Being sued for private car sale *** Claim Dismissed ***

[Alesha]

My daughter sold her car privately at the weekend.

There was a small oil leak which became apparent after she advertised it for sale and she reduced the asking price to take account of this, having had a quote.

She made the purchasers aware of this.

 

They checked it over, test drove it and were happy to go ahead with the sale and paid by bank transfer.

They took all the documentation, including the V5 which she should have retained, saying that they would transfer ownership and save her the trouble - highly dubious I know as it is her responsibility to inform DVLA but without an address it seems impossible.

 

They then contacted her saying that there was a smell of burning oil and fumes as they drove home and there were other leaks as well (they didn't specify) which they said she knew about (she didn't). There was not and never had been a smell of burning oil while she was driving it.

 

They now are asking for return of their money.

She does not have their address and so is unable to transfer ownership with DVLA online which puts her in a very vulnerable position.

 

She sold the car to them in good faith with no attempt to mislead.

They are refusing to give their address.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[Alesha]

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately she has the name but not the address of the purchaser so it's impossible to complete the online transfer process so she remains legally responsible for the car. 

 

[Alesha]

Thank you. What you have suggested about a motor trader had occurred and yes she has been naive about this. They were sufficiently satisfied to purchase the car and they did know about the problem. She had been driving it up until the morning of the sale with no problems and she had told them about the oil leak - it's otherwise in very good condition, has a long MOT and has been serviced regularly. There's also the issue of insurance should she accept return (she transferred insurance to her new car )

[Alesha]

We have spoken to DVLA and been told to write a letter with the details. Even though there is no address available it will be on record that she is no longer the keeper and that will be backdated to the time of sale.

 

I'm sorry I haven't addressed your questions. It's a Mini 07 registration 70,000 miles, service history, well maintained, bodywork perfect, 2 former owners MOT  December and recently serviced. Price £1900. As far as we are aware there were no other issues apart from the small oil leak - they are claiming there is oil all over their drive but there has never been any oil on our drive. (My daughter did suggest that they might not have screwed the oil cap on properly). In fact a local garage looked at it the day before the sale and their description of the leak was 'slightly damp'. It was advertised on Gumtree and Facebook Marketplace. The advertised price was £2250. There was no smell of burning oil when they test drove, nor had there been any such smell or fumes.

[Alesha]

Thank you for your advice. It's much appreciated.

[Alesha]

DVLA were informed and she received confirmation that they have updated their records and she is no longer the registered keeper. However they are not going away.  They have emailed her to say they have sent a signed for letter with images. She wasn't in but the postman left a card.

 

She does have a screenshot of the advertisement.

It was originally advertised at £2500 but she thought this might be a little high so reduced it to £2250 - the advertisement reflects this. (She was unaware of the oil leak at this point - it was brought to her attention by a prospective buyer).

 

She was faced with the choice of getting it repaired or selling with the price reduced to reflect the cost of repair and was told the cost would be £200 and chose to reduce the price to £2000. She made the buyers aware of this and they examined it, test drove it and offered £1900 which she accepted. They went home, transferred the money and presumably taxed and insured it before driving away. It all happened very quickly and she did suggest they could go away and think about it but they were very keen. 

 

They are accusing her of dishonesty which she finds very upsetting as she was perfectly upfront about the problem. 

She had been driving the car every day and had driven to work that morning with no apparent problems 

 

There was never any oil under the car which surely would have been noticed and no smell of oil or fumes.

How the oil leak suddenly became so catastrophic when they drove it away is a mystery.

 

They have had a garage look at it and had a quote of £250 but she had reduced the price by £350 which was surely reasonable.

The car has been spotted out and about so they are obviously using it.

 

It's really difficult to understand what is going on and what their motives are.

(They did say they had been to the bank to see if they could get their money back, which is a very strange thing to do.)

Perhaps they just changed their mind after being in such a hurry.

 

It's very stressful and worrying. 

[Alesha]

We don't know this - just suspected as they took the V5 to save her the trouble. I think the same thought had occurred to you. We know the name as it was on bank transfer together with reg no of car as reference. Despite being asked for their address, they did not give it. (The car has been seen on the road in a very clean and shiny condition.) We just wonder if they are trying bullying tactics to get her to refund some of the money to sell on at a better profit. All conjecture but nothing seems to add up. They were quite happy to buy at the price with the disclosed fault. There were no other problems that she was aware of.

[Alesha]

Hi

Following letter to DVLA, they have confirmed that they have updated their records and she is no longer registered keeper.

 

They have just sent a letter recorded delivery to be signed for. There was no one in to sign for it and the buyers have emailed copy of track and trace and it is at the sorting office awaiting collection - the postman also left a card to this effect. My daughter has neither the time nor the inclination to collect it - she suffers from panic attacks, although I feel, rightly or wrongly that it needs to be dealt with.

