Small claims for a misrepresentation of car
Discussion
Hugo Stiglitz said:
I'm not saying it's you OP but everytime I read a 'selling on behalf of someone' topic I think hobby home Trader, recently bought from someone and looking to carry on pass themselves off as a private seller.
That's exactly my experience, and as soon as I hear those words I laugh, and lose any interest.Selling on behalf of
Selling for a friend
Managed sale (tactic now used by dealers)
samoht said:
It is a very simple case. Private sale, no allegation the seller has lied or that the car was unroadworthy, no liability.
Agreed. While I am always very wary to take one side of a story like this at face value, if everything transpired in the way the OP say it did then the claimants don't have a leg to stand on. If the OP is indeed a driveway trader looking for some free legal advice then - as an actual, real-life, proper lawyer - I'd say: look elsewhere. While there is some correct advice on this thread there is also a right load of old tosh written by people who's legal training seems to consist of watching re-runs of Perry Mason. But if you're asking for advice it means you're unlikely to be able to tell the difference.
This looks pretty typical of a lot of cars for sale at the moment.
It's become a troublesome heap of s
t, so the owner is trying to get shot of it in a short window of time while it's behaving.
A filthy coked-up, tar-soaked diesel.
Low mileage, it's done 5000 unsuitable miles every year.
It's likely going to need a new turbo and a DPF and everything cleaning out properly.
Quite likely it really needs the head de-coking.
There are a lot of shiny low mileage diesels out there, with tidy bodywork and clean interior, which are basically Beyond Economic Repair.
When it comes to the mis-selling case, then it would be a matter of whether the seller said anything at all which was wrong or misleading.
I've looked at a few cars recently, wanting a tidy diesel with less miles than the current shed.
A lot of sellers can't seem to help polishing the truth somewhat.
As a buyer, you need to be extremely careful.
Nobody can prove what was or was not said.
Will one party in this dispute convince the judge that the other is not being honest?
Might as well toss a coin.
It's become a troublesome heap of s
t, so the owner is trying to get shot of it in a short window of time while it's behaving.A filthy coked-up, tar-soaked diesel.
Low mileage, it's done 5000 unsuitable miles every year.
It's likely going to need a new turbo and a DPF and everything cleaning out properly.
Quite likely it really needs the head de-coking.
There are a lot of shiny low mileage diesels out there, with tidy bodywork and clean interior, which are basically Beyond Economic Repair.
When it comes to the mis-selling case, then it would be a matter of whether the seller said anything at all which was wrong or misleading.
I've looked at a few cars recently, wanting a tidy diesel with less miles than the current shed.
A lot of sellers can't seem to help polishing the truth somewhat.
As a buyer, you need to be extremely careful.
Nobody can prove what was or was not said.
Will one party in this dispute convince the judge that the other is not being honest?
Might as well toss a coin.
If the buyer wanted a guarantee with the car, then the price would have been higher with a dealer and included the cost of the warranty.
It wont be a "toss of a coin" at small claims, it will be what legal rights does the buyer have (very few) and has the seller tripped themselves up by misrepresentation.
Surprised it has continued this far. If the seller has been straight in this thread; the buyer is likely to be disappointed unless they can prove the seller was a trader.
It wont be a "toss of a coin" at small claims, it will be what legal rights does the buyer have (very few) and has the seller tripped themselves up by misrepresentation.
Surprised it has continued this far. If the seller has been straight in this thread; the buyer is likely to be disappointed unless they can prove the seller was a trader.
It could be the case that the buyer will be trying to prove the OP is a car dealer?
Perhaps the buyer has found lots of previous adverts to prove they're a dealer?
Pure speculation on my part of course, I'll await the OP's furious response, but in my thinking it's the only way the buyer will win this case?
Perhaps the buyer has found lots of previous adverts to prove they're a dealer?
Pure speculation on my part of course, I'll await the OP's furious response, but in my thinking it's the only way the buyer will win this case?
Rankss said:
If the buyer wanted a guarantee with the car, then the price would have been higher with a dealer and included the cost of the warranty.
It wont be a "toss of a coin" at small claims, it will be what legal rights does the buyer have (very few) and has the seller tripped themselves up by misrepresentation.
Surprised it has continued this far. If the seller has been straight in this thread; the buyer is likely to be disappointed unless they can prove the seller was a trader.
It's a civil matter, it's not 'proof' it's 'balance of probabilities'.It wont be a "toss of a coin" at small claims, it will be what legal rights does the buyer have (very few) and has the seller tripped themselves up by misrepresentation.
Surprised it has continued this far. If the seller has been straight in this thread; the buyer is likely to be disappointed unless they can prove the seller was a trader.
So if the buyer convinces the judge that he was more likely misled by the seller than not, the seller loses.
If the buyer convinces the judge that the car was not roadworthy at point of sale, the seller loses.
If the seller convinces the judges he was totally honest and said nothing misleading, then the buyer loses.
I'd expect there was a conversation about the car having just come back from the garage. I see a lot of scope for misunderstanding there.
Buyer decides he likes the look of the car, hears what he wants to hear?
From what we've been told, little can be concretely proven either way, so who will be more convincing?
The invoice from the garage is not great from the seller's POV. They spent two hours changing a few bits, road tested it it seemed OK.
It's exactly the scenario where you might well expect the faults not to have been totally sorted long term.
A lot of scope for a buyer to pick holes in anything the seller said.
I wonder if the buyer has had a chat with the garage? Would you?
Could be quite easy for the garage bloke to drop the seller in deep.
What do you imagine the conversation might be?
Seller challenges Mechanic along the lines of you've just mended this and now it's broken? ...
What might the mechanic say next?
At the end of the day, it's a shed with LandSail tyres on it, so the buyer should not have paid very much for it.
There's loads of thee things on AT, from dealers in the £2k ballpark.
Quick comment to OP, don't be too disheartened by some of the responses on here. For some reason there have been several complete b/s threads very similar to yours over the past 6 months or so, for what reason I have no idea!! Hope you get things sorted and lesson for everyone, let owners sell their own car, no good turn goes unpunished in this world!!
Trevor555 said:
It could be the case that the buyer will be trying to prove the OP is a car dealer?
Perhaps the buyer has found lots of previous adverts to prove they're a dealer?
Pure speculation on my part of course, I'll await the OP's furious response, but in my thinking it's the only way the buyer will win this case?
I’m definitely not a dealer , is the only car I’ve ever advertised Perhaps the buyer has found lots of previous adverts to prove they're a dealer?
Pure speculation on my part of course, I'll await the OP's furious response, but in my thinking it's the only way the buyer will win this case?
OutInTheShed said:
Rankss said:
If the buyer wanted a guarantee with the car, then the price would have been higher with a dealer and included the cost of the warranty.
It wont be a "toss of a coin" at small claims, it will be what legal rights does the buyer have (very few) and has the seller tripped themselves up by misrepresentation.
Surprised it has continued this far. If the seller has been straight in this thread; the buyer is likely to be disappointed unless they can prove the seller was a trader.
It's a civil matter, it's not 'proof' it's 'balance of probabilities'.It wont be a "toss of a coin" at small claims, it will be what legal rights does the buyer have (very few) and has the seller tripped themselves up by misrepresentation.
Surprised it has continued this far. If the seller has been straight in this thread; the buyer is likely to be disappointed unless they can prove the seller was a trader.
So if the buyer convinces the judge that he was more likely misled by the seller than not, the seller loses.
If the buyer convinces the judge that the car was not roadworthy at point of sale, the seller loses.
If the seller convinces the judges he was totally honest and said nothing misleading, then the buyer loses.
I'd expect there was a conversation about the car having just come back from the garage. I see a lot of scope for misunderstanding there.
Buyer decides he likes the look of the car, hears what he wants to hear?
From what we've been told, little can be concretely proven either way, so who will be more convincing?
The starting point is it is a private sale - good bye (for your bad buy)
Rankss said:
It's not a flat balance of probabilities at all. it doesn't start in the middle and then both sides argue it out. it's not a 50/50 or "more likely than not".
The starting point is it is a private sale - good bye (for your bad buy)
The starting point is, the claimant makes a claim and the defendant has to refute that.The starting point is it is a private sale - good bye (for your bad buy)
If the claimant makes a coherent, well argued claim that the seller knowing misled him, then the seller may have a problem.
In my opinion, based on cases I've been fairly close to, the outcome of civil cases is not always what you would expect or think is right, just, or 'what the law says'.
I would be very careful about going to law on a case which pretty much hinges on a verbal discussion.
I would be entirely unsurprised if the other party was not entirely honest with their claim.
I would be equally unsurprised if the two parties had incompatible recollections of exactly what was said about the garage work and the problems the car had.
The fact would seem to be that the car is knackered. It was knackered before it went to the garage where they spent a few hours putting some new bits on it, cleared all the ECU faults so it kept working for a few hours driving.
What did the advert say? Any written description which doesn't stand up against provable facts will go against the seller.
I think it very much comes down to who is more convincing to the judge on the day.
Mr Whippy said:
Well I wouldn’t use that garage.
Shotgun approach to fixing a problem, rather than actual diagnosis using intelligence.
What car was it? A PSA?
It says it's a Volvo C30Shotgun approach to fixing a problem, rather than actual diagnosis using intelligence.
What car was it? A PSA?
2008 vintage.
1100 quid in parts, 300 labour, that'll be £1700 with the VAT.
A very big slice of the value of the car.
So, has cleaning a few bits of the system tipped the turbo into destruct mode? Dumped a load on the DPF?
I have been looking at disease-alls lately. Seen a few similar mileage but younger in years, £10k cars which I would not touch with some other bugger's stick.
It’s evidence of a seller not having a clue and trusting a garage to do their best effort fix before selling it.
Owner says, fixed. I would.
Buyer buys any way. Who wouldn’t.
Old car breaks. As they do.
I think almost every used car I ever bought broke in multiple ways after I bought them.
Don’t people budget for repairs?
Owner says, fixed. I would.
Buyer buys any way. Who wouldn’t.
Old car breaks. As they do.
I think almost every used car I ever bought broke in multiple ways after I bought them.
Don’t people budget for repairs?
Mr Whippy said:
It’s evidence of a seller not having a clue and trusting a garage to do their best effort fix before selling it.
Owner says, fixed. I would.
Buyer buys any way. Who wouldn’t.
Old car breaks. As they do.
I'd hate to be a judge.Owner says, fixed. I would.
Buyer buys any way. Who wouldn’t.
Old car breaks. As they do.
What you've said could be the exact way it was sold.
Car running when it left the seller.
Unless seller said "all fixed, you'll have no problems"
How does a judge decide when both parties sound credible?
Mr Whippy said:
It’s evidence of a seller not having a clue and trusting a garage to do their best effort fix before selling it.
Owner says, fixed. I would.
Buyer buys any way. Who wouldn’t.
Old car breaks. As they do.
I think almost every used car I ever bought broke in multiple ways after I bought them.
Don’t people budget for repairs?
How many happy miles did it do between being 'fixed' and breaking again?Owner says, fixed. I would.
Buyer buys any way. Who wouldn’t.
Old car breaks. As they do.
I think almost every used car I ever bought broke in multiple ways after I bought them.
Don’t people budget for repairs?
Yes, stuff goes wrong with old cars, you expect a few faults to become apparent.
What's the likely way forwards with a car like this? I've had a couple of turbo diesel sheds, and never had such problems.
If it was given a thorough clean of the EGR system and so forth, a new turbo (£300) and a new DPF (£200) would it be sorted?
Or would that be 'good money after bad'?
You could put a brand new engine in and have it fail down the road.
Only purposeful misrepresentation is a problem, when asked.
So unless the buyers asked lots of questions and they were purposefully misleading, they’re in the clear.
All you really need to say is, as far as I know it’s in good working order for its age/mileage.
The recent £1,500 of work suggests the owner isn’t some skimper on maintenance.
Even if you assume that’s trying to cover up a fault, it’s quite a meaningful attempt which will be seen as making it right.
Even if the buyer asked ‘did that fix the problem’, unless you knew it hadn’t but said yes, then you can’t be liable for not knowing.
The car got to to the end of the street, all is good.
Unless as everyone has mentioned, there was a question which was lied about.
From my perspective, if I’d spent £1,500 on a fix, and it hadn’t fixed it, I’d be better going back to the garage than selling it and lying.
Who knows. I’d love to see how you’d prove someone lied about something like this though.
Only purposeful misrepresentation is a problem, when asked.
So unless the buyers asked lots of questions and they were purposefully misleading, they’re in the clear.
All you really need to say is, as far as I know it’s in good working order for its age/mileage.
The recent £1,500 of work suggests the owner isn’t some skimper on maintenance.
Even if you assume that’s trying to cover up a fault, it’s quite a meaningful attempt which will be seen as making it right.
Even if the buyer asked ‘did that fix the problem’, unless you knew it hadn’t but said yes, then you can’t be liable for not knowing.
The car got to to the end of the street, all is good.
Unless as everyone has mentioned, there was a question which was lied about.
From my perspective, if I’d spent £1,500 on a fix, and it hadn’t fixed it, I’d be better going back to the garage than selling it and lying.
Who knows. I’d love to see how you’d prove someone lied about something like this though.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff