Bought a car (private); broke down same day after <30miles... HELP!!

SurfDJ

Hi. Will try to keep this short.

Purchased a vehicle for £1400 from a private seller on 17/06/2017.

Classified online advert for vehicle states 'mechanically tip-tip'.

I test drove vehicle short distance and seemed fine.

Did a few short trips with vehicle on day of purchase and on last one vehicle cut out (stalled while driving is best way to describe).

Called RAC. They suggest it is an issue with the fuel pump (in tank).

RAC note that they were called to this vehicle on 19/01/2017 for an identical issue.

The seller mentions in the advert that they have replaced the fuel filter and pump recently, they have receipts for the parts but did the work themselves.

My contention is that the vehicle was misrepresented when advertised as 'mechanically tip-top'. And that the history shows that the seller was likely aware of the fuel systems issue.

There are some other strange points...

The vehicle was registered to the seller on the 19/01/2017; the same day as the RAC were previously called for the same problem. Which makes me unsure if the seller or the previous seller called the RAC on this date.

On 17/01/2017 the seller purchased a fuel filter for it (prior to registering the vehicle as their own).

On 03/02/2017 the seller purchased a fuel pump for it.

The seller advertised the vehicle as 'in regular use, drives faultlessly'; however since it was registered with the seller until the 17/06/2017 only ~200 miles were driven. Can 200miles count as regular use?

Can anyone let me know where I stand with this?

Ideally I'd like to return the vehicle and I've said as much to the seller already. To which they've simply replied it was sold as seen. My contention is that the advert was part of that 'sold as seen'.

It's possible the seller thought they had fixed the problem by replacing the fuel filter and pump, and as such they may have thought they were correctly representing the vehicle in the advert. But does this matter? The fact they state it is 'mechanically tip-top' and 'drives faultlessly' does not change that fact it clearly was not, whether they knew of the fault or not. Does it?

If this ends up in a small claims court my understanding is that judgements are made on the balance of probabilities. For which I think the balance of probability is more likely that the seller was aware of the issue (looking at the evidence) than it happened to develop a recurrence of a problem within hours and miles of me purchasing it.

It's also worth noting that I informed the seller when the vehicle broke down and they replied that they had 'never had anything like that before'. Which the RAC report seemingly contradicts.

Any helps would be appreciated. Hope I've provided enough information.

Thanks.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Caveat emptor. Private sale. Unless misdiscribed no recourse.

pinkshoes

Sonds like they bought it, it broke down the day they got it, hence the call to the RAC, and have tried to fix it then sold it on.

200 miles in 5 months is 40 miles a month, so about 10 miles a week. I would describe regular driving as 3-5 times a week, so unless he was a lazy toad and drove a mile up the road to buy chocolate every day...

Something doesn't add up.

Does it say if the same card was used to buy the filter then the pump?

Normally they would try the cheaper option if unsure of the diagnosis , then if that didn't work then fit a new pump.

lincroft1710

If the seller replaced the fuel filter and pump and the car drove OK during their ownership, no reason for them to believe the car wasn't mechanically OK.

200 miles over a 20 week period is low, but if the car was used 3 days a week for a 2 mile round trip commute, then that is "regular use".
A private seller is not expected to have the knowledge that a trader is expected to have. Did the RAC fix the fault?

If the seller is not willing to give you your money back then you would have to use MoneyClaimOnLine to recover your money. You may not win and you should stop using the car if you go down this route.

naedanger

SurfDJ wrote: »

Can anyone let me know where I stand with this?

Ideally I'd like to return the vehicle and I've said as much to the seller already. To which they've simply replied it was sold as seen. My contention is that the advert was part of that 'sold as seen'.

Does the advert actually say "sold as seen"? (Even if it does I am not sure it makes much difference.)

It's possible the seller thought they had fixed the problem by replacing the fuel filter and pump, and as such they may have thought they were correctly representing the vehicle in the advert. But does this matter? The fact they state it is 'mechanically tip-top' and 'drives faultlessly' does not change that fact it clearly was not, whether they knew of the fault or not. Does it?

Not too sure, though I suspect your view is correct. (But in any event I think on the balance of probability I would conclude they were aware of the fault. Have you got what the RAC told you in writing?)

If this ends up in a small claims court my understanding is that judgements are made on the balance of probabilities. For which I think the balance of probability is more likely that the seller was aware of the issue (looking at the evidence) than it happened to develop a recurrence of a problem within hours and miles of me purchasing it.

