Sold a car to a trader - mileage issues

[sailor sam]

Err Bob... OP stated right at the beginning that the HPI check cam back "all clear". So what are you saying?

[Foo132]

My hpi check isn't the important part here, even if I hadn't done one when I bought the car, the above statements about the trader doing the checks still stands.

 

It simply adds further weight around me being unaware that the car was clocked.

[oddjobbob]

No, your HPI check IS important here, and so is the trader's if he did one.

 

 

When you HPI check a car they ask you the registration, you give them that, plus the mileage, plus the fee and they will tell you 'its a13th July 2001 Renault XXXXX, 2.0 helios, in blue, 5 speed manual, 3 previous owners, not showing on any of our finance or write off registers and there ARE OR ARE NOT any mileage discrepancies'

 

 

If you did a hpi check that's what happens. You can decline to give them the mileage in which case they wont tell you if any discrepancies show.

 

 

However what i'm saying is that if you DID do a mileage check and it came back with discrepancies but you bought the car anyway and knowingly sold it with a mileage discrepancy then that's very wrong. HPI will have on record whether or not a mileage check was performed by you.

 

 

N.B. I'm not saying you did or didn't, I wasn't there, but the 'trader' should most definitely have done a mileage check with hpi.

 

 

My take on it is that if you knowingly sold it with a mileage discrepancy without saying so then the trader has some comeback.

 

 

If you sold it in good faith without knowing then I don 't believe he does have any comeback.

 

 

And he's most DEF a rubbish trader both buying off ebay and not checking the miles. He (trader) probably never even did a hpi check!

[sailor sam]

Bob, I covered this angle in posts #5 and #9. I stated that as long as the car was not knowingly miss-described by the OP, then I don't think there is any legal come back by the trader.

 

I'm not sure why you have come on with this at this stage. The OP has had the advice now confirmed by a solicitor so unless there is something that the OP hasn't told us, his question has been accurately answered as far as I can tell.

[Foo132]

Bob, I covered this angle in posts #5 and #9. I stated that as long as the car was not knowingly miss-described by the OP, then I don't think there is any legal come back by the trader.

 

I'm not sure why you have come on with this at this stage. The OP has had the advice now confirmed by a solicitor so unless there is something that the OP hasn't told us, his question has been accurately answered as far as I can tell.

 

Yes it's been answered and thanks to everyone who took the time to respond.

[BankFodder]

Sorry to rain on the parade here.

I would counsel caution. I disagree with the Citizen's Advice and also with the solictor.

 

Firstly the caveat emptor principle is a rather old fashioned principle and while it might have been completely reliable 50 years ago and certainly 100yrs ago, I think that the courts are far more interventionist nowadays and also CPR.1 requires them to produce a result which is fair - and that means that they will prioritise justice over unflexible principles such as Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware).

 

I think that were you are a private seller selling to a trader, then where there might be some unascertainable defects such as worn big-ends or timing chain etc - then I think that you would be in a good position against a commercial purchaser. Equally, a commercial seller would be liable - even for these hidden defects.

 

In your case, you are talking about an express term of the contract. The mileage was clearly stated on the clock. Any purchaser would be entitled to rely upon this when entering into the contract. I don't think that caveat emptor would apply in this case. Furthermore, I don't think that the courts would really want to uphold used car contracts where the contract is defective because of some illegality - and a clocked car is exactly that. It would not be in the public interest and as a matter of policy I can imagine that a court would not help you - however innocent you were and however sorry the court felt for your position.

 

Everyone on this thread seems to take the opposite view. I hope they are right and that I am wrong - but you had better be aware of the opposite arguments and go carefully.

This case is not cut and dried and if the trader decides to sue you for it, you had better be very careful.

 

Citizens Advice are well-intentioned but under-resourced and their advice is often lukewarm.

 

Solicitors are all too often very disappointing - and I can almost guarantee you that if this goes to court, your solicitor won't want to do it herself but will want to instruct counsel and you may find yourself looking at a big bill - which you may not recoup because I am not so convinced of your chance of success - or at least I don't believe that it is as straightforward as everyone here seems to think.

 

Caveat venditor.