private sale - small claim - advice on response sought

[semisane]

Hi all, colleague has sold his car privately.

He has now received a small claim from the purchaser.

I have agreed to help him with a response to the claim -any thoughts on the following ?

Reason for claim

“The vendor sold the vehicle as fully functional and sound, yet did not disclose faults within the vehicle, which appeared upon the return to my place of residency: faulty gearbox (limp mode / loss of gears) and other multiple faults with the vehicle to be mentioned within the detailed time frame”
“Contacted Gear box specialist who diagnosed a faulty gearbox with an estimated cost of repair of £1500.00 minimum, depending on the extent of repair required”

Claim amount inc fee £3,115

Vendors feedback
This was a private sale
I bought the car in 20?? At xxxxxx miles
It has been mot’ed on these dates and miles
In 20?? I bought a small van for my work and as such I infrequently used the car - between the last 2 mot’s I have covered 200 miles

As such I decided to Mot the vehicle on ?/?/2022 and place an ad on ?/?/2022 with a view to selling

Facebook marketplace ad
2007 Audi A4 3.0 quattro tdi 131000 miles
3+ owners
Seller's description
Great condition, mot till 25Aug, 19" alloys, tyres plenty of life, no advisories on last mot, powerful 3.0 engine, roof in good working order, body work without any scraches or dents, drives very well, s line with Bose sound system.£3999 ono.

The purchaser initially viewed the car on ?/?/2022 and we undertook a test drive around town of approximately xx miles
The purchase undertook a second viewing on ?/?/2022 and we undertook a second test drive around town of approximately xx miles
Faults found ? negotiated and agreed a sale price of ????

[stevemcs]

I'd tell them to do one, however adverts really should be kept to the facts, so words like great condition should not be included.

[vikingaero]

15 year old car. Weren't Audi boxes of this era chocolate?

[carinaman]

There are threads on PH about small claims I'd suggest reading through those. There was one updated a few months ago where a private car buyer tried taking a vendor to court and lost.

The information to help you is on PH you just need to find it and read it.

[oakdale]

semisane said:

Hi all, colleague has sold his car privately.

He has now received a small claim from the purchaser.

I have agreed to help him with a response to the claim -any thoughts on the following ?

Reason for claim

“The vendor sold the vehicle as fully functional and sound, yet did not disclose faults within the vehicle, which appeared upon the return to my place of residency: faulty gearbox (limp mode / loss of gears) and other multiple faults with the vehicle to be mentioned within the detailed time frame”
“Contacted Gear box specialist who diagnosed a faulty gearbox with an estimated cost of repair of £1500.00 minimum, depending on the extent of repair required”

Claim amount inc fee £3,115

Vendors feedback
This was a private sale
I bought the car in 20?? At xxxxxx miles
It has been mot’ed on these dates and miles
In 20?? I bought a small van for my work and as such I infrequently used the car - between the last 2 mot’s I have covered 200 miles

As such I decided to Mot the vehicle on ?/?/2022 and place an ad on ?/?/2022 with a view to selling

Facebook marketplace ad
2007 Audi A4 3.0 quattro tdi 131000 miles
3+ owners
Seller's description
Great condition, mot till 25Aug, 19" alloys, tyres plenty of life, no advisories on last mot, powerful 3.0 engine, roof in good working order, body work without any scraches or dents, drives very well, s line with Bose sound system.£3999 ono.

The purchaser initially viewed the car on ?/?/2022 and we undertook a test drive around town of approximately xx miles
The purchase undertook a second viewing on ?/?/2022 and we undertook a second test drive around town of approximately xx miles
Faults found ? negotiated and agreed a sale price of ????

Was/is the gearbox faulty?

[wpa1975]

vikingaero said:

15 year old car. Weren't Audi boxes of this era chocolate?

I believe they were a CVT box and yes chocolate

[Earthdweller]

wpa1975 said:

vikingaero said:

15 year old car. Weren't Audi boxes of this era chocolate?

I believe they were a CVT box and yes chocolate

iirc The cvt was only on front wheel drive cars and the Quattros had a non chocolate tiptronic auto

[semisane]

carinaman said:

There are threads on PH about small claims I'd suggest reading through those. There was one updated a few months ago where a private car buyer tried taking a vendor to court and lost.

The information to help you is on PH you just need to find it and read it.

Yes there is a 'sticky' and I have read it fully.

I am asking for specific advice on the wording of the response to the claim

[wpa1975]

Earthdweller said:

wpa1975 said:

vikingaero said:

15 year old car. Weren't Audi boxes of this era chocolate?

I believe they were a CVT box and yes chocolate

iirc The cvt was only on front wheel drive cars and the Quattros had a non chocolate tiptronic auto

You are indeed correct, thanks for the correction, it is a ZF 6HP box on those

[semisane]

oakdale said:

Was/is the gearbox faulty?

No issues identified during the two test drives / dont know - sounds like a chancer, especially with the line "and other multiple faults with the vehicle to be mentioned within the detailed time frame"

[Dg504]

Who is the response to? What paperwork was signed upon sale?

I’d cut the faff totally. Nothing prior to the sale matters;

- Private sale

- Buyer drove and inspected twice with no reported faults before agreeing to purchase

- (hopefully) receipt for £x and stating sold as seen/the AA template attached

[AyBee]

As above, I wouldn't include the ad wording, just private sale and test driven twice with a copy of the receipt.

[anonymous-user]

stevemcs said:

I'd tell them to do one, however adverts really should be kept to the facts, so words like great condition should not be included.

This, only include the facts, never things like

Great condition,
tyres plenty of life
roof in good working order
body work without any scraches or dents
drives very well

I would argue it is not in good condition and doesn't drive well as the gearbox is toast.

[semisane]

Joey Deacon said:

This, only include the facts, never things like

Great condition,
tyres plenty of life
roof in good working order
body work without any scraches or dents
drives very well

I would argue it is not in good condition and doesn't drive well as the gearbox is toast.

Fully agree with first part of your response but....

"I would argue..." argue away - gearbox not toast on 2 test drives and only have word from buyer that there is an issue !!

[semisane]

Dg504 said:

Who is the response to? What paperwork was signed upon sale?

I’d cut the faff totally. Nothing prior to the sale matters;

- Private sale

- Buyer drove and inspected twice with no reported faults before agreeing to purchase

- (hopefully) receipt for £x and stating sold as seen/the AA template attached

HM Courts & Tribunal Services. I will try and get the details of the sales paperwork.

Thanks for the 'on topic' advice - a rarity these day !

[MDMA .]

carinaman said:

There are threads on PH about small claims I'd suggest reading through those. There was one updated a few months ago where a private car buyer tried taking a vendor to court and lost.

The information to help you is on PH you just need to find it and read it.

Was there another person who bought from a private sale and took the seller to court and won? Quite recently. Took a bit of flak over it. Car as described but developed a later fault. Buyer didn’t want to be out of pocket so went to court.
He could have been making it all up though!

[ninjag]

I would have thought the buyer would have to incur the actual costs before being able to claim for them. I'm not sure "estimated" costs would be very suitable?

If it were sold remotely and they came to collect with no test drive then there may be a claim. But two test drives on separate occasions, I would say no. It might not even be the same transmission, possibly swapped out?

[vikingaero]

ninjag said:

I would have thought the buyer would have to incur the actual costs before being able to claim for them. I'm not sure "estimated" costs would be very suitable?

If it were sold remotely and they came to collect with no test drive then there may be a claim. But two test drives on separate occasions, I would say no. It might not even be the same transmission, possibly swapped out?

This does seem rather strange. To put estimated costs of £1,500 minimum and a total of £3k with court fees. I take it the claim came with copies of the estimate/quotation from the transmission specialist?

The way the claim is written sounds like a pedantic PHer!

[cts1975]

The small claims judge will expect an independent experts report to base their decision on. The estimate from the gearbox place would not suffice. The buyer would need to include this as part of their claim. See what the expert finds and go from there.

[Muzzer79]

I would just stick to the facts in your response

It was a private sale
Vendor not aware of any faults at time of sale
Buyer conducted two seperate test drives before taking the car away.

People fear wording like "great condition" in a private advert but, in reality, that term is so general that it would impractical to suggest it's mis-describing the car.

If you said "exhaust in great condition" and it was rusted through, maybe that would be an issue but just "great condition" won't be a problem.