Sold Car - Now Buyer Reports Clutch Failure & Wants Money

macman

There is no 'main dealer goodwill 'on a 7 year old car, a full 4 years out of manufacturer's warranty.
I just re-read the first post and noticed that this car has done just 20K miles over 7 years. At less than 3K miles a year, it's presumably been used exclusively for short local shopping trips in stop-start conditions. So it's not remotely surprising that the clutch has expired already.

Carrot007

macman said:

There is no 'main dealer goodwill 'on a 7 year old car, a full 4 years out of manufacturer's warranty.
I just re-read the first post and noticed that this car has done just 20K miles over 7 years. At less than 3K miles a year, it's presumably been used exclusively for short local shopping trips in stop-start conditions. So it's not remotely surprising that the clutch has expired already.

Pretty much this. Under 5K a year, run a mile. UNless there ias video evidence of one long motorway trip every week/month/whatever!

All OP needs to think about is was there any sign of cluth failure (not that they are responsible even if there way).Things like over reving. Things that TBH most people would not be aware of unless they have had one fail on them.

AdrianC

Hermione_Granger said:
...but there is no reason why it can't be used in a C2C sale provided that the term isn't used to limit your right to expect the car to be as described.

In other words, it carries zero meaning.

BooJewels

tekton23 said:

They appear genuine, so I don't believe this is a scam attempt, but who knows! I genuinely hope they are ok but at the same time, I am satisfied I did everything I could to ensure the vehicle was sold with a clean bill of health. [...] I hate being threatened like I was today. Hopefully it was just the initial angry response, but according to him he is going to spend more than he paid for the car in pursuing me! If money is no issue, then he should just get on with it and replace the clutch.

I'm currently trying to enforce a motor vehicle related debt of a different nature - but that arose because the vehicle seller was well and truly grifted.  It all looked very plausible and genuine, but was part of an elaborate con and an act put on, even engaging the service of 2 daughters to play a part, dress the right way etc. 

In hindsight, the seller was worked over time and a lot of innocuous information gleaned in snippets and the act then presented, fitted with an ideal that would appeal to him.  It was only in hindsight that we found out that his circumstances were very different than presented and he's already served time for a very similar fraud, in a different version of his name.

So, if they're professional chancers, the indignation may all be part of the performance.

Mutton_Geoff

BooJewels said:

I'm currently trying to enforce a motor vehicle related debt of a different nature - but that arose because the vehicle seller was well and truly grifted.  It all looked very plausible and genuine, but was part of an elaborate con and an act put on, even engaging the service of 2 daughters to play a part, dress the right way etc. 

In hindsight, the seller was worked over time and a lot of innocuous information gleaned in snippets and the act then presented, fitted with an ideal that would appeal to him.  It was only in hindsight that we found out that his circumstances were very different than presented and he's already served time for a very similar fraud, in a different version of his name.

So, if they're professional chancers, the indignation may all be part of the performance.

Anyone else having trouble understanding what this means?

Grumpy_chap said:

How many miles is low miles?
How does the sale price relate to other similar cars?
If the car was fully BMW MINI serviced, the new buyer may be able to take a claim against BMW MINI.

There isn't a hope that the original dealer will be covering clutches/brakes etc. Third party warranties also exclude them for good reason, they are a consumable item. It's almost like the buyer coming back to complain the car had run out of petrol.

AdrianC

Mutton_Geoff said:

BooJewels said:

I'm currently trying to enforce a motor vehicle related debt of a different nature - but that arose because the vehicle seller was well and truly grifted.  It all looked very plausible and genuine, but was part of an elaborate con and an act put on, even engaging the service of 2 daughters to play a part, dress the right way etc. 

In hindsight, the seller was worked over time and a lot of innocuous information gleaned in snippets and the act then presented, fitted with an ideal that would appeal to him.  It was only in hindsight that we found out that his circumstances were very different than presented and he's already served time for a very similar fraud, in a different version of his name.

So, if they're professional chancers, the indignation may all be part of the performance.

Anyone else having trouble understanding what this means?

I read it as somebody was conned, using a car sale as a way to do a bit of social engineering, which allowed some kind of identity-theft scam.

Not sure how that's a "motor-vehicle related debt", though.

BooJewels

Sorry if it wasn't entirely clear, I'm not going to spell it out in detail to be honest, as it's on-going.  It involved the sale of a vehicle, where the con was the buyer pretending to be something they weren't, in order to secure credit, that was never settled.  My point to the OP being, just because they seemed genuinely angry or upset, don't be taken in by it - if they are chancers or worse, it's probably all part of the performance.  

If you have a problem understanding something I posted, just ask me to explain, don't talk about it in the third person like I left the room.   There was no identity theft, the only one being slightly untruthful about their identity was the con man, in using his middle name, so it didn't immediately come to light.

tekton23

Thanks for your replies!
Yes, the car has been primarily used by my wife for local very short journeys to the shops, over the years that we have owned the vehicle. We bought it used approved and have no idea how it was driven by the previous owner, but presumably in a similar manner given the very low mileage. 
I have had clutch fail 20 years ago in another car, so do know the signs. There were none at all that I was aware of in this car and I had driven it regularly during the past few weeks. It seemed fine. 
I have also been on the receiving end of having total engine failure a month into owning a used van. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Ultimatley, I gave up owning a vehicle for about 10 years after that, as it was clear I couldn't afford running costs whilst being a student. I discovered at that time, that there was nothing I could do in terms of recovering costs and just had to suck up the £2,500 bill. Once fixed, I sold on the vehicle and paid off the costs. 
I don't see why I should cover someone else's repair bill now the car has been sold. As the point has been made by many of you, this is a part that does wear out. Given I am now driving another used car, bought Used Approved, there is nothing in place to protect me either. So if my clutch failed, I would have to pay that too even though I am only a few month's into a 1 year warranty. So it is a risk with any vehicle bought used, as the part cannot be visually inspected prior to sale, without the need for excessive dismantling.

Thanks also for making the point about fraudsters and it being part of the act. I am sorry to hear about your experiences and am really taking note here! I hope they are resolved soon.

Hermione_Granger

AdrianC said:

Hermione_Granger said:
...but there is no reason why it can't be used in a C2C sale provided that the term isn't used to limit your right to expect the car to be as described.

In other words, it carries zero meaning.

It has far from zero meaning.
Say for example you sold a car and it had poor paintwork or a bodywork dent and these were clearly visible.
A "sold as seen" clause means that the buyer has agreed that they are accepting the the car with any visible defects and that they have satisfied themselves with the physical condition of the vehicle.
As a seller, you have basically covered yourself against a buyer trying to get some money back for something that was present at the time of sale, something that they should have seen and queried before purchasing if they were unhappy.

Jumblebumble

fred246 said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Grumpy_chap said:

If the car was fully BMW MINI serviced, the new buyer may be able to take a claim against BMW MINI.

Why?
The new buyer didn't buy the car from BMW so they have no contract, hence no consumer rights against them.

If you have a main dealer service history you have to get goodwill. It's the only reason you have to go back to a main dealer after purchase. Only problem is you don't know if you will get any goodwill until you need it. It's normally cheaper to just get it mended outside of the dealer network even if you do get 'goodwill'.

Ha Ha
I assume you are not thinking of resale value on high end cars
The resale value of a high end Porsche and it's ilk  is likely to be far lower without a dealer service history and the difference will way exceed the extra cost of said dealer service.  ( let alone that most of the prospective customers will not touch such a  car with a disinfected bargepole that has been serviced by a bodger who does not have the correct diagnostic tools but works by following you tube articles)