Private car sale - being taken to court

[QuickQuack]

It would be interesting to know if the other party engages Simon Burn Solicitors to act for them...

[xjay1337]

Oh dear

[V8LM]

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.

[maffski]

Have you checked the paper work is actually genuine? It'd be easy to know up something that looked official and I'd bet a fair percentage of people would immediately be in touch with the buyer and offering some of the money back...

[CS Garth]

Op: this has no legs on it whatsoever, the buyer has no case against you whatsoever. Don't even bother to engage with any further discussion on the the issues.

I'd bet heavily this is just bs to try and scare you. I would email him and say having taken legal advice you don't believe you have a case to answer for, his is a vexatious claim and you welcome the opportunity to present your case to a judge. Then tell him that any further contact on the matter other than pertaining to the legal process will be treated as harassment and reported to the police.

Idiots like this need to be handled firmly

[AL5026]

I'll happily give you a different slant on it. I bought a second hand car, unseen, well I obviously saw the advert photos. Numerous text messages were exchanged and a deal was done at the asking price. I arranged for it to be transported to me as it was close on 300 miles away. What became apparent very quickly was a number of issues with the vehicle, I had it inspected at my local garage and was disappointed with both the issues identified and the rough idea of cost to rectify.
I approached the seller about this and tried to get my money back for the vehicle or at least for the remedial work required, and I was given the caveat emptor quote too, along with the sold as seen etc etc.
Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I took him through the small claims court. Mainly because I was unhappy that his 'in excellent condition' quote in the advert wasn't quite true. His defence was similar in that a) it had an MOT with no advisories and b) he had no mechanical knowledge therefore he believed his MOT cert validated the vehicle accordingly.
I claimed for the cost of the inspection, the cost of transporting it to me and the difference in selling prices (after he refused to take the vehicle back, I sold it on with all the faults highlighted).
I did win the case; my inspection report from the garage and his 'excellent condition' words from the original advert were the key points of the case; quite simply, the vehicle was not in excellent condition. The judge did say something about his Caveat Emptor defence, something along the lines of it being superseded or less relevant, but don't quote me on that though as this was 5 years ago.

[CS Garth]

You did well - as this guy actually saw the car and then banged 350 miles on it I'd say he is in a different position

[podpod]

did you give the buyer a receipt with sold as seen on it...

[vikingaero]

datum77 said:

Mook. Without being too critical of you and GF - you are taking all of this far too seriously. Your buyer has little or no chance of any court coming down in favour of his claim. He IS trying it on.
One email or letter stating "see you in court" should either put him off pursuing you or he is a hell of a gambler.
If he wishes to take you to law - be confident that the odds are in YOUR favour.

Now move on with your life.

Problem is Society experiences Tesco/Ikea/Amazon returns/refund systems and expects similar rights in other transactions.

I really wish I could say: Sold As Seen/Buyer Beware/Caveat Emptor to the OP, but this is the real world. On MSE there have been several notable cases which went to Court and all the posters where supporting the OP with their Sold As Seen/Buyer Beware/Caveat Emptor views/opinions. The fact was that at County Court level judges get out of bed the wrong side and make what we perceive to be irrational judgements.

After the Campervan/Motorhome episode on MSE, I wouldn't/couldn't tell anyone to defend a claim with a high degree of confidence anymore.

[klunkT5]

I always put 'Any inspection welcome' on the ad when i sell a car and 'Inspected, Tested and sold as seen with no warranty' on the receipt. Never had any come backs.

[anonymous-user]

podpod said:

did you give the buyer a receipt with sold as seen on it...

a magic piece of paper that would make fall difference.

it is misrepresentation not buyer beware that is the crux of the argument.

[CS Garth]

The Spruce goose said:

podpod said:

did you give the buyer a receipt with sold as seen on it...

a magic piece of paper that would make fall difference.

it is misrepresentation not buyer beware that is the crux of the argument.

Precisely this - my view would be that if the car had been serviced in accordance with the manufacturers specification (and I am assuming it was) a private seller describing condition as excellent could not be reasonably expected to know all mechanical internals were working as expects unless they had otherwise been informed. Also those 350 mile could have been driven awfully - he could have driven home in 2nd gear for all we know

[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?

[Bonefish Blues]

I've read a number of these threads and this is by some distance the weakest "case" a buyer has put up.

[Sheepshanks]

vikingaero said:

After the Campervan/Motorhome episode on MSE, I wouldn't/couldn't tell anyone to defend a claim with a high degree of confidence anymore.

I don't think it's been referred to already but there's another quite recent one on MSE where a woman won a case on a Passat (I think) that she claimed had some faults.

IIRC what was really bizarre is she didn't even get the car fixed, but sold the it on and the court awarded damages based to the sellers estimates of the repair costs based on the faults described by the buyer.

[imagineifyeswill]

I have no legal knowledge so cant say whether you or he will win in court, but I do have 40 odd years mechanical experience in the motor trade and frankly I think he,s pissing into the wind. 1) The vehicle emitted black smoke on acceleration, any turbo diesel will emit a fair burst of black smoke when accelerated hard especially when cold, absolutely normal. 2) £250 to replace a rear spring on a S-Max?, using an aftermarket spring I would carry out that repair for under £100 incl VAT, using genuine ford part possibly £130, but he,s not using genuine parts because 3) Turbo £450, thats a perfectly reasonable price for an aftermarket turbo but a genuine Ford would be nearer £900 + VAT. 4) Engine oil leak, it wasnt even bad enough for the MOT tester too advise it?, was this oil leak possibly from a intercooler hose, any turbo disel engine thats done 101,000 miles will be putting a small amount of oil through the turbo that may show as a leak around an intercooler hose buts its fairly normal and certainly not a sign of immediate impending doom. I would suggest what hes sent you is a list of prices made up in his own head and that none of that work has ever been carried out. Meant to add that a spring can break at any time, probably wasnt broken when you sold it too him but if vehicle had been parked up for a few weeks after the test it may have broken just as he drove away, certainly not unheard off but more common with front springs due to the twisting action of steering.

[nct001]

You are not liable for his consequential losses ie

Hire car or loss of earnings.


I used to sell cars no reserve on eBay (years ago) and I sold an eighteen month old wrx to a Subaru main dealer he bought it and tried to sue me because it wasn't good enough to go straight onto his forecourt and tried to sue me for the loss of his expected profit!!!! It was one of the funniest conversations I have ever had in my life.... you want me to compensate you as you only have £2500 margin not £3200!!!

So it's not just private people that try it on

[V8LM]

Mookes said:

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?

It shows the engine passed the smoke test, being less than 1.5/m density of smoke was measured on accelerating the engine. Providing your GF is not trading cars, then the clear MOT with no advisories is probably enough for your GF to believe the car is in excellent condition and hence not misrepresented. The purchaser buying without driving the car is also greatly in your favour.

ETA: if the engine light was on when the car was first driven away then I'm surprised the purchaser didn't stop and come back straight away. Providing all questions asked were answered truthfully, then i can't see you've anything to worry about.

Edited by V8LM on Sunday 14th February 13:39

[confused_buyer]

I presume the purchaser has actually provided copy invoices of the diagnosis and work done from a proper VAT registered garage?

[Sump]

This must be why PXs are on the rise and private sales are on the down?