Another Caveat Emptor Thread - with a slight twist
Discussion
Gutted for you OP. Push as far as you can legally/morally, be a pest and good luck.
Whenever I buy a car it gets a dealer inspection and a fresh MOT both on me BEFORE I hand over any cash/make the transfer. If anything shows up there's your bargaining chips or walk away having spent £200 for peace of mind
Whenever I buy a car it gets a dealer inspection and a fresh MOT both on me BEFORE I hand over any cash/make the transfer. If anything shows up there's your bargaining chips or walk away having spent £200 for peace of mind
s3fella said:
OP, why did you not check it out properly before buying it, if the £4k is a lot to you (it is to me) £17k is shed loads, more that any car I've ever bought! And a mere google of "Audi S5 problems" tells you all you need to know that this is sadly not uncommon.
It's £10k more than I've ever spent on a car too. I came into a bit of money and I wanted to use it for something nice so I really stretched hard and managed to get the money together (I need to sell my 350z pretty quickly). I certainly don't have another few grand lying around to get it repaired. At the moment it's sat on the driveway as a very expensive ornament.I've only ever bought cars privately for around the £3k - £4k mark and never had any major problems. I guess I naively thought buying a reasonably new car for a lot of money would buy some reliability. I also clearly have too much faith in humanity. If this was the other way round I wouldn't dream of selling it in this condition at the expense of ripping someone else off.
The guy I took with me was a mechanic, it was him who introduced me to the Audi guy. If I'd known the Audi guy beforehand I'd have paid him to come instead.
rallycross said:
You bought car privately, knowing full well that buying a car privately is not the same as buying from a dealer as there is no warranty, and no doubt you were very pleased with your purchase as this was considerably cheaper than buying the same car from a dealer.
Unfortunately some private sellers are chancers hence you need to check what you are buying (especially things like Mechatronic gearboxes) as once you drive off its too late to complain.
There is no twist to your story, much as you might be hoping there is one for your benefit.
You should have bought one from a dealer if you were not prepared for this sort of problem, or paid for an inspection by someone who knows what they are doing when buying complex used cars.
Buy privately = buy cheap = you take your chances and hope it all works out nicely. If not then be prepared to spend some more £££.
You're writing bUnfortunately some private sellers are chancers hence you need to check what you are buying (especially things like Mechatronic gearboxes) as once you drive off its too late to complain.
There is no twist to your story, much as you might be hoping there is one for your benefit.
You should have bought one from a dealer if you were not prepared for this sort of problem, or paid for an inspection by someone who knows what they are doing when buying complex used cars.
Buy privately = buy cheap = you take your chances and hope it all works out nicely. If not then be prepared to spend some more £££.
ks.OP
You've given the seller an opportunity to rectify.
Next step is to write to him, setting out your claim and giving him a set timeline to to respond and rectify.
If he fails to do so, issue a claim.
Keep the claim within the small claims limit (i.e. based on repair costs) - so you don't have legal fee risk to deal with.
If you specifically asked him "Is there anything else wrong with the car" and he said "no", you have starting point for a misrep claim (he made a false statement which induced you to contract and upon which you relied).
Get stuck in if he has been a prick.
chriswg said:
It's £10k more than I've ever spent on a car too. I came into a bit of money and I wanted to use it for something nice so I really stretched hard and managed to get the money together (I need to sell my 350z pretty quickly). I certainly don't have another few grand lying around to get it repaired. At the moment it's sat on the driveway as a very expensive ornament.
I've only ever bought cars privately for around the £3k - £4k mark and never had any major problems. I guess I naively thought buying a reasonably new car for a lot of money would buy some reliability. I also clearly have too much faith in humanity. If this was the other way round I wouldn't dream of selling it in this condition at the expense of ripping someone else off.
The guy I took with me was a mechanic, it was him who introduced me to the Audi guy. If I'd known the Audi guy beforehand I'd have paid him to come instead.
My brother's A6 3.0 diesel auto is sat in a Court owned underground parking place in Paris (French car) as it is sub judice after he won a court case against the dealer he bought it from, but the dealer went bust. He bought it when his now 6 year old daughter was born, and it ran from Paris, to UK, broke down going back and has been in its underground lair for the last 5 years! Car was €11k, repair was €2.8k. He's had a new Insignia since and just swapped for a new one, all whilst his A6 sits there rotting away! He is not allowed to touch it, mental! I've only ever bought cars privately for around the £3k - £4k mark and never had any major problems. I guess I naively thought buying a reasonably new car for a lot of money would buy some reliability. I also clearly have too much faith in humanity. If this was the other way round I wouldn't dream of selling it in this condition at the expense of ripping someone else off.
The guy I took with me was a mechanic, it was him who introduced me to the Audi guy. If I'd known the Audi guy beforehand I'd have paid him to come instead.
C70R said:
If the OP can afford to chuck away a few grand on legal fees (on the premise that it's hugely unlikely he will win), then there's no harm in studying the MSE case in detail and instructing a very good, specialist solicitor. You might get exceptionally lucky and persuade the court that the precedent is sufficient to provide a judgement - but it's hugely unlikely.
Pretty sure legal fees are non-recoverable in Small Claims. Currently going through something similar to the OP but with a dealer.johnfm said:
rallycross said:
You bought car privately, knowing full well that buying a car privately is not the same as buying from a dealer as there is no warranty, and no doubt you were very pleased with your purchase as this was considerably cheaper than buying the same car from a dealer.
Unfortunately some private sellers are chancers hence you need to check what you are buying (especially things like Mechatronic gearboxes) as once you drive off its too late to complain.
There is no twist to your story, much as you might be hoping there is one for your benefit.
You should have bought one from a dealer if you were not prepared for this sort of problem, or paid for an inspection by someone who knows what they are doing when buying complex used cars.
Buy privately = buy cheap = you take your chances and hope it all works out nicely. If not then be prepared to spend some more £££.
You're writing bUnfortunately some private sellers are chancers hence you need to check what you are buying (especially things like Mechatronic gearboxes) as once you drive off its too late to complain.
There is no twist to your story, much as you might be hoping there is one for your benefit.
You should have bought one from a dealer if you were not prepared for this sort of problem, or paid for an inspection by someone who knows what they are doing when buying complex used cars.
Buy privately = buy cheap = you take your chances and hope it all works out nicely. If not then be prepared to spend some more £££.
ks.OP
You've given the seller an opportunity to rectify.
Next step is to write to him, setting out your claim and giving him a set timeline to to respond and rectify.
If he fails to do so, issue a claim.
Keep the claim within the small claims limit (i.e. based on repair costs) - so you don't have legal fee risk to deal with.
If you specifically asked him "Is there anything else wrong with the car" and he said "no", you have starting point for a misrep claim (he made a false statement which induced you to contract and upon which you relied).
Get stuck in if he has been a prick.
OP, you are right. Through happenstance you have the evidence to be the exception to the rule. Nowt lost by letting the seller know that you know that he's taking the piss.
JustinP1 said:
Exactly this.
OP, you are right. Through happenstance you have the evidence to be the exception to the rule. Nowt lost by letting the seller know that you know that he's taking the piss.
It's not exactly this at all and you are giving the oP false hope with such advice, it's very unlikely he will get anywhere pursuing this in court.OP, you are right. Through happenstance you have the evidence to be the exception to the rule. Nowt lost by letting the seller know that you know that he's taking the piss.
rallycross said:
JustinP1 said:
Exactly this.
OP, you are right. Through happenstance you have the evidence to be the exception to the rule. Nowt lost by letting the seller know that you know that he's taking the piss.
It's not exactly this at all and you are giving the oP false hope with such advice, it's very unlikely he will get anywhere pursuing this in court.OP, you are right. Through happenstance you have the evidence to be the exception to the rule. Nowt lost by letting the seller know that you know that he's taking the piss.
Specifically, the fact that there is third party documentary evidence that the seller was warned numerous times by the car that there was a problem when he advertised the car was 'running beautifully' is a reasonably strong misrepresentation with decent evidence to back it up.
Again, you won't want to hear that. But, of course, the OP can make up his own mind and decide how far he want to take this accordingly. Nothing lost in writing a letter saying don't take the piss. Then if he wants to get his own professional advice on taking it further he can.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 12th September 22:41
C70R said:
jith said:
Chris,
My thoughts go out to you; you're in an awful place right now. I have a different attitude to this from some. I utterly detest bds like this and will go to whatever lengths to get recompense, as long as you keep it legal. This is clearly criminal fraud. The VAG system stores the ECU history and keeps it there unless it is deleted. It is clear from the printout you posted that there is undeniable evidence the fault was already in the vehicle at the time of sale and he was fully aware of it. He led you, falsely, to believe that the car was in roadworthy condition and took a substantial sum of money from you based on this: that is fraud and misrepresentation by any standards.
I would go straight to a lawyer and get a letter off to him threatening court action on the basis of this evidence.
No it isn't. Don't misconstrue your over-emotional opinion with the application of law.My thoughts go out to you; you're in an awful place right now. I have a different attitude to this from some. I utterly detest b
ds like this and will go to whatever lengths to get recompense, as long as you keep it legal. This is clearly criminal fraud. The VAG system stores the ECU history and keeps it there unless it is deleted. It is clear from the printout you posted that there is undeniable evidence the fault was already in the vehicle at the time of sale and he was fully aware of it. He led you, falsely, to believe that the car was in roadworthy condition and took a substantial sum of money from you based on this: that is fraud and misrepresentation by any standards.I would go straight to a lawyer and get a letter off to him threatening court action on the basis of this evidence.
You might not like it, but the chances of the OP getting any recourse from this are incredibly slim. The law is based around structure and precedent. While there's one example (from MSE) of a buyer successfully pursuing a private seller for financial recourse, there are many more that demonstrate that the court almost always places burden of responsibility is on the buyer.
If the OP can afford to chuck away a few grand on legal fees (on the premise that it's hugely unlikely he will win), then there's no harm in studying the MSE case in detail and instructing a very good, specialist solicitor. You might get exceptionally lucky and persuade the court that the precedent is sufficient to provide a judgement - but it's hugely unlikely.
Remember, the standard of Small Claims Court (we're not at the ECHR here) is to persuade judgement based on the "balance of probability". "He said/She said" cases tend to go against the claimant for a good reason.
OP - do please keep the thread updated with any progress. Good luck.
Edited by C70R on Monday 12th September 11:21
From the Oxford Dictionary:-
Definition of fraud in English:
fraud
Pronunciation: /frɔːd/
noun
[mass noun]
1Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain: he was convicted of fraud [count noun]: prosecutions for social security frauds
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1 [count noun] A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities: mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds
More example sentences Synonyms
Origin
Middle English: from Old French fraude, from Latin fraus, fraud- 'deceit, injury'.
The above definition is precisely descriptive as to the act carried out on the OP by the seller. By deliberately describing the vehicle as roadworthy, when he had knowledge that it had a serious mechanical fault, was an act of clear deceit for financial gain. It is completely beyond doubt that it is anything other than this.
I have no doubt that in this particular moment in time you would have a hard job persuading the police of this, as my experience is that they are utterly useless in this kind of case and are now seriously overworked and under staffed. That does not change the fact that this type of act is fraud, and it's criminal in its intent: no question.
I know of no stated cases that would result in the loss of an action in the civil courts for a case such as this. Being such a bright spark however, perhaps you are aware of one?
J
jith said:
Yet another totally anonymous "expert" on PH. They seem to breed on here and spout insults on a regular basis; but maybe I'm just being over-emotional, eh?
From the Oxford Dictionary:-
Definition of fraud in English:
fraud
Pronunciation: /fr??d/
noun
[mass noun]
1Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain: he was convicted of fraud [count noun]: prosecutions for social security frauds
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1 [count noun] A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities: mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds
More example sentences Synonyms
Origin
Middle English: from Old French fraude, from Latin fraus, fraud- 'deceit, injury'.
The above definition is precisely descriptive as to the act carried out on the OP by the seller. By deliberately describing the vehicle as roadworthy, when he had knowledge that it had a serious mechanical fault, was an act of clear deceit for financial gain. It is completely beyond doubt that it is anything other than this.
I have no doubt that in this particular moment in time you would have a hard job persuading the police of this, as my experience is that they are utterly useless in this kind of case and are now seriously overworked and under staffed. That does not change the fact that this type of act is fraud, and it's criminal in its intent: no question.
I know of no stated cases that would result in the loss of an action in the civil courts for a case such as this. Being such a bright spark however, perhaps you are aware of one?
J
Be careful about using a dictionary definition of a word when dealing with legal matters. The heading of fraud is just that, a heading. It is a bald descriptive word. From the Oxford Dictionary:-
Definition of fraud in English:
fraud
Pronunciation: /fr??d/
noun
[mass noun]
1Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain: he was convicted of fraud [count noun]: prosecutions for social security frauds
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1 [count noun] A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities: mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds
More example sentences Synonyms
Origin
Middle English: from Old French fraude, from Latin fraus, fraud- 'deceit, injury'.
The above definition is precisely descriptive as to the act carried out on the OP by the seller. By deliberately describing the vehicle as roadworthy, when he had knowledge that it had a serious mechanical fault, was an act of clear deceit for financial gain. It is completely beyond doubt that it is anything other than this.
I have no doubt that in this particular moment in time you would have a hard job persuading the police of this, as my experience is that they are utterly useless in this kind of case and are now seriously overworked and under staffed. That does not change the fact that this type of act is fraud, and it's criminal in its intent: no question.
I know of no stated cases that would result in the loss of an action in the civil courts for a case such as this. Being such a bright spark however, perhaps you are aware of one?
J
For instance, what would you construe as driving? How about sitting on a wall, with car keys in our pocket, and your car in a layby. That can (but not always) be defined as driving.
Here's an easy one: is a farmer's field premises? To help you I'll give you the Google definition of premises: a house or building, together with its land and outbuildings, occupied by a business or considered in an official context.
Whilst in theory you are quite correct in that the law should interpret words by their common useage, but that's just a theory.
So the sale of the item is fraudulent if it was misrepresented but it might not come under the legal definition.
As others have said, this may or may not play out in court but a letter before action and/or issuing proceedings cannot hurt, and may indeed spur the seller into action if he gets spooked enough (although if he's referred to heads or his own favourite forum then this may not work!)
In the meantime, concentrate on getting options for fixing it, as ultimately whatever happens you'll need to fix it by hook or by crook, and if the court case turns out well it's not going to support a more expensive option if you can fix it cheaply...
heads or his own favourite forum then this may not work!)In the meantime, concentrate on getting options for fixing it, as ultimately whatever happens you'll need to fix it by hook or by crook, and if the court case turns out well it's not going to support a more expensive option if you can fix it cheaply...
StuTheGrouch said:
TooMany2cvs said:
chriswg said:
I guess I naively thought buying a reasonably new car for a lot of money would buy some reliability.
It's six years old...But that doesn't make 6yo "reasonably new" by any absolute standard. If you'd replaced it when the warranty expired, you'd be replacing that replacement now. You would have long had zero hope of any kind of goodwill for any kind of problem from the manufacturer, even if it had been fully dealer maintained. Even the longest new-car warranty on the market, the Korean 7yrs, would be nearly expired now.
TooMany2cvs said:
Sure, a 6yo car is newer than a 13yo car. That 13yo car is newer than my daily-driver 19yo car, which is the newest of my fleet.
But that doesn't make 6yo "reasonably new" by any absolute standard. If you'd replaced it when the warranty expired, you'd be replacing that replacement now. You would have long had zero hope of any kind of goodwill for any kind of problem from the manufacturer, even if it had been fully dealer maintained. Even the longest new-car warranty on the market, the Korean 7yrs, would be nearly expired now.
Don't mistake warranty for good will. I've had significant manufacturer contributions on a 7 year old Saab (as was) and a 5 year old Audi, both our of warranty. The Saab had design flaws (so probably only right that they rectified them but they did more as well to "compensate my inconvenience") and the Audi was just goodwill. But that doesn't make 6yo "reasonably new" by any absolute standard. If you'd replaced it when the warranty expired, you'd be replacing that replacement now. You would have long had zero hope of any kind of goodwill for any kind of problem from the manufacturer, even if it had been fully dealer maintained. Even the longest new-car warranty on the market, the Korean 7yrs, would be nearly expired now.
Vaud said:
Don't mistake warranty for good will. I've had significant manufacturer contributions on a 7 year old Saab (as was) and a 5 year old Audi, both our of warranty. The Saab had design flaws (so probably only right that they rectified them but they did more as well to "compensate my inconvenience") and the Audi was just goodwill.
Nor should you confuse warranty with statutory (consumer) rights under law for things to be fit for purpose.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff