Sold a car and now the head gasket has gone

justcat

Car was MOT'd in October if I remeber correctly.

MrsTinks

It is actually possible for a garage to miss a cracked HG... I used to spend a LOT of time under bonnets (some might call it a hobby...) and at one point I bought myself a funky little 1978 mini... it went through water like no-ones business but the oil looked perfect and there was no blue smoke, no leak under the car... nothing. It had me and 2 garages totally confused (as well as several mechanically giftes mates). Eventually I took it to the garage that had built the engine for the previous owner as he specialised in these and it was only when he took the head off it and skimmed it that the crack became apparent...
I know the problem existed when I bought the car but didn't suspect the worst because non of the tell tale signs were there... I thought it was possibly going out a small hole somewhere when the engine got warm...

It would have never occured to me to go back to the seller for the cost - it's a second hand vehicle - buyer beware! (And if neither I nor 2 professional mechanics, a mini enthusiast and several amateur mechanics spotted the fault until the car was ripped apart... then I have no doubt the seller didn't know either!)

MrSmartprice

alm721 wrote: »

op you say it has been recently mot'd. How long before the sale did this mot take place?

Given the fault was a head gasket, what relevance does the MOT have?

vaio

MrSmartprice wrote: »

……..A private seller also has to sell a car in a roadworthy condition. Subject to very specific exceptions (scrap, etc) it is an offence to sell an unroadworthy car………

This is interesting, I know this applies to trade seller but what’s the legislation that makes it apply to private sellers?

MrSmartprice wrote: »

……..The other bad advice is putting 'Sold As Seen' on receipts. Don't bother, a court will take no notice of it. The term in law means that the one sold was the one you saw, not a different one! And it is a criminal offence for a trader to put 'Sold As Seen' on a receipt. ………

This is confusing, if the legal definition you have given is correct then I can’t see why a trade seller would be prohibited from using the phrase, in fact I would have thought it would be compulsorily

Oneday77

MrSmartprice wrote: »

The initial advice from the AA is misleading, presumably to try and sell you their overpriced examination service. Of course there is some redress if you buy privately. They actually list it in the part below. Which is exactly what I said in my earlier post. If the car is misdescribed a civil court will make an award against a private seller.

There is no doubt whatsoever in law that the OP did misrepresent the car if she said it was a 'Good Runner'. If you cannot say something for certain you say nothing. Any sensible seller of a car will realise that.

Your final comment does you no credit and reveals you to be the barrack-room lawyer I referred to. Terms such as that are clear in their intention and District Judges certainly don't treat it with the flippancy you do!

Out of curiosity, I wonder what experience you have of dealing with car matters in the UK Civil Courts!;)

I conceed that I have no court experience. I do however have common sense.
At what point does using the term good runner become obsolete when your open about a known issue. To use a different scenario, if someone describes a car as in great condition but then mentions the bumper has a crack in it and it turns out later on its been in a big collision but the most of it was repaired. Does that constitute a misrepresentation or an omission of a point that was seen to be no longer relevant as they know issue had been repaired to a certain quality.
Not to mention there has been no indication as to how the HGF presented itself to the buyer. Was it purely the car was using water and she went out get it investigated or did it suddenly lose compression and the new owner was stranded. As the car had been running prior by OP I would suggest the former. It could also be it lost compression after further damage as the new owner let it run out of water and ignored it.
Rover 800 t-series engines had an issue where the HGF on one of the oil feeds. It would only seep oil and it would not present as any other issues. So it could be like that for 100,000 miles. If the HFG then failed in a further way, no where near the original failure. Would it be seen as the issue was there for a long period of time or unrelated?
To point blankly say the OP misrepresented the vehicle and that it is a closed case against her is not true. She used a general term but explained faults. Surely by representation of faults the OP removed the validity of the Good Runner claim. The buyer still purchased even though it needed water before they could drive away, why didn't she just walk away then.

alm721

MrSmartprice wrote: »

Given the fault was a head gasket, what relevance does the MOT have?

None really I guess I was just thinking that if the car had been mot'd very recently then it would be reasonable to assume that the op thought it roadworthy? not sure that really makes any difference though.

MrSmartprice

vaio wrote: »

This is interesting, I know this applies to trade seller but what’s the legislation that makes it apply to private sellers?

