Mis-selling of goods by private seller

Cornwall_Nanny

We have just purchased a folding camper from a private seller via a well known internet selling site (not an auction item). We made it clear to the seller that we were buying the camper based on the photos & description in the advertisement & the additional photos we had requested via personal email as we lived 300 miles from the seller. Once we agreed a price based on the above we paid 50% of the cost & arranged a date to collect the camper. We paid the final 50% via Bank transfer 24 hours before the scheduled collection. The seller was fully aware that we intended to collect the camper, which was 5 hours drive from our home & then stop on a camp site, staying in the camper for a few nights before we returned home. On setting the camper up we found several minor faults that had not been detailed in the advertisement but more importantly to us the camper we had collected differed to the one in the advertisement & the photos we had been sent. Four of the six photos we had been sent were of a completely different & newer model of the camper. There are various reasons we know this, such as the chemical toilet in the photos has an electric flush, the one in the camper we collected has a manual flush. Also the cooker & sink in the photos are of a newer design. We have requested a partial refund of £500 to cover the cost of the repairs needed & the misleading of the sale, as we are unable to put a value on the camper in the photos we believe this to be a fair solution. The seller has refused our request saying we had the opportunity to inspect the camper when we collected it but chose not to. We have argued that we purchased the camper based on the photos sent & in the advertisement & there was no mention that the photos were of an alternative camper. Please can anyone advise if the law is on our side or the side of the seller as I believe goods advertised for sale should be as advertised both visually of descriptively.

pinkshoes

Cornwall_Nanny wrote: »

We have just purchased a folding camper from a private seller via a well known internet selling site (not an auction item). We made it clear to the seller that we were buying the camper based on the photos & description in the advertisement & the additional photos we had requested via personal email as we lived 300 miles from the seller. Once we agreed a price based on the above we paid 50% of the cost & arranged a date to collect the camper. We paid the final 50% via Bank transfer 24 hours before the scheduled collection. The seller was fully aware that we intended to collect the camper, which was 5 hours drive from our home & then stop on a camp site, staying in the camper for a few nights before we returned home. On setting the camper up we found several minor faults that had not been detailed in the advertisement but more importantly to us the camper we had collected differed to the one in the advertisement & the photos we had been sent. Four of the six photos we had been sent were of a completely different & newer model of the camper. There are various reasons we know this, such as the chemical toilet in the photos has an electric flush, the one in the camper we collected has a manual flush. Also the cooker & sink in the photos are of a newer design. We have requested a partial refund of £500 to cover the cost of the repairs needed & the misleading of the sale, as we are unable to put a value on the camper in the photos we believe this to be a fair solution. The seller has refused our request saying we had the opportunity to inspect the camper when we collected it but chose not to. We have argued that we purchased the camper based on the photos sent & in the advertisement & there was no mention that the photos were of an alternative camper. Please can anyone advise if the law is on our side or the side of the seller as I believe goods advertised for sale should be as advertised both visually of descriptively.

When did you discover these things? Surely the cooker and sink would have been noticeable as soon a you saw it? If not, why not??

The minor faults would depend on whether it was noticible from the photo or not, or whether you specifically asked about these things, or whether it is something that was obvious a repair would be required.

Even second hand, things need to be as described, so if they have misrepresented things by using the wrong photos, then it is not as described, BUT... it would need to be rejected ASAP.

E.g. If you noticed a different cooker and sink, but still paid the balance and drove off and camped in it without querying it at the time, then that would probably be seen as acceptance.

How long have you now had it for? Hours? days?

Gleeful

The law is on the sellers side, caveat emptor. You had the opportunity to inspect the camper on collection but chose not to. The seller is correct as they are a private seller.

pinkshoes

Gleeful wrote: »

The law is on the sellers side, caveat emptor. You had the opportunity to inspect the camper on collection but chose not to. The seller is correct as they are a private seller.

Not necessarily true.

The goods have to be as described.

Although the OP had the chance to inspect, some things would perhaps not be noticible immediately. It if was wrongly described, then the buyer has a case...

unholyangel

Gleeful wrote: »

The law is on the sellers side, caveat emptor. You had the opportunity to inspect the camper on collection but chose not to. The seller is correct as they are a private seller.

While the general rule is caveat emptor, in private sales there is still a requirement for:
1) good title/having the right to sell the goods
2) the goods to match their description.

The inspection thing only relates to defects/satisfactory quality element - which obviously doesn't apply to private sales anyway. It has no bearing on the description.

Cornwall_Nanny

pinkshoes wrote: »

When did you discover these things? Surely the cooker and sink would have been noticeable as soon a you saw it? If not, why not??

The minor faults would depend on whether it was noticible from the photo or not, or whether you specifically asked about these things, or whether it is something that was obvious a repair would be required.

Even second hand, things need to be as described, so if they have misrepresented things by using the wrong photos, then it is not as described, BUT... it would need to be rejected ASAP

E.g. If you noticed a different cooker and sink, but still paid the balance and drove off and camped in it without querying it at the time, then that would probably be seen as acceptance.

How long have you now had it for? Hours? days?

We have had the camper 10 days. To view the sink & cooker we would have to fully erect the camper at the sellers mother in laws home where we collected it. Naively we based our purchase on the comprehensive set of photos that were sent to us which is the area we are disputing because several of these photo were not of the camper we collected. We had paid the balance 24 hrs before collection, again based on the fact that we were collecting the goods in the photos we had been sent.

pinkshoes

Cornwall_Nanny wrote: »

We have had the camper 10 days. To view the sink & cooker we would have to fully erect the camper at the sellers mother in laws home where we collected it. Naively we based our purchase on the comprehensive set of photos that were sent to us which is the area we are disputing because several of these photo were not of the camper we collected. We had paid the balance 24 hrs before collection, again based on the fact that we were collecting the goods in the photos we had been sent.

Ahh, now I know what you mean by a folding camper!

At what point did you notify the seller?

You quite clearly have a case here given it was not practical to fully erect the camper, and you would expect the cooker and sink to be the same as that in the photo, so not somethihg you would specifically open it up to check.

Hong_Kong_Phooey.

pinkshoes wrote: »

Ahh, now I know what you mean by a folding camper!

At what point did you notify the seller?

You quite clearly have a case here given it was not practical to fully erect the camper, and you would expect the cooker and sink to be the same as that in the photo, so not somethihg you would specifically open it up to check.

Wouldn't you? Any reasonable person would want to check it.

SouthUKMan

If you are buying from a private seller, then buyer beware - always. HOWEVER, goods offered for sale by a private seller still need to be as described. If they are not as described, then in law you DO have a case. The difficulty though is deciding how strong your case is for a small claims court proceeding, as it can be argued two ways. Two scenarios:

1) Think about buying a used car. If you bought a used car, you would spend time test driving it and inspecting it before making a final decision and handing over your money - regardless of how far you traveled. After all, a car - just like a camper van - is a considered purchase. If you spot a problem, you walk away or haggle over a discount. A small claims court judge could easily side with this point of view. The fact it is a folding camper makes no odds. You could have made the decision to invest time prior to handing over your money in erecting it and carefully inspecting the outside and inside.

2) A judge could also side with the point of view that it is 'reasonable' to expect an advert to be a 'fair representation' of the item offered for sale and that by posting photos of a different model, then the seller is trying to mislead you. To be honest though, this is a fairly weak argument to use as it naturally leads straight back to point one - buyer beware and inspect goods before purchase.

Having said that, I would personally write a letter (sent signed delivery) putting the seller on notice of your intention to take him to the small claims court unless he settles the matter. You need to outline your case clearly (based on the misrepresentation in the advert), the compensation you are seeking (with a breakdown of all amounts), give him a reasonable time frame to respond (say 7 working days), and that if the matter is not settled then "accept this letter as notice of my intention to start small claims court proceedings against you to recover the above mentioned costs."

Cornwall_Nanny

pinkshoes wrote: »

Ahh, now I know what you mean by a folding camper!

At what point did you notify the seller?

You quite clearly have a case here given it was not practical to fully erect the camper, and you would expect the cooker and sink to be the same as that in the photo, so not somethihg you would specifically open it up to check.

We notified a couple of days after we got home & double checked the photos sent compared to the actual camper we collected.

Cornwall_Nanny

SouthUKMan wrote: »

If you are buying from a private seller, then buyer beware - always. HOWEVER, goods offered for sale by a private seller still need to be as described. If they are not as described, then in law you DO have a case. The difficulty though is deciding how strong your case is for a small claims court proceeding, as it can be argued two ways. Two scenarios:

1) Think about buying a used car. If you bought a used car, you would spend time test driving it and inspecting it before making a final decision and handing over your money - regardless of how far you traveled. After all, a car - just like a camper van - is a considered purchase. If you spot a problem, you walk away or haggle over a discount. A small claims court judge could easily side with this point of view. The fact it is a folding camper makes no odds. You could have made the decision to invest time prior to handing over your money in erecting it and carefully inspecting the outside and inside.

2) A judge could also side with the point of view that it is 'reasonable' to expect an advert to be a 'fair representation' of the item offered for sale and that by posting photos of a different model, then the seller is trying to mislead you. To be honest though, this is a fairly weak argument to use as it naturally leads straight back to point one - buyer beware and inspect goods before purchase.

Having said that, I would personally write a letter (sent signed delivery) putting the seller on notice of your intention to take him to the small claims court unless he settles the matter. You need to outline your case clearly (based on the misrepresentation in the advert), the compensation you are seeking (with a breakdown of all amounts), give him a reasonable time frame to respond (say 7 working days), and that if the matter is not settled then "accept this letter as notice of my intention to start small claims court proceedings against you to recover the above mentioned costs."

Thank you your comments are very much appreciated.