used car purchase, small claims court

paul_c123

October MoT is 5+ months ago now, well outside the window to be able to appeal an MoT (you can appeal a pass as well as a fail, within a timeframe).

There's some elements of "bending the truth" on the advert, but its down to semantics and interpretation - it is to be expected that advert text "sells" a car, not just blandly lists things. Also its a 58 plate, quite old.

If he's a private seller I don't think there's any comeback, but if he's a trader there would be. To determine this, 1) was the V5 in his name? 2) how long had he owned the car (if he was the registered keeper), 3) how many other cars has he sold over what timeframe (more than 6/year is deemed to be a trader, I believe).

jimjames

UncleFoss said:

Car is a 58 plate, has done 46000 miles

My conclusion from all of your input so far is that it's still worth pursuing the seller through small claims.
Do I get the work done, move on the car and pursue for the repairs and any loss on the resale or keep hold of the car, don't fix it, hold out for the refund? 

Personally that wouldn't be my conclusion and I think you'll struggle to do anything legal action wise. It's a 17 year old car. It's often quoted here that 14 years is the average age cars are scrapped so any rust on a 17 year old car isn't really a surprise. If it's not mentioned on the MOT then it may be just cosmetic rust on the subframe.

Coil springs can fail at any point especially on a car of that age. Tyres, well part worn aren't new so are from someone else changing them and for a car being moved on are probably only just on the legal limit but he was honest about that so not really applicable. Finally an oil leak on a 2008 car is to be expected so again not really something to raise or be surprised about - it doesn't sound significant enough to lose all the oil.

The advert might have over-egged it a bit and if it was a newer car it might be something to look at but I can't see any legal action being successful for a car that old.

born_again

UncleFoss said:

Car is a 58 plate, has done 46000 miles, upper bodywork and interior in pretty good nick. It's the subframe that's the problem, tyres I was prepared for changing at some point but not as soon as has transpired. He was up front about him buying the car to move it on, V5 had previous owner name and address on it, have seen this before with purchasing a used car from a franchised dealer so didn't ring any large bells. HPI checks flagged nothing and v5 transfer without issue. 
Yes, correction, it's a spring that's rusted and snapped. He'd said that he'd replaced the tyres with some part worn ones but clearly not the case. Have taken it to a couple of garages, both concluding the same fault list. There's also an oil leak that is yet to be investigated.
My conclusion from all of your input so far is that it's still worth pursuing the seller through small claims.
Do I get the work done, move on the car and pursue for the repairs and any loss on the resale or keep hold of the car, don't fix it, hold out for the refund? 

If you feel like doing something then HMRC & seeing if he is declaring this is a business & paying tax etc. 

Mildly_Miffed

17yo car with a snapped spring, an oil leak, and a crusty front subframe.

Oh, and non-working aircon and manky tyres both of which you agree you knew about pre-purchase.

Not a hope of there being any legal comeback worthy of the hassle.

What car is it?
A good used subframe may not break the bank or be too horrible a job to fit.

force_ten1

you will not find a 17 year old car that does not have some rust on the front sub frame but is it surface rust that may be given an advisory at the next MOT or is it excessive corrosion i.e. a hole or holes or is the structure significantly weakened ?

again a 17 real old rear coil spring is going to have rust but to what extent is it rusted and also a 17 coil spring is possibly only one speed bump away from snapping so could have been fine when the car was MOT,d  five or six months ago

also the tyres without tread depths means nothing "the front tyres were in need of replacement with the rears not far behind" means nothing as many main dealers will say a tyre needs to be replaced at 3.0 mm but the legal limit for the mot is 1.6mm so where are your tyres as far as measurements go 

also the garage that has checked the car may be over egging things a little hoping for some extra work. because when you drove in you wanted some cosmetic issues fixed and they have told you it is nearly scrap
      

UncleFoss

paul_c123 said:

October MoT is 5+ months ago now, well outside the window to be able to appeal an MoT (you can appeal a pass as well as a fail, within a timeframe).

There's some elements of "bending the truth" on the advert, but its down to semantics and interpretation - it is to be expected that advert text "sells" a car, not just blandly lists things. Also its a 58 plate, quite old.

If he's a private seller I don't think there's any comeback, but if he's a trader there would be. To determine this, 1) was the V5 in his name? 2) how long had he owned the car (if he was the registered keeper), 3) how many other cars has he sold over what timeframe (more than 6/year is deemed to be a trader, I believe).

so V5 not in his name. MOT in October 24 was done at the garage that have done it for the last 7 years so assume purchased post MOT. Evidence of only 3 cars over last 2 years sold privately. He does work for a car dealership but suspect that doesn't count. 

force_ten1

also if the seller is a private seller then you do not have any protection under the consumer rights act 2015 

if to do want to pursue him through small claims you may have to try to prove that he is a dealer that is hiding behind being a private seller 

UncleFoss

First garage I went to did a lot of sucking through teeth about how bad the corrosion was. I went under the ramp and it did look substantial although no obvious holes. A fair number of bolts rusted to the subframe. Second more pragmatic, they're able to remedy, they think without replacing subframe but its going to cost. 

paul_c123

UncleFoss said:

paul_c123 said:

October MoT is 5+ months ago now, well outside the window to be able to appeal an MoT (you can appeal a pass as well as a fail, within a timeframe).

There's some elements of "bending the truth" on the advert, but its down to semantics and interpretation - it is to be expected that advert text "sells" a car, not just blandly lists things. Also its a 58 plate, quite old.

If he's a private seller I don't think there's any comeback, but if he's a trader there would be. To determine this, 1) was the V5 in his name? 2) how long had he owned the car (if he was the registered keeper), 3) how many other cars has he sold over what timeframe (more than 6/year is deemed to be a trader, I believe).

so V5 not in his name. MOT in October 24 was done at the garage that have done it for the last 7 years so assume purchased post MOT. Evidence of only 3 cars over last 2 years sold privately. He does work for a car dealership but suspect that doesn't count. 

V5 not in his name is an enormous red flag though. The only legitimate way he would have possession of that, was if he told the previous owner he was a trader, put the car into the trade (or let the seller put it into trade) online and asked for it/the seller gave it to them.

I suppose its possible the previous seller was very lazy and just handed the V5 over, not realising it was his responsibility to inform DVLA of the change of RK. And if he'd followed the simple instructions online, only given the green new keeper slip to a private buyer.

At a guess, this car was a Part Ex that he did a 'deal' with at work, probably paying the given part ex price to his boss/company, then took car + V5 to sell himself at home as a private seller, thus avoiding the CRA2015 obligations.

Trading Standards would be the ones you go to now.

force_ten1

UncleFoss said:

First garage I went to did a lot of sucking through teeth about how bad the corrosion was. I went under the ramp and it did look substantial although no obvious holes. A fair number of bolts rusted to the subframe. Second more pragmatic, they're able to remedy, they think without replacing subframe but its going to cost. 

you will not find many 17 year old cars that do not have some rust on the sub frames 

and it is not unusual to see " sub frame corroded but not seriously weakened" as an advisory on an MOT especially on an older car and it does not make the car unroadworthy and unfit for purpose