Hi all,
I'm new here, wish I'd found this place a while ago before my small tale of woe!
Anyway, I'll try and keep it brief: I recently sold a 1992 Peugot 405 for £300 (inc. 6M Tax and 2M MOT). Car was a bit tatty, but running OK, I agreed with buyer that car needed "some attention".
A week later, he phoned me to say he's had an inspection and it'll cost £600 to get it through an MOT. This was much more that he originally thought, so he wants to return car for full refund!
I was sure that I was in the right - but my local trading standards say that even on agreed private deal the car *must* be 'roadworthy' and 'capable of passing an MOT'. Even worse, I've unknowingly committed an offence under Road Traffic Act 1998 in that it is illegal to sell a car with faults in brakes, tyres, exhaust, lights etc and max fine is £5000!!!
Of course, the list of faults on my ex-cars inspection included headlight reflectors, exhaust, tyres and brake problems. Exactly those that make the car 'unroadworthy'.
This is incredible! Where does 'buyer beware' fit into this? Can we really buy any cheap private car, not bother inspecting, then get a refund if there's a fault in the critical areas? This sounds like 'buying on approval' to me!
Why are buyers advised to bother checking tyres, brakes, exhausts etc as if there is any fault in these components, the seller has commited a criminal offence and the buyer entitled to a refund even if they've not even seen the car?
I'd love to hear your opinions on this - thanks.
|
|
Does this mean its now illegal to sell an obviously unroadworthy car for "spares or repair"? Surely not. If this were the case it would never be possible to get rid of a car which is beyond economic repair. No wonder so many get dumped at the roadside.
|
I'm fairly sure (though no lawyer) that this is aimed at dealers only - have a look at this link from the DTI - Question 11
www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/cars.htm
|
|
|
|
|
I may be wrong in this assumption.But if anyone looks at a car should have inspection done before buying not after.problem you have is you dont know what the car has been through in the time the car was sold.but for price you sold it for would have said spares or repair as far as I know that would cover it.no comeback then.I would expect someone to say otherwise?
|
|
|
They would have to prove that either you actually knew about those faults or that it was reasonable that you should have been aware of them. They\'d then have to prove that you deliberately either caused or allowed the buyer to be misled.
Other than that, unless you\'re trading, I can\'t see the issue. And its got nothing to do with trading standards - and I\'d love to know how they they believe you should know whether or not it will pass an MOT in 2 months time. Unless they are saying that all cars must have an inspection, although that would not guarantee it would get an MOT 5 minutes later.
I\'d tell them all to go and sing if I were you.
However, if you feel you need formal legal advice, then go and see a lawyer.
|
|
Going to see a lawyer could end up costing more than this car was worth.
|
Many years ago I had a similar problem.
I advertised an old Mini for £120 for spares or repair. I made the mistake of saying "little work needed for MOT" in the ad. The buyer then went to get it inspected and this was apparently not accurate. He showed me the MOT failure sheet. I was a little surprised but the buyer insisted that he was intitled to a refund.
I explained that it was a private sale and that I was not trading. However, we amicably agreed a partial refund and I did not re imburse him for the MOT.
I then sold the car for £140 for spares the following week!
I suggest that the Trading Standards chap thought you were a dealer. As Mark says, the buyer would have to prove you knew that there were faults with it that you did not disclose. As a private seller, the law dictates that you cannot be regarded as an expert.
I suggest you check this out with the Citizens Advice people (CAB in your local phone book) or a solicitor may be able to give you an initial free interview where he can advise you.
Your response to the buyer should be along the lines of "As a private individual I have met all my legal and moral obligations. I am not trading and was completely open and honest about the condition and roadwortheyness of the vehicle to the best of my knowledge"
Don't even enter into a discussion about the fact that the sale took place 2 months before. This is not relevent because you stayed within the law.
If he asked you to agree to an inspection when he viewed the car on a sale or return basis, then that is a different matter.
