Private car buyer asking for 'compensation' for faults.

[livetoclimb]

Good evening everybody.

I am a new member to the site, so hello! I've heard good things about LegalBeagles and I hope somebody here may be able to help me with what I hope doesn't turn out to be a financially painful experience for me, I'll itry and provide as much detail as necessary, but keep it to the point... oh - and I'm a private seller. No history of selling cars other than when I've changed my own personal car.

Last summer, I bought a 2005 Toyota Land Cruiser (100 Series 4.2TD for those who care) for £17,000. I paid for it outright from a combination of savings and a small inheritance from a Grandparent who had recently passed away. I thought it was an ideal vehicle as I was working outside of the city in the construction industry and had a company vehicle for most of my mileage. It was more of a toy than anything else, to go and see family in the countryside, go on climbing trips and enjoy a big comfortable 4x4. In November, I was offered a new job in a different industry, working in the centre of the city. I would not be provided with a work car and therefore needed to have something more economical. I decided to travel between November and December - nothing like a decent break to make sense of the world...

When I returned, with a little more clarity, I realised it was pointless paying the extortionate VED/insurance and FUEL!! etc on the big truck and to downsize to a more conventional estate car. So I put the Land Cruiser on eBay classifieds, and it sold the next day.

I've copied the ad in .pdf format to the post for your information.

The buyer came down with his daughter to look at it, we went on a 20 minute or so drive, I showed him the MOT certificate and the pretty extensive paperwork predating my ownership, etc. and after he 'went off to have a think' for half an hour or so, we agreed on a price of £15,000 (£1500 lower than my original asking price). [These things do hold their value well!] He drove it back to his home 2 hours or so away and texted me to let me know he'd got home safely and asked something about the 'change light' (I still don't know what this is). and I thought no more of it.

A day or two later, he had called me a few times, but I had been busy and am not in the habit of checking voicemails often. I never saved his number and I tend not to answer calls to unknown numbers. Approximately 5 days after the sale I checked my voice messages, and found a rather irate voicemail stating I should return his calls "or else he would have to take further action", but not telling me what the call regarded. Concerned, I immediately called him back and he said he had had his mechanic (I understand he is a farmer with a number of vehicles) check it over. A number of faults had transpired to be present.

These, I was told, included:
- leak in fuel tank when full;
- some fluid visible around brake pipes;
- battery light had come on at some point during his drive home.

I thanked him for letting me know, reminded him he had privately purchased a 14 year old used vehicle with 136,000 miles on it, and provided him with the details of the MOT centre from its last MOT (August 2018, no advisories and done not many miles covered since).

I heard nothing for roughly two weeks until this evening, when I received the following text:

"Hello [my name], Keeping you up to date with the Toyota, Replaced all the front break pipes, new fuel tank (£350 plus fitting) all new suspension pipes (£1200 plus fitting), alternator, and I've only driven it back from [my home city] so far, I will send you copies of the final bills and will be seeking some compensation, sorry for the bad news. I hope you understand. Thanks [buyer's name]" [sic].

Essentially, I am worried that he will chase me for costs associated with his repairs. I do not believe I am liable for them. We test drove the car (I drove it as he was not insured), it ran, stopped, started etc as it should and he was evidently satisfied. I showed him all of the 'gadgets' in it working, was very honest (it had been completely reliable for me), and his reasoning for 'bartering' the price down was that, as it was a fairly old vehicle, it would probably need some work done on it. I am not a mechanic, nor am I mechanically minded and at no point had, or realistically could I have been expected to, realise the significant presence of any issues he has raised with me. It genuinely drove brilliantly, for a car of the age, mileage and type. It is important to say that I have not offered him any money, nor admitted any kind of liability or fault for any of the issues present.

So what I am asking is, what should I say and do?

I have read a couple of threads on PistonHeads and on MSE which indicate that there have been times that a private seller has been held liable for repairs to privately sold vehicles in the SCC. I was the private owner and holder of the V5 of the vehicle, had the right to sell it, and sold it in all good faith to a buyer who I believe(d) bought it in good faith. To the best of my ability I advertised it clearly and accurately, and do not believe I mis-described the vehicle nor its condition. I do not believe it was misrepresented in the advertisement. I was genuinely unaware of the 'issues' I have been presented with, and its clear MOT from August 2018 enforced my understanding that the vehicle was in good roadworthy condition.

So, what is my likely legal standing in this situation? I do not have the time nor energy to deal with SCC proceedings, I do not have money to throw at this to 'make it go away' (and nor would I want to even if I did have the money) and whilst so far I have tried to be courteous and polite, I feel the buyer is not likely to remain so for much longer if I refuse to 'compensate' him. He knows where I live, and nothing would stop him returning here, although he seemed a nice man when I met him.

Thanks for reading my essay, and thank you in advance for your replies.

[des8]

Unless you are feeling generous and are desperate to avoid confrontation you could just ignore him.
On the other hand it might be easier and less stressful to see what he wants in the way of a refund, and perhaps negotiate with him.

You do not appear to have misdescribed the vehicle
The buyer examined the vehicle before purchasing
The principle buyer beware comes to mind
IMO he has no claim

Your choice

[livetoclimb]

Thanks for the quick response, DES8. Obviously this hasn't got as far as an actual claim against me (and I'm hoping it doesn't!) but I feel that to compromise on the 'compensation' he has mentioned would be tantamount to an admission of guilt (for want of a better word) and by that logic he may feel I should cover the whole lot. Wear and tear obviously happens, particularly to consumables, such as brakes and suspension. It's reassuring to know that the first responder to my thread believes he has no claim.

[des8]

Well you can just refuse to "compensate" him on the grounds discussed.
If he then initiates a claim, if you want to avoid the court for whatever reason, you have the opportunity to use a court mediation service.

[2222]

I don't agree with Des, I'm afraid. Sure, caveat emptor applies, but there are overriding laws relating to selling unroadworthy vehicles. It is a criminal offence under S75 of the RTA 88 to sell an unroadworthy vehicle, and that applies to private sellers.

On the face of it, leaking brakes and petrol tank make a car unroadworthy, but it depends on the degree of those leaks. A slight smear of brake oil might be acceptable, as long as it didn't need topping up regularly. I can't see how a leaky fuel tank can ever be anything but unsafe.

Alternator would not be an issue. Suspension pipes might be - to be frank, I'm not sure what they are! Does this have Hydrolastic suspension?

I am quite sure that you had no intention to sell an unroadworthy vehicle, but it's still a crime (if it was unroadworthy).

Personally, I would make noises about this being a private sale and point out that these repairs will have improved the vehicle substantially, but I'd be prepared to make a decent offer to make this problem go away!

A couple of linkies and the full text of that section of the act below.


https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Resident/Co...rthy-Cars.aspx

https://www.raccars.co.uk/about/safety/rights
75Vehicles not to be sold in unroadworthy condition or altered so as to be unroadworthy.

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section no person shall supply a motor vehicle or trailer in an unroadworthy condition.

(2)In this section references to supply include—

(a)sell,

(b)offer to sell or supply, and

(c)expose for sale.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a motor vehicle or trailer is in an unroadworthy condition if—

(a)it is in such a condition that the use of it on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section 41 of this Act as respects—

(i)brakes, steering gear or tyres, or

(ii)the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles,. . .

F1(iii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[F2(b)it is in such a condition that its use on a road would involve a danger of injury to any person]

(4)Subject to the provisions of this section no person shall alter a motor vehicle or trailer so as to render its condition such that the use of it on a road in that condition

[F3(a)]would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made as respects the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles by regulations under section 41 [F4or

(b)would involve a danger of injury to any person.]

(5)A person who supplies or alters a motor vehicle or trailer in contravention of this section, or causes or permits it to be so supplied or altered, is guilty of an offence.

(6)A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the supply or alteration of a motor vehicle or trailer if he proves—

(a)that it was supplied or altered, as the case may be, for export from Great Britain, or

(b)that he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or trailer would not be used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used, F5. . .

F6(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[F7(6A)Paragraph (b) of subsection (6) above shall not apply in relation to a person who, in the course of a trade or business—

(a)exposes a vehicle or trailer for sale, unless he also proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that any prospective purchaser would be aware that its use in its current condition on a road in Great Britain would be unlawful, or

(b)offers to sell a vehicle or trailer, unless he also proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that the person to whom the offer was made was aware of that fact.]

(7)Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall affect the validity of a contract or any rights arising under a contract.

[des8]

RTA violations are a criminal matter, but this is a civil dispute.
Caveat emptor still applies.
The seller may (inadvertently) committed a criminal offence, but it is still for the buyer to take care.

Your last sentence says it all:
(7)Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall affect the validity of a contract or any rights arising under a contract.

