Im being sued after I sold my car

Hermione_Granger

matttye wrote: »

If you're being specific, voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent (of which battery is one), so if you took medication that wasn't prescribed to you, took too much of the medication or took it in conjunction with other substances that you shouldn't have done then you could still be found guilty of battery.

Hence why someone who drinks alcohol to the point of being paralytic can still be guilty of assault/battery.

I was being specific and I never mentioned alcohol, I never mentioned taking medication that wasn't prescribed, I never mentioned taking too much medication, nor did I mention taking medication in conjunction with other substances.

If you really do advise people on the law in whilst they are in police stations, I hope that you don't invent scenarios there as you appear to be doing when responding on here.

Joe_Horner

jimjames wrote: »

As it is a criminal offence, in order to be a prosecution the police need to be involved which they are not.

If you are driving a car with valid MOT, serviced with no advisories and the vehicle has no obvious defects that can be viewed, inspected, purchased and driven for several weeks I cannot see any way that the police would be interested in a prosecution and it will remain a civil matter.

Oh, I totally agree that the chance of prosecution in this sort of situation is virtually nil - thankfully, common sense still (usually) exists in the application of the law even if it doesn't in the drafting.

But there's a world of difference between advising that "they won't prosecute" (which is true) and advising that "there's nothing to prosecute for" (which is absolutely not true if it was established that the car had roadworthy defects at the time of sale.)


eta: Incidentally, Trading Standards and DVSA / VOSA also bring prosecutions diretly where appropriate so the police don't actually need to be involved

matttye

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I assume that Mattye's point is that the matter of selling an unroadworthy car is an absolute offence, where provocation, meds, or any other factor that might usually provide a defence don't count. It's a worrying trend in our legal system that mre and more offences are being created that way - you don't even need to know you're committing them to be guilty of them.

Of course, "being guilty" is a far cry from "being found guilty", which requires someone to report it, the authorities to prosecute it, and a court to convict. But, in the case of an absolute offence (including selling an unroadworthy car), all a prosecutor has to prove to secure a conviction is that you did it, whether you knew you had or not!

My point exactly.

Other strict liability offences include drink driving, possession of a firearm, possession of drugs (although there are some statutory defences to possession of drugs).

Very harsh.

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

I was being specific and I never mentioned alcohol, I never mentioned taking medication that wasn't prescribed, I never mentioned taking too much medication, nor did I mention taking medication in conjunction with other substances.

If you really do advise people on the law in whilst they are in police stations, I hope that you don't invent scenarios there as you appear to be doing when responding on here.

You just said 'on medication' - not medication that was prescribed to you. I'm just playing devil's advocate and being pedantic like you were in your post.

matttye

Further, if you unintentionally sold an unroadworthy car but accepted in interview that the car must have been unroadworthy when presented with expert evidence, it would be a prime candidate case for restorative justice.

E.g. you refund the buyer and get the car back OR pay for repairs to bring it to a roadworthy condition and we'll say no more about it.

Such out of court disposals happen more often these days due to the financial and time pressures on the criminal justice system.

Richard53

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But there's a world of difference between advising that "they won't prosecute" (which is true) and advising that "there's nothing to prosecute for" (which is absolutely not true if it was established that the car had roadworthy defects at the time of sale.)

I think this is the key point. If the seller sells a car and the buyer gets an independent report the following day which states that the car is unroadworthy, then the seller is potentially liable.


In the case we are talking about, the buyer found the car acceptable on the day of sale and drove around in it for at least two and possibly eight weeks before getting the inspection and the 'unroadworthy' diagnosis. Anything could have happened in that time, and it is beyond credibility that the police or VOSA would wish to prosecute in these circumstances.


The fact that the car was sold with a recent MoT would weigh heavily in the seller's favour as well, I would have thought, if it comes down to 'balance of probability'.

matttye

Richard53 wrote: »

I think this is the key point. If the seller sells a car and the buyer gets an independent report the following day which states that the car is unroadworthy, then the seller is potentially liable.


In the case we are talking about, the buyer found the car acceptable on the day of sale and drove around in it for at least two and possibly eight weeks before getting the inspection and the 'unroadworthy' diagnosis. Anything could have happened in that time, and it is beyond credibility that the police or VOSA would wish to prosecute in these circumstances.


The fact that the car was sold with a recent MoT would weigh heavily in the seller's favour as well, I would have thought, if it comes down to 'balance of probability'.

I'm no car expert but can't some faults be dated?

I would imagine that if the car was deemed to be dangerous due to severe rusting then it could be established that the car was unroadworthy at the time of sale because rust takes time to develop.

