Private car sale - Letter of court action
Discussion
Hi Everyone
I've got a bit of a situation brewing and I was hoping for some advice from PH.
So the backstory:
My wife sold her horse box back in May. 2 weeks after sale she received a letter saying that the fuel injector had gone and that the buyer wanted a full refund as the goods were not fit for purpose. We replied stating that the vehicle was in working order when it was sold to and that no refund would be given.
Fast forward 3 months and my wife receives another letter saying that the vehicle was mis-described when sold as it was advertised as recently passed its MOT (12 days before the new owner bought the vehicle) and that the new owner had taken it to a local garage and they had told them that it could not have passed its MOT due to a list of issues:
slipping clutch
rotten flow in horse stalls
no spare tyre
no horn (the horn isnt on the steering wheel but a button on the dashboard - so maybe the garage missed it??)
The new owner also says that the horse box was misdescribed as in the advert it said 'had new brakes' and the garage they took it to said that the brake pipes were corroded.
My wife replied stating that it had passed its MOT shortly before being purchased and that the brakes were as described.
5 days later we then receive another letter stating that the vehicle "is no longer fit for purpose" due to the issues explained in the previous letter. Before we can then reply another 7 days later we receive a Notice of Court action. The owner states that they are seeking a full refund + £1G for the fuel pump that they paid for. If they do not get a refund or satisfactory response within 30 days they are going to start court action. They are claiming that they are due a refund as the goods were not fit for purpose when sold to her as they should under the sales of goods act 1979.
I'm really not sure where we stand on this. My wife did not misdescribe the horse box in the advert or during the sale process. She didnt make any comments like 'runs fine - in perfect condition’. Just wondering if this person has a case?
I've got a bit of a situation brewing and I was hoping for some advice from PH.
So the backstory:
My wife sold her horse box back in May. 2 weeks after sale she received a letter saying that the fuel injector had gone and that the buyer wanted a full refund as the goods were not fit for purpose. We replied stating that the vehicle was in working order when it was sold to and that no refund would be given.
Fast forward 3 months and my wife receives another letter saying that the vehicle was mis-described when sold as it was advertised as recently passed its MOT (12 days before the new owner bought the vehicle) and that the new owner had taken it to a local garage and they had told them that it could not have passed its MOT due to a list of issues:
slipping clutch
rotten flow in horse stalls
no spare tyre
no horn (the horn isnt on the steering wheel but a button on the dashboard - so maybe the garage missed it??)
The new owner also says that the horse box was misdescribed as in the advert it said 'had new brakes' and the garage they took it to said that the brake pipes were corroded.
My wife replied stating that it had passed its MOT shortly before being purchased and that the brakes were as described.
5 days later we then receive another letter stating that the vehicle "is no longer fit for purpose" due to the issues explained in the previous letter. Before we can then reply another 7 days later we receive a Notice of Court action. The owner states that they are seeking a full refund + £1G for the fuel pump that they paid for. If they do not get a refund or satisfactory response within 30 days they are going to start court action. They are claiming that they are due a refund as the goods were not fit for purpose when sold to her as they should under the sales of goods act 1979.
I'm really not sure where we stand on this. My wife did not misdescribe the horse box in the advert or during the sale process. She didnt make any comments like 'runs fine - in perfect condition’. Just wondering if this person has a case?
[quote=moooooobss They are claiming that they are due a refund as the goods were not fit for purpose when sold to her as they should under the sales of goods act 1979.
[/quote]
Bluffing, sale of goods act 1979 was replaced by consumer rights act 2015, any good bar room lawyer knows that.
[/quote]
Bluffing, sale of goods act 1979 was replaced by consumer rights act 2015, any good bar room lawyer knows that.
I presume by saying new brakes she was describing discs/pads not brake lines.
Isn't the standard that as a private sale by a person with no specialised knowledge that your not expected to have any specialist knowledge so if you had new pads fitted that sounds perfectly reasonable to describe it as "new brakes"
Sounds like they should have checked things more before putting the cash in your hands.
Isn't the standard that as a private sale by a person with no specialised knowledge that your not expected to have any specialist knowledge so if you had new pads fitted that sounds perfectly reasonable to describe it as "new brakes"
Sounds like they should have checked things more before putting the cash in your hands.
moooooobss said:
My wife sold her horse box back in May.
How old a horsebox, how much, and what was the ad wording?moooooobss said:
2 weeks after sale she received a letter saying that the fuel injector had gone and that the buyer wanted a full refund as the goods were not fit for purpose. We replied stating that the vehicle was in working order when it was sold to and that no refund would be given.
Right answer...moooooobss said:
Fast forward 3 months
<raises eyebrows> Definite piss-taker.moooooobss said:
...the new owner had taken it to a local garage and they had told them that it could not have passed its MOT due to a list of issues:
slipping clutch
rotten flow in horse stalls
no spare tyre
no horn (the horn isnt on the steering wheel but a button on the dashboard - so maybe the garage missed it??)
None of which would be a fail.slipping clutch
rotten flow in horse stalls
no spare tyre
no horn (the horn isnt on the steering wheel but a button on the dashboard - so maybe the garage missed it??)
moooooobss said:
The new owner also says that the horse box was misdescribed as in the advert it said 'had new brakes' and the garage they took it to said that the brake pipes were corroded.
