Help please! Car buyer threatening legal action

Manxman_in_exile

jjmorris90 - in your opening post you say the car had done "158k" which I took to mean miles.  But in the advert it says 158,000 kilometres.  So was the car correctly represented in the ad as 158,000 km and not miles?  (Just seems a bit unusual that it was advertised in kilometres... )

neilmcl

Manxman_in_exile said:

jjmorris90 - in your opening post you say the car had done "158k" which I took to mean miles.  But in the advert it says 158,000 kilometres.  So was the car correctly represented in the ad as 158,000 km and not miles?  (Just seems a bit unusual that it was advertised in kilometres... )

That's just a Facebook thing.

Brie

presumably it had a current MOT which did not cite that the bolts were an issue?

AdrianC

Brie said:

presumably it had a current MOT which did not cite that the bolts were an issue?

If there were snapped wheel fasteners at the time of the test, it certainly should have been a fail.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/5-axles-wheels-tyres-and-suspension#section-5-2-1

One missing or loose per wheel - fail
More than one per wheel - dangerous

No account taken of how many there should be, though... Some stuff has three studs per wheel, some has six. I'd rather have two non-adjacent fasteners missing out of six than one out of three.

[Deleted User]

ontheroad1970 said:

mcpitman said:

facade said:

[Deleted User] said:

No I never? I listed the car has “it drives fine” which it does. What was unroadworthy about it?

Missing wheel studs for one.....

A missing stud/bolt/nut is a major fail at MOT.  2 missing on the same wheel is a dangerous fail.

Which the purchaser was fully aware of, as was his mechanic fella.

@[Deleted User] just ell the fella to poke off, block his number and ignore any approach for redress.

One of the few ways a private seller is responsible is if a car is unroadworthy.  Telling a buyer simply that it drives fine without drawing attention to the  potential unroadworthiness possibly puts the seller in an awkward position.  

When he came to inspect the car he drew attention to it and decided to purchase it anyway. It was never hidden from him. How can that be my fault? 

[Deleted User]

Manxman_in_exile said:

jjmorris90 - in your opening post you say the car had done "158k" which I took to mean miles.  But in the advert it says 158,000 kilometres.  So was the car correctly represented in the ad as 158,000 km and not miles?  (Just seems a bit unusual that it was advertised in kilometres... )

Facebook for some reason only does KMs. He is well aware it has done miles. 

[Deleted User]

Brie said:

presumably it had a current MOT which did not cite that the bolts were an issue?

Yeh it has a valid MOT. The bolts snapped fairly recently. 

[Deleted User]

It’s worth pointing out that the actual bolt isn’t missing from the alloy. It was secured in place but the head of the bolt is what had snapped. The bolt remained seated. 

GrumpyDil

Yup but it's not helping hold the wheel onto the hub.

Irrelevant really as the purchaser would need to take you to court if he genuinely feels he has a valid claim and I suspect would lose but a broken wheel stud/bolt is definately an MOT fail and I wouldn't be keen driving a car with a missing bolt other than to get it repaired. 

[Deleted User]

So he would essentially be trying to bring a claim on the basis that the car is unroadworthy but then wouldn’t the judge ask if such is the case, why did he buy the car if at the time of purchase HE knew it would be so. His friend even pointed out to him that a missing bolt is an MOT fail.