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

SurfDJ

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Bearing in mind if this has to go to a hearing, you would be talking weeks if not months, are you happy to be without a car for this length of time. Given the price you paid is it worth considering getting the fuel pump replaced and asking the vendor if he would contribute say 50%.

Hi and thanks!

I'm not really in a position to be without a car for any length of time so need this sorted ASAP really.

---

To update, I've spoken with the seller today and asked if they would accept me returning the vehicle for a full refund. They have refused this but offer to contribute £100 towards the cost of repairs.

I could do with some more advice if anyone can offer...

As I need a vehicle to use I am now going to book the vehicle in with a main dealer to diagnose the fault. Once informed of what the fault is I will get two more estimates to add to the main dealer estimated cost of repairs. Seeing as the seller has refused to accept a return/refund what is my best course of action? Can I drive the vehicle at all, and will doing so affect any ruling a judge might make? I mean, I'm only likely gonna drive it to the main dealer (2.5 miles) and hope it makes it there.

I don't want to agree to only accepting £100 from the seller as I'm a little worried the repairs may cost a lot more, baring in mind that work has already been done by the seller to try and seemingly rectify the fault. However I don't want to get any work done on the vehicle if it violates any chance of me getting a court ruling in my favour.

I'm thinking I am going to reply to him and explain that if he is unwilling to accept a return/refund then due to my circumstances of needing a vehicle I will need to get it fixed ASAP, and until I have an estimate for the repairs I cannot accept his offer of £100.

If anyone can offer another possible course of action that would be much appreciated.

---

Some more developments regarding this case are:

The seller purchased the vehicle via eBay - auction ended 15/01/2017. The vehicle was listed as 'non-runner' 'spares or repair' for that sale. Vehicle sold for £600-650.

The person who sold the vehicle to me was the one that called the RAC on the same day they registered the vehicle in their name 19/01/2017.

The previous seller noted that my seller diagnosed the fault themselves, hence their purchase of a fuel filter on the 17/01/2017.

The seller is leaving the country for the summer (long term travel) on the 10/07/2017. He specifically stated on the phone that if they were not leaving so soon they would accept a return/refund of the vehicle. I guess my questions regarding this are; if the seller leaves the country how does that affect their ability to represent themselves if this were to go to small claims track? And, likewise a judges ability to rule on this case?


Thanks again for everyones help

SurfDJ

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Replacement is replacement. You inferred that the parts were new and fitted by a garage. "Drives faultlessly" is subjective, you test drove the car, did it "drive faultlessly"? If it didn't, then why did you buy it?

Yes I guess I did infer the parts were new and fitted by a garage. And yes I did test drive the vehicle for a short period of time. Clearly not long enough to show up an intermittent problem the likes of this one seems to be.

Can I really be expected to find such an intermittent problem during a short test drive?

Also, given the details which are coming to light it seems the seller was quite aware of the problem and still chose to advertise the vehicle as 'faultless'. Couple that with their response to my breakdown saying they 'never had anything like that before!!', which is clearly a lie, could I not effectively argue that other statements of theirs were not wholly accurate?

Again, appreciate your input. Hope I'm not coming across as not.

lincroft1710

Before you go down the MCOL route, you have to issue a Letter Before Action and the defendant has 14 days to reply. If he is away and a judgement is entered against him, he can apply to have it set aside.

However the seller has said he would accept a return/refund if not going away, do you have a record of this. Because it would tend to help your case.

SurfDJ

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Before you go down the MCOL route, you have to issue a Letter Before Action and the defendant has 14 days to reply. If he is away and a judgement is entered against him, he can apply to have it set aside.

However the seller has said he would accept a return/refund if not going away, do you have a record of this. Because it would tend to help your case.

The seller made this comment on the phone. I did note this in the email to him and asked him to confirm but he only confirmed he would not accept the return and not the reason why. I am responding to him now and will again broach this issue and hope he includes his reason in his response.

I will definitely issue a LBA before using MCOL.

Can you explain 'set aside' please? Does this mean the ruling would be delayed, or that he would be afforded more time to pay if away when the ruling was made?

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond.

lincroft1710

Set aside means that the judgement no longer stands and the case needs to be reheard.

You have to issue a LBA before you can use MCOL.

Are you sure he is definitely going away for a long period and not just using this to frustrate you. If he is definitely going away, I hope he is not in fact emigrating!

SurfDJ

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Set aside means that the judgement no longer stands and the case needs to be reheard.

You have to issue a LBA before you can use MCOL.

Are you sure he is definitely going away for a long period and not just using this to frustrate you. If he is definitely going away, I hope he is not in fact emigrating!

Hmmm. Set aside sounds like it could be a long drawn out (costly?) affair. He seems genuine in his plans, he did mention it in the advert.

Thanks again for all your help. Hope your having a great day

lincroft1710

Thanks. If you are otherwise happy with the car, I would get an estimate of the cost of repair from a trusted or recommended non franchised garage, rather than a main dealer which will be expensive.

I think the seller knows he has the upper hand, you have a non functioning car which you will not get a refund for (if at all) until the autumn. It may pay to take the offer of £100 (or more if you can squeeze it)

SurfDJ

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Thanks. If you are otherwise happy with the car, I would get an estimate of the cost of repair from a trusted or recommended non franchised garage, rather than a main dealer which will be expensive.

I think the seller knows he has the upper hand, you have a non functioning car which you will not get a refund for (if at all) until the autumn. It may pay to take the offer of £100 (or more if you can squeeze it)

Well its hard to be either happy or not with the car as I've only managed <13miles in it

I actually think I have the upper hand!! hmmm

I've booked it in with the main dealer in the hope that they can accurately diagnose the problem, even so much as to give a guarantee of accuracy. I've had it before when I've taken a vehicle to a garage to remedy a knocking noise only for the garage to charge me £200+ for repairs that didn't fix the knocking noise! Once diagnosed I'll get estimates from non-franchised garages for sure. He's confirmed he's not going to accept a return so I guess I need to get it fixed, hope it's not too costly, then either accept his offer or go LBA/MCOL depending on the cost.

Thanks again May the karma gods look kindly on you!

lincroft1710

Thanks. Please keep us informed of any developments.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

SurfDJ wrote: »

Hi, Thanks! I learnt a new term today, 'puffery'!. Even if the term 'tip-top' is deemed puffery, would the statement 'drives faultlessly' not be deemed as objective rather than subjective? Genuine question.

And yes, the advert states the fuel filter and pump were replaced but not that it was a second hand/used pump or that the seller did the work themselves. As mentioned, this led me to think that any prior issues involving these parts would have been rectified by their replacement (as well as the 'drives faultlessly' statement).

It did drive faultlessly, until it stopped. They say that the engine had never cut out since they "fixed" the fuel pump. You can't show this to be wrong.