bought a car from seller on ebay

[Tom Lee Pettimore]

On 02/06/2019 at 18:08, stinky-pants said:

Surprise suprise, an 18 year old car with an oil leak, its 15 years past the manufacturers warranty period with 18 years of degrading wear n tear..... The poor vehicle is an OAP, would you expect an OAP to have the body and fitness of a 16 year old ?...... Mmmmm no you wouldn't, OAP's leak fluids from every orifice but still function as expected   The old truck is probably due a letter from the queen ! 

 

This post is rediculous.

 

 

 

The car is advertised as having relatively low warranted milage and is supposedly sold with no faults and 12 months mechanical warranty, so yes, it would be reasonable to expect it not to have major faults, because that's what the advert says, and the buyer is paying a considerable premium for this. If you bought this car privately or at auction then yea, you'd expect to take your chances, but you'd also expect to pay a lot less, this one is being sold at a considerable premium, on the back of giving the impression that the seller is a reputable dealer with a good reputation. to say the buyer should just suck it up is ridiculous.

 

OP, i would suggest talking to trading standards about this. i would think the best outcome your neighbour could expect here is to get his car back and put the rest down to experience, effectively the dealer has stolen it from him, but i suspect the police would not see it that way. and you'd be left with pursuing a civil case. which if you won, you'd then have the problem of enforcing.

 

with any civil case, the chance of recovery depends on what the person you're suing has to lose, if the seller has a proper business with a proper premises that it still in operation, then if one won one could send bailiffs round to enforce the judgement, if he's a fly by night operator posing as a proper dealer with nothing concrete to lose, then getting anything back might be more difficult.

 

that said, he has the car, that is the property of your neighbour regardless of the £500 refund, if the dealer thinks he's owed that, he has to take the neighbour to court to get it back, he can't just take the car and keep it. i'd be looking to get the car back and let him argue the toss over the £500

[Tom Lee Pettimore]

1 hour ago, stinky-pants said:

 

Why don't you actually READ the sellers advert before talking tosh. The seller's advert offers an optional  12 months breakdown warranty cover,  warranties generally do not cover anything related to wear and tear and especially everything on an old banger will be excluded.  OP should have studied the terms of any such warranty before purchasing it, if he did purchase it.  

 

Also, the sellers advert at NO point states the car has NO faults. READ the sellers advert before jumping to huge conclusions. 

 

The buyer should indeed have studied the terms, there are a number of red flags in this advert and from this seller, most have already been mentioned, however, i was not suggesting that the buyer hadn't been foolish or naive in making the purchase, my point was that the seller is at least posing as a reputable dealer, clearly he isn't one, but nevertheless If one was buying a vehicle from a reputable dealer at full forecourt price, one might reasonable expect it to be fit for sale. the age of the vehicle is immaterial, it's entirely possible for a vehicle of this age and mileage to be reliable and mechanically sound, a relatively modern vehicle that's covered 116K is by no means worn out. reasonable wear and tear would be acceptable, major mechanical faults would not be, and would be reasonable grounds to reject the vehicle.

[Tom Lee Pettimore]

I would respectfully disagree.

 

Whilst the buyer paid well over the odds for this car, it's clearly worth more than it's scrap value, the bottom of the market will be underwritten by whatever the export price is for the l200 ATM, now that's not a market i follow, but i'd be astonished if it wasn't well above the scrap value.

 

I'd agree that buying any older vehicle is a gamble, and i'd also agree that the buyer has been somewhat naive, even foolhardy in buying a vehicle unseen from  this type of trader.

 

you say to get a 'faultless' vehicle buy from a 'proper' dealer, which is a fair point, but in this case the buyer thought they were buying from a proper dealer with a good reputation. Now it may be obvious to those with more experience that this was clearly not the case, nevertheless, the buyer did set out to give this impression, his success in giving this impression may have depended on the gullibility of potential buyers, but that doesn't absolve the seller of responsibility.

 

It's victim blaming to suggest it's the fault of the buyer to fail to notice the seller was dodgy, clearly the fault lies with the buyer for being dodgy, however obvious this is.

 

This was presented as a retail sale, at full forecourt price, the very least you'd expect is  for the car to have no major faults on delivery, and i'd class a bad oil leak as a major fault. you'd also expect the seller to respect your basic consumer rights, you certainly wouldn't expect the seller to take the car back on pretext of repairing it, then have them keep both the car and nearly £3K of your money.

 

 

[Tom Lee Pettimore]

so you think the way the seller has behaved is entirely acceptable then?

[Tom Lee Pettimore]

Are you one of them by any chance?

[Tom Lee Pettimore]

On 17/06/2019 at 21:46, stinky-pants said:

 

I'm the voice of reason and fairness.

 

Of course you are, would you say it was reasonable or fair for the seller in this case to keep both the car and the majority of the buyer's money as well?

[Tom Lee Pettimore]

That wasn't what i asked.