Not that I want to sound cynical but she got rid after a month?
She may have been unwitting in the first place but you have to ask yourself why she was so keen to get rid.
Of course, she could have a genuine reason but I like my conspiracy theories.
--
Adam
|
Not much point in going after her.
However, the garage may well have committed an offence and even though their liability may not be to you, they may well be prepared to rectify the situation to avoid to much officialdom.
|
I am suspicious. I think there is a possibility that she has sold the car on behalf of the garage. Does her name appear on the V5?
Call her in a couple of weeks and ask "is the car still for sale?" If she answers "what car?" you are on to something.
|
|
Surely you mean which car.
|
|
|
It is a possibility that the 'private vendor' was acting in collusion with the garage. It is also a possibility that she sold the car after she had been told that the car had been listed as a write-off, but she had neglected to mention this to the purchaser. There is no evidence to support either possibility in what we've been told so far. The probability is that she was an unwitting victim.
It is curious that she bought the car and then obtained an MoT certificate a week later. It's more usual to sell cars with a new MoT test certificate.
If there was any recent clocking, it is very unlikely that an unscrupulous motor trader would have left a traceable trail by which they could be identified as the culprits. It's likely that there will have been several changes of ownership between verifiable mileages.
|
the car does look like it has also been in an accident, some panels dont have a smooth straight "shut line" and also the drivers side of the car is a little dull and rough. I have also noticed that the rev counter goes upto 7000 revs. Is this normal on an Audi 80 TDi. I had a passat tdi with the same 90 bhp engine and that only went up to 5000 revs. Has the speedo bben changed?
Also phoned the garage again and he says he sold car at about 93000 miles....do I bealeive him or is he trying to pull fast one? When I asked him to send me some proof of this mileage in writing he got a bit shaky and strated telling me its a trade car and came in as a px.
Also this car has not been very reliable for an Audi, been in and out of garages in last few weeks for various faults.
ie lump tickover at idle when cold..stops after ten minutes or so. the revs move betwenn 800 and 1000. the rev counter meter also moves.
Also niggly oil leaks etc.
Front left wheel seems to slip especially when doing full lock turns. almost seems to jump put of its place.
|
"Front left wheel seems to slip especially when doing full lock turns. almost seems to jump put of its place."
You need to get this car checked before you drive it again. It sounds like it may have had a cosmetic repair, but is badly misaligned.
ihpj;
"The Police deal with CRIMINAL law...."
The reduction in the recorded mileage was probably due to clocking in order to misrepresent the condition of the car. If so, then I think this is a criminal offence, a matter for the police to investigate further, if they feel so inclined.
"If you have bought a car privately, and then subsequently found that it is a bit of a lemon - then it isn't criminal now is it?"
If it's a write-off that has been tarted up and sold on, then it is a death-trap and there are probably many criminal offences, by persons unknown, involved. Personally, I feel a mere death penalty would be inadequate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report it to the Police (but don't expect any response) and to Trading Standards.
Sorry, this made me laugh since whenever things go Pete TONG, we seem to call in the Police - why? If you weren't thorough enough to check the car and verify it's mileage (I mean why did you not call Audi BEFORE you bought the car?) or have it checked over properly if you're not mechanically minded then well, sorry mate, tough.
I'm guessing that I'll get grilled by fellow Backroomers here, but come on. You don't buy anything blind and if you have any doubt, you HPi it or get a mechanical report. Or better yet, walk away - there's plenty more bargains to be had.
The Police deal with CRIMINAL law and not CIVIL law or litigation directly. If you have bought a car privately, and then subsequently found that it is a bit of a lemon - then it isn't criminal now is it? It goes against your sense of decency, but there isn't anything on the statute books to legislate for morality. Now if the car was stolen, then yep, there is the Theft Act to consider, but in this case you'd be hard pressed to prove a deception (which IS criminal) had taken place - but even if the Police did diligently investigate the matter, the CPS would never run with it. And if I were the lady who sold you the car and the Police came knocking, I'd say:
"It's clocked Officer? Really? I thought it odd that it didn't have a digital clock..."
Remember, the mileage change could be quite innocent, for example the car has had a replacement speedo - quite legal - but the paper work has been lost. How do you automatically arrive at the conclusion that it has been clocked for sure?
There could be any number of reasons why the mileage discrepancy exists - but at the end of the day it isn't going to be worth your while trying top chase 'somebody' so you can get 'justice' - learn the lesson and move on.
|
>>"Remember, the mileage change could be quite innocent, for example the car has had a replacement speedo - quite legal - but the paper work has been lost. How do you automatically arrive at the conclusion that it has been clocked for sure?"
Well if you read above you will notice that Audi have said mileage in 1999 was 102000. Now it is 94000 miles!!!!!!
