Tweet
Hi,
I recently bought a used vehicle from a private seller, and subsequently discovered that the claim, for a "Full Service History", made in the advert I responded to was not true - in fact there was no documentary evidence of any servicing taking place for the last six years.
By the time I had discovered this, I had taxed & insured the vehicle, filled the fuel tank, and sold my previous vehicle.
I engaged in a text conversation with the seller which seems to confirm that they were aware that the claim for a full service history was false, but also claiming that the website they posted the ad to had forced the claim and that they were unable to change it.
I subsequently learned, by creating my own ad, that this claim was also false.
I believe that this would constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation of the vehicle under the Misprepresentation act 1967.
I asked them to cover the cost for an examination of the vehicle to see whether it had suffered any issues that might have resulted from lack of servicing, which they refused to do.
They offered a full refund, or a payment of £25 by way of apology if I kept the car.
I refused the refund as I had already made further expenditures and had no other vehicle to fall back on, and I refused the payment, as I did not believe it represented appropriate compensation.
I submitted the vehicle for examination at my own cost and there were several findings ::-
- The car was indeed well overdue for a major service
- There faults in the suspension, which would likely have been diagnosed and rectified during a previous service
- The service centre also stated that the car in it's current state would not pass an MoT test.
I gave the go-ahead for a full service, and to bring the car up to MoT test standard.
It subsequently turned out after the cooling system was drained and re-filled that there was a hole in the radiator, that required a replacement unit. This fault also should have been diagnosed and rectified during a previous service.
The total costs for this work was £937.
I have written a letter to the seller fully laying out what has occurred, and asking for some compensation to cover a portion of my costs.
They have responded to say that the misrepresentation was a "mistake", and that the text messages which indicate that it was a fraudulent misrepresentation was a "miscommunication"
They believe that their offer of a full refund was sufficient to absolve them of any further liability and will not be offering any compensation.
As I understand it, the Misrepresentation Act 1967 makes allowance for the purchaser to refuse rescission of the contract and seek damages instead where the subject of the contract cannot be restored.
Given that I had already made additional expenditures and sold my previous vehicle at the time I discovered the misrepresentation, am I correct to believe that I had proper grounds to refuse the offer of a full refund, as it would have resulted in me being out of pocket and with no transport?
I am now considering going to the small claims court to request compensation, but would really appreciate some further advice before I do so.
Regards,
sllewji
I recently bought a used vehicle from a private seller, and subsequently discovered that the claim, for a "Full Service History", made in the advert I responded to was not true - in fact there was no documentary evidence of any servicing taking place for the last six years.
By the time I had discovered this, I had taxed & insured the vehicle, filled the fuel tank, and sold my previous vehicle.
I engaged in a text conversation with the seller which seems to confirm that they were aware that the claim for a full service history was false, but also claiming that the website they posted the ad to had forced the claim and that they were unable to change it.
I subsequently learned, by creating my own ad, that this claim was also false.
I believe that this would constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation of the vehicle under the Misprepresentation act 1967.
I asked them to cover the cost for an examination of the vehicle to see whether it had suffered any issues that might have resulted from lack of servicing, which they refused to do.
They offered a full refund, or a payment of £25 by way of apology if I kept the car.
I refused the refund as I had already made further expenditures and had no other vehicle to fall back on, and I refused the payment, as I did not believe it represented appropriate compensation.
I submitted the vehicle for examination at my own cost and there were several findings ::-
- The car was indeed well overdue for a major service
- There faults in the suspension, which would likely have been diagnosed and rectified during a previous service
- The service centre also stated that the car in it's current state would not pass an MoT test.
I gave the go-ahead for a full service, and to bring the car up to MoT test standard.
It subsequently turned out after the cooling system was drained and re-filled that there was a hole in the radiator, that required a replacement unit. This fault also should have been diagnosed and rectified during a previous service.
The total costs for this work was £937.
I have written a letter to the seller fully laying out what has occurred, and asking for some compensation to cover a portion of my costs.
They have responded to say that the misrepresentation was a "mistake", and that the text messages which indicate that it was a fraudulent misrepresentation was a "miscommunication"
They believe that their offer of a full refund was sufficient to absolve them of any further liability and will not be offering any compensation.
As I understand it, the Misrepresentation Act 1967 makes allowance for the purchaser to refuse rescission of the contract and seek damages instead where the subject of the contract cannot be restored.
Given that I had already made additional expenditures and sold my previous vehicle at the time I discovered the misrepresentation, am I correct to believe that I had proper grounds to refuse the offer of a full refund, as it would have resulted in me being out of pocket and with no transport?
I am now considering going to the small claims court to request compensation, but would really appreciate some further advice before I do so.
Regards,
sllewji
Comment