I am in the process of taking a dealer to small claims court - I bought a Toyota previa from them in June for £3125. It was 12 years old and had done 130,000 miles. It broke down 2 months later having done another 2500 miles with gear box problems and we were told we needed to recondition it or buy a new gear box.

Both options would be over £2000 to get it running again. I spoke to the dealer (independent) and told them I thought they had sold me a car that was not of satisfactory quality for a reasonable period but they maintain that it is reasonable for a car of this age & mileage to have a gear box problem due to wear & tear and that they have checked this with trading standards and they are not liable for expected wear & tear.

I have subsequently found out from the garage that stripped the gear box that the damage was due to driving while fluid level in the gear box was low. So my question is - when I go to court would my best position be that they shouldn't have sold me a car with low transmission oil levels (that it would not be possible for me to check) and that was how the car was damaged or should I stick to the fact that a 12 year old car that I drove for 2500 miles and I paid over £3000 for should have reasonably been expected not to have gear box problems?