used car from Private seller

pinkshoes

As you bought it on ebay, have you actually opened a dispute, just to highlight to Ebay that there's a problem? The court may ask you this, and you have 45 days from purchase to open up a dispute.

Given what the advert says vs the MOT certificate, I believe you have clear evidence that the seller has lied about the condition.

I know you've already started the court proceeding, but I'd give the seller one more chance to give you a refund by firstly opening a dispute in ebay, and secondly, writing to him (recorded again), with a copy of the ebay advert and the MOT certificate, showing the evidence as to where he's lied, and giving him a further 7 days to issue you with a full refund.

Flyboy152

Aginoth wrote: »

Not completely accurate.

If the advert for the vehicle described anything in detail that then turned out to be untrue then the vehicle has been misrepresented.

I won a Small Claims Case on this last year, Seller said the vehicle had nothing wrong with it that would prevent it passing an MoT Test, and that it had passed it's last MoT 10 months earlier. Turned out to have massive structural corrosion that he knew about when it failed an MoT 2 weeks previous to the sale. I was unable to inspect as it was an eBay purchase at some distance, and on pick up he had hidden the corrosion with aluminium foil coated in waxoil liberally applied.

I won on the grounds that he had misrepresented the vehicle....if he had coughed up straight away would have cost him £400, as it was it eventually cost him £1100 due to costs etc.

How long did it take to get the money?

paseodj

Hi the car was not purchased through ebay, It was just advertised using classified advert so I have no way of opening a dispute on ebay.

My original letter to him stated that he has misrepresented and it included all of my evidence. when I spoke to him on the phone he (as anybody else who sells a car would) dismissed that it was his problem and at that point i didn't know about the mot, so that was my first contact, man to man over the phone. I then found out about the mot and the letter was sent giving him fourteen days.

court proceedings have begun and that gives him a further fourteen days.

I didn't want to send a second letter as I wanted to keep my case strong and make sure he was aware that I meant business and wasn't calling his bluff so by keeping to strict timelines I'm trying to show what I say, I mean....hope that makes sense

paseodj

oh and yes there are 4 newish tyres on the car... so not disputing that, i think whoever posted that was only skimming over though I'm actually going to get the brake lines sorted though for a temporary fix as I'm currently relying on my neighbour to take me from and to work.....thank goodness for those genuine people out there who would do anything for anybody, it was just the first couple of days that I was without a car and couldn't work...... (i'm a pub and club singer hence the need for a car to carry equipment)

the other thing that has annoyed me is the fact that I said I needed a car with a four wheel drive capability for when the bad weather comes as we live in a dip and struggle to get out and I'm studying a health care course and the other half works in the health industry so come rain or shine we do need to be out and he said the 4 wheel drive system is in good order and would be perfect for what i needed....load of sh.....

BlueC

I'll be amazed, and more than slightly annoyed, if you win this case. It is your responsibility as the buyer to check the car over, not the seller's. I don't see that the seller has done anything wrong. If you didn't notice the corrosion underneath then that is your problem.

The previous MOT is irrelevant - if you were as diligent when you bought the car as you are at trying to reclaim your money then you would have found all this info out at the time. Also, the car is 12 years old - you should fully expect it to have corrosion!

If I was the seller I'd be doing exactly the same - ignoring you. I don't see that the seller has a case to answer so I'll be interested to hear the outcome. My advice would be to chalk it down to experience and move on - you'll know better next time.

pinkshoes

BlueC wrote: »

I'll be amazed, and more than slightly annoyed, if you win this case. It is your responsibility as the buyer to check the car over, not the seller's. I don't see that the seller has done anything wrong. If you didn't notice

It's also the seller's prerogative to be HONEST.

If they'd been honest about the defects highlighted in the MOT, then the OP wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but they have clearly lied.

Are you saying it's ok to lie to and deceive someone just to make a sale?

Flyboy152

BlueC wrote: »

I'll be amazed, and more than slightly annoyed, if you win this case. It is your responsibility as the buyer to check the car over, not the seller's. I don't see that the seller has done anything wrong. If you didn't notice the corrosion underneath then that is your problem.

The previous MOT is irrelevant - if you were as diligent when you bought the car as you are at trying to reclaim your money then you would have found all this info out at the time. Also, the car is 12 years old - you should fully expect it to have corrosion!

If I was the seller I'd be doing exactly the same - ignoring you. I don't see that the seller has a case to answer so I'll be interested to hear the outcome. My advice would be to chalk it down to experience and move on - you'll know better next time.

Then I really hope I don't end up buying a car from you.

If you feel it is acceptable to lie and deceive when selling a car to someone, I really hope you have deep pockets and a good lawyer.

Equaliser123

pinkshoes wrote: »

Are you saying it's ok to lie to and deceive someone just to make a sale?

Actually proving a breach of contract or misrepresentation on the part of the seller not saying something is extremely difficult.

paseodj

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Actually proving a breach of contract or misrepresentation on the part of the seller not saying something is extremely difficult.

but proving it from the original advert is easy!.... just see my earlier posts!

and @bluec........ wasn't you that sold it me was it? hehehe

I know some will say its my fault and others will say its not but I'm fighting it to the very end and will keep you all updated on the outcome

BlueC

paseodj wrote: »

and @bluec........ wasn't you that sold it me was it? hehehe

Haha no it wasn't me!

I might have been a morning grump when I posted that! And no I don't think its ok to be dishonest, but in the case of a private car sale I do think it is down to the buyer to inspect the car thoroughly. I certainly wouldn't trust what the seller says and would do my own investigation.