I sold car privatly and now buyer is askin for refund 2 month after buying the car

fred246

There is normally more to the story than the OP has given. The car probably has a major issue. Engine, gearbox, accident damage. They would pass MOT but the car wouldn't work properly and major work would have to be done. If it's sold as "cracking little motor" but the engine doesn't work that's dishonest. Judges are very good at working out who is telling the truth.

sharp910sh

What exactly did the advert say? What are they saying is wrong with it? What you said on the advert will have a direct bearing on if you will win the court case. 

Jack_Cork

Car_54 said:

neilmcl said:

Ignore him. If it passed an MOT then it's classed as roadworthy.

... on the day of the test.

Or if you wanted to be pedantic you could say after it passed the test and before it left the MoT station. A car could pass a MoT, be driven 100 yards and all 4 tyres swapped for bald ones, for instance. 

Jumblebumble

neilmcl said:

Ignore him. If it passed an MOT then it's classed as roadworthy. If the car was as described then they haven't a leg to stand on.

This is true if you believe that all MOTs are carried out correctly
20 years ago or so a friend was easily able to obtain MOTs on cars without anyone actually seeing the car.
I cannot see that there is anything in particular that would  prevent this happening today 

AdrianC

Jumblebumble said:

neilmcl said:

Ignore him. If it passed an MOT then it's classed as roadworthy. If the car was as described then they haven't a leg to stand on.

This is true if you believe that all MOTs are carried out correctly
20 years ago or so a friend was easily able to obtain MOTs on cars without anyone actually seeing the car.
I cannot see that there is anything in particular that would  prevent this happening today 

It was illegal 20yrs ago.

It's not just illegal, but much harder since the introduction of computerised MOTs 14-15yrs ago, simply because the computer system enforces a certain time between tests, so the tester would have to use "real" test slots that could be being used properly. He'd also have to make up credible figures for brake testing for the computer.

It's also a great way for a test centre to lose their test centre status if DVSA catch 'em, and they (quite rightly) like nothing better than investigating suspicious testers...

shaun_from_Africa

fred246 said:

There is normally more to the story than the OP has given. The car probably has a major issue. Engine, gearbox, accident damage. They would pass MOT but the car wouldn't work properly and major work would have to be done.

A major issue that hasn't shown up for 2 months doesn't sound that major to me.

macman

Almost certainly a chancer, but It would help if the OP would tell us exactly how he described the vehicle in the ad, and what the alleged fault is.
It concerns me that he thinks it can be described as 'totally roadworthy' just because it passed an MOT.

Jumblebumble

macman said:

Almost certainly a chancer, but It would help if the OP would tell us exactly how he described the vehicle in the ad, and what the alleged fault is.
It concerns me that he thinks it can be described as 'totally roadworthy' just because it passed an MOT.

He can't
( I may be out of date with some of these as I am no longer presenting many cars a month for testing)
Remove the back seats and the rear seat belts and mountings  become non testable
Underseal hides a multitude of sins
Cover terminal and dangerous rust with a thin welded plate
Cleaned off leaking shock absorbers
Best example I think is  used to be kingpins on 2CV.
They often had a large amount of play that would totally unacceptable for an MOT
However pump them full of grease just before the test and the play would disappear just long enough to satisfy the tester.
and many other things that would render a car unroadworthy even though it passed an MOT