Again, I'm no expert so I may be talking crap here, but I would expect that an expert can at least opine on when the faults are likely to have developed.

Richard53

matttye wrote: »

Again, I'm no expert so I may be talking crap here, but I would expect that an expert can at least opine on when the faults are likely to have developed.

The faults mentioned by the OP are gearbox and clutch, a frayed seatbelt, an unspecified steering fault and cracked wheels. I would agree that in some cases of severe rot you could argue that the deterioration could not have happened overnight, but the issues the OP mentions could all happen in a short time without warning. In other words, they could all have easily arisen after purchase, and have been the result of the new owner's treatment of the car rather than its condition at the time of sale.


Personally, I think the OP is in a strong position, and any threat of a prosecution for selling an unroadworthy vehicle is going nowhere and is merely bluff and bluster by the buyer, although I do take your point that a prosecution is a theoretical possibility.

matttye

Richard53 wrote: »

Personally, I think the OP is in a strong position, and any threat of a prosecution for selling an unroadworthy vehicle is going nowhere and is merely bluff and bluster by the buyer, although I do take your point that a prosecution is a theoretical possibility.

That's all I've been saying. I completely agree it's unlikely any criminal proceedings will ensue even if a complaint is made to the police.

thistledome

ChumpusRex wrote: »

Only where the buyer has deliberately tried to hide a major problem - e.g. the car has previously been badly crashed, and then a bodge repair done at a back street garage to keep the crash report off the HPI check - and the seller tells the buyer that it has never been crashed.

That exact scenario happened to me. A woman had bought the car from a garage with crash damage for a very good price (she knew the garage owner personally and he was doing her a favour). When she sold it to me she said it was perfect condition, never crashed etc etc. She even spun a yarn about taking her 5 year old daughter to Ipswich (from essex) in it, quote: "which I wouldn't do unless I knew the car was safe". It looked immaculate and drove OK. However it was dangerously unroadworthy and cost me over £800 to put right, and that was at "mate's rates".

Although under the law I had a case, nobody wanted to know. Not the police, not any local solicitors, nobody. After a lot of nagging, the police did come out and look at it, but they were only interested in whether it had been cut and shut or stolen - once they checked the VIN plate and the documents they lost interest.

I didn't know about the small claims court in those days, but probably wouldn't have bothered going that far anyway, given that nobody really gave a monkey's.

So don't worry OP, you can flog unroadworthy cars to your heart's content in this country as long as you're a private seller.

Joe_Horner

LoopyLocks wrote: »

I suppose buying a car is always going to have a risk. I have never bought a new car so I too have bought a 10 year old car before and had to get stuff done on it. You win some you lose some but how all this stuff can go wrong with a car in a couple of weeks of buying it is beyond me. I will keep you posted of course. I will need help because I dont know what Im doing with the court case.
Im a bit confused now though because one says just to put I dont owe him any money and some say I should know if it is unroadworthy before I sell it. I bet if some expert went through every 12 year old car they would find some defects but it had a recent mot and it drove without problems when I had it. I didnt know anything about cracked wheels and it drove fine. I dont know how in the world I was supposed to know about some piece of rubber on the steering or if it was even like that when I had it.
The court case came to me in the post with his details on it and a description of his claim. I also got another letter with an id for the government gateway website that I had to log into and acknowledge the claim. I did that and now I have to login again describe my defence. Cheers

Hi Loopy, didn't mean to confuse you with the stuff about roadworthiness. Try to put that out of your mind and stop worrying about it because it really won't be a problem in this case.

The point that Mattye was trying to make, and I came in to support, was simply that the law is written in a way that doesn't care whether or not you know about roadworthiness issues. But that doesn't mean anyone will act on that law!

As for the issues themselves, they're all things that could easily have happened since it was bought - if they even exist. bear in mind that you only have his "expert's" word for this and his "expert" could easily be his mate Fred who happens to run a garage - I once offered repair quotes (which were accepted by his insurer btw) for a friend of mine when he stuffed his Sierra into a hedge and I'm a watchmaker !!!!!!! And yes, they were under my normal letterhead!!!

Your defence is basically that you sold the car as a private seller, in good faith, having gained a recent MOT on it and with it driving well - which he had a chance to confirm on a test drive.

The gearbox fault he claims has come to light since should have been evident to a normal driver at the time of that test drive if it had already been there, as would any serious steering issue.

Those and the other faults that he claims now exist were not evident when it belonged to you and could easily have been caused by him misusing or abusing the car in the xx weeks since it was sold.