Another Caveat Emptor Thread - with a slight twist
Discussion
Flooble said:
Just out of interest, from my layman's perspective the evidence seems to hinge on the ten codes stored in the ECU which would have meant the previous owner knew of the fault.
But the error did not occur during the test drive or for quite a way on the trip home. And these gearboxes are known to be a bit rubbish, in fact someone has also posted that a fluid change will often fix it as it is a temperature related problem rather than a hardware failure.
For the lawyers, how is the court likely to react to the seller saying "yeah, I had one or two instances where the car flashed a warning up, but it was only after I'd driven the car <fast/hard/euphemism of choice> and the internet said it was a known problem with these gearboxes when they get hot, so I figured it wasn't a major issue. After all, it didn't happen at all during the test drive when we were driving sensibly, which proves it was only when these car are old and get thrashed that they complain but get better as soon as you stopped driving like a wally".
to which a lawyer or claimant replies 'but you figured you'd list it for sale immediately and when asked, told the buyer, 'yeah mate she's sweet, never caused me any trouble'But the error did not occur during the test drive or for quite a way on the trip home. And these gearboxes are known to be a bit rubbish, in fact someone has also posted that a fluid change will often fix it as it is a temperature related problem rather than a hardware failure.
For the lawyers, how is the court likely to react to the seller saying "yeah, I had one or two instances where the car flashed a warning up, but it was only after I'd driven the car <fast/hard/euphemism of choice> and the internet said it was a known problem with these gearboxes when they get hot, so I figured it wasn't a major issue. After all, it didn't happen at all during the test drive when we were driving sensibly, which proves it was only when these car are old and get thrashed that they complain but get better as soon as you stopped driving like a wally".
eldar said:
One thing puzzles me about the fault condition. It produced errors stored in the ECU.
Was a warning produced in the car - if so what status, red or yellow, and was a warning message displayed as well? How is the visible element reset - does it take manual intervention or just go away with an engine restart? What does the handbook say?
Bottom line, would the vendor know that the fault was there, or could it be missed, misinterpreted or considered trivial?
It's kinda hard to miss, there is a loud warning noise and the dashboard displays as follows (taken from an identical car):Was a warning produced in the car - if so what status, red or yellow, and was a warning message displayed as well? How is the visible element reset - does it take manual intervention or just go away with an engine restart? What does the handbook say?
Bottom line, would the vendor know that the fault was there, or could it be missed, misinterpreted or considered trivial?
While the error is up the car goes into limp mode and you lose speed and can't put any power through the transmission. After between a few seconds and a minute the error goes away and you can continue normally. It would appear that as the problem gets worse the error stays longer and longer but will usually reset if you stop the engine for a few minutes and restart.
If you can, before you get it fixed, take a photo of *your car* showing the error. When you are explaining something visual to a third party (like in court) a picture is much better. The reactions of legitimate doubters on this thread of how prominent the warning was shows the type of doubt that a Judge may have - but that puts the issue to rest.
That said, if you follow this matter up formally with the seller, the odds are that it is highly unlikely to get that far.
That said, if you follow this matter up formally with the seller, the odds are that it is highly unlikely to get that far.
Burwood said:
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
The seller described the car as 'running beautifully', which it was when you left his drive.
Surely anything that happens after leaving the private sellers drive is nothing to do with the seller, it's no longer his to worry about. Otherwise, how long is the seller obliged to warrant the car as 'a beautiful runner'...5 minutes, 5 hours, a day, a week?
Most people wouldn't have access to the stored ECU faults. The seller's mate may have been driving when the faults occurred [and he may have forgotten to mention it to the owner].
It's a s
tty situation - but I can't think how you could possibly win a case against the vendor?
Almost everything you say is wrong. On balance it looks like the seller intentionally misrepresented the car. The OP asking him when inspecting 'any issues during your ownership' to which this wSurely anything that happens after leaving the private sellers drive is nothing to do with the seller, it's no longer his to worry about. Otherwise, how long is the seller obliged to warrant the car as 'a beautiful runner'...5 minutes, 5 hours, a day, a week?
