Private Car Sale - Legal advice please???
Discussion
JustinP1 said:
Yep.
Don't fire one off just yet. It needs to be worded properly.
Out of interest, you say 'private sale' - was this your own personal car with your name on the V5? How long did you own it for?
The thing about your mechanic looking at it, exactly what was said? That's their sole angle on this.
Yes it was my own car, my name on the V5 etc.Don't fire one off just yet. It needs to be worded properly.
Out of interest, you say 'private sale' - was this your own personal car with your name on the V5? How long did you own it for?
The thing about your mechanic looking at it, exactly what was said? That's their sole angle on this.
I owned it for about 2 months.
I bought the car purely because it was more beneficial than hiring one for a family holiday.
We have a 5 seater renault scenic, but wanted a 7 seater for holiday as we have 3 kids. (more space for luggage & pushchair etc)
I looked into hiring one, but decided to buy one with the intention of selling it after the holiday as we have no need for 2 cars. It made more sense financially to do it this way.
I explained all of this to people who viewed the car too.
Regarding 'my mechanic' looking at it as they claim, I never said this because I do not have a mechanic and I dont know any mechanics. All I told them was that I had topped the oil up a bit before we used the car for the holiday.
They inspected the vehicle thoroughly inside & out, under bonnet & under car etc.
Jasandjules said:
When did you receive this claim? Have you filed your acknowledgement of service?
From what you say you made no such assertion about any mechanic inspection. Do you have the wording of the sale advert as well?
It may be prudent to write to them now and advise them if they don't withdraw the claim you will make an application to strike it out before allocation and will seek your costs.
Yes I still have the advert.From what you say you made no such assertion about any mechanic inspection. Do you have the wording of the sale advert as well?
It may be prudent to write to them now and advise them if they don't withdraw the claim you will make an application to strike it out before allocation and will seek your costs.
I received the claim last week and have 14 days to respond.
This isn't the only thread like this to have started here in the last few days. Here's the other. Maybe some new kind of scam?
s3fella said:
Why do these f
ktards buy the car, pay for it, and THEN take it to a mechanic.
OP if it comes to court, just say you bought it with MOT, you sold it with MOT, you have no knowledge of the DPF issue or not. Which is true of course.
Never ever understood why people buy then take it to a mehanic.ktards buy the car, pay for it, and THEN take it to a mechanic. OP if it comes to court, just say you bought it with MOT, you sold it with MOT, you have no knowledge of the DPF issue or not. Which is true of course.
Where's the mechanic when they buy it ?
I call the mechanic 'uncle veyron'.
Because this uncle/mate/family friend mechanic is always super amazing and only ever works on something special.
Have you sold any ther private cars recently op that may give the impression you are a trader?
I sold my car I used for work a few months back, I'd had it for over a year though, sold it to free up some cash for the 7 seater. I wouldn't have time to even think about being a trader, I have a full time job where I normally do about 50 hrs a week & I've got 3 boys aged 5, 2, & 8 months who run me ragged the rest of the time lol
I sold my car I used for work a few months back, I'd had it for over a year though, sold it to free up some cash for the 7 seater. I wouldn't have time to even think about being a trader, I have a full time job where I normally do about 50 hrs a week & I've got 3 boys aged 5, 2, & 8 months who run me ragged the rest of the time lol
Foliage said:
Just ignore it all, maybe contact the small claims court directly by mail and explain it was a private sale, do not contact the person who bought the car from you, ignore them.
They should have checked the car prior to handing over any money.
IANAL but I think this is bad advice.They should have checked the car prior to handing over any money.
If it is a genuine small claims court claim then you have to respond don't you? Otherwise you lose by default.
Your defence is fine and you will win (you never said a mechanic inspected it - caveat emptor etc...) but the court needs to hear it.
Post your suggested response up here and I am sure someone will advise on how suitable it is.
walm said:
Foliage said:
Just ignore it all, maybe contact the small claims court directly by mail and explain it was a private sale, do not contact the person who bought the car from you, ignore them.
They should have checked the car prior to handing over any money.
IANAL but I think this is bad advice.They should have checked the car prior to handing over any money.
If it is a genuine small claims court claim then you have to respond don't you? Otherwise you lose by default.
Your defence is fine and you will win (you never said a mechanic inspected it - caveat emptor etc...) but the court needs to hear it.
Post your suggested response up here and I am sure someone will advise on how suitable it is.
If you don't file a Defence then you lose by default.
What you can do OP, is file the Acknowledgment of Service. Then you get an additional 14 days to file your Defence, so 28 days from the date of service of the paperwork to you.
I was going to post an example of what is expected in a Defence but, from memory, the Money Claim Online process is difficult to actually format anything.
