Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • BlackyPFC
    • By BlackyPFC 28th Dec 17, 9:38 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 2Thanks
    BlackyPFC
    Private car sale - buyer unhappy.
    • #1
    • 28th Dec 17, 9:38 PM
    Private car sale - buyer unhappy. 28th Dec 17 at 9:38 PM
    So, first post on here, hope you can help put my mind at ease.

    I sold my Clio 5 days ago online. I reduced the price from £500 to £450 after negotiating with the buyer. I sold to a 22 year old girl who I believe it was her 2nd car as she mentioned in text messages that she had crashed her first one.

    She went ahead and insured the car before i could even tell her where the car was located to cone view it. I thought this was odd but if she wasnt bothered about viewing it, well that is up to her. She taxed the car prior to arriving to pick the vehicle up.

    She paid in cash, a reciept was written including sold as seen. Which we both signed. We both have a copy.

    The advert for the car stated that the wing mirror cover was broken and that the car although it has 8 months MOT, it did have advisories. (I didnt specify, however the certificate was in the car should she wish to view it.)

    Anyway, so the car is sold and a day later I recieve a message saying that there are advisories on the car and did I know about them. I obviously said yes and stated that the advert said there were advisories, however she never asked me what they were. She never replied to this message although my phone tells me she read it.

    4 days pass and i think thats the end of it.

    Tonight I recieve this message:

    The car u sold me j have had nothing but problems with it, the gears won't work properly won't go into reverse now or first gear I would like some money back to get it sorted as it's unsafe for my daughter

    So I have replied with this:

    Evening,

    I can assure you that the car had no problems with the gears when it was sold to you. In order to get it onto the driveway it had to be reversed. In order for you to drive the car away you would have had to have put the car into first gear. You purchased the car 5 days ago, and only now you are reporting issues with it. I do not know how you have been driving the car and the standard of your driving. The car was sold as seen, which is stated on the reciept that you signed. You could have taken the car for a test drive when you arrived. However you decided to buy the car without even viewing it first. I understand that you are worried about your daughter however there were no issues with the gears when it was sold to you.

    When buying a private car the responsibility is on the buyer to ask questions and check the car over if they wish.

    The car was in a good state when sold to you. Has 8 months MOT. I reduced the price for you out of good will. I will not be refunding any money as I believe the money recieved was a fair price for the car.


    So I just wanted to check where I am from a legal point of view, and also if anyone believes that I am beong unreasonable, if so why?

    Many thanks

    DB
Page 3
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 12th Jan 18, 6:28 PM
    • 1,153 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    V5 doesn't show or prove ownership, it just shows who the registered keeper is who is responsible for the vehicle on the read. Any speeding/parking tickets will come your way but it doesn't mean you own the vehicle. Just make sure DVLA are aware of this scam straight away.
    Originally posted by LeeUK
    That will be down to the driver most of the time.

    The registered keeper is something as simple as the person responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle.
    • facade
    • By facade 12th Jan 18, 6:30 PM
    • 3,200 Posts
    • 1,687 Thanks
    facade
    I thought there was some sort of legal requirement to do with the registered keeper actually being the keeper, otherwise we could all register our cars to Mrs May at number 10, and forget all about VED, and never see any of those nasty NIPs......
    I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....

    (except air quality and Medical Science )
    • LeeUK
    • By LeeUK 12th Jan 18, 6:35 PM
    • 5,973 Posts
    • 2,717 Thanks
    LeeUK
    That will be down to the driver most of the time.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    Yes but as I say the tickets will go to the registered keeper and the registered keeper to prove it wasn't them.

    The registered keeper is something as simple as the person responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle.
    As I said - responsible for the vehicle on the road. You don't need it registered with DVLA if it was used exclusively off road on private land.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 12th Jan 18, 6:36 PM
    • 1,153 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    I thought there was some sort of legal requirement to do with the registered keeper actually being the keeper, otherwise we could all register our cars to Mrs May at number 10, and forget all about VED, and never see any of those nasty NIPs......
    Originally posted by facade
    There is but in this case the OP isnít a victim of fraud.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 12th Jan 18, 6:39 PM
    • 1,153 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    Yes but as I say the tickets will go to the registered keeper and the registered keeper to prove it wasn't them. Well no, any prosocution would need to prove the guilt of the person on trial



    As I said - responsible for the vehicle on the road. You don't need it registered with DVLA if it was used exclusively off road on private land.But the driver can be the keeper removing any responsibility of the registered keeper.
    Originally posted by LeeUK
    ..........
    • LeeUK
    • By LeeUK 12th Jan 18, 6:41 PM
    • 5,973 Posts
    • 2,717 Thanks
    LeeUK
    There might not be a signature if you change registered keeper online, but surely there is a statement and/or tick box that you are agreeing that the info you are submitting is correct.