Most people wouldn't have access to the stored ECU faults. The seller's mate may have been driving when the faults occurred [and he may have forgotten to mention it to the owner].
It's a s
tty situation - but I can't think how you could possibly win a case against the vendor?ker replied 'no, none whatsoever, a sweet car, bullet proof. We will see what a judge has to say."My wife had been using the car, she never mentioned it!" "it didn't dispaly this at all when i had it!!" All possible answers that 'might' be true. If the guy had have sold it say 1 day before the first time it happened would the op still expect a refund?
Its pretty obvious whats happened here, but it does make you wonder why people sign the 'sold as seen' receipt, when clearly they are not buying sold as seen. What happens if you buy one of these from an Auction, does that come as warrantied is it that just unlucky?
Its pretty obvious whats happened here, but it does make you wonder why people sign the 'sold as seen' receipt, when clearly they are not buying sold as seen. What happens if you buy one of these from an Auction, does that come as warrantied is it that just unlucky?
matjk said:
"My wife had been using the car, she never mentioned it!" "it didn't dispaly this at all when i had it!!" All possible answers that 'might' be true. If the guy had have sold it say 1 day before the first time it happened would the op still expect a refund?
Its pretty obvious whats happened here, but it does make you wonder why people sign the 'sold as seen' receipt, when clearly they are not buying sold as seen. What happens if you buy one of these from an Auction, does that come as warrantied is it that just unlucky?
Going further, I would suspect that these lights do not go out (certainly they do not on my car) without the little plug in unit resetting them.......Its pretty obvious whats happened here, but it does make you wonder why people sign the 'sold as seen' receipt, when clearly they are not buying sold as seen. What happens if you buy one of these from an Auction, does that come as warrantied is it that just unlucky?
matjk said:
If the guy had have sold it say 1 day before the first time it happened would the op still expect a refund?
Of course not!In that case the seller wouldn't have misrepresented anything!!
Of course he could claim it was someone else driving it the 6 times it happened or whatever, but common sense (which all the real lawyers seem to argue applies here) says that such a tall tale is well beyond the balance of probabilities proof required, no?
matjk said:
"My wife had been using the car, she never mentioned it!"
If it happened to my wife she'd pull over, have a cry, then call me to come and collect her!She's already pretty adamant she is never going to drive it incase the problem comes back. The insurance was a lot cheaper with her on the policy though.
chriswg said:
If it happened to my wife she'd pull over, have a cry, then call me to come and collect her!
She's already pretty adamant she is never going to drive it incase the problem comes back. The insurance was a lot cheaper with her on the policy though.
You do not need to remove her from the insurance just because she won't drive it.She's already pretty adamant she is never going to drive it incase the problem comes back. The insurance was a lot cheaper with her on the policy though.
The car was in at the local garage for further investigation yesterday. He has quoted me £830 all in for parts and labour to replace the PCB as per an Audi technical service bulletin. Also interesting was that he called his mate who still works for Audi on the gearboxes. He told him they generally have a 95% success rate with this fix for this problem.
My fingers are firmly crossed, it's booked in for 11th October. I can't help but feel I'm usually the 5% guy!
I've texted the quote to the seller and said we can either sort this out now, at mediation or at small claims court. Over to him now.
I've also instructed my solicitor to draft and send the first letter outlining our intent. Hopefully it will have the desired result and get discussions started.
My fingers are firmly crossed, it's booked in for 11th October. I can't help but feel I'm usually the 5% guy!
I've texted the quote to the seller and said we can either sort this out now, at mediation or at small claims court. Over to him now.
I've also instructed my solicitor to draft and send the first letter outlining our intent. Hopefully it will have the desired result and get discussions started.
Burwood said:
comedy gold some of these posts-i mean than in a good way. Reality is a judge is going to have a lot of sympathy for the OP and will probably, in summing up call the seller a lying bd and punish him accordingly 
Really? What on earth are you basing this on? Sounds like you're contributing to the "comedy" here...d and punish him accordingly chriswg said:
The car was in at the local garage for further investigation yesterday. He has quoted me £830 all in for parts and labour to replace the PCB as per an Audi technical service bulletin. Also interesting was that he called his mate who still works for Audi on the gearboxes. He told him they generally have a 95% success rate with this fix for this problem.
