Sold Campervan buyer wants money back

born_again

XRS200 said:

mandy1955 said:

[12:50 pm, 20/05/2024] Ady: Forgot to ask has the cam belt been done recently

[1:25 pm, 20/05/2024] Mandy: Yes but, I've just sold it now

This was the whole Cam belt conversation, another lady was interested at this time but due to her disability she needed a reversing camera so changed her mind.

I think this puts you in a bad place.  You confirmed it was recent but it was more than 3 years ago.  Don't think that can reasonably be construed as recent.

It is not clear if this was with the purchaser of the van, or this other person who did not buy the van?

eskbanker

born_again said:

XRS200 said:

mandy1955 said:

[12:50 pm, 20/05/2024] Ady: Forgot to ask has the cam belt been done recently

[1:25 pm, 20/05/2024] Mandy: Yes but, I've just sold it now

This was the whole Cam belt conversation, another lady was interested at this time but due to her disability she needed a reversing camera so changed her mind.

I think this puts you in a bad place.  You confirmed it was recent but it was more than 3 years ago.  Don't think that can reasonably be construed as recent.

It is not clear if this was with the purchaser of the van, or this other person who did not buy the van?

OP tried to clarify that in a subsequent post, i.e. that the quoted dialogue was with the (eventual) buyer, but the reference to selling related to the sale to someone else that fell through:

mandy1955 said:

On 20th May buyer ask the question below on WhatsApp 

Forgot to ask has the cam belt been done recently

[1:25 pm, 20/05/2024] Mandy: Yes but, I've just sold it now.

My reply reply was simply yes, but I've just sold it.  (A lady had agreed to buy but changed her mind as she needed a reversing camera due to disability) hence my saying it was sold at this point.

There was no more discussion or mention of the cam belt whatsoever until the day after he bought it which was 29th May.

mandy1955

This is what the buyer is saying:   he did not ask about the cam belt on 29th May,  that's when he bought it.  He asked  on 20th May.  He did not mention it again until after the sale, he had 9 days to ask for any further information.    
As for the gear box issue he says there was an oil leak on mot advisory on January 25th 2021, I did not own the van till July 23rd 2021. .

Goudy

What does the advisory from 25/01/21 actually say?

If it just says "oil leak", they've made a bit of a jump between that advisory in 2021 and the pipe giving way years later.
They could be two unrelated faults, one that was fixed in 2021 and a new one, this one.
How have they come to the conclusion they are linked?
How do they know the original advisory wasn't repaired?

Writing it doesn't make it true, not unless the advisory stated oil cooler pipe leaking, but that could be a stretch if it has more than one oil cooler.

It's not improbable this broken pipe was a new fault.
The pipe, in their own words has given way due to corrosion. 
How old is this van? Weeks or months old then they have a point.

As the vehicle is 28 years old it would be more than probable it would suffer from corrosion in certain places, some of which had been repaired already and you told them that, so it's not like they didn't expect a 28 year old vehicle to suffer from rust. It's made of metal and lives out on the street!

Even today, Mazda will only give 12 years anti perforation warranty and you would have to have had Mazda inspections to uphold that warranty.
This vehicle is another 16 years older.

As for the cam belt, it was recent to you.
3 years ago for a 28 year old vehicle is pretty recent from your untrained standpoint.

born_again

You might want to edit the pictures to remove you name. 

mandy1955

Goudy said:

What does the advisory from 25/01/21 actually say?

If it just says "oil leak", they've made a bit of a jump between that advisory in 2021 and the pipe giving way years later.
They could be two unrelated faults, one that was fixed in 2021 and a new one, this one.
How have they come to the conclusion they are linked?
How do they know the original advisory wasn't repaired?

Writing it doesn't make it true, not unless the advisory stated oil cooler pipe leaking, but that could be a stretch if it has more than one oil cooler.

It's not improbable this broken pipe was a new fault.
The pipe, in their own words has given way due to corrosion. 
How old is this van? Weeks or months old then they have a point.