[pt2537]

As long as the advert was correct, then i think the buyer is in difficulty, caveat emptor, he could of and should of had an inspection done, The AA or RAC do inspections so he could have asked them to do one

[R0b]

I agree with Des generally in that I don't think the buyer has much of a claim. If I were to nit pick, you mentioned in your advert "Couple of small stone chips but generally in very good condition, despite the age of the car".

The buyer would have to argue (or at least try) that the above phrase would have covered the car's condition overall and your words of very good condition do not tally with the inspection by his mechanic friend. That could be a bit of a stretch for the buyer to cling on to but I can't see anything else that might suggest the vehicle's condition except for specific things like tyres.

I personally wouldn't ignore the buyer and I think you need to keep your communications in writing (by email?) in case the buyer does issue a claim and you can refer back to what was previously stated. I think all you need to say really is that the advert clearly set out the age of the vehicle together with the mileage and if he had concerns about the vehicle then he should have brought his mechanic along at the time of the viewing. caveat emptor applies. Nonetheless he test drove the vehicle and can assume he was happy because he then went on to purchase the vehicle. So at the time of sale, it was reasonable to infer that the car was in a roadworthy condition, he had an opportunity to inspect and test drive the vehicle, presumably the service history, MOT and other receipts that might be available, so the fact that there might be some repairs that need to be carried out is his problem not yours.

Just a little advice when selling goods which requires a description, you are always best keeping the description to a minimum. The more you describe the goods, the more likely you are prone to having a claim made against you and found liable. It's fine to describe things with what you can physically see, but making statements as to the condition of the goods unless you are confident that it's true and can evidence it, could land you in trouble, even without realising it. You are making a statement to the potential buyer and if that statement is relied on by the buyer but turns out to be false, then you could have a claim for misrepresentation.

[livetoclimb]

Thanks for your replies - much appreciated and I'll keep you updated. I'm hoping I can get him to see sense by reminding him that it is him that gets to benefit from the repairs rather than me, and that given the age of the vehicle, similar issues could well have transpired in due course anyway. The vehicle was not knowingly misrepresented and he had every opportunity to fully inspect the vehicle prior to purchase. Should he persist, I will remind him of caveat emptor and the inherent risk of buying from a private seller.

To clarify a couple of things mentioned earlier, the brakes appeared to work perfectly. If a >2 tonne car (on off-road tyres) can emergency stop in the wet in line with other traffic that would indicate (to the layman/driver, at least) that they are working properly and therefore roadworthy. The fuel tank leak is based on the buyer's word. I never experienced any leak/residue underneath/fuel loss from it whatsoever (or any other leak for that matter). The suspension issue (having spent the last hour reading up on it) appears to be some complicated fluid based system (fluid is pumped around to facilitate raising or lowering the suspension), which I demonstrated working at the time of viewing. These systems are secondary to a standard coil/torsion bar suspension set-up. The ability to raise and lower the suspension is not a matter of roadworthiness. As I said, it worked when he took it and the first I heard of this repair was when he texted me yesterday,

Given that he has already carried out these repairs, and they have been done by 'his mechanic', the only hard evidence he is likely to be able to provide is that various replacements have been done. To me, this does not constitute conclusive proof that these issues existed, or at least to the extent he is claiming.

Really not what I need right now! If he wanted a new vehicle he should have bought one

[livetoclimb]

A slight update - I looked at the V5C copy I have (I took a photo with his details once they had been filled in) and it in fact transpires that whilst he purported to be a private buyer, he has bought the vehicle through his business (a Farm) and the business is now the keeper. Does this make any difference to his request? He made no mention at the time of purchase that it would be a Ltd. Company purchasing the vehicle.

[des8]

No
good night

[livetoclimb]

Cheers again Des - goodnight to you too.

[2222]

'Given that he has already carried out these repairs, and they have been done by 'his mechanic', the only hard evidence he is likely to be able to provide is that various replacements have been done. To me, this does not constitute conclusive proof that these issues existed, or at least to the extent he is claiming. '

That's a red herring. The standard of proof is balance of probabilities. ** There's bound to be some sort of report from the mechanic available about why these repairs were necessary. Nobody sane would replace the fuel tank unless it was on its last legs.


** All the dramas on TV are criminal trials where the standard is beyond reasonable doubt. This is different and you will have an uphill struggle persuading the judge the work did not need doing.

[ostell]

So a tank leaking fuel when it wasa full. Hmmmm probably a loose connection to the filler cap hose.