How it *should be* is a narrative of numbered paragraphs, setting out which parts of the claim you agree with, which you deny, and the basis of your Defence.
So, for example:
1) It is confirmed that the Claimant entered into a contract of sale for the vehicle with registration number X for the sum of £3800.
2) This contract was concluded orally after the Defendant was allowed a full visual inspection (including the engine) at his leisure, and a test drive of the vehicle.
3) It is denied that the Defendant made any statement or implication that the vehicle was viewed by a mechanic.
and so on. That's just run off the top of my head to give an example - you'll need to give it some more thought.
walm said:
Post your suggested response up here and I am sure someone will advise on how suitable it is.
My suggested responseThe claimant thoroughly inspected the car inside
and out, including under the bonnet whilst revving the engine,
underneath the car and the exhaust pipe. She also took it for a
test drive and seemed very pleased. Later that day she phoned me
to make an offer, which I accepted, and she paid a deposit for me
to take the advert down.
Approximately 2 hours after collecting the car the following week,
the claimant phoned me stating the car had seemed to lose power
but didn't cut out. Therefore they were going to take the car to a
mechanic friend of theirs. I had never experienced anything like
this whilst i drove the car.
I then received contact 4 days later saying their mechanic friend
has looked at the car and found a number of faults - some of which
were 'clearly visible' when looking under the bonnet, yet these
'clearly visible' faults were not seen or picked up on during the
initial inspection.
I was also told that the car wouldn't go over 3000rpm, again a
problem I had never experienced, and didn't happen during their
inspection when the engine was revved or on the test drive.
None of the faults that were listed were apparent to me, if there
at all, whilst I owned the car.
Regarding the 'DPF filter' removal, this most certainly was not
removed whilst I owned the car.
The reason for not responding to the initial written contact
(apart from being under no obligation to) is that I was not given
a postal address, just an email address, and I didn't think it was
very formal to respond to the email address given regarding this
matter.
If I felt the car was not 'fit for purpose' there is no way
whatsoever I would've taken my wife and 3 children on a family
holiday in it just a few weeks prior.
essayer said:
How was your advert worded?
Original AdvertVery 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.
philario said:
My suggested response
The claimant thoroughly inspected the car inside
and out, including under the bonnet whilst revving the engine,
underneath the car and the exhaust pipe. She also took it for a
test drive and seemed very pleased. Later that day she phoned me
to make an offer, which I accepted, and she paid a deposit for me
to take the advert down.
Approximately 2 hours after collecting the car the following week,
the claimant phoned me stating the car had seemed to lose power
but didn't cut out. Therefore they were going to take the car to a
mechanic friend of theirs. I had never experienced anything like
this whilst i drove the car.
I then received contact 4 days later saying their mechanic friend
has looked at the car and found a number of faults - some of which
were 'clearly visible' when looking under the bonnet, yet these
'clearly visible' faults were not seen or picked up on during the
initial inspection.
I was also told that the car wouldn't go over 3000rpm, again a
problem I had never experienced, and didn't happen during their
inspection when the engine was revved or on the test drive.
None of the faults that were listed were apparent to me, if there
at all, whilst I owned the car.
Regarding the 'DPF filter' removal, this most certainly was not
removed whilst I owned the car.
The reason for not responding to the initial written contact
(apart from being under no obligation to) is that I was not given
a postal address, just an email address, and I didn't think it was
very formal to respond to the email address given regarding this
matter.
If I felt the car was not 'fit for purpose' there is no way
whatsoever I would've taken my wife and 3 children on a family
holiday in it just a few weeks prior.
Your defence seems to be on the basis that there were no problems with the car. I think a better defence would be to deny that any problems on the car are your responsibility.The claimant thoroughly inspected the car inside
and out, including under the bonnet whilst revving the engine,
underneath the car and the exhaust pipe. She also took it for a
test drive and seemed very pleased. Later that day she phoned me
to make an offer, which I accepted, and she paid a deposit for me
to take the advert down.
Approximately 2 hours after collecting the car the following week,
the claimant phoned me stating the car had seemed to lose power
but didn't cut out. Therefore they were going to take the car to a
mechanic friend of theirs. I had never experienced anything like
this whilst i drove the car.
I then received contact 4 days later saying their mechanic friend
has looked at the car and found a number of faults - some of which
were 'clearly visible' when looking under the bonnet, yet these
'clearly visible' faults were not seen or picked up on during the
initial inspection.
I was also told that the car wouldn't go over 3000rpm, again a
problem I had never experienced, and didn't happen during their
inspection when the engine was revved or on the test drive.
