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

SurfDJ

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

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.

You're right. It did drive faultlessly... until it stopped (by means of a fault!).

I'm not sure I need to show that the engine has cut out on them since they 'fixed' the fuel pump. In my mind I only need to show the vehicle was misrepresented (either fraudulently, negligently, or innocently) in order to cancel the contract.

I can show that on more than one occasion the seller wasn't truthful about things related to the vehicle, which I'm hoping will cast doubt on any other assertions they make... such as he's just emailed me "...in the advertisement I disclosed replacement of fuel filter and in-tank sender it was implicit that there had been in the past a related issue that was accordingly resolved". So he's saying that in his advert he implied that the issue had been resolved... which takes me back to the balance of probabilities and what is more likely; the vehicle developed a recurrence of an old problem having driven <13 miles from where I collected, or that the problem was with the vehicle at the time of sale.

Thanks for your input too though, every bit helps!

SurfDJ

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Thanks. Please keep us informed of any developments.

For sure Thanks again

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

SurfDJ wrote: »

You're right. It did drive faultlessly... until it stopped (by means of a fault!).

I'm not sure I need to show that the engine has cut out on them since they 'fixed' the fuel pump. In my mind I only need to show the vehicle was misrepresented (either fraudulently, negligently, or innocently) in order to cancel the contract.

It could drive faultlessly until the drive belt breaks and destroys the engine. It still drove faultlessly up to that point. Drives faultlessly does not imply it will always drive faultlessly.

You need to ignore these terms in the advert. They are puffery and nobody will take them as representative of the condition of a second hand car; a court would laugh at that.

The fault would appear to be either that the part fitted was defective, or that the part has been incorrectly fitted. It is unlikely that the seller deliberately bought a broken fuel pump or deliberately fitted it wrongly. He has not misrepresented anything in my view. "Innocently" misrepresented would mean he made a definite statement that is provably untrue, without knowing it was untrue. Excluding the "drives faultlessly" and "tip-top condition", what statement do you believe he made that was false? If you could show that he had not replaced the fuel pump, that would do it.

SurfDJ

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

You need to ignore these terms in the advert. They are puffery and nobody will take them as representative of the condition of a second hand car; a court would laugh at that.

Hi, thanks again for your comment. The only other information that could be construed as misrepresentative is that the mileage was out 123 miles from the time he took the pictures for the advert and the time I purchased. I can't imagine that is pertinent to this case though. Although, as said, he only drove the vehicle 158 miles in total since he registered it to himself. So he only drove it for 35miles before putting it up for sale again... or at least taking the pictures he would use in the advert for it.

Sorry if this seems rude, but are you qualified to make a judgement on what is and isn't 'puffery'? If so why are you so certain these two terms are deemed as such?

----

Another new development is that I can see on his eBay history he has sold 5 or 6 cars in the last year or so (and has two being worked on on his driveway). I'm now wondering whether he can be considered a trader and as such held by the different standards as those expected of a private seller.

The advert through which I found the vehicle clearly states he is a private seller. If I can make a case for him to be viewed as a trader then is that grounds for misrepresentation?... Considering the low mileage he has driven in it (as well as representing the vehicle as having being 'in regular use').

How does one define a trader vs private seller? Any ideas?

Thanks again

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

SurfDJ wrote: »

Hi, thanks again for your comment. The only other information that could be construed as misrepresentative is that the mileage was out 123 miles from the time he took the pictures for the advert and the time I purchased. I can't imagine that is pertinent to this case though. Although, as said, he only drove the vehicle 158 miles in total since he registered it to himself. So he only drove it for 35miles before putting it up for sale again... or at least taking the pictures he would use in the advert for it.

Sorry if this seems rude, but are you qualified to make a judgement on what is and isn't 'puffery'? If so why are you so certain these two terms are deemed as such?

I don't have any legal qualification but I think it's fairly common knowledge that "excellent condition" should be taken with a pinch of salt whereas "full service history" needs to be backed up. The one is a matter of opinion and the other a statement of fact.

wealdroam

"Regular use" means something entirely different to "frequent use".

For example, if he used it only on the first of every month for a ten mile drive to visit a relative, that is regular use.
However, than could not in any way be described as frequent use.

pinkshoes

SurfDJ wrote: »

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

Something really doesn't add up here.

Sounds to me like the bought a non working car to fix up and sell on for a profit, perhaps to make money for when he goes away.

His efforts to fix it have clearly failed. How on earth can he describe it as a good runner when he has hardly driven and bought it not working??

I would be telling him all this info, and stating that you will be taking him to court for a FULL refund unless he agrees to a refund before hand, or he pays ALL costs to get it fixed.

Keep a copy of the eBay advert too!

SurfDJ

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

I don't have any legal qualification but I think it's fairly common knowledge that "excellent condition" should be taken with a pinch of salt whereas "full service history" needs to be backed up. The one is a matter of opinion and the other a statement of fact.

OK thanks.
I can see how tip-top (meaning 'excellent') could be seen as subjective however IMO 'drives faultlessly' is a little less so. I guess if it gets so far it's up to a judge to make the call on this.
Thanks again!

SurfDJ

wealdroam wrote: »

"Regular use" means something entirely different to "frequent use".

For example, if he used it only on the first of every month for a ten mile drive to visit a relative, that is regular use.
However, than could not in any way be described as frequent use.

Hi, thanks for your input. At the moment I'm not really using the 'regular use' assertion as any part of my contention that the vehicle was misrepresented. Although if I claim that he is indeed a trader and not a private seller I may question him further on this point, if at all possible.

SurfDJ

pinkshoes wrote: »

Something really doesn't add up here.

Sounds to me like the bought a non working car to fix up and sell on for a profit, perhaps to make money for when he goes away.

His efforts to fix it have clearly failed. How on earth can he describe it as a good runner when he has hardly driven and bought it not working??

I would be telling him all this info, and stating that you will be taking him to court for a FULL refund unless he agrees to a refund before hand, or he pays ALL costs to get it fixed.

Keep a copy of the eBay advert too!

Hi, thanks! I think I'm going to call him tomorrow and outline the details of the case I am building, including all this information I have found. I'm hoping that he can be persuaded that all the information points to him being construed as a trader masquerading as a private seller who actually knew about the fault with the vehicle at the time of sale. Although conclusively proving as such may be difficult the more information that points to this likelihood the more likely a judge would rule in my favour on the balance of probabilities.

As he has stated he will not accept a return/refund, and as I require a vehicle to use, I will have to get the vehicle fixed and attempt to recover the costs of this through MCOL.

Thank you for your input, always nice to hear how other people view the facts presented