Thanks to all so far. Any further opinions always welcome

I had them as buy it now but accepted her best offer via the best offer facility. I have a total of 79 transactions since 2008, the vast majority of which are purchases. Never purchased something to sell on for profit.

eBay just say as it's a private sale, sort it out between you.

Thanks.Knowing anything legal, I bet it's not as simple as good feedback equals no comeback. Perhaps they will claim misrepresentation if CRA fails? But doesn't that also need a statement/advert from me claiming that they were perfect for example? As above, I made no such claims. The advert itself has long gone from eBay's servers.

Hello all, I am new here and in need of some opinions please. In March of this year, I sold (as a private individual) a full set of alloy wheels and winter tyres on ebay. The buyer paid £250 cash and went away leaving brilliant feedback. The price was for both as the tyres were already on the alloys. Late October (so over 6 months), I get bombarded with messages saying 2 of the wheels are buckled and are dangerous and cannot be repaired. To cut a long story short, the buyer says that they can prove the tyres have not been used since they bought them (their car was brand new in the spring and the tyre wear on the standard tyres matches the 5k mileage). The buyer also states that an alloy wheel repair guy says the damage is so bad that the car would have been shaking and undriveable. Therefore they say they can prove the damage was there when I sold the wheels. They seek either a full refund or £100 compensation to settle out of small claims court. If they were indeed damaged, I had absolutely no knowledge. The car I had then drove fine on the wheels and certainly didn't shake. Interestingly, the buyer told me they are purchasing brand new alloys to put the tyres on because they acknowledge there is nothing wrong with the tyres. Not sure how they can expect a full refund in that case! Technical question first: If the wheels are as bad as they claim, wouldn't this affect the tyres so that they too would be of poor quality? Legal questions: Fitness for purpose/satisfactory quality does not apply to private sales as I understand it but S.13 of SOGA re sale by description does apply. SOGA has been replaced now though and I can't see anything in the sale by description part of CRA that applies to private sales, do you agree? So, if an argument cannot be brought about the quality (caveat emptor) but lets say they can bring a description argument, my description would have needed to make claims that they were perfect and free from defects. In fact, my description said they were used alloys and tyres over 2 winters and had minor marks and scratches on them. No other claims were made in the advert and I could not advertise them as having a defect because as far as I was concerned, they were fine. All this law blows the mind somewhat! What are my rights here? Has she in fact got this in the bag and I've misread everything? Help! Thanks