I suspect he is just trying it on. I'm afraid the world is full of them.
Hugo
|
|
He really needs to be told where to park the car,preferably with the doors wide open.
|
|
|
You might be on tricky grounds if your advertisement was incorrect. So if you put 'runs well' when patently it didn't, then you could be in for trouble. But by the looks of things you put 'needs some attention'. Now I wouldn't want to debate the meaning of 'some', but £600 doesn't seem like much (if any) more than 'some'.
I'd tell him to get lost. Read these, and then see what applies to your position (and more interestingly, what doesn't.
www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/salegoodsact.htm
www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/guide/unsatisfactory.htm
tinyurl.com/29zw5
www.adviceguide.org.uk/secondhand_cars-2.pdf
You may still end up in the small claims court, but the judge should throw the case out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
turnip3, TBH it's just not worth the hassle, if he's only had the car a week I'd give him his money back, less £100 for one week's hire. Are you reluctant to give him his money back because of the impending cost (quoted by him) to put it right, or is it just a matter of principle ? If it is the latter then by all means go ahead and contest it, you will probably win but it may cost you. If it is the former (cost of repairs) then I wouldn't worry about it, he's either exaggerating or it's a quote from a garage. You'll probably be able to get a lower quote or fix it yourself if you're handy with the tools.
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies and the support! I still think I may get some legal advice if the buyer persists with his complaint.
The confusing thing is that although most car buying advice states "buyer beware", there are also those (generally the local trading standards depts) stating that even in private sale, a car must be 'roadworthy'. eg My council has this : "Whether you buy privately or from a trader, you are entitled to expect the vehicle to be capable of passing an MOT test when you buy it (unless you and the seller clearly agree it is to be sold as scrap)."
As for advertising, I just put a "For Sale" sign on the car, so that shouldn't be a problem. My ignorance of the problems also shouldn't be in doubt. First, changing a spark plug is the limit of my car mechanic knowledge! Second, I'd had the front brake discs replaced only 6 weeks before the sale. The mechanic said nothing of any further work being required on the brakes. All lights appeared to be working fine to my (laymans) eyes, apparently now they need replacing as "the reflectors have gone".
Part of the problem is understanding what 'roadworthy' means. Apparently it has nothing to do with having a valid MOT. Not very helpful. If the buyers inspection mechanic deemed the car 'unroadworthy', hasn't he commited an offence by allowing the buyer to drive away in it post-inspection?
For now I shall wait to see if the buyer continues with his threatened legal action. BTW I emailed Honest John who replied that "if the faults were safety related, then the buyer WOULD be entitled to a refund" even for private sale.
The shock to me is that it appears that it really is the sellers responsibility to accurately assess the vehicles roadworthiness, even for private trade. The exception is if you clearly advertise if for spares or repairs. Not surprising that there are so few genuine private sale, cheap cars around these days.
|
|
As I recall I did mention that ie spares or repair.price you asked for it I assume was for quick sale.so should have said that.but dont think your responsability if once bought had check done after?
|
This highlights the adviseability of having a receipt for sale which has been mentioned elsewhere forming a so called contract.
The law on this matter is at Section 75 Road Traffic Act 1988 which makes it an offence to supply a motor vehicle or trailer in unroadworthy condition. The term "supply" is defined as sell, offer to sell or supply and expose for sale. "Unroadworthy" means if it is in such condition that is use on a road would be unlawful in respect of brakes, steering or tyres or in the construction, weight or equipment of the vehicles. Also if the use on road would involve danger or injury to any person (jagged edges of bodywork etc)
However, not an offence, if it can be proved that the supply was for export from GB, or, if supplier had reasonable cause to believe that its use on a road in GB would not be so until it use as such was made lawful.
An important para at Sub Section 7 is that nothing in the section shall affect the validity of a contract or any rights arising under a contract. It is therefore essential that words are included that the vehicles is sold as seen, without any implied understanding that the vehicle is in roadworthy condition and if faults are present these will rectified before use on a road.
