"Me as a private individual am not expected to have the knowledge to be able to check a car properly..."

I'm not so sure. In fact, you demonstrate in your post that you are able to do so.

But I suspect the law may take the view that ignorance of an offence having been committed does not get you off the hook. Put another way, why should the person/organisation who has accepted your car pick up the tab on an issue that happened further up the line? The car was clearly not as represented.

I think the issue is not whether you clocked it or not, but simply that it was clocked by someone.

At the moment I'd say go for 1). As for 3), presumably you haven't fitted anything major in a few days; not worth fighting over.

I'd be interested to see what others make of this.

Edited by FP on 29/05/2015 at 18:29

As above, give it back for a less stressful life.

By all means negotiate re the tyres, but why would you buy the Vauxhall with 4 worn tyres and dodgy brakes? Presumably this was allowed for in the price anyway.

Similarly, how can you not have the details of where/who you bought the Audi from, just because 'it's a cash sale'? Why did you not do the basic checks before buying it?

Something not right here.

But as FP and RobJP say, as far as the dealer is concerned you've part exchanged a clocked car, i.e. not as represented, so any paperwork you both signed becomes null and void, as the contract has been broken.

The whole sad sorry story of an identical situation here.

www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23...0

The dealer took the unfortunate owner to court - the dealer lost.

It might be a good idea to print this saga above out and show it to your dealer because it seems they are wasting their time (and yours).

A somewhat different situation, as in the case you quote the dealer took 7 months (!) to come back to the individual. Their 'due diligence' was not very diligent, and was more 'overdue' than 'due'

In this case, it is a matter of a (very) small number of days where the dealer realised the car was clocked. A very different situation.

I'm sure a MOT issued in 2014 will show the previous 3 MOT mileages as well. What do they show?

It is an offence to knowingly misrepresent the mileage on a car regardless of whether you are a dealer or a private seller. If you presented the car as having correct mileage but a quick check of the MOT indicates it wasn't then the dealer can quite easily argue in all probablility you knew.

Ahh. But the thing is, these days, an MOT has the previous few MOT mileages logged on it. In your case, there would have been no documentation to ever show that the mileage had been higher, as it was only 3 months old when you purchased it.

Now, the OP does not (unless I've missed it) give the age of the Audi, but he does state that the (previous) mileage on it appears to be 166k. Probably slightly older than your case, a 3 month old car with 8 miles on the clock ...

The dealer took the documentation that the OP provided at face value. Three days later, they found out that the mileage appeared to have been altered - to a considerable extent. They (understandably) want to unwind the deal.

This isn't (like your case) a 3 month old car (which would have no records to suggest mileage being altered). It isn't (like the pistonheads case) 7 months later (which is unreasonably late on). It's the same week (Monday sale, Thursday the dealer wants their car back).