Yes it would be decided on the balance of probabilities and I agree with your assessment, although I have not heard the other side's account.

It's also worth noting that I informed the seller when the vehicle broke down and they replied that they had 'never had anything like that before'. Which the RAC report seemingly contradicts.

Seems relevant.

SurfDJ

pinkshoes wrote: »

Does it say if the same card was used to buy the filter then the pump?
.

The paperwork/receipts that came with the vehicle had fuel filter in his name and he's since forwarded an email showing he purchased the pump from eBay.

Thanks for the response.

SurfDJ

lincroft1710 wrote: »

If the seller replaced the fuel filter and pump and the car drove OK during their ownership, no reason for them to believe the car wasn't mechanically OK.

Hi. I guess this is my main question. Does the seller need to be aware of any faults for the vehicle to be misrepresented? And does simply stating 'mechanically tip-top' (irrespective of any unknown faults) still mean it was misrepresented. In my mind I thought the vehicle was 'mechanically tip-top' and drove 'faultlessly'.

RAC didn't manage to fix it :-(

Thanks

SurfDJ

naedanger wrote: »

Does the advert actually say "sold as seen"? (Even if it does I am not sure it makes much difference.)


Not too sure, though I suspect your view is correct. (But in any event I think on the balance of probability I would conclude they were aware of the fault. Have you got what the RAC told you in writing?)


Yes it would be decided on the balance of probabilities and I agree with your assessment, although I have not heard the other side's account.


Seems relevant.

Hi. Thanks for taking he time to respond. The advert did say sold as seen. Although I'm hoping that doesn't alter the fact other statements on the advert were misleading.

Yes I got evidence from the RAC. I think I'd really like to know if the RAC was called by the person I purchased the vehicle from or the seller they purchased it from. I do have their number so will try calling them again for confirmation.

You say you agree with my assessment. Do you have any experience with MoneyClaim that would lead you to think a judge would also agree? Do you know if I took this to the small claims track and lost my case if I would have to pay costs of the seller (legal fees etc)?

Thanks again, lovely formatted response

SurfDJ

Have stopped using the vehicle and not driven since RAC recovered it. FYI

naedanger

SurfDJ wrote: »

Hi. Thanks for taking he time to respond. The advert did say sold as seen. Although I'm hoping that doesn't alter the fact other statements on the advert were misleading.

I also don't think it will make any significant difference. The advert will still need to be factually accurate. (I don't think you will need to show it was knowingly false. That would seem to place an unreasonable burden on the purchaser. If the seller was unsure they could simply not have made the claim.) Of course "mechanically tip top" will be judged relative to a second hand car of value £1400. Nevertheless the claim still seems false if the car broke down the same day.

Yes I got evidence from the RAC. I think I'd really like to know if the RAC was called by the person I purchased the vehicle from or the seller they purchased it from. I do have their number so will try calling them again for confirmation.

You say you agree with my assessment. Do you have any experience with MoneyClaim that would lead you to think a judge would also agree?

No, I have not got any experience with MoneyClaim, my view is just based on what I think is most likely to have been the case (i.e. on the balance of probabilities) given all you have said. However I have only heard one side. Perhaps the other person has a perfectly good explanation for everything they have said already. Maybe they really do do a very low mileage.

Do you know if I took this to the small claims track and lost my case if I would have to pay costs of the seller (legal fees etc)?

You would not be able to recoup any court fees you paid and may have to pay some of the defendant's costs but not legal fees.

The following article gives details:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/small-claims-court

One other big consideration given the nature of your claim is would you be able to get payment even if you won? Getting money from an individual selling a relatively low value item may not be easy unless you are sure they have assets in their name (and not on finance). So it is quite possible to win but be even more out of pocket i.e. down by the cost of bringing the action and any failed recovery costs.

SurfDJ

naedanger wrote: »

The following article gives details:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/small-claims-court

One other big consideration given the nature of your claim is would you be able to get payment even if you won? Getting money from an individual selling a relatively low value item may not be easy unless you are sure they have assets in their name (and not on finance). So it is quite possible to win but be even more out of pocket i.e. down by the cost of bringing the action and any failed recovery costs.

Thanks for all your points and the link. I will consider them all when deciding how to proceed. Hope your having a good day