As the vehicle is 28 years old it would be more than probable it would suffer from corrosion in certain places, some of which had been repaired already and you told them that, so it's not like they didn't expect a 28 year old vehicle to suffer from rust. It's made of metal and lives out on the street!

Even today, Mazda will only give 12 years anti perforation warranty and you would have to have had Mazda inspections to uphold that warranty.
This vehicle is another 16 years older.

As for the cam belt, it was recent to you.
3 years ago for a 28 year old vehicle is pretty recent from your untrained standpoint.

Hi, thank you for the post.  The advisory said 'oil leak but not excessive' The garage sorted this out and it was no longer an advisory. This had nothing to do with the gear box and it was also 6 months before I owned the van.  I have had any advisories dealt with when they appeared.   I had the old underseal removed in February 2022 just for my own benefit as I wanted to make sure all the coolant/pipes/hoses underneath were ok. The underbody was cleaned and re wax-oiled.  I have the receipt for this as I was sent 2 copies by mistake from the garage. It cost me £1330, I had some welding done (sills) new water pump and o/s/f hub cleaned.  

mandy1955

I had this work done 6 months after i bought it to make sure all was good underneath. There was no pipe corrosion on the pipes as they were all stripped of underseal and cleaned/ resealed. 

Goudy

That's what I thought.

They've linked an advisory from years ago, which then disappeared from subsequent MOT's, ie it's no longer seen as a problem, to a problem they suffered after buying it of a rusty pipe breaking with nothing more than wishful thinking.

It's a 28 year old van, you cannot be held responsible by the new owner for it's condition forever and ever.

The new owner has suffered a failure of a rusty pipe. That happens on old vehicles.
Something like this has a high probability on a vehicle this age and lower probability on newer vehicles.
That's the nature of older vehicles.

You described the cam belt being changed as "recent"
In relation to it's total life, 3 or 4 years is pretty recent.
Most Bongo experts I have seen state it should be done around 100,000km (62,000 miles)
It's a serviceable item and any owner would expect to have to change it near this sort of mileage while it's in their ownership.
Your "recent" comment is meaningless in terms of mileage when it comes to timed service items, there is a specific date/mileage it needs doing by.
There is really no claim for damages as it hasn't failed and caused damage.

You sold it in good faith.

You and previous owners have looked after it as best you/they can while you/they owned it, hence the stack of receipts. 

You described it as accurately as any untrained person that's owned it for 3 years can based on your and past owners receipts.

They asked for money off the asking price and you reduced the price to account for immediate repairs it might need.

You haven't offered anything more.
You haven't offered to service it for them sometime in the future when it needed it.
You haven't warranted any parts for failure.
You aren't a dealer, so there you have no professional responsibility. 

They have bought a good vehicle for a 28 year old van.
They should be expected to service it when required, not you.
They've had a unfortunate breakdown, but on any account that is the risk of buying a 28 year old vehicle, no matter how well it's been look after. 

mandy1955

Goudy  thank you.   I bought the van expecting it to need a some repairs due to it's age, I spent £3,200 last year having rear cross member replaced, welding to arches and the rear quarters, I had new seats put in and it was resprayed, I had the auto-free top re painted and varnished the whole van was beautiful, my mechanic said it was in tip top condition to sell with new MOT and photos of work he did on it.   I really looked after it but on retiring I had to be practical and down size.  My first year of owning the van cost me a couple of thousand pounds but the older vehicles need regular maintenance and I accepted that.  I paid for the van with the small amount of money my mum left me so it meant a lot to me. 

mandy1955

Update
I tried to respond to the accusations yesterday on line.  I answered every single point he made against me when I went to send my reply it came back as 'the request is blocked'...
I forwarded a screenshot of this response to the court email address given, then I requested a further 14 days.  I didn't want to do this as I wanted to get it sorted.  
Has anyone else had this issue with online civil money claim cases? Could it be because I answered all the points on the claim, my response was about an A4 size reply.
Should I only make a brief reply at this stage saying I reject all claims made against me and will I get a chance to give my response in full later on. 
Sorry, I've never had to do this before.