HELP! private car sale wants refund

stator

Claims in small claims court can go either way. It might be worth getting it to an independent garage for an independent report and meeting him halfway with a partial refund if the garage confirms a significant problem and no signs of foul play from him

johntrap

Do you have any emails? this will back your side of the story up, if you have proof that you asked him to check the vehicle before hand and he said no need then that was his choice. He has paid via bank transfer so this is proof it is now his vehicle (be thankful it was not cash) you have also sent the docs to him. I would fill in your part of the docs and send them off. Its his now so there is no claim as I can see.

Dont be bullied by him! he decided to collect the vehicle with no viewings! He may be able to go to small claims, but as he is a trader and he did not check out his purchase he should have known better and I am sure the courts would see it that way as well?

Hope you get this resolved soon, of course if he gets nasty just report him to the police simples!

Guest101

private sale - caveat emptor. that's the default position

dannyrst

Guest101 wrote: »

private sale - caveat emptor. that's the default position

But as with previous examples, doesn't always happen like that. It depends which judge you get on the day in court.

Guest101

dannyrst wrote: »

But as with previous examples, doesn't always happen like that. It depends which judge you get on the day in court.

And usually how well you present your case.

dannyrst

Guest101 wrote: »

And usually how well you present your case.

Yes, if you go in and all you have is "But I sold it private so its nothing to do with me..." you probably won't get far! (And I bet that isn't uncommon!) :rotfl:

anotheruser

stator wrote: »

...meeting him halfway with a partial refund if the garage confirms a significant problem...

Despite the CAB telling him that it's more or less in his favour?

I'm all for being fair but when people (in this example) don't view the item they're buying, despite being invited to, then there's only one person to blame.

stator

anotheruser wrote: »

Despite the CAB telling him that it's more or less in his favour?

I'm all for being fair but when people (in this example) don't view the item they're buying, despite being invited to, then there's only one person to blame.

Yes, inspite of that.
I completely agree that if I were judging this case I would side entirely with the seller/OP.
However County Court (inc small claims) Judges are not bound by CAB advisors opinions and can make sometimes odd decisions.
It's better if this doesn't end up in court.

Guest101

stator wrote: »

Yes, inspite of that.
I completely agree that if I were judging this case I would side entirely with the seller/OP.
However County Court (inc small claims) Judges are not bound by CAB advisors opinions and can make sometimes odd decisions.
It's better if this doesn't end up in court.

Until the OP gets court paperwork I wouldn't worry...

gabitzul

I would stop any contact with the buyers personally - their issue, their vehicle. They had an opportunity to check it and denied to do so.

Caveat emptor indeed. Job done.

If it goes to court, present all evidence you have (text messages, emails etc) where you tried to get them to view before they pay for it and you should be fine.

The fact that it's a 31 year old vehicle is also in your favour, you would expect issues at this age.