Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

[yellowbelly]

Came across this site whilst researching info regarding the sale of a private motor vehicle and a small claims court lodged against me.

I recently sold a motorhome in a private sale. (It was listed on a well known auction site) The purchasers spent 2 hours at my house looking it over. I believe I was completely honest in my description and answered all their questions to the best of my knowledge (they did not take a test drive despite it being taxed, MOT'd and insured). They paid a deposit in cash (to end the listing early) after the viewing and transferred the balance by direct transfer 4 days later. They asked if I could deliver the vehicle for them which I agreed to do as a matter of courtesy as they lived not far from my parents. The delivery necessitated taking the vehicle into work and then going directly to them at the end of the day. On the way into work the gearbox developed a fault when selecting third gear. I took it to a local garage who gave it a short inspection and provided some advice that it was probably a sticking syncromesh and should free up with use. It was still ok to drive, just crunched when selecting third gear. (The vehicle had been unused over the winter and recently put back on the road for the summer with a fresh MOT only three weeks before). I delivered the vehicle to them in the evening and notified the husband of the fault immediately on my arrival. He did not query it and after a brief look round they signed the V5 and returned it to me for posting. After about 15 minutes of showing them around other systems on the vehicle I left assuming that they were happy.

After about ten days i received a letter from them complaining of the gearbox fault, saying I misled them and threatening legal action if i didn't put it right or pay for the repairs (£975 at a local specialist). This I replied to immediately saying how sorry I was but was unable to do anything as it was a private sale. I then received a notification of a claim from the small claims court claiming that I told them that the vehicle drove well, which it did at the time of their viewing and that I did not notify them of the fault until after they had signed the paperwork and paid for the vehicle. I lodged my denial and the defence similar to what I have written here. The latest thing is the offer of mediation or direct to court action.

I can't see mediation working as I do not feel that I should be responsible for the repairs to the gearbox which according to their specialist is a broken part internally (which would explain it happening suddenly on the way into work) but I am obviously worried about the possibility of court action. Would I be better off coming to some compromise? They are saying that it happened whilst still in my possession but I only still had it at their request.

Any advice would be gratefully received

[wales01man]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

Can you try to reach a compromise if not they may well win in court.

[ostell]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

From what you said you made him aware of the problem and therefore, as it was a private sale there should be no comeback, especially as you were just delivering their vehicle. However...... If it got to court judge may not be too happy. Go for mediation. I know it hurts but perhaps offer to pay half of the quote for the work, £450, on sight of the invoice for the work.

[yellowbelly]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

Thanks for the advice. I will go to the mediation and see what happens.

[Johnboy007]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

I think the 50/50 solution is not fair, and the seller should offer the buyer his money back.
Why? I hear you ask.
Saying how sorry I was but was unable to do anything as it was a private sale, is in my opinion, not a very nice statement to make.
From what the buyer states, the gearbox developed a fault on driving it to his place of work.
Had the buyer taken a test drive, then it is likely that the fault would have developed, or been noticed.
This may very well have resulted in no sale.
I got stung like this from buying a car on that well known auction site, and my sympathies lie with the buyer.
It's about time that legislation was altered to bring private sales of vehicles, more into line with traders sale of vehicles.
I only have to ask one question to the seller.
If the boot was on the other foot, would you be happy, having paid out hard earned money. With the answer you gave, "saying how sorry I was but was unable to do anything as it was a private sale".

[ostell]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

It is awkward but the buyer was the new owner of the car. The seller has no liability but I think the offer of 50/50 is a reasonable compromise. The car could have broken down within a few days and then the buyer would have to meet the total bill.

[Johnboy007]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

It is awkward but the buyer was the new owner of the car. The seller has no liability but I think the offer of 50/50 is a reasonable compromise. The car could have broken down within a few days and then the buyer would have to meet the total bill.

I understand your very valid point.
But the facts of the case are........
The van did not break down within a few days.
The van broke down before the buyer took possession.
So should not the seller, be responsible for the full costs of repairs?
The other point to consider is, that the buyer did not in any way, contribute to the breakdown.
So why should he have to pay for the repair?
The seller may very well have notified the buyer of the fault, but did he also add, 'that it was probably a sticking syncromesh and should free up with use'
Which obviously was not the fault.
The buyer did purchase from the seller on trust.
Has the trust been upheld?
I don't think so.
The seller should do the right thing, offer the buyer his money back in exchange for the faulty motor-home.

If I was judge in a court case over this, I would rule for the buyer.

[yellowbelly]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

I was simply trying to assist the buyer with delivery from a good will point of view which for me was a 45 minute trip each way. It looks like my trying to help has possibly caused me a court case or a financial cost. In the future I will not be so helpful which is a sad state of affairs. As I said at the time of sale it was working fine, they didn't test drive to confirm, they were notified of the issue at time of delivery and still didn't drive it in my presence or query it before signing the paperwork. I think I have tried to be reasonable but their letter to me stated that I had misrepresented the vehicle and under the sale of goods act either had to refund the full cost or make good the cost of repair.