My maths states it has gone back 8000 miles in six years! Is it fair to assume to car was never ever driven betwenn 1999 and when I bought it?
|
If the clocks packe up when the car had done 110000 miles and changed to clocks from a car that had been scrapped at 60000 miles then the car has driven 42000 miles in 6 years.
Its certainly possible.
|
|
I think the issue is the use of the word "clocked" which usually refers to the deliberate act of altering an odometer in an attempt to deceive. Yes, the mileage on the Audi is not accurate, but at this point who knows if it was done to deceive or is the result of a repair/replacement.
|
|
|
|
Much of what has been said is valid. But surely the absence of documents, and especially the date of the MoT, should have started bells ringing? If you otherwise liked the car, felt the price was right, and were prepared to overlook the warning signs, caveat emptor?
It would be nice to uearth the history of the vehicle, and DVLA should send it to you (as the owner) for a small fee. I bought a 1979 Mini which raised suspicions, and I found it had been written off and re-shelled a different colour. Drove OK, but I soon got rid !
|
I bought a 1979 Mini which raised suspicions, and I found it had been written off and re-shelled a different colour. Drove OK, but I soon got rid !
Did you tell the new owner of it's history though?
|
|
Can't remember now (it's years ago) but probably not. But oddly enough, it was the only ex-car that I ever saw again - it bombed past me on the M6 doing 75+, so it can't have been a wreck ..
|
Maybe the Audi has done 8000 miles in reverse since 1999.
|
We could go over what you did wrong in buying the car but whats done is done.
This woman is in it up to her neck and almost certainly in cahouts with the garage.
Get the car valued in its as is condition with mileage as close as you can estimate, tell her she owes you the difference between that and what you paid for it. If she doesn't pay up sue her in the Small Claims Court. Likely she will pay up before the case gets to court.
WHEN she has paid up (or if she doesn't pay up) shop her to Trading Standards and the Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise (seperately they are not yet integrated) as an undeclared trader.
|
Agree with Tommo!
Bought the car from garage and got it MOT'd a week later?
Sold the car after a month?
Not plausible - go for her; but decide what you want first.
|
Let's all calm down a min!
We don't KNOW the woman didn't sell the car in good faith, but we don't know she did.
The late MOT could be explained in the following way; Documents not forthcoming despite her waiting for a week so the garage arrange a free MOT to get her legal.
audi80tdi's first port of call is with the woman. He should surely write to her and point out the defects with the car. Although garages may have pulled fast ones etc with the car his contract is with the sellor (this woman) To be honest he would have to demonstrate that she deliberately mis sold the car in some way. If she sold it in good faith then he is unfortunate, unless he wants to play the guilt game and seek compensation. If she really is part of some larger conspiracy, then she will start to worry - and quite rightly.
Agree he should report it to TS, but they'll do little more than trace which garages/traders it went through. If it fits a pattern ie goes through a garage of interest, then great, but that still doesn't prove much.
How much did it cost? what discrepency in value are we looking at? Lets ask these questions first to establish whether it's worth chasing it down.
Secondly, how deep does the woman's relationship go with the garage, has she "bought" cars from him before. TS may dig this area over.
I'm afraid there's little that can be done about this except to learn from it.
H
|
|
Hug's penultimate point: if she is a trader masquerading as a private individual (long shot) she may have a track record with TS, local paper. Also, check out director/partner names and addresses and see if there are any commonalities?
|
I still thing the first thing you shoudl do is follow The Lawman's advice.
If she does say "Which car", then you have a bit of ammo.
--
Adam
|
Trading Standards will be interested in anyone who is clocking cars, but if mileage is 'not guaranteed' then even if the woman who sold you the car is an innocent purchaser, she may have little comeback against the dealer if one of those 'mileages should be taken to be incorrect' stickers applies and they haven't actually clocked the car themselves.
If she is a trader then the Sale of Goods Act applies to her and the goods must be as described and of satisfactory quality, as well as fit for purpose, plus of course the various other trading standards and EU regulations would apply. If she is a private seller however, or you can't show that she isn't, then all she has to do is avoid lying and you have no remedy unfortunately.
To be brutally honest, I doubt I'd care whether my 10+ year old car had done 90k or 140k. The conidition, however, is another matter; if the car was dangerous then a criminal offence has been committed by selling it on to you for use on the road, whether or not she is a trader. The problem is that it would be very, very hard indeed to show that if the car had a three (?) week old MoT certificate.
Incidentally, if the car came in as a trade car, it may well be that it was chopped in by the previous owners (who may have clocked it themselves, done the speedo change or themselves been victims) with a short ticket, bought cheaply (too cheaply?) as an economical runaround to replace a real shed by the lady owner and then sold on when she realised it wasn't the bargain it seemed.
In doing so, either to check the car out on the cheap or to make the sale easier, she got a new MoT - and while the whole transaction is undoubtedly odd, that explanation is unfortunately both plausible and free of any wrongdoing.
|
|
|
|
|
