used car from Private seller

pendulum

Basically it is the OPs fault for not inspecting the car properly, but he has got lucky because he can show the car wasn't as described so he definitely has an argument. It'll be interesting to see if the court accepts his argument, or if it accepts the sellers which may be along the lines of "I forgot about the other advisories but don't think that matters because he should have picked the faults up during his inspection of the goods anyway". Be interesting to see the result.

shaun_from_Africa

Basically it is the OPs fault for not inspecting the car properly

But where do you draw the line at inspecting?
Unless you have access to a ramp or pit, most people would find it extremely hard, if not impossible to carry out a good inspection of things like brake pipes, exhaust mounts etc. It's easy to check the engine and visible bodywork, not so easy to check the underside of a car.

If the seller hadn't mentioned MOT advisories, then proving a case of mis-selling would be far harder, but as has already been stated, the seller doesn't have to declare faults (in a private sale), but what they do state must be truthful and correct.

eeeeeee

of your not a mechanic the only thing you can do is look and you dont really know you trust everything that the seller tells you; you have a enough proof just with the items description from ebay regardless '; i had a similar case last year and won ; the brake pipes were coroded ; the tyres were ilegal; there was no heat in the car ; reported the mot please too trading standards and took the previous owner too court ; the vehicle was deliberately misrepresented in its ad too enable the seller too sell it and was unfit for the purpose of which i bought it for ; he got £985 aded too the price of the car for phones calls days off work and repairs ; it would have been easer foe him too of taken the car back or agreed too do the repairs ; the judge sided with me completely when i attended county court and asked very little too the seller

paseodj

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But where do you draw the line at inspecting?
Unless you have access to a ramp or pit, most people would find it extremely hard, if not impossible to carry out a good inspection of things like brake pipes, exhaust mounts etc. It's easy to check the engine and visible bodywork, not so easy to check the underside of a car.

If the seller hadn't mentioned MOT advisories, then proving a case of mis-selling would be far harder, but as has already been stated, the seller doesn't have to declare faults (in a private sale), but what they do state must be truthful and correct.

also to add, I'm not an mot tester, so what looks and appears ok to me may be an mot failure, which is why I always ask about the mot when purchasing a vehicle.

when i bought my bike I asked for the advisory sheet but the seller said they were never given one, so after finding out about the mot history check I had a glance on there and yes there were advisories which were mentioned and advisories which weren't such as light misting of oil on forks but the original advert stated that fork seals had been recently replaced. now i don't see any oil on the forks and have had the bike for a few month now but I wouldn't class this as misselling as the advert seems to be true.

I could also say that my bike has failed it's mot everytime it has been taken, but failed on stupid things like bulbs, chain and sprocket worn etcetc, little things, but all consumables anyway so i don't have a problem with this.

I do have a problem when i ask if there were any other advisories than the lights and tyres to be told no when clearly there were, one of which almost led me to have a severe accident as I lost so much brake fluid so quickly whilst driving back down the m1...... also if I had known that there were the advisories i have found then i would not have purchased the vehicle so in my opinion the car has been misrepresented for ease of sale.

@blueC...... I have morning grumps too

paseodj

eeeeeee wrote: »

of your not a mechanic the only thing you can do is look and you dont really know you trust everything that the seller tells you; you have a enough proof just with the items description from ebay regardless '; i had a similar case last year and won ; the brake pipes were coroded ; the tyres were ilegal; there was no heat in the car ; reported the mot please too trading standards and took the previous owner too court ; the vehicle was deliberately misrepresented in its ad too enable the seller too sell it and was unfit for the purpose of which i bought it for ; he got £985 aded too the price of the car for phones calls days off work and repairs ; it would have been easer foe him too of taken the car back or agreed too do the repairs ; the judge sided with me completely when i attended county court and asked very little too the seller

can you give me a bit more info, what evidence did you have, did you claim for the amount of vehicle plus repairs? etcetc....

as one advert says, every little helps

pendulum

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But where do you draw the line at inspecting?
Unless you have access to a ramp or pit, most people would find it extremely hard, if not impossible to carry out a good inspection of things like brake pipes, exhaust mounts etc.