    Fake details = not correct.
    • LeeUK
    • By LeeUK 12th Jan 18, 6:49 PM
    • 5,973 Posts
    • 2,717 Thanks
    LeeUK
    ..........
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    If you're the registered keeper and you are taken to court over a speeding ticket, and you don't disclose who was driving, the court will be under no unreasonable doubt that it was you.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 12th Jan 18, 6:54 PM
    • 1,153 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    If you're the registered keeper and you are taken to court over a speeding ticket, and you don't disclose who was driving, the court will be under no unreasonable doubt that it was you.
    Originally posted by LeeUK
    You, youíd be prosecuted for failing to name the driver and get six points instead of three. No presumption would be made as to who was driving.
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 12th Jan 18, 8:16 PM
    • 4,377 Posts
    • 3,846 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    There is but in this case the OP isn!!!8217;t a victim of fraud.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    But the fraud doesn't need to be committed against the OP.

    There's undoubtedly false representation, with the person making it knowing it's false, by notifying someone who doesn't have the car, doesn't know its whereabouts, and doesn't have any valid interest in it, as the keeper.

    By removing themselves as the keeper, by using this false representation, they stand to gain by avoiding the obligation for taxing and insuring their vehicle - because it is their vehicle.

    It would be very hard for them to argue that wasn't at least part of their intent.

    They also expose the OP to the risk of loss by attempting to shift those obligations onto him. In the circumstances, it would be fairly easy to argue convincingly that was part of their intent,

    It's likely (subject to whatever they do next) that this is a step in an attempt to sue for the money paid by claiming to have rejected the car. At that point their self declared intent is to inflict a loss of the purchase price on the OP, and a corresponding gain for themselves.

    So, there's definitely false representation, made knowingly, and at least 3 ways to show intent to either gain themselves or expose the OP to a loss. One of those ways is dependent on what further steps they take, the other two aren't.

    One isn't even dependent on any intent towards the OP at all - simply not wanting to pay the tax, insurance, or potential cost of off-road storage for their car is enough to complete the offence.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 12th Jan 18, 8:36 PM
    • 1,153 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    But the fraud doesn't need to be committed against the OP.

    There's undoubtedly false representation, with the person making it knowing it's false, by notifying someone who doesn't have the car, doesn't know its whereabouts, and doesn't have any valid interest in it, as the keeper.

    By removing themselves as the keeper, by using this false representation, they stand to gain by avoiding the obligation for taxing and insuring their vehicle - because it is their vehicle.

    It would be very hard for them to argue that wasn't at least part of their intent.

    They also expose the OP to the risk of loss by attempting to shift those obligations onto him. In the circumstances, it would be fairly easy to argue convincingly that was part of their intent,

    It's likely (subject to whatever they do next) that this is a step in an attempt to sue for the money paid by claiming to have rejected the car. At that point their self declared intent is to inflict a loss of the purchase price on the OP, and a corresponding gain for themselves.

    So, there's definitely false representation, made knowingly, and at least 3 ways to show intent to either gain themselves or expose the OP to a loss. One of those ways is dependent on what further steps they take, the other two aren't.

    One isn't even dependent on any intent towards the OP at all - simply not wanting to pay the tax, insurance, or potential cost of off-road storage for their car is enough to complete the offence.
    Originally posted by Joe Horner
    But if the car is used on a road they havenít avoided insurance. Itís all part of their pathetic attempt to reject the vehicle and action fraud will see it as such.
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 12th Jan 18, 8:53 PM
    • 4,377 Posts
    • 3,846 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    But if the car is used on a road they havenít avoided insurance. Itís all part of their pathetic attempt to reject the vehicle and action fraud will see it as such.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    Thereby causing a loss to the OP of the purchase price.

    So, we have false representation, knowingly made, with the intent of causing loss to the OP.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 12th Jan 18, 9:11 PM
    • 1,153 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    Thereby causing a loss to the OP of the purchase price.

    So, we have false representation, knowingly made, with the intent of causing loss to the OP.
    Originally posted by Joe Horner
    No, we donít.

