Pre-purchase inspection on vehicle, chance of good outcome?
Discussion
Before I embark on a potentially stressful mission to try and recover some / all of my money that has resulted from this, I want to know what my chances are of a good outcome, or whether I should simply give up and move on.
TLDR Version
On the 16 March this year, I had a potential purchase, a 986 Boxster S, from a private seller, inspected by an inspection company. The inspection report advised that they could find no reason not to proceed with the purchase.
On the 30th I proceeded with the purchase. From that point on, it became apparent that there were some discrepancies in the report.
On 19 April I discovered that there was oil / coolant contamination on the coolant cap, an item not mentioned in the report.
I booked the car into a specialist for a health check. They also found additional items that were not on the report, but the inspector may have been unable to check for all of the faults found.
They also did a diagnosis on the oil/coolant contamination and one possible inexpensive cause was ruled out, leaving me with a car with a broken engine.
As I was unable and unwilling to pour money into a car that clearly needed other work, I made the difficult decision to cut my losses and sold the car to a salvage dealer for £5k less than I paid.
Aftermath
As said I’ve incurred a substantial financial loss on a car I drove for only 620 miles in total and owned for 57 days, and obviously it would be nice to be able to recover some of this money, if not all of it.
I understand I have no comeback on the seller, so I have no intention to bother them any further. I have my suspicions they knew exactly the fault the car had, but have to admit, they did seem very genuine in all their messages and when I met them. The car had been in the family for many years and the old fella seemed sad to see it go.
What I do have an issue with is that I paid for a pre-purchase inspection that should have highlighted more than it did, however, as with all of this type of ‘service’, they come with Terms & Conditions which attempt to absolve them of any further responsibility. The T&Cs given in the contract are as below: -
Therefore, I am wondering whether I have any chance whatsoever of claiming anything back for this, or whether I am simply wasting my time? The terms and conditions seem to be quite clear that I have no comeback whatsoever, but it has been suggested to me that they do have a duty of care to their clients and so they could be held responsible, however, I am not a solicitor.
As always the devil is in the details so I will give some of the details below to give a picture of what I believe went wrong.
First of all, a list of the things that the firm says they will check and report on: -
However, I was surprised to discover that checking the oil and coolant caps for signs of emulsification isn’t an item he claims to check, and indeed, he has not mentioned this in the report. I would have thought this was a standard check that anyone would perform?
He mentioned that the roof was in good condition and operates without any issues. It is true that the roof went up and down without issues, but the roof was not correctly sealing and I was advised this was a common Boxster issue where the roof needs re-tensioning. An easy enough DIY fix by all accounts, but why was it not mentioned?
Another thing not mentioned was that the number plate plinth had been removed, and replaced with a square bracket attaching to the tow hook part of the bumper. The standard oblong plate had been crudely attached with cable ties, and looked terrible. This was not visible in the seller's photos, but I thought the report might pick up on this. Sounds silly, but that alone would have sent alarm bells ringing, as it seems a bit of a chavvy modification. Obviously I saw that when I was about to buy the car, but didn't deem it enough of a problem to waste all the time and money I'd spent so far when it was a pretty minor thing which would be inexpensive to put right.
When the car was booked in for a health check, they also additionally found the following issues: -
When it was confirmed that the oil cooler component was testing OK, and I had a broken cylinder head (to be confirmed with more investigation, but not done), they stated that, in their opinion, it had been present for a significant amount of time.
What next?
So there we have it. After two months, I am £5,000 poorer, and without the car that I had wanted.
Naturally I would be keen to try and recover this loss, however, I am only willing to go through what is likely to become a legal battle if there is a chance of recovering any money, otherwise I just stand to endure more stress and forking out yet more money in the hope of a good result.
The stress has already affected my financial, physical and mental health, caused arguments in the house, and there is part of me that is keen to put it behind me, but at the same time if I have a chance then I don’t see why they should be allowed to get off scot free.
If I did embark on this ‘mission’ then my first move would be to write to the inspector requesting their insurance details. Failing that, I’d have to claim through the small claims court via the Government website.
Thoughts and opinions gratefully received. Thanks
TLDR Version
- Had pre-purchase inspection done on a potential purchase
- Report advised no mechanical reasons not to proceed
- Bought car
- Discovered discrepancies in report
- 3 weeks later discovered oil + coolant mixing, not mentioned in report
- Diagnosed as probable cracked cylinder head
- Sold car and lost £5K, after just 57 days and 620 miles of ownership
- Scoping for opinions on whether it’s worth pursuing recovery of money
On the 16 March this year, I had a potential purchase, a 986 Boxster S, from a private seller, inspected by an inspection company. The inspection report advised that they could find no reason not to proceed with the purchase.