It's the same legislation, the Road Traffic Act. It applies to everyone, and it is criminal law. Courts, however, would give stiffer penalties to people who did it knowingly or recklessly.

vaio wrote: »

This is confusing, if the legal definition you have given is correct then I can’t see why a trade seller would be prohibited from using the phrase, in fact I would have thought it would be compulsorily

Traders used to use the term to try and avoid any comeback, so legislation under the Fair Trading Act stopped it. So a trader commits an offence if he tries to restrict or deny the buyer's rights in this way. It's the same as if a shop displays a sign saying 'No Refunds'. It's a criminal offence. It also means that terms such as 'sold as seen' are effectively discounted in Civil Courts if the case went there. It was held some years ago that it just means that the one you bought is the one you saw. So it is effectively meaningless. You must realise that the sale of anything can involve both civil and criminal law to see the distinction.

alm721 wrote: »

None really I guess I was just thinking that if the car had been mot'd very recently then it would be reasonable to assume that the op thought it roadworthy? not sure that really makes any difference though.

An MOT shows only that a car was roadworthy at the time of the test. However, a car would not fail just because the head gasket was blown. It has no bearing on the roadworthiness of the car.

MrSmartprice

Oneday77 wrote: »

I conceed that I have no court experience. I do however have common sense.
At what point does using the term good runner become obsolete when your open about a known issue. To use a different scenario, if someone describes a car as in great condition but then mentions the bumper has a crack in it and it turns out later on its been in a big collision but the most of it was repaired. Does that constitute a misrepresentation or an omission of a point that was seen to be no longer relevant as they know issue had been repaired to a certain quality.
Not to mention there has been no indication as to how the HGF presented itself to the buyer. Was it purely the car was using water and she went out get it investigated or did it suddenly lose compression and the new owner was stranded. As the car had been running prior by OP I would suggest the former. It could also be it lost compression after further damage as the new owner let it run out of water and ignored it.
Rover 800 t-series engines had an issue where the HGF on one of the oil feeds. It would only seep oil and it would not present as any other issues. So it could be like that for 100,000 miles. If the HFG then failed in a further way, no where near the original failure. Would it be seen as the issue was there for a long period of time or unrelated?
To point blankly say the OP misrepresented the vehicle and that it is a closed case against her is not true. She used a general term but explained faults. Surely by representation of faults the OP removed the validity of the Good Runner claim. The buyer still purchased even though it needed water before they could drive away, why didn't she just walk away then.

I am attempting to indicate how the Small Claims Court would assess the case. Things in civil courts are rarely black and white, the burden of proof is on 'balance of probability' and submissions from both parties are considered. To get that far you would normally get independent evidence, such as expert's opinion.

What I have said is that there is a clear civil liability that goods are not misdescribed when sold. (This is distinct from the Trade Descriptions Act which is criminal law and applies only to traders.) In civil law it applies to all sales, including private. So it's best to avoid such claims when selling privately.

A District Judge would consider the statement made and assess its accuracy, along with all the other facts of the case. He would decide if there had been misrepresentation and make an award of compensation if appropriate. But be under no illusions how they work in such cases. They will not allow legalese jargon or playing with words. If a car was described as being in good condition they consider such things as age and cost. But carelessly-made expressions such as 'Good Runner', 'Excellent Condition' etc are likely to cost the seller dear if untrue. I have seen it happen on numerous occasions.

Raksha

But the vehicle was not 'misdecribed' - the seller knew it was loosing coolant, and told the purchaser. Being aware of that information, the purchaser still purchased at a reduced price!

robbieb34

MrSmartprice wrote: »

I have seen it happen on numerous occasions.

This is still an extremely unlikely situation, justcat don't be scared by some of the legal d*ck measuring on here, if the buyer of your secondhand car speaks to any lawyer/solicitor they will tell them that you are legally in an extremely strong position. If the buyer issues a small claims court order on you, which is unlikely then you will win this case unless you are extremely unlucky. If by some miracle you lose, you will get time to pay by explaining your financial position. Any thing can happen in court but it would be extremely unusual for you as a private individual to be sued for retrospective works carried out a secondhand car sold privately.
This is a no brainer.