    Even if the car was returned where is the loss?
    • arcon5
    • By arcon5 12th Jan 18, 9:15 PM
    • 13,572 Posts
    • 8,617 Thanks
    arcon5
    So the buyer purchased a car said to be in good working order. Immediately after gearbox issues surface forcing them to sell it at a massive loss. Unsurprisingly the seller denies all knowledge and quickly blocks buyers number.

    Sounds like a typical situation where somebody has started having intermittent faults and getting rid quickly before it becomes a money pit.

    Quite unfortunate for the buyer, even if they do have very few rights. But seller certainly doesn't seem to be whiter than white
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 12th Jan 18, 10:10 PM
    • 4,377 Posts
    • 3,846 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    No, we don!!!8217;t.

    Even if the car was returned where is the loss?
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    It doesn't work like that. The OP doesn't have that car any more and doesn't want or need it. The cash loss of the sale price is entirely separate from anything else.

    You can't just take something belonging to someone else and replace it with some random other thing of equivalent value. Otherwise I could come into your home (invited, of course, to avoid any charges there), remove your TV and leave you a dishwasher of equivalent value. By your logic you haven't lost your tv.
    • LeeUK
    • By LeeUK 12th Jan 18, 10:55 PM
    • 5,973 Posts
    • 2,717 Thanks
    LeeUK
    You, youíd be prosecuted for failing to name the driver and get six points instead of three. No presumption would be made as to who was driving.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    Oh you know what I mean. No need to get so pedantic about it.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 12th Jan 18, 11:00 PM
    • 1,153 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    Oh you know what I mean. No need to get so pedantic about it.
    Originally posted by LeeUK
    But thatís not what you said.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 12th Jan 18, 11:04 PM
    • 1,153 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    It doesn't work like that. The OP doesn't have that car any more and doesn't want or need it. The cash loss of the sale price is entirely separate from anything else.

    You can't just take something belonging to someone else and replace it with some random other thing of equivalent value. Otherwise I could come into your home (invited, of course, to avoid any charges there), remove your TV and leave you a dishwasher of equivalent value. By your logic you haven't lost your tv.
    Originally posted by Joe Horner
    I think you miss the point. The OP sold the car and was happy the price they got, there simply is no loss. No one has taken anything belonging to anyone else. The only exchange was the car and the cash at the time of that transaction everyone was happy for it to happen.
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 12th Jan 18, 11:53 PM
    • 4,377 Posts
    • 3,846 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    I think you miss the point. The OP sold the car and was happy the price they got, there simply is no loss. No one has taken anything belonging to anyone else. The only exchange was the car and the cash at the time of that transaction everyone was happy for it to happen.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    No, you're missing the point.

    The sale is finished, in the past, a done deal. The OP now owns whatever the price paid was. The buyer now owns a car ostensibly of that value. No loss has been suffered in that sale.

    BUT, by making a false representation as part of a plan to try and deprive the OP of the cash he (now) owns, the buyer is intending to inflict a loss of that cash on the OP.

    The fact he might try to leave an (unwanted by either of them) car in exchange is entirely beside the point, just as me leaving you with an unwanted dishwasher would be if I caused you to lose you TV.

    Note that the loss doesn't have to actually occur for fraud to be complete. All that's required is the false declaration (which is a given in this instance) and the intent to cause a loss.
    • George Michael
    • By George Michael 13th Jan 18, 12:35 AM
    • 3,083 Posts
    • 4,154 Thanks
    George Michael
    I would say that the easiest way to look at it is to ask yourself one question.
    "Why has the buyer transferred the car back to the OP without their knowledge or permission?"

    Unless they did this out of the goodness of their heart and are simply giving the OP a present of the car, any other reasons can think of would result in the op suffering a loss or a potential loss, something that the buyer must be aware of.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 13th Jan 18, 10:57 AM
    • 1,153 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    No, you're missing the point.

    The sale is finished, in the past, a done deal. The OP now owns whatever the price paid was. The buyer now owns a car ostensibly of that value. No loss has been suffered in that sale.

    BUT, by making a false representation as part of a plan to try and deprive the OP of the cash he (now) owns, the buyer is intending to inflict a loss of that cash on the OP.

    The fact he might try to leave an (unwanted by either of them) car in exchange is entirely beside the point, just as me leaving you with an unwanted dishwasher would be if I caused you to lose you TV.

    Note that the loss doesn't have to actually occur for fraud to be complete. All that's required is the false declaration (which is a given in this instance) and the intent to cause a loss.
    Originally posted by Joe Horner
    No, the has to be a loss or the op needs to be exposed to a risk of loss. In this case there is no risk.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,881Posts Today

8,310Users online

Martin's Twitter