On the 30th I proceeded with the purchase. From that point on, it became apparent that there were some discrepancies in the report.
On 19 April I discovered that there was oil / coolant contamination on the coolant cap, an item not mentioned in the report.
I booked the car into a specialist for a health check. They also found additional items that were not on the report, but the inspector may have been unable to check for all of the faults found.
They also did a diagnosis on the oil/coolant contamination and one possible inexpensive cause was ruled out, leaving me with a car with a broken engine.
As I was unable and unwilling to pour money into a car that clearly needed other work, I made the difficult decision to cut my losses and sold the car to a salvage dealer for £5k less than I paid.
Aftermath
As said I’ve incurred a substantial financial loss on a car I drove for only 620 miles in total and owned for 57 days, and obviously it would be nice to be able to recover some of this money, if not all of it.
I understand I have no comeback on the seller, so I have no intention to bother them any further. I have my suspicions they knew exactly the fault the car had, but have to admit, they did seem very genuine in all their messages and when I met them. The car had been in the family for many years and the old fella seemed sad to see it go.
What I do have an issue with is that I paid for a pre-purchase inspection that should have highlighted more than it did, however, as with all of this type of ‘service’, they come with Terms & Conditions which attempt to absolve them of any further responsibility. The T&Cs given in the contract are as below: -
Inspection Firm said:
The terms set out below form the contract between *Inspector* and the client named at the bottom of this page.
Vehicle inspections, although comprehensive, cannot and do not guarantee that the vehicle is, or will be, free from any faults. Inspections are carried out to inform the client (named below) about the physical appearance and general condition of the vehicle as it is presented, by the seller. The road test (if carried out) may highlight abnormal noises, vibrations, poor operation of the drivetrain, operation of the steering and brakes, but is not an indication that
the vehicle is, or will be, free of faults. Vehicle inspections do not prove that a vehicle is roadworthy. Vehicle inspections are not a safety test. There is no guarantee implied nor any liability on the part of [inspector] for any unforeseen mechanical, electrical or bodywork issues for the inspected vehicle.
In the case of pre-purchase inspections, the client (named below) takes full responsibility for making a purchase after an inspection. The vehicle purchase is a separate transaction, strictly between the client (named below) and the seller. Any warranty, guarantees and terms of the vehicle purchase, are strictly between the client (named below) and the seller.
Having said all that, due to the discrepancies in the report, I’m not convinced this inspection was done to an acceptable standard, and this service is designed to provide assurance to a buyer that what they are buying is of a reasonable standard, which seems to me wasn’t the case here.Vehicle inspections, although comprehensive, cannot and do not guarantee that the vehicle is, or will be, free from any faults. Inspections are carried out to inform the client (named below) about the physical appearance and general condition of the vehicle as it is presented, by the seller. The road test (if carried out) may highlight abnormal noises, vibrations, poor operation of the drivetrain, operation of the steering and brakes, but is not an indication that
the vehicle is, or will be, free of faults. Vehicle inspections do not prove that a vehicle is roadworthy. Vehicle inspections are not a safety test. There is no guarantee implied nor any liability on the part of [inspector] for any unforeseen mechanical, electrical or bodywork issues for the inspected vehicle.
In the case of pre-purchase inspections, the client (named below) takes full responsibility for making a purchase after an inspection. The vehicle purchase is a separate transaction, strictly between the client (named below) and the seller. Any warranty, guarantees and terms of the vehicle purchase, are strictly between the client (named below) and the seller.
Therefore, I am wondering whether I have any chance whatsoever of claiming anything back for this, or whether I am simply wasting my time? The terms and conditions seem to be quite clear that I have no comeback whatsoever, but it has been suggested to me that they do have a duty of care to their clients and so they could be held responsible, however, I am not a solicitor.
As always the devil is in the details so I will give some of the details below to give a picture of what I believe went wrong.
First of all, a list of the things that the firm says they will check and report on: -
Inspection Firm said:
“An independent inspection will give you an honest, unbiased cosmetic and mechanical view of the car, allowing you to make an informed decision. You will be made aware of any urgent repairs or potential repairs in your new ownership.”
Each Inspection includes the following checks: -
According to the report, he has checked all of the items stated on the website. Each Inspection includes the following checks: -
- Condition of bodywork and paint.
- Note any damage or previous paint/body repairs.
- Glass condition and operation.
- Damage or corrosion to wheels /locking wheel bolt fitting.
- Tyre make, size, tread depth and age.
- Boot storage condition and spare wheel/ compressor/ jack/ tools.
- Leaks, fluid levels and condition of engine bay.
