Advice needed on problems after buying used car on Ebay.

pianeet

annie42 wrote: »

I am The Seller, I Am Not A Dealer Or A Rally Driver! I Listed This On Ebay In Good Faith. The Buyer Chose To Come At 5.30 Although It Was Still Light,with Her Ex Husband Who Inspected The Car And Test Drove It. I Told Her About The Drive Shaft And Reduced The Price To £925. I Trusted Her And Did'nt Check The Money And She Shortchanged Me Of £10. I Was Not Aware Of Any Problem With The Steering But When She Informed Me I Offered Her A Refund Of £80 In Full And Final Settlement. She Said She Would Accept £80 As A Part Settlement Because That Would Get The Car Safely Back On The Road. The Following Day She Contradicted Herself By Saying It Would Cost £419 To Get It Back On The Road. But For The Bodywork The Car Would Be Worth More Than Double The £1000 I Was Asking. On The Ebay Listing I Stated The Bodywork Was Poor. Since Buying The Car She Has Carried Out Repairs In The Form Of Machine Polishing The Two Front Wings When She Says They Need Replacing. Why? I Do Not Think It's Reasonable To Expect A Seller To Take Back A Vehicle That Has Had work Carried Out To It.

yep they took ex hubby along who inspected and test drove the car and negotiated another £75 off for the drive shaft,in my opinion that should be the end of it,

JK12345

neet87 wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]Hi, although I don’t agree with all of what marmaladebadger say he does have a point about car sales in general.

For example, in the advert for your Rover you have stated that 'THE ONLY THING MECHANICALLY I THINK IT WILL NEED FOR AN MOT IS THE EXCHAUST, THE BAFFLERS HAVE GONE (WHAETEVER THEY ARE!) BUT ITS REALLY NOISY.' Well if someone buys it, has this fixed and it still fails an MOT for something else does that not mean you have mis-described it in the advert and they are entitled to either a refund or for you to compensate the costs of getting anything fixed that is need for the MOT?

Also, this implies that after this has been fixed it will be a road legal car, thus if it isn’t the only thing wrong with it you have effectively sold an unroadworthy car illegally?

You have also stated 'MECHANICALLY THE CAR SEEMS GOOD'. You must be 100% sure of this as if there is a problem mechanically then shouldn’t you be held accountable after advising the buyer the car is ok? (This is what you are trying to imply the seller of your mondeo should be)

I think this demonstrates that buying a cheap used car on ebay is at buyer’s risk. If everyone who buys a car that has anything wrong with it other than what is stated in the description is entitled to a refund, I doubt the car trade on ebay will continue except from dealers- and will certainly be much more expensive.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am not trying to have a go at you but you do need to think whether you would refund your buyer if any of the above circumstances happen or whether you would say that when they collected the car they accepted it in the condition it was in then?[/FONT]

Point taken, but a car with no MOT is by definition not roadworthy, but to clear up any confusion have ammended the listing :-)

JK12345

pianeet wrote: »

yep they took ex hubby along who inspected and test drove the car and negotiated another £75 off for the drive shaft,in my opinion that should be the end of it,

Unfortunately that isn't quite true, but I am more than happy for the seller to contunue posting part truths in a public forum.

Basically, the car is useless to me in it's current state, and is booked into MOT on Monday, then I guess the best thing to do it let this situation follow its natural course and just see how it pans out, as there is now no urgency for me as I have another car to drive.

Jx

macman

JK12345 wrote: »

Point taken, but a car with no MOT is by definition not roadworthy, but to clear up any confusion have ammended the listing :-)

Call me a pedant, but a car with no MOT could be perfectly roadworthy, it's just not legal on the road without the MOT.
On that basis, a vehicle ,without insurance or tax is also 'unroadworthy', though it might be in perfect mechanical order.

StaffsSW

Just to note that an MOT will not pick up on things like worn brake pads, leaking gaskets, failing seals, contaminated oil, worn shock absorbers, internal engine problems etc.

Likewise, depending on the size and position of the stonechips in the screen, they may not be MOT failure points either.

In truth, an MOT is the bare minimum that a car needs to be roadworthy - a proper mechanical inspection is what is needed in this case - someone who can poke around at the bearings and bushings, and other parts that are not part of the current MOT procedure.

