used car from Private seller

paseodj

verityboo wrote: »

I agree that the ad was misleading but only regarding the advisories on the last MOT which was 6 months ago.

and therefore the car was mis-represented

verityboo wrote: »

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

agreed, but you don't expect to pay thousands for something that lasts only 4 return journeys at the most, if the seller had told me about the advisories then I wouldn't have purchased so I'm hoping that they judge it in my favour

shaun_from_Africa

It was up to the buyer to inspect the car or to employ someone to do so.

And it was up to the seller to truthfully describe what they were selling and not to sell a vehicle which may have been unroadworthy (both of which are illegal to do, even when you are a private seller).

paseodj

the other thing I have got that may support my case is the fact that the seller knew personally the owner of the company who has done the last two mot's, a company that I have taken my car to previously as well as my neighbour across the road and this company has taken a small hammer to knock through any rust patches that were found on the car, and failed both mine and my neighbours car for the same reason. so why hasn't it been done to this one

I can also add that the same company failed a car of mine for slight corrosion on the brake lines, which i had rubbed down and repainted which then passed with flying colours. the brake lines on this vehicle were obviously passed the repair stage, so how can they fail mine but pass another with worse condition brake lines?

this is part of my argument knowing that the seller knew the mot company leads me to believe that the MOT isn't legitimate as it seems bit of a back hander I'm thinking....so maybe this will be taken into consideration.

just everything about this matter frustrates me as you can imagine, yes I am hoping for the best but aren't guaranteed to get the outcome I want

verityboo

So the OP buys a car without inspecting properly and assuming that because the car passed its MOT many months before that nothing would go wrong.

The seller incorrectly does not mention that on the day of the MOT test the headlights work perfectly and that the 12 year old car has rust on the bodywork underneath (it is obviously not serious or structural or it would have failed).

The car has now suffered a break down totally unconnected with the incorrect description

If the OP did not want things to go wrong they should have bought a new car or a bus pass. One ebayer from hell who I am glad to put on my blocked bidders list. I know the person who MOT's my cars and I take there because I know he does a good job.

paseodj

verityboo wrote: »

One ebayer from hell who I am glad to put on my blocked bidders list. I know the person who MOT's my cars and I take there because I know he does a good job.

so am I to presume you are the seller?

if so, was a private ad so therefore cannot say I'm an Ebayer from Hell.

shall I spell out the steps I've taken:

1. phonecall the day I found out the problems to ask man to man if there was anything the seller would do. to which the answer was no. I replied well thats fair enough, expect a letter

2. a letter informing the seller of my intentions and that I wanted a refund for the car

this was sent via recorded delivery, to the sellers ebay inbox and to the email address supplied on the business card to ensure receipt

3. no response was obtained from the seller so therefore in accordance with what I had written on the letter, fourteen days to the date on the letter, Legal action has been taken.

4 to date no further responses have been sent or recieved as the seller has fourteen days from the date of service of the court letters to make a response

now in my opinion that doesn't make me an Ebayer from hell, infact I'm just following steps to protect myself.

now if necessary, I could get my solicitors involved, which to date I haven't as I have been seeking advice from citizens advice etc, but seeing as I get free solicitors through uni, it is a very easy option to do.

now I can honestly say that I have got 100% positive feedback through both sales and purchases on ebay and have never had a complaint against me or towards another seller until this matter.

If the seller finds this case or myself an ebayer from hell, they really shouldn't sell unroadworthy vehicles that are severely mis-represented in the advert. now I can honestly also say the seller was also very pleasant to deal with both on the phone when I aired my concerns and when I first went to view the car, I have no quarrels there, but its just a shame that the car was not as described otherwise it would have been a very pleasant transaction

verityboo

I just feel that if the car had been seriously mis-represented (advertised as having done 80K miles when it had done180k miles) then I would have every sympathy with you.

The problem is that the old banger you bought privately without inspecting it broke down and you are blaming the seller for not disclosing that the headlights worked perfectly and there was a bit of (non serious) rust underneath during the MOT many months before. Any reasonable person would expect a non galvanized car to have some visible rust underneath after 12 years! The 2 things that the seller failed to mention do not really affect the value of the car as rust is to be expected

You are also suggesting the the MOT was not done correctly because the seller new the MOT tester. I think you should be careful in court to stick to facts and not make allegations about the MOT that you can not back up with other evidence. The state of the car now does not mean that the MOT was not carried out correctly

I do wish you luck and hope things are sorted to your satisfaction, but I also hope you learn a lesson from this and inspect any car you buy car in the future thoroughly

paseodj

verityboo wrote: »

I just feel that if the car had been seriously mis-represented (advertised as having done 80K miles when it had done180k miles) then I would have every sympathy with you.

The problem is that the old banger you bought privately without inspecting it broke down and you are blaming the seller for not disclosing that the headlights worked perfectly and there was a bit of (non serious) rust underneath during the MOT many months before. Any reasonable person would expect a non galvanized car to have some visible rust underneath after 12 years! The 2 things that the seller failed to mention do not really affect the value of the car as rust is to be expected

You are also suggesting the the MOT was not done correctly because the seller new the MOT tester. I think you should be careful in court to stick to facts and not make allegations about the MOT that you can not back up with other evidence. The state of the car now does not mean that the MOT was not carried out correctly

I do wish you luck and hope things are sorted to your satisfaction, but I also hope you learn a lesson from this and inspect any car you buy car in the future thoroughly

so are you the seller or not?

verityboo

paseodj wrote: »

so are you the seller or not?

Sorry, no. I am not

Flyboy152

verityboo wrote: »

I just feel that if the car had been seriously mis-represented (advertised as having done 80K miles when it had done180k miles) then I would have every sympathy with you.

The problem is that the old banger you bought privately without inspecting it broke down and you are blaming the seller for not disclosing that the headlights worked perfectly and there was a bit of (non serious) rust underneath during the MOT many months before. Any reasonable person would expect a non galvanized car to have some visible rust underneath after 12 years! The 2 things that the seller failed to mention do not really affect the value of the car as rust is to be expected

You are also suggesting the the MOT was not done correctly because the seller new the MOT tester. I think you should be careful in court to stick to facts and not make allegations about the MOT that you can not back up with other evidence. The state of the car now does not mean that the MOT was not carried out correctly

I do wish you luck and hope things are sorted to your satisfaction, but I also hope you learn a lesson from this and inspect any car you buy car in the future thoroughly

Seeing as it took eleven years fror the brake pipes to corrode, I doubt a new set would rust away in six months.

paseodj

after looking under the car earlier, I made a realisation earlier today that the fluid that was all over the rear diff is no longer visible, no signs of it at all which probably explains how they (the brakes) went so quickly.....they were already !!!!!!ed, it also explains why there was no fluid when I first looked at the car...... magic eh......