My son has recently purchased privately a 2002 Ford Mondeo that was advertised as being a "very clean original genuine example of this ever popular car". He inspected it and was shown a large number of receipts for servicing at a main Ford agent. On that basis, he purchased the car. Shortly after purchase, he discovered that the car did not always start when the ignition was turned but if he got out, locked the car, then re-entered, the car started. He believed that this might have been a fault of the remote control locking system that he was prepared to have done.

However, within a couple of weeks of purchase, the car refused to start and the RAC had to be called. The RAC mechanic pointed out that a replacement starter motor had recently been fitted and this puzzled my son as there had been no reference to it in the documents produced. He telephoned the vendor who confirmed that a replacement starter motor had been fitted and that this work had been done "privately" - hence no receipt. The car was taken to a local garage who immediately identified the failure of the starter motor as a result of the clutch not being simultaneously replaced, My son then discovered the bulletin on the Ford web site that confirmed that if the clutch was not simultaneously replaced, the starter motor would soon fail and that they would not regard this as a warranty claim. He also understands that a further warning is placed inside the carton that contains the starter motor.

When the clutch was removed, photographs was taken of the "muck" that came out of the bell housing and the starter motor. He has tried to negotiate with the vendor of splitting the cost of the repair between them (£1004) on the basis that the car was misrepresented and has threatened to use the County Court, but the vendor will not budge. Does my son has a case?