Im being sued after I sold my car

jimjames

presidentchimp wrote: »

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

I really can't see what you'd be claiming for.

The brakes may have been replaced 3 months earlier but that doesn't mean anything about the condition. They could have taken the car to a track day that wore them heavily.

It seems amazing to spend so much (presumably) on a 3 year old car without having any inspection. Unfortunately it is buyer beware but none of the items you've mentioned seem to be very serious and certainly tyres could be checked before purchase.

Wig

FOREVER21 wrote: »

Loopy locks
I think you have no case to be concerned, the "Buyer Beware" is. a well known/ used concept in civil law.

So why does CAB say what it says?

jimjames

Wig wrote: »

I never knew this (what I read on the CAB website) before, I'm assuming the CAB knows what they are talking about, and they say it is against the law to sell an unroadworthy car unless this is made clear as part of the sale (i.e. 'not for road use' or 'spares or repair'). And they imply further down the page that you can seek damages against a private seller who does not do this.... I believe there would be obvious exceptions to this rule, if you were selling a write off vehicle with the front end smashed in, then it is obviously unroadworthy, or if you were selling just a chassis, then .......obviously....... no need to stipulate "spares or reapir" or "not for road use". But if you are selling a car that outwardly appears normal then that stipulation would have to be made in order to cover your a$$.

If the seller has no idea the car is not roadworthy and the car has a valid MOT, how can the buyer have any recourse?

Wig wrote: »

So why does CAB say what it says?

Rather confused advice from CAB. Related link here

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nireland/consumer_ni/consumer_cars_and_other_vehicles_e/consumer_problems_with_the_car_you_bought_e/the_car_you_bought_is_faulty.htm

You bought from a private seller

When you buy a used car from a private seller, you don't have the same rights as you do when buying from a dealer. You have no legal right to expect that the car is of satisfactory quality or fit for its purpose, but there is a requirement that it should be 'as described'.

LoopyLocks

I have to say yes I did get a phone call from a mediation company from him. He told me it would cost me £300 to do it so I said no. After that we spoke again a few times by text. He obviously knows his legal stuff then which is a bit of a concern for me now.

FOREVER21

Wig wrote: »

So why does CAB say what it says?

My quote as you well know(Buyer Beware ) is well established also quoted by the CAB

However yes to sell a vehicle which is knowingly not roadworthy is indeed a criminal offence, but this has not been established by the claimant at the time of sale, and is disputed by the seller.

In any event if enough proof had been available about the alleged criminal activity then the claimant would not had gone down the small claims route, but if he had taken details to the CAB they could have considered action via trading standards.

sh0597

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.

All private sales are "sold as seen", they don't have to write it.


Even if you'd bought from a dealer, they'd only be obliged to fit a set of part worn Linglongs, put 2 of the cheapest aftermarket brake pads on the front and do the cheapest repair to the suspension.


All the private seller has to do is say they weren't aware of any faults when they sold it.


What would you hope to achieve by taking the seller to court?

FOREVER21

JimJames
Your quote from the CAB is the Northen Ireland version which differs from the English one quoted by Wig.

Which one is correct ? I would tend to go with the version quoted by Wig see my earlier post.

presidentchimp

LoopyLocks my guess is that it comes down to whether in the eyes of the court a reasonable person would be aware of the stated issues before selling the vehicle, know that they make the car unroadworthy and whether it is possible to prove that these issues were there before the sale was concluded.

All in all it makes it a difficult case for a private buyer.

presidentchimp

In my case I am not pursuing anything in court. The comment from Wig on the Road Traffic Act caught my attention and I was interested to hear more on the subject and see what direction opinion sways on these matters

arcon5

Caveat emptor is by far a new concept.

RTA and unroadworthy cars is particularly important where trade sales are concerned.
Same as soga, not the same rights where buying privately.