Buyer is alleging that a sold vehicle had an accident.

colino

1. Stevie Wonder could tell the car pictured was bumped.
2. The fix makes it looks like Stevies poorer sighted brother did the repair.
3. With a mismatched tyre maybe it doesn't need a genius to find which corner was hit, that might have made the missing stud obvious too.
4. That is never in its life a DEKRA report.
5. If you buy one car to trade for profit, notwithstanding any other sources of income you may or may not have, HMRC can take the view, and do, that you are a trader, no magic number, no six and your out, intentional profit is the key.
6. If it gets to litigation, courts always favour consumers over professional traders, who are presumed to be experts in the matter.

mattyprice4004

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

Bloody good job I'm not the idiot you take me for.

Why the attitude? He was just trying to help you, for all he knew you were a non-Internet savvy person with little knowledge of security.
Stop being a tool.

gravemind

colino wrote: »

1. Stevie Wonder could tell the car pictured was bumped.
2. The fix makes it looks like Stevies poorer sighted brother did the repair.
3. With a mismatched tyre maybe it doesn't need a genius to find which corner was hit, that might have made the missing stud obvious too.
4. That is never in its life a DEKRA report.
5. If you buy one car to trade for profit, notwithstanding any other sources of income you may or may not have, HMRC can take the view, and do, that you are a trader, no magic number, no six and your out, intentional profit is the key.
6. If it gets to litigation, courts always favour consumers over professional traders, who are presumed to be experts in the matter.

I sold the car for 8700 had brought it for 9500. The mismatched rear tyre when the alleged accident is in front. I can see in my own pics that wheel nut is missing. This was an honest sale but I guess. Last car I sold on my own was three years ago.

colino

Whow! Cheap replacement wheel/tyre combo moved to back to be less noticeable shocker. These driveway dealers get sneakier every day.

Voltaire7

Foxy-Stoat wrote: »

Just spotted that you only had the car for 4 months.

Strange that OP kept that part quiet.

nicholaswitchell

This is such a boring thread. OP, just stop replying to texts emails and calls from the buyer.

Voltaire7

gravemind wrote: »

2) And counter claim with the buyer for depreciation in value due to change in number of registered keepers.

First, it's not a counter-claim. Second, who told you had any chance in hell of pursuing a successful claim for depreciation on an car you deliberately misrepresented?

Nodding_Donkey

I was suspicious of the OPs insistence, right at the beginning of the thread, of the car not being recorded as a cat C or cat D rather than answering the question about whether it had been in an accident or not. It just struck me that it was the sort of thing a pavement trader (or any dodgy car stealer) would say.

Only the OP knows the truth (unless the buyer has evidence that points to the OP being a trader) and I guess it boils down to:

If the OP is a trader then they need to repair or refund
If the OP is a genuine private seller they need to ignore.

chickendipperbabe

Also very suspicious of the OP's repeated claims that the car was not a category right off. Oh how I wish the images containing the original ad were still active.

Just my opinion here, it stinks. Clearly the OP has sold a lemon whether he knew about it or not. If I had mistakenly sold a car in such a bad condition my morals would kick in, I'd either refund the purchase price or offer to buy back the car at a reduced price after I'd had my mechanic inspect it to confirm the DEKRA report was accurate. I would then go after whoever sold me the car. I would imagine the buyer will see this to the bitter end, they've gone to the length of paying for an independent report and this will help them in court. In the end the buyer bears some of the responsibility here for not spotting the obvious issues.

I suspect there is a lot more to this . . . . . . . . . .

colino

For the last time, a DEKRA report is not as comically vague as this typed up garbage. Brought in to test a mis-sold secondhand car, they actually state suspect panel gaps, which panel to panel joint they are referring to, measure and record paint depth, test drive and provide the usual car data. They don't kick the tyres, suck their teeth and then produce that level of nonsense.