None of the faults that were listed were apparent to me, if there
at all, whilst I owned the car.
Regarding the 'DPF filter' removal, this most certainly was not
removed whilst I owned the car.
The reason for not responding to the initial written contact
(apart from being under no obligation to) is that I was not given
a postal address, just an email address, and I didn't think it was
very formal to respond to the email address given regarding this
matter.
If I felt the car was not 'fit for purpose' there is no way
whatsoever I would've taken my wife and 3 children on a family
holiday in it just a few weeks prior.
philario - you're safe here in terms of the advert wording and your position.
In terms of your response, firstly, keep it to the basic and pertinent points. You don't need to respond to side arguments and things that don't legally matter. That just dilutes your angle, and could possibly give you room to say the wrong thing.
So, whether a filter was there or not is irrelevant. You didn't warrant the car to be 'fit for purpose'. You don't need to, that's a red herring.
You also really need to format your points in numbered paragraphs. It makes the points easy to see, and makes you look like you know what you're doing.
In terms of your response, firstly, keep it to the basic and pertinent points. You don't need to respond to side arguments and things that don't legally matter. That just dilutes your angle, and could possibly give you room to say the wrong thing.
So, whether a filter was there or not is irrelevant. You didn't warrant the car to be 'fit for purpose'. You don't need to, that's a red herring.
You also really need to format your points in numbered paragraphs. It makes the points easy to see, and makes you look like you know what you're doing.
mrmr96 said:
Your defence seems to be on the basis that there were no problems with the car. I think a better defence would be to deny that any problems on the car are your responsibility.
Bingo. So:
7) 'Caveat emptor' applies for the private sale of cars. The seller is not responsible for faults which present themselves after the point of sale.
philario said:
essayer said:
How was your advert worded?
Original AdvertVery 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.
Just give the mileage, service history etc and note anything that deviates from what would be expected (e.g. marks on bodywork, extra kit, length of MOT). Keep it factual and leave your opinion out of it. You have admitted that you only owned the car for 2 months so you can't possibly know how well it has been looked after.
1. By an agreement made orally on [date], the Defendant sold and the Claimant bought [describe car] "the Car".
2. The Defendant did not sell the Car in the course of a business.
3. The Defendant sold the Car as a private seller and without any express or implied warranty or condition as to its quality.
4. The Defendant makes no admissions as to the alleged defects in the Car, but such defects are in any event irrelevant for the reason indicated in paragraph 3 above.
5. The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant, as alleged or at all.
6. The claim has no reasonable prospect of success. The Defendant will seek the costs of defending the claim.
If asked, the "excellent condition" was what is known as a "mere puff", and in any event an expression of inexpert opinion.
2. The Defendant did not sell the Car in the course of a business.
3. The Defendant sold the Car as a private seller and without any express or implied warranty or condition as to its quality.
4. The Defendant makes no admissions as to the alleged defects in the Car, but such defects are in any event irrelevant for the reason indicated in paragraph 3 above.
5. The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant, as alleged or at all.
6. The claim has no reasonable prospect of success. The Defendant will seek the costs of defending the claim.
If asked, the "excellent condition" was what is known as a "mere puff", and in any event an expression of inexpert opinion.
Breadvan72]1. By an agreement made orally on [date said:
, the Defendant sold and the Claimant bought [describe car] "the Car".
2. The Defendant did not sell the Car in the course of a business.
3. The Defendant sold the Car as a private seller and without any express or implied warranty or condition as to its quality.
4. The Defendant makes no admissions as to the alleged defects in the Car, but such defects are in any event irrelevant for the reason indicated in paragraph 3 above.
5. The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant, as alleged or at all.
6. The claim has no reasonable prospect of success. The Defendant will seek the costs of defending the claim.
If asked, the "excellent condition" was what is known as a "mere puff", and in any event an expression of inexpert opinion.
Whilst I see the advantages of the directness of this. I would have thought it wise to mention of the car being inspected and a test driven? Does that not reduce any suggestion that the advert wording to be material to the sale/contract?2. The Defendant did not sell the Car in the course of a business.
3. The Defendant sold the Car as a private seller and without any express or implied warranty or condition as to its quality.
4. The Defendant makes no admissions as to the alleged defects in the Car, but such defects are in any event irrelevant for the reason indicated in paragraph 3 above.
5. The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant, as alleged or at all.
6. The claim has no reasonable prospect of success. The Defendant will seek the costs of defending the claim.
If asked, the "excellent condition" was what is known as a "mere puff", and in any event an expression of inexpert opinion.
To be clear - I'm interested rather than suggesting my advice is better than BV
Edited by balls-out on Tuesday 14th October 16:34
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff