2nd hand car bought found to be unroadworthy

[obiter dictum]

Then you put the claim in against the owner of the vehicle. The seller will only be the owners agent so the owner will be ultimately responsible for the actions of the seller

[zoe27]

Thanks for your reply obiter dictum.

 

Would you put down the seller and her husband in the claim? Her husband was there when my parents looked at the car, and had been texting my mum after we asked for a refund.

[obiter dictum]

Wait for more replies but i am of the opinion the seller is a distraction. The owner is responsible for the condition of the car as you cannot sell an unroadworthy vehicle.

 

Put the claim in against whoever is on the V5

[miss purslow]

Have you got address for the person who sold the vehicle you will need this for the online claim.

[obiter dictum]

As i have stated, the liability is not with the seller. The owner has that statutory duty to supply the vehicle in a roadworthy condition, not any third party seller. That seller will simply be a third party to the owner

[woad]

So, (for OPs benefit), you name the owner and the garage who issued the 'faulty' MOT as the defendants.

[obiter dictum]

To be honest and wait for more replies BUT the garage that issued the MOT certificate is a red herring.

 

I do not know how to say this again but any claim is against the owner of the vehicle. It is their responsiblity the car is in a roadworthy condition at point of sale. That is with or without a current MOT unless described in the add as "sold as seen" and no warranty like you get at an auction

 

The issue with the garage will be down to DVSA and Trading Standards

Edited September 4, 2016 by obiter dictum

[Conniff]

As i have stated, the liability is not with the seller. The owner has that statutory duty to supply the vehicle in a roadworthy condition, not any third party seller. That seller will simply be a third party to the owner

 

Can you link to this please OD ??

[obiter dictum]

All an MOT certificate indicates that the vehicle that was tested on that day was in a roadworthy condition. The owner makes sure the car is in a roadworthy condition from that day forward until the next MOT

 

Section 75 Road TrafficAct 1988 makes it an offence to buy, sell, supply, offer a vehicle for sale an unroadworthy vehicle.

 

Section 75(2)(a)(b)© makes it an offence to sell, offer to supply to sell or expose for sale

 

That obligation will be on the registered keeper who instructed the seller to act on their behalf

 

 

[Conniff]

Sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation. The act says "no person shall supply ", it does not say 'no owner'.

It then goes on to say:

 

"references to supply include—

 

(a)sell,

 

(b)offer to sell or supply, and

 

©expose for sale."

 

The person offering the car for sale was the seller.

 

Whether the owner knew the car was unroadworthy or not is debatable but the seller is the one responsible for ensuring the car met current regulations.

 

I would name both the seller and the owner on any court action.

 

I agree the MoT is a separate matter and should be taken up with the relevant authority. The failure itself can be used as part of the evidence for a full refund which should include any consequential spending.

 

I just realised I have a text from the seller saying he will give us a full refund if there was anything wrong. Will this work in our favour at all if it does get to court?

 

Print out your text and submit it as part of your evidence.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Conniff

[obiter dictum]

My interpretation comes under "Offer to sell"

 

That can only come from the owner or registered keeper of that vehicle as the current lawful owner of that vehicle

 

The seller is acting on behalf of that owner so the owner is responsible for the actions of that seller

 

Well that is my own interpretation of the legislation anyway

Edited September 6, 2016 by obiter dictum

[oddjobbob]

My interpretation comes under "Offer to sell"

 

That can only come from the owner or registered keeper of that vehicle as the current lawful owner of that vehicle

 

The seller is acting on behalf of that owner so the owner is responsible for the actions of that seller

 

Well that is my own interpretation of the legislation anyway

 

I wouldn't have thought this to be correct. The OP did not buy the car from the owner, no money changed hands between them. The OP argument is with the person they paid, this is not the owner. If no money changed hands how can the OP possibly sue?

Any claim of any kind can only put the person back in the position they were as if the transaction had not occurred.

 

The op needs to sue the seller not the previous owner.

 

It is then up to the seller to recover whatever THEY paid for the car from the previous owner.

[obiter dictum]

This is not the previous owner though is it. The seller is selling the vehicle on behalf of the current owner as a private individual, not a trader.

 

That current registered owner/keeper will be responsible for the condition of that vehicle unless the V5 states different, not the seller who is acting on behalf of the owner as a middle man

 

That is how i am interpreting the legislation.

 

You cannot start putting in claims against people when there is no cause of action in law. People start doing that they will have costs awarded against them

 

I am not saying i am correct, but how i am reading the legislation.

Edited September 7, 2016 by obiter dictum

[Conniff]

Sorry OD, the seller is responsible private or not. He should have checked out the claims he was making in the advert.

[oddjobbob]

Sorry OD, the seller is responsible private or not. He should have checked out the claims he was making in the advert.

 

well yes...how can the owner possibly owe the OP anything when the owner has received no money from them?

[woad]

Why not name both the owner and seller on the claim, and let the Court decide? It can be argued that the seller was acting as the owner's agents. It would be interesting to know why the owner ddin't try to sell the car, but was willing to let a neighbour do the 'heavy lifting' of listing the vehicle, answering queries, arranging to meet buyers (and if you have ever sold a car, this can be hugely time consuming, with "no-shows", "tire-kickers", and other non-serious buyers). Why would anyone agree to do that 'for a neighbour'?

