Sold a vehicle that I have been told in unroadworthy

Jenni_D

The CRA applies to all sales where the buyer is a consumer. Only parts of it apply though if the seller is also a "consumer" (private individual).

SoGA still applies for B2B sales.

ontheroad1970

[Deleted User] said:

Coop1234567890 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Maybe the purchaser thinks that the letter last Friday was an LBA and therefore "going legal" will be registering the claim at small claims.  It is possible there won't be any Solicitor involved.  Is that (Solicitor) purely inferred from previous comments by the buyer as reported by the OP?

This is the wording on the letter.

"With reference to our text messages, and failure to reply, we now state in this correspondence that the above vehicle was sold in an unroadworthy condition and unfit for the sale as what it was described as due to the mechanical defects redering it being classed as unsafe to drive on the public highway. We now wish to persue our rights under the sale of goods act 1979 for a full refund of the amount spent on purchase.

Would you please also note the vehicle is in a garage compound, due to it being unsafe to drive and has been stored there since 9/11/21, the garage has informed us that a storage charge will be applied from 22/11/21.

The vehicle fuel light appeared just after purchase and due to the fuel cap being inoperable, fuel cannot be added, we are advising you of this upon your collection of the vehicle. However prior to this, a full refund will be expected.

Please reply within 7 days of this letter, as this is the second and last correspondance before an LBA."

Below is the description I wrote for the vehicle to sell on Facebook Market place.

2011 Transit. 85T260, MOT November 2022. 2.2L 136000 miles. Roof rack, ply lined, tow bar. Recent work done includes new turbo, new injector seal, new cam shaft cover, new EGR valve, new pads and discs. Good runner. Sometimes a lazy starter but does start. Regular services. Selling as now supplied with work van.

Cheers.

Clearly whoever wrote this has no clue.

The Sale of Goods Act is old law, it was superseded by the Consumer Rights Act. That act only applies to business to consumer sales, not private sales, so is completely irrelevant here.

I'd just ignore it. If they do try Small Claims Court they will lose, and you will be able to claim your costs from them.

They are just hoping you panic.

NO, it hasn't been superseded by Consumer Rights Act, though this was the intention.  SOGA still exists alongside CRA.  I agree with the motion to ignore.  

Jenni_D

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Coop1234567890 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Maybe the purchaser thinks that the letter last Friday was an LBA and therefore "going legal" will be registering the claim at small claims.  It is possible there won't be any Solicitor involved.  Is that (Solicitor) purely inferred from previous comments by the buyer as reported by the OP?

This is the wording on the letter.

"With reference to our text messages, and failure to reply, we now state in this correspondence that the above vehicle was sold in an unroadworthy condition and unfit for the sale as what it was described as due to the mechanical defects redering it being classed as unsafe to drive on the public highway. We now wish to persue our rights under the sale of goods act 1979 for a full refund of the amount spent on purchase.

Would you please also note the vehicle is in a garage compound, due to it being unsafe to drive and has been stored there since 9/11/21, the garage has informed us that a storage charge will be applied from 22/11/21.

The vehicle fuel light appeared just after purchase and due to the fuel cap being inoperable, fuel cannot be added, we are advising you of this upon your collection of the vehicle. However prior to this, a full refund will be expected.

Please reply within 7 days of this letter, as this is the second and last correspondance before an LBA."

Below is the description I wrote for the vehicle to sell on Facebook Market place.

2011 Transit. 85T260, MOT November 2022. 2.2L 136000 miles. Roof rack, ply lined, tow bar. Recent work done includes new turbo, new injector seal, new cam shaft cover, new EGR valve, new pads and discs. Good runner. Sometimes a lazy starter but does start. Regular services. Selling as now supplied with work van.

Cheers.

Clearly whoever wrote this has no clue.

The Sale of Goods Act is old law, it was superseded by the Consumer Rights Act. That act only applies to business to consumer sales, not private sales, so is completely irrelevant here.

I'd just ignore it. If they do try Small Claims Court they will lose, and you will be able to claim your costs from them.

They are just hoping you panic.

NO, it hasn't been superseded by Consumer Rights Act, though this was the intention.  SOGA still exists alongside CRA.  I agree with the motion to ignore.  

As I allude above, no part of SoGA still applies for B2C transactions, nor for C2C transactions.These are covered by the CRA 2015. (For C2C [private] transactions the only parts of CRA that apply are the Good Title to sell and that the goods match the description).

SoGA still applies to B2B transactions, but of course the negotiated terms of any B2B transaction can waive remaining SoGA rights - it's part of the due diligence of doing business.  

caprikid1

Looking at this again ..

"I sold the car in good faith, obviously presuming the the very recent MOT proved that the car was ok. The car had only done 100 miles since the MOT was issued. "

It does appear that it went from a Car to a Van .... OP looking forward to an explanation.

jimjames

caprikid1 said:

Looking at this again ..

"I sold the car in good faith, obviously presuming the the very recent MOT proved that the car was ok. The car had only done 100 miles since the MOT was issued. "

It does appear that it went from a Car to a Van .... OP looking forward to an explanation.

Car mentioned 3 times in that paragraph so it wasn't a typo

Coop1234567890

Apologies for the confusion. It was a van, not sure why I put car TBH.

The van used to be owned by my business, which stopped trading about 12 months ago. I transfered it into my own name about 6 months ago,  the insurance might be slightly cheaper as not used for work. My wife wanted me to keep the van, as it was very useful for skip runs, taking kids bikes to our caravan etc. She wasnt keen on selling it at all. It was only with my son turning 17 and me only using van to go to work in, that i decided to sell and get a small car in which he could learn in. He cant use my wifes car, as its a company car. 

So as far as I'm concerened it was a private sale. 

Hope this cleares thing up.

Cheers.

caprikid1

Thanks for the prompt and honest response, I can fully imagine how that can happen and I am sure a court would too. You should have nothing to worry about if you can evidence all of the above.

pinkshoes

If he does send a LBA, then just reply politely in writing with proof of postage:

The vehicle had an MOT carried out on <date> and passed with only one advisory.
The purchaser inspected the  vehicle on <date> and was happy with the vehicle. They also inspected the paperwork.
The purchaser was offered the opportunity to test drive the vehicle but declined and decided to purchase it.
This was a private sale of a private vehicle and I was not aware of any such defects at the point of sale, nor were any such defects present during the MOT just prior to the sale, and the purchaser did not find any such defects upon their thorough inspection of the car.


The reply saying their solicitor mentioned the "Sale of Goods Act" makes it more than clear that this is a chancer looking for some money back, as as even a retired solicitor would know this was replaced with CRA in 2015!

Jenni_D

As above, but change car to vehicle.  

lordmountararat

as this is the second and last correspondance

I wouldn't pay too much attention to a letter where the writer doesn't know how to spell. (Correspondence)