From what is said Trading Standards are referring to Road Traffic Law and not misrepresentation under Supply of Goods Acts which place more onus on trade sellers than private individuals.
DVD
|
|
|
|
Below the text for the sale receipt I give private sale buyers. Any comments welcome as to refining it as I put this together from a variety of sources.....
Receipt
Make: ..................
Model: ....................
Colour: ......................
VIN Number: ........................
Registration No: ......................
First Registered: ..................
Recorded Mileage: .....................
MOT Expiry: ..............
Car Tax Expiry: .............
Registration Document completed by buyer/seller Yes/No
Registration Document (V5c) exchanged Yes/No
Notes/Comments:
......................................................................
......................................................................
.
The undersigned purchaser acknowledges receipt of the above vehicle in exchange for the cash sum of £ ............... being the price agreed by the purchaser with the vendor for the above named vehicle, receipt of which the vendor hereby acknowledges.
It is understood the vehicle is sold as seen, tried and approved by the purchaser without any representations, warranties or conditions express or implied whatsoever.
Purchaser Signature: ..............................................
Printed: ...........................
Dated: ............
Vendor Signature: ..................................................
Printed: ...................
Dated: ............
|
|
|
Thanks DVD, I'd completely missed the subsection that you quote. Translating from legalese, I think it means that as long as the buyer agrees to the sale and I've broken no other sales regulations (misdescribed the vehicle etc.), then our contract is binding and the vehicle is still his and he has no right to a refund.
The sales receipt is an excellent idea - if I'd used this, it would probably have avoided the problem.
Thinking about it, there is a possibility that the buyer may actually be attempting some kind of scam: First buy a cheap, worn old car from a naive seller. Have it quickly inspected (by an 'associate') and produce the most expensive list possible of repairs. Contact the seller, quoting Trading Standards, Traffic Acts, "you sold an Unroadworthy car", threaten seven shades of legal hell if the seller doesn't refund money towards the repairs. Then, with a couple of hundred quid refund, take the car to another mechanic 'associate' and get any MOT work done as cheaply as possible - or even do it yourself. Voila! A car with a years MOT that cost you virtually nothing and you can sell on for twice the original price!
It sounds crazy, but could explain some unusual behaviour by the buyer. Mainly, that he didn't really inspect it at all. He (and a colleague), spent less than 10 mins looking round the car, saying that they "didn't know anything about cars". The car started badly - it took 5 or 6 attempts. I offered a test drive, but they refused - which is *very* unusual.
They didn't negotiate about the price at all, just produced the cash there and then. The whole sale took less than 20 minutes. Also the car wasn't for them it was for "someone else".
To me, it also seems odd that they took it for a pre-MOT inspection just 6 weeks before the MOT was due. Maybe I'm just a slacker, but I would wait till the MOT was due! It's like they were already planning for some legal wrangling over the car.
This would explain the lack of proper inspection and price haggling. If the car is a genuine bargain, then all is well. If not, then put the legal frighteners on the seller to cover the repairs or just take the car back.
I doubt if I'll ever sell a car privately again, but for anyone who does, the advice must be to make the buyer to sign some kind of receipt, as Charles suggests.
|
It does sound like the buyer is pulling a fast one of some sort. The whole vehicle inspection thing sounded dodgy to me, "reflectors needing replacing" is a rather old garage trick to get some easy money for a job that doesn't really need doing. You can't expect a £300 car with 2 months of MOT to pass an MOT 100% first time, there's bound to be one or two little niggles (e.g emissions). But you wouldn't expect it to need major work either (e.g new engine).
I think if you are aware of any problems the car may have when you sell, is to write them down explicitly rather than use "requires some attention" which might be too vague.
I think he's threatening you with court to get something out of you, so might be worth calling his bluff and let him take you to court.
|
|
|
|
