advice needed

[Matty_N]

Seems odd that you opened a thread 3-11-2011 asking for help with your 'serious power steering fluid leak' ???
I dont agree with the trader but I also dont agree with selling a car with a known problem

And a thread before that on 25-10-2011 titled "Noisey power steering first thing in the morning"...

 

[fletch8]

shocked that id not read this!

shouldnt of paid - was my first thought

possibly selling a car knowing something was wrong though isnt best practice (it might not of been OP could of just thought it was before people jump on it)

 

[Tom_90]

oh dear

hope your father in law gets well soon though

 

[Robiniho77]

Why won't he state who the trader was..

1. Is the seller in the wrong for selling a car with a known fault, hence is embarrassed it's all come back on him.

2. Was his posts genuine and jut an enquiry to PAS problems which wern't too bad. Maybe the trader is on here an saw his posts and then knew he could say its a problem?!

Either way... Wouldn't of paid if you knew nothing was wrong. Or if you did know, fix it before sale or state about the problem in the add or at the viewing!

Either way, like people have said, why post up for advice? Family issues or not, blocking his number after telling him you want writing from a solicitor solves the problem totally as you would of never got any writing!

Liam.

 

[treemanx]

Very disappointing outcome. You knew he had nothing to stand on and had no rights to get money from you, yet it you gave it him anyway.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Very disappointing outcome. You knew he had nothing to stand on and had no rights to get money from you, yet it you gave it him anyway.

Given that it appears the thread starter knew about the fault though TBH I think morally he is correct to have paid, he shoudlnt have pretended it had nothing wrong with it in the first place.

 

[R-Sport.]

yep we will never know now-

trader that sells a car with a fault to a person- Pi$$ Poor- Private to a trader with a known fault- just as bad-

S

 

[16vsy]

This thread makes very interesting reading, the c&@t t£:t tosser prick bully etc etc is a very good friend of mime and those sweeping stereotypes are way off the mark. As is the case in everything there are two sides to every story and there are aspects of this matter which have not been portrayed or even spoken about by the OP.

I can confirm the PAS pump is dead and lifeless and I can confirm the payment made by the OP was used to rectify the problem. There were also several empty promises made by the OP which I was witness to on the phone which weren't forthcoming. The matter of the posts regarding the previous power steering problems are very salient in this case as the OP knew full well of an ongoing problem with the power steering yet when asked buy the buyer if the car was roadworthy or required any work was told it was fine.

From a legal point of view I think it's hard for anyone to predict what the outcome would of been given the previous posts made by the OP but I think the important thing is the matter is sorted. There is no need for naming and shaming as the buyer has not actually done anything wrong and I think anybody who found the PAS pump to have failed the day or so after the car was collected would be a little frustrated.

We live and we learn and there is probably learning for everyone from this, think it may be advisable to lock this thread before anyone else jumps on the bandwagon with their 2p worth.

Si

 

[Revels]

Regardless of what the seller didn't tell him and the morality of it, he had no right to any money.

 

[MarkCup]

Technically Revels he'd be in clear breach of contract as he misrepresented the condition of the vehicle i.e. knowingly made a false statement/withheld information in order to secure a sale. The buyer would have had recourse through the courts for the "lie" told by the seller.

So not black and white, but equally, the trader got what he deserved/would have been entitled to in the end.

 

[16vsy]

This is going round in circles but the simple fact is the OP sold something which he knew not to be how he described it.

All you need to do is Google 'selling a car with a known problem' and there are pages and pages of advice from all areas - consumer action groups, forums, AA, car buyers guides etc etc. These will all shed light on the matter for you and correct your opinion that the OP didn't have to pay anything to the buyer.

Si

 

[Revels]

Technically Revels he'd be in clear breach of contract as he misrepresented the condition of the vehicle i.e. knowingly made a false statement/withheld information in order to secure a sale. The buyer would have had recourse through the courts for the "lie" told by the seller.

So not black and white, but equally, the trader got what he deserved/would have been entitled to in the end.

Does that apply to used cars private sale though?

 

[Chip-mk1]

Regardless of what the seller didn't tell him and the morality of it, he had no right to any money.

The trader actaully might be able to get him on section 13 of the 1979 sale of goods act if he could prove (which from posts on here he could if he knew about them) that the seller wasnt describing a fault he definately knows about.

 

[fletch8]

this isnt what he should of morally done

BUT

OP could of just said he didnt know and told trader to do one.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Does that apply to used cars private sale though?

It applies to all sales as far as I am aware, its only section 14 that doesnt apply to private car sales.
Ie that goods must be of a satisfactory quality.

They have to be described accurately though still. so not mentioning a known serious defect could potentially be going against that.

 

[Chip-mk1]

this isnt what he should of morally done

BUT

OP could of just said he didnt know and told trader to do one.

Agreed, unless the trader knew the car from this forum and hence had proof that the seller knew of the fault.

 

[16vsy]

Yes it does, Sale of Goods Act I believe covers any transaction be it private or otherwise where there is exchange of goods/service for money. Both parties enter into a contract by what the seller advertises about their product/service, if it's not what has been described then there are grounds for recourse. Settling it between seller and buyer is by far and away the easiest solution for both parties.

Si

 

[MarkCup]

this isnt what he should of morally done

BUT

OP could of just said he didnt know and told trader to do one.

Apart from the fact that said traders friend is a user on here...and would likely have been able to get evidence that the seller knew of the problem beforehand.

Revels, if you lie to induce someone into a deal, as a trader OR random member of the public, you have done wrong. The courts would recongnise that and address it by way of compensation.

I think given the 'facts', if the trader had gone down a small claims route, he'd have won without too much trouble.

 

[16vsy]

I knew of the car and pointed him in the direction of it from the forum, however je had already seen it via another website. When this all started it didn't take me long to have a look at OP's previous posts so telling him to 'do one' as you put it wasn't really an option.

I think people often forget their content and posts on owners clubs forums, so easy to look back and see threads about damage, problems, trackdays speaks volumes more than stamps in a service book and a wadge of receipts.

Si

 

[Chip-mk1]

Apart from the fact that said traders friend is a user on here...and would likely have been able to get evidence that the seller knew of the problem beforehand.

Revels, if you lie to induce someone into a deal, as a trader OR random member of the public, you have done wrong. The courts would recongnise that and address it by way of compensation.

I think given the 'facts', if the trader had gone down a small claims route, he'd have won without too much trouble.

Agreed, since its been pointed out the seller knew all about this and clearly lied to the trader in order to get a sale, I agree that the seller WOULD have had success in court.

As is often the case with people, I was judging the seller by my own standards when I was replying saying the trader had no chance as I was assuming that the seller was honest to the best of his ability when he made the sale, and hence the trader was making up the problem or it was one the seller had no knowledge of.

That isnt the case though, the seller appears to have lied to get a sale, and a court would recognise that fact IMHO

 

[Revels]

Yup. We get a lot of people asking for threads to be deleted when the selling time comes. But we never do it.

But surely if you recommend it to him you took a look at the sellers posts?

 

[fletch8]

would the "sold as seen" of held any water in this case?

 

[Chip-mk1]

would the "sold as seen" of held any water in this case?

No, that really does mean pretty much nothing, I dont know why people insist on writing it on stuff. in fact I believe its actually a term that is now illegal when traders try to use it because of how misleading it is.

 

[fletch8]

i never knew that!

 

[Chip-mk1]

i never knew that!

Here you go mate:

[h=3]If the car you buy has a disclaimer[/h] Some car traders try to use disclaimers such as 'sold as seen', 'trade sale only' or 'no refund' to restrict your rights. This is against the law and you can report any trader that does this to Consumer Direct, the government funded consumer advice service.

Taken from here:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governm...ights/Buyingacar-yourconsumerrights/DG_183047

 

[Revels]

But that's traders. The OP isn't a trader..

If you buy a car from a private seller or at a car auction for traders, you have fewer rights. The car only has to:

* match the description given by the seller
* be theirs to sell, eg the car isn't stolen or owned by a finance company because the car loan hasn't been paid off

I suppose the PAS would fall under the description. If he hadn't made a thread and denied he knew there was a problem. The trader would have had no comeback.

 

[MarkCup]

Correct, he'd have had to take it on the chin, unless he had asked something like...

"Is there anything else I should know about which, if I was aware of it, would affect my decision to buy the car or the price I'm prepared to pay?".

However, that then comes down to verbal discussion etc. which get's a bit woolly when it comes to court proceedings.

 

[R-Sport.]

Rule number 1 of purchasing a forum car-

Search the sellers thread history-

rule number 2 of selling cars ( Private or trade)- declare a known fault-( or rectify it) it will come back to bite you in the end if not....

Maybe not straight away- but it will

s

 

[Chip-mk1]

But that's traders. The OP isn't a trader..

I was replying to garyf who was saying he didnt realise traders couldnt say sold as seen, it wasnt a reply about the OP.