Im being sued after I sold my car

presidentchimp

Retrogamer wrote: »

There are quite a few threads, with the case details on both the Pepipoo forums and Speed Plod Law section on Pistonheads forums where private seller as submitted a claim and nothing ever came of it.

Feel free to do a search on there if you like. I've seen a few cases now and all were in the sellers favour. Not seen any in the buyers.

I'm on the opposite side of a similar situation. I purchased a car from a private seller last week, I have only driven it one weekend and took it to specialist for a warranty inspection.

The last service and MOT was mid August and it was completely clean. I even called the garage who performed the last service to run through the details. However, during the warranty inspection all four tyres were found below legal limit (only visible from the inside edge), there is a leak from the the rear suspension and the front brake pads are heavily warn.

It is a 3 year old sports car with less than 20k miles, so I suspect the previous owner completely abused the car in the last three months. The advert stated 'fantastic condition' and the sales receipt (which we both signed) was not marked 'sold as seen'.

From the opinions on this thread it seems I have no recourse to the seller. The OP seems to have done his best to describe the vehicle upon sale, so I understand his situation, particularly with an older car.

However, are there any cases favouring the buyer?

arcon5

Frankly that's your own fault for not inspecting tyres - wear can still be seen on the inside by looking carefully and turning the steering wheel to lock. Plus its only the central 3/4 that counts for tread so worn inside edge isn't necessary illegal.
Brakes worn - sports car with 20k miles. There's a surprise.
If all that's left is a leaky strut then the car overall doesn't sound too bad at all.

Must have cost you some money, so how this wasn't spotted pre-purchase is beyond me

Retrogamer

Only if the car was advertised incorrectly. I.e all 4 tyres are in great condition or brakes are almost new. Something like that.

ChumpusRex

presidentchimp wrote: »

However, are there any cases favouring the buyer?

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.

In your case, tyres and brakes, are normal consumable items which you should expect to need replacement by 20k miles.

If the only problems are a split rubber and a leaky shocker, then these are cheap, common repairs which you would expect to be needed after 3 years.

tberry6686

Tyres - should have looked at before buying but a sports car with 20k on the clock will not have much life left in the tyres anyway.

Brake pads - as above.

Leaking shocker - seller almost certainly didn't know about it.

All of this is minor wear and tear

LoopyLocks

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

arcon5

Putting you owe him no money is pointless. It's a dispute over whether the buyer was deliberately mislead so the judge will decide if money is owed or not.

you need to defend the claims made against you based on the claimants statement.

presidentchimp

I appreciate what you are saying, but without getting under the car (too low) I inspected everything I could. The tyre tread and outer edge was fine all round.

I should have mentioned it was advertised with new discs and pads, I inspected both and to my eye they were in good condition. The warranty inspection did not show they wouldn't pass an MOT, just that the front pads were well warn for 3 months use (1.5k miles).

Again the main points being discussed appear to be (a) Road Traffic Act - classifiable as roadworthy and (b) terms of sale, e.g. 'sold as seen'.

I would be interested to know how these points are considered by a small claims court.

FOREVER21

LoopyLocks wrote: »

This is what he put in his court case.

I am claiming for the reimbursement of £2000 paid to Mr XYZ on 12th October for a Mini Reg No XY 02 XYZ. This car was 'bought as seen' however soon afterwards following a comprehensive report from XYZ Ltd on the state of the car it was summerised by them :- "This vehicle has significant deficiancies, which will be very costly to rectify to a reasonable standard. Its purchase is therefore not adsvised.
Some of the defects noted are dangerous and render the vehicle unsafe to drive".
Although this was a purchase from a private seller I feel that the legal terms that cover this type of contract i.e. "the car must be roadworthy" - (apparently it is even a criminal offence to sell an unroadworthy car)
I have not onbly been in constant contact since 23rd october with Mr XYZ but have also tried to engage with him via a registered mediation company to resolve this issue but to no avail.

Loopy locks
I think you have no case to be concerned, the "Buyer Beware" is. a well known/ used concept in civil law.
However going to court must always be seen as a last resort for both parties.
With this in mind one point from his text quoted above concern me. He mentions that he has tried to engage via a registered mediation company, is this true? Did you have a reason to decline this,as if the facts are as you state then this would probably have resulted in the claimant being told that he had no case or suggesting he accept you £ 200 offer.

I mention this as part of the practice and procedures documents issued by the courts service, detail inter alia, that all avenues should be explored before going to court, mediation is specifically mentioned.
I fear any judge might take a poor view of you not engaging in mediation.

Wig

presidentchimp wrote: »

I appreciate what you are saying, but without getting under the car (too low) I inspected everything I could. The tyre tread and outer edge was fine all round.

I should have mentioned it was advertised with new discs and pads, I inspected both and to my eye they were in good condition. The warranty inspection did not show they wouldn't pass an MOT, just that the front pads were well warn for 3 months use (1.5k miles).

Again the main points being discussed appear to be (a) Road Traffic Act - classifiable as roadworthy and (b) terms of sale, e.g. 'sold as seen'.

I would be interested to know how these points are considered by a small claims court.

So the brakes were not below minimum thickness, how thick were they? How thick are the new thicknesses?
What constitutes "new"? How long has to pass or how many miles before "new" can no longer be described as "new"?

All tyres worn on the inside edge? If true, what he probably did was wear down the fronts then swapped fronts to rear and wore down the fronts again.

I have no comment on the probabiltity of your success. until today I thought that is was impossible to sue a private seller, but now having read the CAB website I will try to to educate myself on these sorts of cases.