"New brakes" would usually be taken to mean discs/pads/shoes. Not pipes.moooooobss said:
My wife replied stating that it had passed its MOT shortly before being purchased and that the brakes were as described.
Stop replying!moooooobss said:
Before we can then reply another 7 days later we receive a Notice of Court action.
A threat...moooooobss said:
If they do not get a refund or satisfactory response within 30 days they are going to start court action.
Let 'em.moooooobss said:
They are claiming that they are due a refund as the goods were not fit for purpose when sold to her as they should under the sales of goods act 1979.
And there they give away their cluelessness. Consumer Rights Act 2015.moooooobss said:
Just wondering if this person has a case?
Nope.They might put in a claim. If they do, you put in a simple, unemotive, factual rebuttal as defence. Let the court sort it out.
Few questions.
What sort of truck is it? A C1 (7.5T) a C?
3.5 tonne
What's the chassis, i.e. Make and model?
Ford Transit
What's a rotten flow?
Thats my spelling mistake. They state in their letter that the floor in the horse stalls in rotten
As for their complaints, it has a horn, it doesn't need a spare tyre for a test, and the fact that they've since fked the clutch is not your problem.
If everything really is as you describe, tell them you'll see them in court.
But if you want good useful advice on here, you have to tell the whole truth, you're not leaving anything out?
That is 100% the truth
What sort of truck is it? A C1 (7.5T) a C?
3.5 tonne
What's the chassis, i.e. Make and model?
Ford Transit
What's a rotten flow?
Thats my spelling mistake. They state in their letter that the floor in the horse stalls in rotten
As for their complaints, it has a horn, it doesn't need a spare tyre for a test, and the fact that they've since fked the clutch is not your problem.
If everything really is as you describe, tell them you'll see them in court.
But if you want good useful advice on here, you have to tell the whole truth, you're not leaving anything out?
That is 100% the truth
I am not a lawyer or a person of specialist knowledge.
However, they don't seem to have a case of it is as you say.
1. If the ad was accurate then they won't be able to argue it. For example, if it doesn't say "no rust".
2. An MOT certificate is for the day it was tested. The other garage cannot say whether it should have passed then or not. They didn't see it on that day.
3. New brakes means, to most people, disks and pads. Calipers at best. "New brake pipes" means new brake pipes.
I would reply explaining the limitations of a private sale, enclosing a copy of the ad to prove it was advertised accurately. They can then take you to court. I can't see how they will win.
Of course, someone who has been through this may know better!
However, they don't seem to have a case of it is as you say.
1. If the ad was accurate then they won't be able to argue it. For example, if it doesn't say "no rust".
2. An MOT certificate is for the day it was tested. The other garage cannot say whether it should have passed then or not. They didn't see it on that day.
3. New brakes means, to most people, disks and pads. Calipers at best. "New brake pipes" means new brake pipes.
I would reply explaining the limitations of a private sale, enclosing a copy of the ad to prove it was advertised accurately. They can then take you to court. I can't see how they will win.
Of course, someone who has been through this may know better!
rallycross said:
Just ignore the letters, if it was me I’d phone them up and tell them in no uncertain terms to fuc# right off and never contact you again.
This, but with out the phone call. Worst happens is they try and take you to small claims court. You turn up with the date of sale, date it passed the MOT, and if possible a copy of the advert. Judge finds in your favour, everyone goes home again.
Here is the original ad wording:
3.5t ford transit horsebox
Can be driven on normal licence. Power Steering so easy to drive. 3 seats in front. Storage above driver. Stalled for 2 ponies. Would fit 16h horse. Payload unknown. Rear load, Side off. Easily manageable for 1 person. Just passed its MOT. Had new brakes.
The vehicle passed its MOT 12 days before being bought and had to have new brake shoes fitted in order to pass MOT.
Also note the buyer test drove the vehicle once and inspected it twice. At no point did they voice any concerns.
3.5t ford transit horsebox
Can be driven on normal licence. Power Steering so easy to drive. 3 seats in front. Storage above driver. Stalled for 2 ponies. Would fit 16h horse. Payload unknown. Rear load, Side off. Easily manageable for 1 person. Just passed its MOT. Had new brakes.
The vehicle passed its MOT 12 days before being bought and had to have new brake shoes fitted in order to pass MOT.
Also note the buyer test drove the vehicle once and inspected it twice. At no point did they voice any concerns.
Does anyone know if this did go to small claims and if the judge found in the buyers favour - surely they wouldnt just say pay the money back to the buyer and you get the horse box back as the vehicle isnt worth the same amount now as its been nearly 4 months and I'm guessing they used the box as well.
moooooobss said:
Does anyone know if this did go to small claims and if the judge found in the buyers favour - surely they wouldnt just say pay the money back to the buyer and you get the horse box back as the vehicle isnt worth the same amount now as its been nearly 4 months and I'm guessing they used the box as well.
Irrelevant because the judge won’t find in the buyers favour, the fundamentals of private sale is “buyer beware”.
k off.moooooobss said:
Thanks to everyone who replied with advice. We are going to respond explaining that the vehicle was in full working order when sold. I will keep you all updated if it goes further.
Stop responding to them as it will only encourage them. theyve had three months showing ponies or whatever you do with horses and now want out for the winter. Common tactic nowadays it seems and hoping you'll give in to save the grief.
Act when court papers arrive. (I highly doubt they will)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff