Dealer sold me a CAT D Write-off

911_01

Ladies/Gents,

Could you please give me some advice
I paid a substantial amount of money for a sports car a year ago, the advert from the trader included "HPI Clear with certificate to prove no accidents or bad history" it also states "Excellent condition, I challenge you to find another this good". I met the seller, asked again if it was HPI clear, he confirmed it was and said a HPI Certificate is included.
6 months went by after purchasing and I decided to p/x.. I took it to a dealer and they told me it was a write off, cat D, they also pointed out the sides are full of filler and panel gaps are all wrong, and cracks are in the engine bay (all of which I hadnt noticed because the overall impact of the car was good).
The HPI certificate he provided me with appears to be fake as I paid for another and it was written off in 2003, i purchased in 2008. I contacted the seller who, as stated above, was a trader, he emailed me back saying "I dont understand, the car was provided with 100% clear report", he said it wasnt his responsibility and basically he wasnt interested, he bought it in good faith etc.
I took legal advice and believe hes in breech of sales of goods act 1979 section 13(1) - goods must be as described. I sent him 2 recorded delivery letters with my claims asking for recompense, he refused delivery of both.
I started a claim on MCOL for what I believe to be a fair recompense (54% of purchase price - most insurers value the car at 50% and since the repair is poor this seems justified)
The trader filed a defence denying my full claim saying it was my responsibility to do a check and I shouldnt of relied on the certificate he gave me as it was out of date (2 months old). He also says it was a trade sale and I was a trader - I'm not, never have been, and never told him I was or implied to be such. Hes also added this wording to his copy of the invoice "trade sale agreed at discounted price, no warranty implied or given sold as seen tried and tested by buyer" - I have my copy of the invoice and it has no such wording.
I feel I have no other option but to take him to court.

What do you guys think my probability of winning is?

I paid £26000 for the car, in reality I'd be lucky to get £12k for it with its history.:mad:

MX5huggy

Fair to middleling, what have you got to lose by continuing?

911_01

Thanks for the reply....

More expenses for the court case, his legal expenses etc. Its already cost me around £1000 in costs, legal advice, MCOL etc. I really cant understand how a trader could get away with this! I bought the car based on his advert which has proven to be misleading.. he seems to think because he believed what he was stating was true then he's in the clear..

Hintza

50% might be too greedy. If I was you I would do some research into what the market thinks (I have 20% in mind) but I would also be trying to find out from the owner that had the accident how bad it was etc.

I really don't know where you stand but would love to hera how you get on.

911_01

The accident was severe, in 2003 the car was worth around £45k, to be uneconomical to repair the accident damage would of been extensive, its had new front wings, wing mirrors, new bumpers, new doors, new back bumper and the rear arches are 3" thick full of filler, full respray. The gaps between the doors and wings are incorrect and the back bumper is held into shape with wood screws. £5200 less than the £26000 purchase price doesnt seem much, I'd no way of paid £20800 for a car this damaged.. I dont want the car anymore and no dealer will touch it, regardless of price. I will keep you informed of developments, If anyone else has any advice i'd be happy to hear it.

Chippy_Minton_2

That sounds a little more damage than a Cat-D.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

With all due respect if the damage is as bad as you say how could you possibly not have noticed?

What could you sell the car/trade it in for?

Your claim should be normal value - that amount. I bet its nowhere near the 54% you are claiming.

Also the car is obviously mechanically sound and MOT'd since the accident otherwise it wouldnt still be on the road.

goldspanners

911_01 wrote: »

The accident was severe, in 2003 the car was worth around £45k, to be uneconomical to repair the accident damage would of been extensive, its had new front wings, wing mirrors, new bumpers, new doors, new back bumper and the rear arches are 3" thick full of filler, full respray. The gaps between the doors and wings are incorrect and the back bumper is held into shape with wood screws.

as others have said, this seems much more than just cat D.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Sounds like obtaining money by deception, fraud & if it went to court & he repeated himself it would be perjury...

You want to check the HPI report with the company that produced it first.

Could be a matter for the police.

911_01

CAT D on a car worth £84k at new is different to CAT D on a car worth £10k new... CAT D can range from just needing a new bumper to needing all new panels, windows, wheels, suspension.. anything that isnt major structural damage.

Im open to suggestions on what value I should be claiming, the 50% seemed fair based on the fact thats all an insurance company would give me for it.

No trader will accept it as a trade in due to being written off...

911_01

In response to the how could I not of noticed post... the only thing that I could of noticed was a slightly larger shut line on one of the doors.. the rest were picked up by a dealer and bodyshop, filler in bodywork, cracks in engine bays etc arent apparent until major inspections take place. A bubble was on the rear arch... I took it to the bodyshop to get it looked at... this is when he told me the full extent of the repairs that had taken place.