My fingers are firmly crossed, it's booked in for 11th October. I can't help but feel I'm usually the 5% guy!
I've texted the quote to the seller and said we can either sort this out now, at mediation or at small claims court. Over to him now.
I've also instructed my solicitor to draft and send the first letter outlining our intent. Hopefully it will have the desired result and get discussions started.
So you're going to ask the previous owner for £830? How much has the solicitor's letter cost you so far?My fingers are firmly crossed, it's booked in for 11th October. I can't help but feel I'm usually the 5% guy!
I've texted the quote to the seller and said we can either sort this out now, at mediation or at small claims court. Over to him now.
I've also instructed my solicitor to draft and send the first letter outlining our intent. Hopefully it will have the desired result and get discussions started.
C70R said:
So you're going to ask the previous owner for £830? How much has the solicitor's letter cost you so far?
£180.I'm going to ask for £830 if that does indeed fix it. There is still the possibility it might need the £2,500 treatment.
If he were to offer me the £830 right now without needing to go any further I would probably take it and take the risk myself that it might not fix the problem. I'd sign a letter saying I'm happy with the resolution and no further action will be taken.
If not, by the time it goes to small claims court we will know for sure if it has fixed it or not.
OP, I don't want to be harsh, but playing Devil's Advocate here, if I were clued up to the realities of the situation and a bit mercenary and I received a solicitor's letter saying that unless I pay £830 I would be sued, I'd be giving you £400 tops, or perhaps, actually, I'd just ignore you:
The reason is being is that you are demonstrating that you need to use the solicitor at your cost each time you contact me from now on. I would also know that the solicitor would charge you more than the cost of the claim to fill out the papers and come to court, and that you'd be paying that, not me. So, you won't actually do it, as it would cost you more than just sucking up the £830 yourself.
So, I'd ignore you and put the ball in your court knowing that you'd be foolish to follow through with your threat. The worst case scenario for me would be is that in the unlikely situation court papers arrive, I'd only be down £830 plus £75 or whatever of court costs - so it'd be well worth my while to call you out on your bluff. Or, if I were feeling exceedingly kind I might offer you half when the court papers arrive. However, all of that will just cover your solicitor's costs, so you get nowt.
That said, hopefully though the seller is not clued up, and will crap himself when he gets the letter and pay up in full. Genuinely, fingers crossed.
The reason is being is that you are demonstrating that you need to use the solicitor at your cost each time you contact me from now on. I would also know that the solicitor would charge you more than the cost of the claim to fill out the papers and come to court, and that you'd be paying that, not me. So, you won't actually do it, as it would cost you more than just sucking up the £830 yourself.
So, I'd ignore you and put the ball in your court knowing that you'd be foolish to follow through with your threat. The worst case scenario for me would be is that in the unlikely situation court papers arrive, I'd only be down £830 plus £75 or whatever of court costs - so it'd be well worth my while to call you out on your bluff. Or, if I were feeling exceedingly kind I might offer you half when the court papers arrive. However, all of that will just cover your solicitor's costs, so you get nowt.
That said, hopefully though the seller is not clued up, and will crap himself when he gets the letter and pay up in full. Genuinely, fingers crossed.
JustinP1 said:
OP, I don't want to be harsh, but playing Devil's Advocate here...
It's a fair point and I'm pretty sure he is clued up.The reason for the solicitors letter is to give a legal base to the claim, it will make sure everything is laid out properly.
If it goes to mediation or small claims court I will sort that all out myself, but I will have the benefit of being able to say - I sent a legal letter in the first instance outlining the grounds for the claim and the reasons behind it. I can provide this letter as evidence to the judge that I tried to do things the right way without having to wast the courts time.
It could be £180 wasted (as my wife thinks) but it gets the ball rolling as this is an area I have no experience in either.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff