Friends who bought my car have stopped paying the agreed monthly installments

macman

The sale price is irrelevant, unless the car was knowingly sold by the OP in an unroadworthy condition or deliberately misrepresented, the faults described above are not their responsibility. The car had a valid MOT at the time of sale, that does not mean that it is free of all defects.
Alternator and battery would not form part of an MOT test anyway, so clearly the purchaser is just coming up with any excuse not to pay.
OP, the licence plate date would be the date of first reg in the UK, not the date it was manufactured or registered abroad. If you sold it knowing that it was 5 years older than the licence plate would indicate and didn't mention it, then i can understand that the purchaser might feel conned-however you were not obliged by law to reveal that fact, it's up to the buyer to ascertain those facts for themselves.

ILW

macman wrote: »

The sale price is irrelevant, unless the car was knowingly sold by the OP in an unroadworthy condition or deliberately misrepresented, the faults described above are not their responsibility. The car had a valid MOT at the time of sale, that does not mean that it is free of all defects.
Alternator and battery would not form part of an MOT test anyway, so clearly the purchaser is just coming up with any excuse not to pay.
OP, the licence plate date would be the date of first reg in the UK, not the date it was manufactured or registered abroad. If you sold it knowing that it was 5 years older than the licence plate would indicate and didn't mention it, then i can understand that the purchaser might feel conned-however you were not obliged by law to reveal that fact, it's up to the buyer to ascertain those facts for themselves.

The only reason I asked the sale price is that if it is only a few hundred pounds, then it is probably not worth chasing. The car does appear to be around 12 or 13 years old.

lynnemcf

I sugest that you take the car back from them and put this down to experience. They have had cheap use of a car for several months and you have learned a hard lesson

macman

Why should the OP accept the car back from the buyer? He is entitled to the full payment as agreed at the outset.

Tixy

You are not liable for these repairs. Anyone who has bought cars privately knows this is not how it works. Quite frankly it looks like they are out to con you out of paying. The link Lilacpixie gives is useful. Perhaps print out the section on private sales and send them a copy in your next letter threatening legal action.

I also wouldn't agree to take the car back.

rainbowfairydust

is it possible that they took the car to a dodgy garage and have been scammed for faults that were not even an issue in the first place? Kwik fit anyone? So they now have been led to believe (by the garage) they were sold a dodgy car?

macman

Even if they were sold a 'dodgy' car (which is unproven) then they have no legal comeback with a private sale.
OP simply needs to write to them reminding them of their agreement to pay the instalments or take action through the small claims process.

faithcecilia

macman wrote: »

The sale price is irrelevant, unless the car was knowingly sold by the OP in an unroadworthy condition or deliberately misrepresented, the faults described above are not their responsibility. The car had a valid MOT at the time of sale, that does not mean that it is free of all defects.
Alternator and battery would not form part of an MOT test anyway, so clearly the purchaser is just coming up with any excuse not to pay.
OP, the licence plate date would be the date of first reg in the UK, not the date it was manufactured or registered abroad. If you sold it knowing that it was 5 years older than the licence plate would indicate and didn't mention it, then i can understand that the purchaser might feel conned-however you were not obliged by law to reveal that fact, it's up to the buyer to ascertain those facts for themselves.

This will depend on whether the vehicle had ever been registered abroad before coming to the UK, even then it is highly unlikely that a vehicle would be registered as new if it was actually 5yrs old - even if it had originally been built for the UK market it would be exceptional for it to be registered as new if it was more than about 12-18mths post-production. Imported vehicles are given an age-related plate based on date of manufacture. If this is unavailable they are Q-plated.

debbie828813

The car was imported in approximately 2003 off the top of my head, definitely in this decade. And the number plate is a 1997 'R' reg so I would believe this to be correct? I had no reason to believe otherwise and gave them all the import paperwork that I was given when I got the car. And they also saw all the paperwork for all work I had done on the car since in my possession and the current MOT. I personally think the garage has conned them on at least some of the items. Unfortunately the sale price is more than a couple of hundred pounds since it is a large 4x4 with very low mileage for the year. So I cannot afford to just give in. It is of course unfortunate that these problems have occurred but that's just the way it goes. Thanks for the info everyone.

Looking at the trading standards info lilacpixie, I think that is what they have been looking at, as they have quoted some of that to me, saying I sold it as being in excellent condition. I think they are trying to say that the garage is telling them that the faults would have been present when I sold the car, which would make me liable. Is this correct? The main issues are the brakes and electrical problem. I did not know about these problems so how could I have told them otherwise? I did say the car was in good condition, but then it was to my knowledge. Any problems I had whilst in possession of the car I got fixed and they saw the paperwork for that. And none of it was for the items they are describing.They also told me that the MOT does not necessarily mean that the car is roadworthy. I can see this quote on the trading standards website. It also says on the website - However, the law states that if you are claiming replacement, repair, full or partial refund within the first six months of ownership, the onus is on the trader to prove that the goods were acceptable when they were sold. This is called the 'reversed burden of proof'.
But I think this is referring to trade sales rather than private sales, am I right?
I know they are going to hit me with all these quotes so I just want to be clear in my head of where I stand!

Tixy

Yep that bit in bold is just for trade sales not private sales.

Did you actually given them a receipt for the purchase at all? Is there anything written down to say that you stated it was in good condition. If not and it was just a verbal statement about the car I don't think they can hold/use this against you. The words 'good condition' would I think be too subjective in law anyway.

Also might be worth looking at this link to see if it contains anything to help http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/buying_second_hand_vehicles.htm#you_bought_the_vehicle_from_a_private_seller