Sold a car privately - COURT ACTION

[blueg33]

Fast Bug said:

I'd be amazed not disappointed!

I am sure I read about a similar case that found in favour of the buyer.

The disappointment will be because we will be seeing a worrying drift towards supporting vexatious claimants.

[vikingaero]

blueg33 said:

Fast Bug said:

I'd be amazed not disappointed!

I am sure I read about a similar case that found in favour of the buyer.

The disappointment will be because we will be seeing a worrying drift towards supporting vexatious claimants.

^This.

There have been 3 disappointing cases on MSE where people who sold cars and a decade+ old motorhome, were taken to Court and surprisingly lost. The comments in support were much like on this thread: "buyer beware/sold as seen/caveat emptor/they'll never stand a chance" etc. And the buyers convinced the judge and won. I'd argue that there's a little of the judge getting out on the wrong side that day but also judges seem to be switching a little against all this caveat emptor bullst.

[Grunt Futtock]

My brother bought a Cat D Audi TT from a chap in London who was selling it because he had a baby on the way etc.

He went down to see it, looked and drove ok and the chap gave the spiel about it being a low speed accident and a marginal write off, brother bought into this and parted with circa £10k for it which was about right for a Cat D.

Had it for a few weeks and it needed to go in for something doing, he get's a call from the Audi specialist to say that they thought something wasn't right with it and after a bit of investigation they found the chassis was actually twisted and it had been bodged back together. They wrote out a statement giving their professional opinion that it was unroadworthy because it was so borked.

Brother tried to speak to the guy to basically get his money back and give the chap his car back as it is illegal to sell a car that is unroadworthy, chap was having none of it, caveat emptor etc.

It went to court (after about 9 months) and the judge basically sided with the chap selling the car, apparently the law about it being illegal to sell unroadworthy vehicles was worthless.

Personally I wouldn't have bought into a Cat D of that value, I'd only consider it with something small and cheap to start with. This car had obviously been smashed and bodged back together whereas it should have been a Cat B but for a cursory inspection appeared to pass muster.

[E36GUY]

Grunt Futtock said:

My brother bought a Cat D Audi TT from a chap in London who was selling it because he had a baby on the way etc.

He went down to see it, looked and drove ok and the chap gave the spiel about it being a low speed accident and a marginal write off, brother bought into this and parted with circa £10k for it which was about right for a Cat D.

Had it for a few weeks and it needed to go in for something doing, he get's a call from the Audi specialist to say that they thought something wasn't right with it and after a bit of investigation they found the chassis was actually twisted and it had been bodged back together. They wrote out a statement giving their professional opinion that it was unroadworthy because it was so borked.

Brother tried to speak to the guy to basically get his money back and give the chap his car back as it is illegal to sell a car that is unroadworthy, chap was having none of it, caveat emptor etc.

It went to court (after about 9 months) and the judge basically sided with the chap selling the car, apparently the law about it being illegal to sell unroadworthy vehicles was worthless.

Personally I wouldn't have bought into a Cat D of that value, I'd only consider it with something small and cheap to start with. This car had obviously been smashed and bodged back together whereas it should have been a Cat B but for a cursory inspection appeared to pass muster.

I'm by no means defending the seller but here one could argue that the buyer, knowing it was a Cat D, probably ought to have had an inspection done prior to sinking £10k into it. I certainly would have!

[VladD]

Grunt Futtock said:

My brother bought a Cat D Audi TT from a chap in London who was selling it because he had a baby on the way etc.

He went down to see it, looked and drove ok and the chap gave the spiel about it being a low speed accident and a marginal write off, brother bought into this and parted with circa £10k for it which was about right for a Cat D.

Had it for a few weeks and it needed to go in for something doing, he get's a call from the Audi specialist to say that they thought something wasn't right with it and after a bit of investigation they found the chassis was actually twisted and it had been bodged back together. They wrote out a statement giving their professional opinion that it was unroadworthy because it was so borked.

Brother tried to speak to the guy to basically get his money back and give the chap his car back as it is illegal to sell a car that is unroadworthy, chap was having none of it, caveat emptor etc.

It went to court (after about 9 months) and the judge basically sided with the chap selling the car, apparently the law about it being illegal to sell unroadworthy vehicles was worthless.

Personally I wouldn't have bought into a Cat D of that value, I'd only consider it with something small and cheap to start with. This car had obviously been smashed and bodged back together whereas it should have been a Cat B but for a cursory inspection appeared to pass muster.

Sounds like a candidate for a P/X to me.

[godskitchen]

Wow, more tripe on this thread.

This is much like the "you better declare the paint reduction on your car to the insurance company after a vigorous car wash because if you make a claim they won't pay out."

I always ask for an example from these morons who spout this crap of anyone who didn't get a pay out over a undeclared mod (I'm not talking remapping a diesel golf to 250bhp, more along the lines of a recent thread on here of a chap with what he thought were non standard springs on his golf) and of course no one can show me an example to back up their hysteria.

I don't doubt for one moment that buyers have won cases from private sellers in the past but I can guarantee you that those cases will no have been straight forward and possibly was easy to prove the seller knew what they were doing. Still wouldn't mind someone linking concrete examples rather than "I once read" or "my mates uncle"

I honestly don't know how some of you get a wink of sleep at night, you must live in a constant state of fear.

[Monkeylegend]

godskitchen said:

but I can guarantee you that those cases will no have been straight forward and possibly was easy to prove the seller knew what they were doing.

Some examples would be good.

[godskitchen]

Monkeylegend said:

Some examples would be good.

I'm not the one spouting the bs, I'm saying if there are any cases they won't be straight forward. I'm asking to be shown the precedent.

[Vaud]

godskitchen said:

Monkeylegend said:

Some examples would be good.

I'm not the one spouting the bs, I'm saying if there are any cases they won't be straight forward. I'm asking to be shown the precedent.

County court doesn't set precedent.

[bad company]

Vaud said:

County court doesn't set precedent.

Beat me to it.

It's really up to the judge on the day. The op needs to go prepared. Daft sounding but the side with the biggest bundle of evidence usually wins.

[godskitchen]

Vaud said:

County court doesn't set precedent.

In which case a documented example will do.

[Monkeylegend]

godskitchen said:

Monkeylegend said:

Some examples would be good.

I'm not the one spouting the bs, I'm saying if there are any cases they won't be straight forward. I'm asking to be shown the precedent.

[Vaud]

godskitchen said:

Vaud said:

County court doesn't set precedent.

In which case a documented example will do.

County Court case details aren't published if I recall correctly, so you will only get a second hand story.

(fyi About 1.4 million civil claims and petitions are brought to the county courts each year. Typically only about 3-4% of these require a hearing. In the vast majority of cases, either the defendant does nothing so the claimant can ask the court to order the defendant to pay the amount claimed, or the disputes are settled without a court hearing being needed. source: MoJ)

[RobDown]

The only thing that worries me slightly with this case is the OP describing how the car drove faultlessly etc. It shouldn't matter etc etc but maybe the wrong judge on the wrong day?

[Fast Bug]

vikingaero said:

blueg33 said:

Fast Bug said:

I'd be amazed not disappointed!

I am sure I read about a similar case that found in favour of the buyer.

The disappointment will be because we will be seeing a worrying drift towards supporting vexatious claimants.

^This.

There have been 3 disappointing cases on MSE where people who sold cars and a decade+ old motorhome, were taken to Court and surprisingly lost. The comments in support were much like on this thread: "buyer beware/sold as seen/caveat emptor/they'll never stand a chance" etc. And the buyers convinced the judge and won. I'd argue that there's a little of the judge getting out on the wrong side that day but also judges seem to be switching a little against all this caveat emptor bullst.

That's worrying. Although in this case the person taking the OP to court isn't the same person he sold the car too...

[blueg33]

Fast Bug said:

vikingaero said:

blueg33 said:

Fast Bug said:

I'd be amazed not disappointed!

I am sure I read about a similar case that found in favour of the buyer.

The disappointment will be because we will be seeing a worrying drift towards supporting vexatious claimants.

^This.

There have been 3 disappointing cases on MSE where people who sold cars and a decade+ old motorhome, were taken to Court and surprisingly lost. The comments in support were much like on this thread: "buyer beware/sold as seen/caveat emptor/they'll never stand a chance" etc. And the buyers convinced the judge and won. I'd argue that there's a little of the judge getting out on the wrong side that day but also judges seem to be switching a little against all this caveat emptor bullst.

That's worrying. Although in this case the person taking the OP to court isn't the same person he sold the car too...

Unless she is actually acting as agent.....

[bmw320ci]

blueg33 said:

Fast Bug said:

vikingaero said:

blueg33 said:

Fast Bug said:

I'd be amazed not disappointed!

I am sure I read about a similar case that found in favour of the buyer.

The disappointment will be because we will be seeing a worrying drift towards supporting vexatious claimants.

^This.

There have been 3 disappointing cases on MSE where people who sold cars and a decade+ old motorhome, were taken to Court and surprisingly lost. The comments in support were much like on this thread: "buyer beware/sold as seen/caveat emptor/they'll never stand a chance" etc. And the buyers convinced the judge and won. I'd argue that there's a little of the judge getting out on the wrong side that day but also judges seem to be switching a little against all this caveat emptor bullst.

That's worrying. Although in this case the person taking the OP to court isn't the same person he sold the car too...

Unless she is actually acting as agent.....

In house solicitor as she lives at the same address as the original buyer he sold it too

[superlightr]

agent or solicitor acting the claimant is the claimant name listed who then has x y or z acting for them.

The claimant is not the person he sold the car to.

[saaby93]

vikingaero said:

blueg33 said:

Fast Bug said:

I'd be amazed not disappointed!

I am sure I read about a similar case that found in favour of the buyer.

The disappointment will be because we will be seeing a worrying drift towards supporting vexatious claimants.

^This.

There have been 3 disappointing cases on MSE where people who sold cars and a decade+ old motorhome, were taken to Court and surprisingly lost. The comments in support were much like on this thread: "buyer beware/sold as seen/caveat emptor/they'll never stand a chance" etc. And the buyers convinced the judge and won. I'd argue that there's a little of the judge getting out on the wrong side that day but also judges seem to be switching a little against all this caveat emptor bullst.

Without going into those isnt that where the seller is trying to get rid of a pile of junk and dresses it up so it appears to be gold

RobDown said:

The only thing that worries me slightly with this case is the OP describing how the car drove faultlessly etc. It shouldn't matter etc etc but maybe the wrong judge on the wrong day?

Without going back and reading the sellers exact words, at the time of sale wasnt it as good as he claimed?
it was only afterwards that some faults appeared, but thats what can happen when you buy anything.
If its new or from a trader there are guarantees. Privately there arent, which is why its cheaper

[Vibes]

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

evoivboy said:

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

Posting just for updates. I'm interested to see how one of these cases concludes.

OP, please do not bugger off/delete the thread etc before conclusion, like the guy in a parallel case with a Range with a busted gearbox. It reflected badly on him IMO, and probably wound anyone contributing to the thread right up.

Wondered what happened to that, it was deleted?

the OP requested it be shut down

Thanks for the update. I spent *hours* looking for it. Was there an outcome, did he win? I was invested in that thread and was rooting for him.