I am quite prepared to try and reach a compromise at mediation but feel that the full responsibility is not completely with me. Would you not consider it reasonable to test drive a vehicle prior to purchase especially one costing 11k? Without test driving how can they accuse me of misrepresentation?

[Johnboy007]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

You asked 'Without test driving how can they accuse me of misrepresentation'?
By the statements you make.
They do not necessarily have to be in writing.
If you stated that the 11k van, which with the repair is nearer to 12k, was in good working order, and it developed a fault before he took possession.
Then I would expect you as the seller, to rectify the fault.
I have to also refer you to what I stated previously....
You may very well have notified the buyer of the fault, but you would also have told him, 'that it was probably a sticking syncromesh and should free up with use'. Which you claim is what the garage told you.
Obviously the fault was much more serious than that, and the buyer could not have known this, especially after your statement about the sticky syncromesh, that should free up with use.
Sorry my friend, this just doesn't wash with me.
It is the buyer who has lost in every instance.
He deserves his money back and you should do what is morally right.
Give him his money back, get the repair done and resell the van for 12k.
It may also save you a court case and added costs.

[ostell]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

their letter to me stated that I had misrepresented the vehicle and under the sale of goods act either had to refund the full cost or make good the cost of repair.

As a private seller I'm fairly sure the sale of goods act does not apply. But I'm willing to be proved wrong. It is really caveat emptor.

[des8]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

My daughter had a similar prob.
Sold a vehicle, which buyer inspected before purchase.
Next day purchaser cried misrepresentation, and eventually filed a claim.
After dealing with court mediator for daughter, and pointing out that as the seller had inspected the vehicle before purchase and that what was or was not said was therefor of no consequence. the purchaser did not continue her action.

Legally, as the purchaser inspected the vehicle prior to completing the private deal, I cannot see how they have a claim.
Morally there might be a different argument.

[Johnboy007]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

My daughter had a similar prob.
Sold a vehicle, which buyer inspected before purchase.
Next day purchaser cried misrepresentation, and eventually filed a claim.
After dealing with court mediator for daughter, and pointing out that as the seller had inspected the vehicle before purchase and that what was or was not said was therefor of no consequence. the purchaser did not continue her action.

Legally, as the purchaser inspected the vehicle prior to completing the private deal, I cannot see how they have a claim.
Morally there might be a different argument.

In the court the judge may decide that the buyer did not have the qualifications or know-how, to be able to inspect the vehicle, to determine it's condition, and certainly not it's mechanical condition.

But the point you are overlooking is, the fault occurred or was there already, before the buyer took possession.
As he in no way, contributed to the fault, why should he be made liable for repairs.
It's morally wrong mate, and I would support any legislation that would end this loophole.

[des8]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

In law if a purchaser, in a private deal, inspects the vehicle before concluding the purchase the principle "caveat emptor" (as already pointed out) applies. This is regardless of his expertise.
If the purchaser has the opportunity (and avails himself of that opportunity) to inspect the vehicle it is up to him to rely on his own expertise or to take another with him to examine the vehicle. It matters not whether the fault was there or not when the buyer purchased the vehicle.
The purchaser cannot now turn round and say he relied on the sellers description.

To throw a curve ball: could the purchaser claim the vehicle was left in sellers care and control, and so the seller is responsible for the fault which occurred after the sale?

[Johnboy007]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

In law if a purchaser, in a private deal, inspects the vehicle before concluding the purchase the principle "caveat emptor" (as already pointed out) applies. This is regardless of his expertise.
If the purchaser has the opportunity (and avails himself of that opportunity) to inspect the vehicle it is up to him to rely on his own expertise or to take another with him to examine the vehicle. It matters not whether the fault was there or not when the buyer purchased the vehicle.
The purchaser cannot now turn round and say he relied on the sellers description.

To throw a curve ball: could the purchaser claim the vehicle was left in sellers care and control, and so the seller is responsible for the fault which occurred after the sale?

What about the question of 'Doing what is right and proper'?
How would you feel if it had happened to you?
This is a loophole and it needs to be closed.
It is morally wrong to cheat someone out of their hard earned money, even if it is done in a legal way.
The guy could have paid for the repair, and would still have been over 10k in pocket.
But no, he used a loophole in the law to, in my opinion, cheat the buyer out of his money.
That's all I have to say about the subject.

[des8]

Re: Hi all - small claims court - private motor vehicle

Well Johnboy looks like we must agree to differ.
I do not think it is right for us to insinuate that posters are cheating if they act within the law. They come looking for help.
The op tells us he sold the vehicle and at that time he believed the vehicle to be in good condition.
The buyers chose to waive their right to test drive or have it examined by a mechanic.
We have no reason to doubt the validity of these statements.
The purchasers are now seemingly issuing a court claim on the basis of the sale of goods act 1979
I assume (as we have not heard to the contrary) they are relying on section 14 (goods must be of satisfactory quality) but that only applies where goods are sold in the course of a business.
Purchasers have/are going to learn a lesson the hard way. If you are shelling out lots of dosh ... do a proper check and don't cry afterwards if you lose because you didn't check.