- Underbody condition for damage or corrosion, brake pipes, fuel lines, coolant pipes, exhaust, driveshafts and gearbox.
- Brake pads and discs.
- Shock absorbers and springs.
- Interior trim and carpet condition.
- Operation of switches and functions including: electric seats, heated seats, seatbelts, electric mirrors, sun visors, heater, air conditioning, radio, sat nav, storage compartments etc.
- Plug-in diagnostic check of the engine management system, ABS system, airbag/SRS system, automatic gearbox .
- Full road test to check for abnormal noises, unusual drive characteristics and operation of drivetrain. Carry out emergency stop and perform a stall test on the clutch for manual cars.
However, I was surprised to discover that checking the oil and coolant caps for signs of emulsification isn’t an item he claims to check, and indeed, he has not mentioned this in the report. I would have thought this was a standard check that anyone would perform?
He mentioned that the roof was in good condition and operates without any issues. It is true that the roof went up and down without issues, but the roof was not correctly sealing and I was advised this was a common Boxster issue where the roof needs re-tensioning. An easy enough DIY fix by all accounts, but why was it not mentioned?
Another thing not mentioned was that the number plate plinth had been removed, and replaced with a square bracket attaching to the tow hook part of the bumper. The standard oblong plate had been crudely attached with cable ties, and looked terrible. This was not visible in the seller's photos, but I thought the report might pick up on this. Sounds silly, but that alone would have sent alarm bells ringing, as it seems a bit of a chavvy modification. Obviously I saw that when I was about to buy the car, but didn't deem it enough of a problem to waste all the time and money I'd spent so far when it was a pretty minor thing which would be inexpensive to put right.
When the car was booked in for a health check, they also additionally found the following issues: -
- Number plate bulbs inoperable
- Tyres had less tread than originally stated (no I haven’t been doing donuts)
- Excessive corrosion present on inner disc faces (rear brakes). Advise replacement of discs, pads, sensors and shims
- Play present in OSF inner steering arm
- Both front bump stops ripped, OSF missing
- Rear lower suspension arm bushings excessively worn
- Fuel cap seal split, cord snapped
When it was confirmed that the oil cooler component was testing OK, and I had a broken cylinder head (to be confirmed with more investigation, but not done), they stated that, in their opinion, it had been present for a significant amount of time.
What next?
So there we have it. After two months, I am £5,000 poorer, and without the car that I had wanted.
Naturally I would be keen to try and recover this loss, however, I am only willing to go through what is likely to become a legal battle if there is a chance of recovering any money, otherwise I just stand to endure more stress and forking out yet more money in the hope of a good result.
The stress has already affected my financial, physical and mental health, caused arguments in the house, and there is part of me that is keen to put it behind me, but at the same time if I have a chance then I don’t see why they should be allowed to get off scot free.
If I did embark on this ‘mission’ then my first move would be to write to the inspector requesting their insurance details. Failing that, I’d have to claim through the small claims court via the Government website.
Thoughts and opinions gratefully received. Thanks
Imo - small claims. Bank on not getting anything back, anything upwards from that achieved in mediation as a without prejudice settlement would be a bonus.
My focus would be on the fact that oil/water contamination was immediately obvious upon checking the cap, and checking the cap ought to have been standard practice in an inspection (i.e. not an "unforseen failure").
I would expect the inspection company to say that they're not liable no matter how useless their report is, and if that fails suggest that the inspection only provides a "point in time" assessment of the vehicle, and that anything could happen between the time it was done and the time you bought it (which in this case sounds like a good 2 weeks passed between inspection and purchase).
It does beg the question what the point of an inspection is if no liability is accepted.
My focus would be on the fact that oil/water contamination was immediately obvious upon checking the cap, and checking the cap ought to have been standard practice in an inspection (i.e. not an "unforseen failure").
I would expect the inspection company to say that they're not liable no matter how useless their report is, and if that fails suggest that the inspection only provides a "point in time" assessment of the vehicle, and that anything could happen between the time it was done and the time you bought it (which in this case sounds like a good 2 weeks passed between inspection and purchase).
It does beg the question what the point of an inspection is if no liability is accepted.
unrepentant said:
Why didn't you get a specialist or a Porsche dealer to do the PPI in the first place?
The person concerned is a specialist, or at least classes himself as.Panamax said:
A bit of emulsion in an oil filler cap is usually just condensation, not head gasket failure. It's not a reliable indicator of hgf.
I think you're on your own with this one. You bought an inspection, not a warranty.
I had it checked out by a Porsche specialist, it's not just condensation. The engine was smoking before I sold it.I think you're on your own with this one. You bought an inspection, not a warranty.
I'm gathering from responses so far that a) I'm probably screwed and b) I may as well just go straight to the claims process and try my luck.
I think the fact that you have got rid of the car and then thought about pursuing the inspection company after will count against you. If they ask to do another inspection on the vehicle to verify the faults, you can't now let them do that and that will be the end of the claim in my mind.
Matt_E_Mulsion said:
I think the fact that you have got rid of the car and then thought about pursuing the inspection company after will count against you. If they ask to do another inspection on the vehicle to verify the faults, you can't now let them do that and that will be the end of the claim in my mind.
I have the report from the local specialist I took it to afterwards which verifies the faults, but I take your point.I pretty much had to get rid of it as I can't justify paying tax and insurance costs while an investigation is ongoing and could take months + I only have room for 2 cars not 3.
I thought that those inspection contracts generally said that they were not liable for anything - suspect it would be a difficult fight.
Having said that - those engines have very well known, very well documented failures and any half decent specialist should have made damn sure the car wasn't suffering from them.
Having said that - those engines have very well known, very well documented failures and any half decent specialist should have made damn sure the car wasn't suffering from them.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
How much did you pay and what were their T&Cs?
How much did I pay for the car or inspection?"Vehicle inspections, although comprehensive, cannot and do not guarantee that the vehicle is, or will be, free from any faults. Inspections are carried out to inform the client (named below) about the physical appearance and general condition of the vehicle as it is presented, by the seller. The road test (if carried out) may highlight abnormal noises, vibrations, poor operation of the drivetrain, operation of the steering and brakes, but is not an indication that the vehicle is, or will be, free of faults. Vehicle inspections do not prove that a vehicle is roadworthy. Vehicle inspections are not a safety test. There is no guarantee implied nor any liability on the part of [inspector] for any unforeseen mechanical, electrical or bodywork issues for the inspected vehicle.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
How much did you pay and what were their T&Cs?
Looks like the OP has posted the relevant bit already.Yes OP I think you are screwed and doubly so having got rid of the car.
However, if you have the energy, you could try a small claims effort. You have the documentation you have, so just throw it in and see if it gets you anywhere.
I hate PPIs, they are so often s
te. One I had done by a PCGB expert was laughable. I told him so and didn't rely on it.Good luck
Bert
As mentioned previously I am really sorry for the way this has panned out for you.
I would never have imagined that a supposedly reputable specialist inspector that charges for their services would be able (and choose to) hide behind their T&Cs when such things become evident. Especially when a number of said items should have been self evident or the kinds of things that would mean an MOT fail. Inoperative number plate bulbs is a poor miss (obv assuming they were like that at the point of sale...) and assuming the 986 is like the 987 a basic check of the coolant would surely have been a part of the inspection - you need to remove the cap to see the coolant level. Even if it is not a definitive indication of engine issues it would surely merit a mention in the inspection report. I assume they check oil levels too? This is schoolboy level stuff! Finally, an inspection report that doesn't involve checking for play in suspension/steering components/lifting the car in any way is poor to say the least.
986/7s have an uphill struggle with their reputations as it is. If the mantra of 'get it inspected before you buy' can't be trusted then this specialist is just adding another nail to the coffin of their desirability. Thanks for that.
I would never have imagined that a supposedly reputable specialist inspector that charges for their services would be able (and choose to) hide behind their T&Cs when such things become evident. Especially when a number of said items should have been self evident or the kinds of things that would mean an MOT fail. Inoperative number plate bulbs is a poor miss (obv assuming they were like that at the point of sale...) and assuming the 986 is like the 987 a basic check of the coolant would surely have been a part of the inspection - you need to remove the cap to see the coolant level. Even if it is not a definitive indication of engine issues it would surely merit a mention in the inspection report. I assume they check oil levels too? This is schoolboy level stuff! Finally, an inspection report that doesn't involve checking for play in suspension/steering components/lifting the car in any way is poor to say the least.
986/7s have an uphill struggle with their reputations as it is. If the mantra of 'get it inspected before you buy' can't be trusted then this specialist is just adding another nail to the coffin of their desirability. Thanks for that.
TameRacingDriver said:
How much did I pay for the car or inspection?
"Vehicle inspections, although comprehensive, cannot and do not guarantee that the vehicle is, or will be, free from any faults. Inspections are carried out to inform the client (named below) about the physical appearance and general condition of the vehicle as it is presented, by the seller. The road test (if carried out) may highlight abnormal noises, vibrations, poor operation of the drivetrain, operation of the steering and brakes, but is not an indication that the vehicle is, or will be, free of faults. Vehicle inspections do not prove that a vehicle is roadworthy. Vehicle inspections are not a safety test. There is no guarantee implied nor any liability on the part of [inspector] for any unforeseen mechanical, electrical or bodywork issues for the inspected vehicle.