Although in reality, this should have been done before the purchase was finalised. http://www.usedcarchecks.com/check.htm - most of the checks on that list are not part of the MOT.

goldspanners

JK12345 wrote: »

They are easy to find online, see prev post with the link to the Road Traffic Act, and prev post on link to the laws and rights of private buyers.

I didn't accept the vehicle after purchase (within a reasonable time) and did not know windscreen was damaged.

That aside even if I did, and as I have numerously stated I didn't, this doesn't absolve the seller of selling an unroadworthy vehicle, or indeed a vehicle not as described.

so you didnt check the vehicle over before buying it? how did you get it home? in reverse?

marmaladebadger

JK12345 wrote: »

Point taken, but a car with no MOT is by definition not roadworthy, but to clear up any confusion have ammended the listing :-)

Glad you've at least listened to that.

goldspanners wrote: »

so you didnt check the vehicle over before buying it? how did you get it home? in reverse?

:rotfl:100% true...


I'm going to be very interested as to how this one turns out as it's relavant to so many used car buyers everywhere...

I mean following the OP's logic one can buy a car, having inspected it before bidding on ebay, and then proceed to :

A. Knock money of a fixed price item which by definition was bought remotely and despite bidding on ebay where one enters into a contract to buy at the bidded price.

B. Blame the seller for any possible thing which goes / or perhaps was already wrong with the car (but which you didn't pick up on in your inspection) at mot time and demand a refund...

What worries me is that the seller might have been a little old lady who would have probably caved to the OPs demands and given her her money back, especially when the road traffic act is misquoted at her. :mad:

Take away point for sellers : Make sure you have written receipts signed by both parties saying "SOLD AS SEEN NO WARRANTY GIVEN OR IMPLIED" or words to that effect when you sell a car to stop shenanigans like this before they start.

neet87

One thing I dont really understand is that as the seller has driven the car 4000 miles since the MOT with the car in the condition that you brought it in (I presume that the fault would not have developed overnight) then how bad must the fault be? Unless the seller has a death wish, they would not be driving a car that is dangerous for 4000 miles.

JK12345

marmaladebadger wrote: »

Glad you've at least listened to that.


:rotfl:100% true...


I'm going to be very interested as to how this one turns out as it's relavant to so many used car buyers everywhere...

I mean following the OP's logic one can buy a car, having inspected it before bidding on ebay, and then proceed to :

A. Knock money of a fixed price item which by definition was bought remotely and despite bidding on ebay where one enters into a contract to buy at the bidded price.

B. Blame the seller for any possible thing which goes / or perhaps was already wrong with the car (but which you didn't pick up on in your inspection) at mot time and demand a refund...

What worries me is that the seller might have been a little old lady who would have probably caved to the OPs demands and given her her money back, especially when the road traffic act is misquoted at her. :mad:

Take away point for sellers : Make sure you have written receipts signed by both parties saying ".SOLD AS SEEN NO WARRANTY GIVEN OR IMPLIED" or words to that effect when you sell a car to stop shenanigans like this before they start.

Firstly, car was not inspected prior to bidding.

I hit buy it now, (thus entering the contract) and paid for the car.

If I had of noticed there were issues with the car, under your definition then that would have been bad luck as I had entered a contract to buy??

Car is not due an MOT

If the seller had been a little old lady:-

a - she would hardly shift a dangerous car knowing children would be in it.
b - she would not have bought a car 3 months ago, abused it until it was no longer fir for use, then shifted it quickly.
c - would probably have described the item truthfully.

Road traffic act is not misquoted, its a direct extract

SOLD AS SEEN NO WARRANTY GIVEN OR IMPLIED is worth nothing if the car is sold in an unroadworthy condition.

Sellers have a responsibility to truthfully describe their goods.

JK12345

neet87 wrote: »

One thing I dont really understand is that as the seller has driven the car 4000 miles since the MOT with the car in the condition that you brought it in (I presume that the fault would not have developed overnight) then how bad must the fault be? Unless the seller has a death wish, they would not be driving a car that is dangerous for 4000 miles.

Well I guess that being as it had a brand new MOT when he bought it, owing to what ever has happened to it, once he noticed the steering etc, he shifted it on as quick as he could!