 

I would also advise the OP to contact the garage and ask whether they were aware of the rubber band around the steering oil reservoir, and if they remember who bought the vehicle in for MOT.

[Conniff]

Have you decided on a way forward Zoe ??

[zoe27]

Hi,

 

As we didn't hear anything else from the owner I put in a claim on money claim online for the cost of the car and a few expenses (postal costs, MOT test, car tax). I put down the owner and her husband on the claim form as we did not have the sellers address.

 

This was last weds, the only correspondence we've now had from them is that the husband text my mum saying the following:

 

"For your information this will form part of my defence. I DO NOT expect or invite you to respond.

 

The consumer rights act 2015 became law on 1 october 2015, replacing three major pieces of consumer legislation - the sale of goods act, unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations and the supply of goods and services act. Second hand car bought privately

 

You have fewer rights when you buy a car from a private seller and key parts of the consumer rights act don't apply.

 

For example, there is no legal requirement for a car to be of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose.

But legally the seller must:

-accurately describe the second hand car (for example an advert must not say 'one owner' when the car has had several)

- not misrepresent the second hand car (tell you something about the car which isnt true such as if its been in an accident, the owner must answer truthfully)"

 

SO, I am fully aware that my rights are not the same as a private sale, he has already told me this and I've already told him I know this too! It seems to me that they are just avoiding talking about the actual problem of the steering leak at all!

 

I also feel as though they are shooting themselves in the foot with this as surely a private car sale - if the car has been advertised as roadworthy - should be, so I dont understand why he has put there is no legal requirement for a car to be of satisfactory quality?

 

I'm wondering whether to reply - I want to, and say that I understand my rights, and I'd like to say that I would like to talk about the issue with the car to try and resolve this before going to court.

 

Seems like another scare tactic too trying to tell me what rights I don't have in court!

 

At the end of the day they sold me a car that was seriously dangerous, and I really do believe they knew the problem.

 

Just to clarify, the reasons for naming her husband is that he was there upon inspection of the vehicle when it was bought.

 

My mum has also text him back saying to please reply to the contact details given for me, as it gets confusing with him texting my parents!

 

He has responded saying this:

 

"No but it will be filed with the court. It was only a courtesy message anyway"

 

Well...it would have been courteous of you to sell the car in a safe condition!!!

[obiter dictum]

To be honest stop talking to them unless they offer to settle

 

Let the court process handle everything now as it is for your own protection

 

If in doubt say nowt

 

Section 75 Road TrafficAct 1988 makes it an offence to buy, sell, supply, offer a vehicle for sale an unroadworthy vehicle.

 

Section 75(2)(a)(b)© makes it an offence to sell, offer to supply to sell or expose for sale

 

The car must match the seller’s description, be roadworthy and the seller must have the legal right to sell it to you.

In other words, the car must work, meet the legal requirements for being driven on public roads, and be owned by the seller.

 

 

This is all you need in your claim

[Conniff]

Section 75 Road TrafficAct 1988 makes it an offence to buy, sell, supply, offer a vehicle for sale an unroadworthy vehicle.

 

Section 75(2)(a)(b)© makes it an offence to sell, offer to supply to sell or expose for sale

 

The car must match the seller’s description, be roadworthy and the seller must have the legal right to sell it to you.

In other words, the car must work, meet the legal requirements for being driven on public roads, and be owned by the seller.

 

 

This is all you need in your claim

 

Exactly.

[zoe27]

Thanks,

 

I'll be getting all my documents together soon ready for if it goes to court - which is looking likely. Will keep the Road Traffic Act at the top of the list!

 

With the mediation service I believe you are offered, if I want to do that, do the claimants have to do it or can they refuse?

[obiter dictum]

They can decline but will be unwise. The judge will not be happy and want to know why his courtroom time has been taken up with something that can be settled through conciliation

 

Mediation is always offered as an Alternative Dispute Resolution service

[zoe27]

Thanks for your reply.

 

I'll be opting for the mediation. I have a feeling they are going to really leave it to the last resort to resolve this.

 

A shame for them, as they will end up having to pay out more for costs I've had to pay out - which in hindsight for them, they could have just fixed the car in the first place!

[Conniff]

They can decline but will be unwise. The judge will not be happy and want to know why his courtroom time has been taken up with something that can be settled through conciliation

 

Mediation is always offered as an Alternative Dispute Resolution service

 

You can't settle by conciliation with a car sales con man. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[zoe27]

Hi all,

 

Thought I would give you an update on the latest. I've had a letter from the Courts stating that they are going to defend all of the claim, and they have 28 days to file a response. So it will be interesting to see what they have to say about it.

 

I've also had a reply from the DVLA, they have put the car in my name as it is in my possession. This at least means that I am able to SORN the car and get at least some of my tax money back. Do you think I can still claim what I didn't get back through the court?

 

It is also interesting to see that on the new V5C the owner had only purchased the car very end of Nov 2015, so she only had the car for 7 months, presumably wanted to sell after the leak appeared.

 

Funny that since in her email to me she stated she'd been driving the car for "quite some time". 7 months isn't quite some time to me!