Those terms have disclaimers throughout. Basically reads (to me) as though they are saying we'll look at the vehicle but can't guarantee that it'll be faulty free."Vehicle inspections, although comprehensive, cannot and do not guarantee that the vehicle is, or will be, free from any faults. Inspections are carried out to inform the client (named below) about the physical appearance and general condition of the vehicle as it is presented, by the seller. The road test (if carried out) may highlight abnormal noises, vibrations, poor operation of the drivetrain, operation of the steering and brakes, but is not an indication that the vehicle is, or will be, free of faults. Vehicle inspections do not prove that a vehicle is roadworthy. Vehicle inspections are not a safety test. There is no guarantee implied nor any liability on the part of [inspector] for any unforeseen mechanical, electrical or bodywork issues for the inspected vehicle.
So what am I paying for?(!)
I think you are on your own as well.
Which item on that list was not carried out? From your OP it seems that all the listed items were checked, the emulsion in the oil filler cap was not a listed inspection. You could argue that it perhaps should be, but, it is not on the list.
Small claims means an initial cost (small) which would be recoverable on winning the case. The case, if heard in a physical location, would be at a location convenient to the defendant, this means you have to cover the cost of travel there as well as the time. There is no guarantee of winning, in fact I personally think there is not much prospect of winning. I am not a solicitor although I do have some contract law training and am not claiming to be an expert.
Which item on that list was not carried out? From your OP it seems that all the listed items were checked, the emulsion in the oil filler cap was not a listed inspection. You could argue that it perhaps should be, but, it is not on the list.
Small claims means an initial cost (small) which would be recoverable on winning the case. The case, if heard in a physical location, would be at a location convenient to the defendant, this means you have to cover the cost of travel there as well as the time. There is no guarantee of winning, in fact I personally think there is not much prospect of winning. I am not a solicitor although I do have some contract law training and am not claiming to be an expert.
Even if you won in the small claims court, I wouldn’t have thought you would be awarded much more than the initial cost of the inspection as the company/person would not be liable for any consequential loss, in this case £5,000.
You have my sympathies OP, but I think you need to write it off to experience unfortunately.
Many years ago I paid for a pre-inspection of a TR7 which at the time was only about 2 years old. Nothing sinister on the report apart from a comment about a possible misfire on acceleration. I bought the car, only for the head gasket to blow the next day! The best inspection is your own.
You have my sympathies OP, but I think you need to write it off to experience unfortunately.
Many years ago I paid for a pre-inspection of a TR7 which at the time was only about 2 years old. Nothing sinister on the report apart from a comment about a possible misfire on acceleration. I bought the car, only for the head gasket to blow the next day! The best inspection is your own.
Even if you won in the small claims court, I wouldn’t have thought you would be awarded much more than the initial cost of the inspection as the company/person would not be liable for any consequential loss, in this case £5,000.
You have my sympathies OP, but I think you need to write it off to experience unfortunately.
Many years ago I paid for a pre-inspection of a TR7 which at the time was only about 2 years old. Nothing sinister on the report apart from a comment about a possible misfire on acceleration. I bought the car, only for the head gasket to blow the next day! The best inspection is your own.
You have my sympathies OP, but I think you need to write it off to experience unfortunately.
Many years ago I paid for a pre-inspection of a TR7 which at the time was only about 2 years old. Nothing sinister on the report apart from a comment about a possible misfire on acceleration. I bought the car, only for the head gasket to blow the next day! The best inspection is your own.
You bought an inspection and then went to a specialist garage who identified a number of other issues. Then without involving the inspection company sold at a loss. I that 'understanding' is correct then you are not just 'on your own' but likely to be counter sued.
Acting reasonably within the law is the key and you seem to have see to have given them no opportunity to even check what you say. No chance of any recourse.
Acting reasonably within the law is the key and you seem to have see to have given them no opportunity to even check what you say. No chance of any recourse.
Pete54 said:
You bought an inspection and then went to a specialist garage who identified a number of other issues. Then without involving the inspection company sold at a loss. I that 'understanding' is correct then you are not just 'on your own' but likely to be counter sued.
Acting reasonably within the law is the key and you seem to have see to have given them no opportunity to even check what you say. No chance of any recourse.
Counter sued for what? Unless the OP specifically names someone, there's not a single thing they could claim against them, unless you know better?Acting reasonably within the law is the key and you seem to have see to have given them no opportunity to even check what you say. No chance of any recourse.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff