Refund - Private Car Sale

AdrianC

For a trade sale, the consumer has a right to a full refund for a pre-existing fault which comes to light in the first 30 days. After that, the vendor has a right to repair rather than refund. Within the first six months, the fault is presumed to have been present, unless it can be shown not to have been. From six months to six years, that presumption reverses.

For a private sale, there's no legal rights whatsoever unless the description was actively and demonstrably inaccurate.

Sugarglider1992

No Adrian, the business is a HGV self drive/ hire company.
The owner was a vehicle tech before the business opened over 20 years ago so simply has the skills already.

He is happy to refund as he can do the work himself, we are not in dispute on 'refund time' or not....???
Simply the timescale involved to find that amount of money.

Sugarglider1992

Thank you, that is very helpful! They just tootled about in the vehicle so didn't know there were any underlying faults which seemed to raise themselves once he has driven quite a distance.

unholyangel

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Personally, I think this case is very different to the one you refer to for one reason:



The vehicle was obviously a company asset and once sold, the funds from the sale were put back into the company accounts and used for the benefit of the company.
I can't see that this is any different to a business selling off unwanted tools, furniture or other assets and using the revenue from the sales to bolster the company cash flow.

If you'd read the judgement you may have a different opinion - they explicitly mentioned that he was disposing of a business asset but that because his business purposes was not that of selling cars with any regularity, that he wasn't acting as a trader under the SoGA.

unholyangel

dj1471 wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're referencing SoGA, but the CRA defines a trader:

Someone selling on behalf of their business seems to meet that definition.

I explained why I was referencing SoGA - because that had a similar definition to the CRA and yet was still found not to be a trader.

unholyangel

AdrianC wrote: »

For a trade sale, the consumer has a right to a full refund for a pre-existing fault which comes to light in the first 30 days. After that, the vendor has a right to repair rather than refund. Within the first six months, the fault is presumed to have been present, unless it can be shown not to have been. From six months to six years, that presumption reverses.

For a private sale, there's no legal rights whatsoever unless the description was actively and demonstrably inaccurate.

That presumption doesn't apply to the short term right to reject btw.

shaun_from_Africa

unholyangel wrote: »

If you'd read the judgement you may have a different opinion - they explicitly mentioned that he was disposing of a business asset but that because his business purposes was not that of selling cars with any regularity, that he wasn't acting as a trader under the SoGA.

Can you post a link to the relevant case as I would be interested in reading it.

Hermione_Granger

unholyangel wrote: »

If you'd read the judgement you may have a different opinion - they explicitly mentioned that he was disposing of a business asset but that because his business purposes was not that of selling cars with any regularity, that he wasn't acting as a trader under the SoGA.

So we have a vehicle that was bought by a company, registered to that company, used for company business (moving between work branches) and when it was sold, the money received was used by that company to pay debts and bills.
The business of that company was renting out vehicles which presumably they sell off when they reach the end of their useful life.
They sold off the car concerned as it was no longer required and you still think it's not a B2C sale?

macman

Surely the lesson here is to dispose of the company status first by transferring it into the father's name, as a private vehicle. Then sell it as a private sale, with no B2C status and no trade protection?
However, in this instance, the fact that the buyers wanted cash for the repairs smells 'scam'. He wants funds urgently 'by Tuesday' and is using threatening behaviour: has your father actually seen any paperwork to support the alleged diagnosis of the 3rd party dealer? Why did the buyer go to another dealer before demanding money back for repairs?
Who is going to pay for the alleged 4 inspections done in the meantime? Is your father buying it back at the same price?