Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Classic car sold as seen 10 days later buyer wants a refund.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,941

    Default

    Can you clear up a couple of points please?

    1. In your first post, the buyer says the car is unroadworthy and dangerous - "10 days later he wants a refund as he took it to his mechanic who says its got corrosion underneath everywhere and is mechanically dangerous. He didn't explain why it was dangerous."
    The reason I ask this is that it is a criminal offence for anyone - private seller or dealer - to sell an unroadworthy car. If he contacts you and says the seat belt anchorage points are completely corroded then that would be unroadworthy. I am assuming there are no mechanical problems with the car.

    2. In your second post you say the mini specialist has said there is corrosion that is advisory and therefore, I assume, not serious enough to state the car is unroadworthy?

    3. In your advert did you say words like: the car is mint, the car is perfect, there is no rust anywhere, the chassis is solid, the subframes and mounting points are rust free etc etc?

    The Consumer Rights Act doesn't apply in a private sale but the Misrepresentation Act 1967 does. Misrepresentation can be established with three different types of statement. These are fraudulent, negligent and innocent misrepresentations. From what you say it looks like he will try and say you are fraudulent as he seems to be claiming you knew about the corrosion and covered it up? That will be difficult to prove from what you have written here.

    If the buyer commissions an independent report from an expert witness for county court purposes (not the Mini garage or his best mate) i.e. a motor engineer, and it states you must have known about the corrosion then a court may be persuaded to accept this. If this report said the car was unroadworthy and or dangerous then the buyer is on firm ground. You can defend this claim with the fact it had been issued with an MOT 3 months previously - which is the time limit for contesting an MOT for corrosion issues - and therefore as far as you were concerned, the car was roadworthy.

    On the last MOT were there any advisories along the lines of: 'some surface corrosion to the subframes, inner and outer sills, A panels, seat belt mounting points etc etc? Or was there an advisory saying, 'underside of vehicle covered in underseal'? If there were any advisories, did you give the buyer a copy of the report along with the current MOT certificate?

    This page by Wigan Trading Standards is clear and concise: https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Resident/Co...rthy-Cars.aspx Note that they advise a buyer getting an MOT done first and only then an expert's report if the car is found to be unroadworthy.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertie14 View Post
    He actually quoting the 1979 sale of goods act. He's stating under the 1979 sale of goods act the goods you supply must match there description.i shall google that now but do you have any further knowledge of this at all please. Does it apply to private sales.
    The 1979 Act was effectively replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The part he quotes no longer applies, and in any event never applied to private sales.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Hi Thanks Hometune. He still hasn't said why it's mechanically dangerous I think he's trying to hold something up his sleeve for later. He states in his letter to me " I have provided one page of the report from the mini specialists. The mot and in fact previous mot's none have mentioned corrosion or anything about underseal. There will be lots on there as I did it every year and the people before me had too so it may look thick on the car but hey...it's still on the road after 38 yrs. it's only advisories have always been ball joints brakes etc.
    The mini restoraration specialist have supplied a list of issues mostly under the car. With all the areas they have checked. They've written stuff like plated and patched or badly welded or corrosion has been badly patched and welded. Some of these were visible in the boot and under the carpets which were inspected by the guys mate on the day but not mentioned. I thinks like most people see a welded patch on a 38 yr old car and accept it. Specialist restorers digging for work want to renew entire panels rather than patch things so it all looks terrible. Then they put the things they have found into whichever category. There are 3. Advisory-non immediate/ advisory action required and then finally- mandatory. Which I guess means must be done for safety etc. None of the issues they have commented on have been marked as mandatory. He has done his little bit of homework and seen his only way out is "misdescribed". I have loads of pics of the car bodywork that were on eBay and further ones I sent him and the car was gleaming and with no rust. I did say no rust but went on to explain the underneath had been waxoyl undersealed and was ok as far as I could see. On his letter to me he conveniently left the underseal bit out and mentions the "no rust " bit. But surely if someone asks a car seller if it has rust, it can only mean to the body or if it's been flagged on an mot. I shall stick to my guns as he's a pushy git. Asking when I would like the car delivered back to me. If the worst happens and he wins this I dread to think what state the car will be now. As I don't think they found all this corrosion with a torch. Sorry if I've missed anything. Panicked a bit about it really.
    Last edited by Bertie14; 08-06-19 at 19:12.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,941

    Default

    As Beelzebub has said the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is what he should be referring to so clearly not got (correct) legal advice. It does not apply to private sales.
    He does sound 'a pushy git' so either ignore him completely or write out the short reply that Santa posted as he would need to prove misrepresentation and if you stand by your comment, 'as far as I know' or 'as far as I can see' then you have done nothing wrong.
    Unless the vehicle report is produced by an independent expert court witness, the Mini garage findings are worthless really. If he takes the car for an MOT and it fails badly only then would I be concerned. You can check if he does this by entering the registration number here:

    https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Yes I did check the MOT situation already and it's still stating the end date of its MOT I had done in Feb. If he's takes it for another now after they have been unearthing this " corrosion" then they could hardly use that as evidence so I'm guessing it's too late for MOTs. I read up on the 1979 act and it does say it is now the 2015 consumer rights act. Though it does go on to say it will cover private sales only on misrepresented sales. This is what he's aiming for I think.
    I have currently composing a letter which I was going to ask for photographic evidence of the corrosion. As if the restorers had to remove paint or sealer or panels to uncover this corrosion, then as a seller be it private or a dealer I could not be expected to go to those extremes before stating the condition of a car.
    On the other hand if the corrosion was there for all to see when put on the ramps at the garage, then surely you could have had that inspected before sale had you asked for the car to be checked either at a garage or by AA/RAC or a even a classic car inspection. You chose not to. And I shall certainly stick with the " I told you the underneath was waxoyl undersealed and was ok as far as I can see". That's on a message on eBay which he's trying to conveniently bypass.
    I have also asked for the full report as he mentioned " I have sent you one page of the report from the restorer. I have said if you are asking for a refund on the strength of a report then you should at least supply it in full, and should the need arise the garage will be contacted to supply a further copy. Am I correct about the 2015 consumers act? Thanks for your ongoing advice. It does help a lot. Please keep it coming. Cheers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow RAC:

Sales enquiries:

0330 159 1111

03 numbers are charged at national call rates and included in inclusive minute plans from landlines and mobiles. Calls may be monitored and/or recorded