF even gutted or removed? OP, as suggested above, I'd detail all events from initial contact, through the sale and the comms after with dates and times, if you have them. Also, I'd attach a copy of the advert, not an 'in your own words' version. The facts are key, not any opinions, such as 'I wouldn't have taken my family on holiday three weeks before'. I wouldn't think those presiding over this would be too concerned about your opinion.
philario said:
Cheers. Any recommendations on who to use? Is their a specialist firm for this type of thing?
Local solicitor can help you, but it's not rocket science really. Depends how much they've sued for. If they've sued for £500 then solicitor probably a waste of money. £5,000 and it's more sensible. Small claims are supposed to be conducted without solicitors, best you can do is just an hour of advice because you can be looking at £150-£200/hour and it racks up pretty quick.
philario said:
The claim is as follows:
I purchased a car off the defendant after being told it had been looked at by a mechanic and was sound but within 2 hours of driving away an engine fault presented itself.
After investigation by a professional mechanic, we found the vehicle to have several faults and the DPF filter had been removed making the car an mot failure.
None of which had been declared before the sale. We notified the defendant by phone on the same day about the fault & have since written to him for a resolution but have had no response. We feel the car is not fit for purpose.
That's it.
I purchased a car off the defendant after being told it had been looked at by a mechanic and was sound but within 2 hours of driving away an engine fault presented itself.
After investigation by a professional mechanic, we found the vehicle to have several faults and the DPF filter had been removed making the car an mot failure.
None of which had been declared before the sale. We notified the defendant by phone on the same day about the fault & have since written to him for a resolution but have had no response. We feel the car is not fit for purpose.
That's it.
philario said:
Hi the original advert went:
Very low genuine milage Mazda 5. Excellent condition throughout.
Full Mazda Service History. MOT until April 2015 with no advisories, Tax until end Jan 2015. Insurance group 6.
Lovely to drive, very comfortable and very spacious.
Very well looked after car. Ideal for families with 2+ children, lots of room to put all the things that come with kids
Only selling because we have another MPV and we have no need for 2.
Cheapest of this model with low milage online.
Any further questions or to arrange a viewing please contact me.
What a nightmare - looking at the above 2 posts it appears the claimant doesn't have a leg to stand on. But yes seek legal advice.Very low genuine milage Mazda 5. Excellent condition throughout.
Full Mazda Service History. MOT until April 2015 with no advisories, Tax until end Jan 2015. Insurance group 6.
Lovely to drive, very comfortable and very spacious.
Very well looked after car. Ideal for families with 2+ children, lots of room to put all the things that come with kids
Only selling because we have another MPV and we have no need for 2.
Cheapest of this model with low milage online.
Any further questions or to arrange a viewing please contact me.
Mods, can this thread not be moved over to S,P and L? It might assist the OP more. If of course he has posting rights in that forum.
BlackLabel said:
What a nightmare - looking at the above 2 posts it appears the claimant doesn't have a leg to stand on. But yes seek legal advice.
Mods, can this thread not be moved over to S,P and L? It might assist the OP more. If of course he has posting rights in that forum.
Is there any way I can move it to S,P &L? Mods, can this thread not be moved over to S,P and L? It might assist the OP more. If of course he has posting rights in that forum.
Thanks
philario said:
BlackLabel said:
What a nightmare - looking at the above 2 posts it appears the claimant doesn't have a leg to stand on. But yes seek legal advice.
Mods, can this thread not be moved over to S,P and L? It might assist the OP more. If of course he has posting rights in that forum.
Is there any way I can move it to S,P &L? Mods, can this thread not be moved over to S,P and L? It might assist the OP more. If of course he has posting rights in that forum.
Thanks
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff