Sold car privately - Now told the car was misdescribed

MariusAdam

Thank you everyone for the support and the advice. Could anyone help me write this response? I came up with this
 " I disagree with the claim because of the following reasons:
1. I have described the car to the best of my knowledge based on the HPI check I have done prior purchasing the car and the information I received from the seller (via messenger). 
2. I wasn’t aware the car was in an accident and again, the HPI check and the messages from the seller can confirm this
3. I only advised that the previous owner got the car as a part exchange. I never implied that the previous owner was a dealer.
Let me know what you guys think. 
Thanks again.

waamo

I would add the V5c shows no record of it being written off. The buyer had an opportunity to inspect and test the car and it's associated documents, which they did. You negotiated a price that the buyer was happy with based upon their inspection and testing of the vehicle.

Point out you are not in the motor trade and have no connection with the motor trade so do not have specialist knowledge of vehicles.

MariusAdam

Thanks @waamo. Some great points that I will add to my defence

waamo

I would also put it's passed two mot tests before coming into your possession. If these were done at different test centres point that out too.

DCFC79

Let us know how you get on OP.

Carrot007

MariusAdam said:
3. I only advised that the previous owner got the car as a part exchange. I never implied that the previous owner was a dealer.

Taking something in part exhange 100% confirms they are a dealer though. Unless you can think of some other reason.

Yes a private person could do that. Why would they though. Think you will convince a court they would?

Not saying you will not win, just that think that this point may go against you if you use it.

binao

Carrot007 said:

MariusAdam said:
3. I only advised that the previous owner got the car as a part exchange. I never implied that the previous owner was a dealer.

Taking something in part exhange 100% confirms they are a dealer though. Unless you can think of some other reason.

Yes a private person could do that. Why would they though. Think you will convince a court they would?

Not saying you will not win, just that think that this point may go against you if you use it.

"Got the car as a part exchange"

If English language and grammar are your second language the above quote may mislead a judge and result in you losing your case.

"A previous owner, "got the car by part exchanging their  old car"., is better.

In any case, I would not normally wish to know how a previous owner originally  paid for the car.

I'm  sure a grammar whizz can do better.

Another angle, maybe the police or trading standards would be interested in who the super welder is / was. The auctioneer would be a good start.

Good luck OP

MariusAdam

I took the decision to have someone more experienced draft a defence for me as English is not my first language and I was getting worried I might write something silly. 
However I am at the stage where I have to "Tell us why you disagree with the claim" (see attached photo). 
The response is clearly not brief, but it does me justice and touches on every point bringing relevant arguments.
Should I just copy paste the defence in the box?

Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

1.      The Claimant's reasons for the claim has failed to sufficiently identify the relevant issues so as to understand the case pleaded against me. The reasons for the claim ought to set out the basic facts and explain what legal consequences flow from those facts, in such a way that those facts contribute to the cause of action. Furthermore, the reasons for the claim, as currently drafted consist merely of assertions and are not proper particulars which comply with rule 16.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

2.      As far as I am able to interpret, the Claimant's reasons for the claim are based on two allegations: (1) the car was not as described and (2) the car was not fit for purpose. Accordingly, my defence is based solely on those two allegations and should the Claimant seek to introduce any new allegations at a later stage, I will take issue with the same and ask that the court reject any attempts to do so.

3.      The phrase 'fit for purpose' is a legal term of art. However, the Claimant has not properly set out the allegations as regards to the vehicle not being fit for purpose. It is denied, to the extent the Claimant argues that, because the vehicle was involved in an accident (as alleged by the Claimant), that the vehicle could not be fit for its intended purpose. On the contrary, the vehicle was in a roadworthy condition, it was inspected and road-tested by the Claimant prior to the vehicle being purchased and, as far as I am able to ascertain, the vehicle successfully passed it's MOT in the previous year. In any event, the principle caveat emptor applies.

4.      It is denied that the car was miss-described as suggested by the Claimant. The mileage of the vehicle as described on the advert was taken directly from the odometer. In any event, I have checked the vehicle's MOT history through https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/ which confirms that the mileage recorded on the last MOT check was 42,704 miles. On top of this, the HPI check that I done prior purchasing the car states no mileage issues. Accordingly, the Claimant is required to prove by way of expert evidence that the vehicle has not been driven 48,000 miles as described.

5.       I fail to see the causal link between the engine having been replaced (as suggested by the Claimant) and the vehicle haven been driven 48,000 miles as recorded on the odometer, which is a factually correct. Furthermore, I had no knowledge that the vehicle's engine had been replaced but in any event, it does not follow that because the vehicle's engine (in the eyes of the Claimant) may have been replaced, that the vehicle did not accrue the mileage as described. This is because accrued vehicle mileage relates to how far the car has been driven in its lifetime and not specifically tied to the engine, since the engine could have been replaced for various reasons.

6.      I had no knowledge that the vehicle has been in an accident. I have carried out a HPI check prior purchasing the vehicle through https://totalcarcheck.co.uk/ which confirms that the vehicle has never been involved in an accident. Additionally I have been advised by the person I purchased the vehicle from, that it was never involved in an accident.(via Facebook messenger)

7.      It is denied I advised that I purchased the vehicle from a dealer as a part ex. My advice to the claimant was that the car was purchased from someone on Facebook Marketplace and that the person obtained the vehicle as an exchange for his old car.

I do not accept the Claimant’s timeline of events, in particular:

1.      26.02 – 7.3.2020:  It is admitted that I advised the claimant that the timing chain may need tightening or replacing. I cannot comment on what their mechanic and auto electrician may have advised. I have no connection with the motor trade and don’t possess any specialist knowledge of vehicles. I would also like to bring to the court's attention that the Claimant is disingenuous because on the date he sent me a text message requesting £150 refund towards repairing the timing chain and yet in the claim it clearly states it was not an issue.

2.       7th March: It is denied that I advised the claimant he should sell the car on. It is also denied I advised that I purchased the car from a friend and I am also denying that my profile on Facebook was removed. My Facebook profile is active and it was throughout all this time.

3.      17th March: It is denied that I refused the letter. The claimant is clearly mentioning that the correspondence had been addressed to the property next door.

4.      7th May 2020: I confirm that I received the claimant’s letter. As mentioned I replied straight away advising that I did not receive the first letter and I attached the HPI and receipt of purchase. It is denied I advised that I bought the car as part exchange or from a dealer. My advice was that I purchased the car from someone on Facebook Marketplace and that the previous owner obtained the vehicle by part exchanging their old car. It is also denied that I advised on 7th March it was purchased from a friend.

The Claimant’s evidence is disputed with regards to the following:

1.      It is denied that the letter send 17th March was refused by me. The claimant is clearly stating that the he had sent the letter to the property next door.

2.      The Copart advert for Lot (33801297) states the sale date Tue. Aug 08, 2017. Prior being in my possession the vehicle had successfully passed MOT’s and a HPI check done by me (the defendant) on 20th June 2019. Neither of these mention any advisories and the HPI check clearly states no issues uncovered.

3.      It is denied I advised that I purchased the vehicle from a dealer as a part ex. My advice to the claimant was that the car was purchased from someone on Facebook Marketplace and that the previous owner obtained the vehicle by part exchanging their old car. It is also denied I advised the car was purchased from a friend.

 

DoaM

Have. You. Looked. At. The. NEWBIES. Sticky. Thread. I. Pointed. You. To. Previously?

pinkshoes

DoaM said:

Have. You. Looked. At. The. NEWBIES. Sticky. Thread. I. Pointed. You. To. Previously?

I clicked the link you posted previously and could only find info on parking tickets. I wasn't sure how this helped... Unless I missed something?!?!

MariusAdam, that sounds a little "wordy" with some typos in places! In the first section, you should mention in part 3 that you also drove the car on a daily basis with no issues. Section 4, only one 's' on misdescribed and I think it is all one word. In the last section, Part 2, I would also mention it was the first time you were made aware the car had previously been written off.