I know it's hard and pretty unrealistic to be able to inspect everything but when you buy goods privately the law generally expects you to and the law is the law. Buyers could always arrange for an AA/RAC check or a mechanic to inspect it who will have all the suitable equipment, the buyer doesn't have to do the checking themselves...

vikingaero

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But where do you draw the line at inspecting?
Unless you have access to a ramp or pit, most people would find it extremely hard, if not impossible to carry out a good inspection of things like brake pipes, exhaust mounts etc. It's easy to check the engine and visible bodywork, not so easy to check the underside of a car.

If the seller hadn't mentioned MOT advisories, then proving a case of mis-selling would be far harder, but as has already been stated, the seller doesn't have to declare faults (in a private sale), but what they do state must be truthful and correct.

Easy. If you're that interested in a car then book it in for a MOT - a cheap £55 (or less) vehicle inspection.

When my sister bought a car I booked it in for a MOT and it came back having an advisory for the exhaust which we used to negotiate some money off.

But I don't know anyone (sensible) who buys a secondhand car without getting on their knees.

I notice that the from the eBay advert that the car was registered in 1999 - a 12 year old car which is highly likely to have rust problems.

paseodj

vikingaero wrote: »

Easy. If you're that interested in a car then book it in for a MOT - a cheap £55 (or less) vehicle inspection.

not easy if the car is some way away and to get it to an mot centre whilst the vehicle is not yours is a bit of an issue.

vikingaero wrote: »

But I don't know anyone (sensible) who buys a secondhand car without getting on their knees.

fair do's but are we all mot experts? can we all spot problems that if you're in the know, could be well hidden?

infact the person who bought my car off me last had a good look around and said " to be honest I have no Idea what I'm looking at or for, we just like to have a good look around when buying a vehicle"

vikingaero wrote: »

I notice that the from the eBay advert that the car was registered in 1999 - a 12 year old car which is highly likely to have rust problems.

high likely to have SOME rust problems.... such as "rust spot on the rear arch which is still solid"

which i checked and yes was still solid...... now if you pointed one spot out then you'd have thought that he would've pointed the rest out, however some can say its a distraction technique

and when asked if there were any other advisories, he should have said and been honest and not deceitful as it could caused an accident not only that if the other advisories had been mentioned to me then I would not have purchased the vehicle

It is through this mis representation that I am claiming my money back

Flyboy152

pendulum wrote: »

Basically it is the OPs fault for not inspecting the car properly, but he has got lucky because he can show the car wasn't as described so he definitely has an argument. It'll be interesting to see if the court accepts his argument, or if it accepts the sellers which may be along the lines of "I forgot about the other advisories but don't think that matters because he should have picked the faults up during his inspection of the goods anyway". Be interesting to see the result.

No it isn't, it is the seller's fault. The seller lied, how can that be the fault of the buyer?



Why on Earth did I even have to point that out?

verityboo

paseodj wrote: »

I have the written proof in the form of a screen print of the original advert as posted on EBay:




and written proof of the faults by one, an engineers report and 2, the info supplied by direct.gov which shows:



couldn't really be more evident than that

I agree that the ad was misleading but only regarding the advisories on the last MOT which was 6 months ago. The seller omitted to mention that the headlights were found to be working fine and that there was some corrosion underneath (probably advised on most MOT's for cars over 10 years old). I therefore wonder how a court would judge this with regard to whether it would have affected the value of the car

The OP states "fair do's but are we all mot experts? can we all spot problems that if you're in the know, could be well hidden?" but they are assuming that the seller was some sort of expert. The MOT is simply what the tester found on that day and a cars condition can change considerably in 6 months. It was up to the buyer to inspect the car or to employ someone to do so. A car which was MOT'ed with no advisories 6 months ago could easily fail an MOT now, especially an old one.