 

As well as advising them verbally about the oil leak, it was an advisory on MOT (28 Nov) as oil leak but not excessive. It was serviced in December with nothing untoward reported. I really don't see how they can  have an issue. They examined it, drove it and were happy with the price. She checked with the garage only the day before sale, where it was described as 'slightly damp'  and was given a cost of £200. They had it checked after buying and were quoted £250. How they can complain that she misled them is beyond me but they seem determined. Might they take legal action? 

 

 

[Alesha]

Thank you for your replies.

 

She will pick up the letter but maybe not for a day or two due to work commitments. I will let you know the contents. 

 

At the moment she has no intention of accepting return of the car, nor of reducing the price further as it already reflects the cost of repair. The purchasers were aware that the price had been reduced to take account of this.

 

I understand that the conditions for selling a car privately are:

The seller should own the car

It should be in a safe and roadworthy condition

It should not be the subject of a finance agreement,

 

All of these conditions were fulfilled, together with disclosure of known problem.

[Alesha]

The letter was delivered today. I have tried to scan but my scanner isn't working very well. I have copied the points she makes 

 

Quote

 

I am writing this letter regarding the issue I have with the car after purchase, also after contacting you on Facebook on the same day of purchase and updating you with the information that I will do regarding the case. I received an answer from the garage and its estimated costs, after this you have left the conversation with no response. The car is faulty and it had not been advised on the day of purchase, provided false information.

 

1. The Mini Cooper was bought on 18/01/2020, after taking it home fumes were visibly coming from under the bonnet and smelt like burnt oil. Contacted you on18/01/2020 at 18.43 on Facebook.

 

2. Took the car to the garage on Monday 20/01/2020, after quick look they ensured (sic) me the oil leaks, asked me to drop the car for further checks. Messaged you the same day at 20.39. Response was below, according to the response you admitted you reduced the price due to the cost of future repairs and also that you were aware of the fault when you sold it, unfortunately it was not mentioned on the day of purchase, therefore I have bought faulty goods from you.

 

3. The car was in the garage again on Wednesday 22/01/2020. They had a better look at it and cleaned the questioned area from  the bottom. They gave an estimation from £150 to £550 as they have to take the catalyser to be able to see the issue. Also the oil is burning at a higher temperature than it should see below pics of burnt cap and the fumes of burning. Also the oil level was checked and it was under the minimum so it was dangerous to drive and could have ruined the engine completely. (Strange that the oil light wasn't on)

 

4. The car was taken to the garage on 25th January and was picked up on 30th January. Due to oil leak from the oil filter housing seal the water was going into the engine alongside the oil and this was causing the burnt oil smell and this was the reason behind the unusual oil burn. I was lucky as this could have been the head gasket which would have cost a lot more. The repair cost £197.07 and I wish to have that covered under your expenses as the car was sold without mentioning the leak, therefore this is a breach of contract.

 

Conclusion: I am kindly asking you to get an agreement on this issue, otherwise I am thinking to take this further.

 

 

 

 

 

So the whole issue has arisen over the question of the oil leak.
It was on the MOT, which she saw,  as an advisory and she was told about this on the day, together with the fact that it had been checked and the repair would be about £200.  

The car was advertised at £2250 (after research into prices for minis of a similar age and condition) and the buyer  was informed that this was subsequently reduced to £2000 to take into account the cost of the repair. T
hey offered £1900 which was accepted.

To say that it was not mentioned on the day, only afterwards is nonsense. There was therefore in total an allowance of £350 in total, made to cover the cost of repairing the fault, which actually cost £197.07.

They were definitely aware of the oil leak when they agreed to buy. It's difficult to understand where she is coming from.

She also talks, in the Facebook conversation about an unspecified leak   '..also the garage said it is fluid leaks not the oil so it's a separate thing.

Also this leak wasn't mentioned to me not even when I asked if you smelt burnt oil it is all covered in oil.'  We have no idea what she means. Also if it was covered with oil, why buy. The car had been driven on a daily basis, including that morning with no smell of burning oil.

 

They examined the car, including the engine and test drove it and were happy with the car and the price.

They were very eager to buy and in fact the whole transaction, including test driving and examination took about an hour and a half.

My daughter did suggest that they might like to think about it but they declined.

[Alesha]

Thank you for that.

 

No, there is no address on the letter so unless there is a further communication it  is impossible to respond. We seem to be dealing with a very strange mentality here, so they might be prepared to take this to court for the £197.07 it has cost to repair when this was allowed for in the price - pretty close to the estimate of £200 given by my daughter's garage.

[Alesha]

That seems to be all that can be done at the moment and there is no option but to ignore. It's very likely that there will be further communication, maybe with an address. I am suspicious about the apparent reticence to supply an address but maybe I am overthinking. I will suggest to my daughter that she drafts a letter.

 

Thank you for your help.

[Alesha]

Hi. A little time has gone by but the purchaser of the car is taking my daughter to court. She is basing her claim on the fact that the oil leak was not revealed and has submitted as proof the MOT advisory. This states 'Oil leak but not excessive (8.4.1.(a) (i).' She insists that 8.4.1. refers to fluid leaks but not to engine oil! This was discussed at the time of purchase, despite the fact that she claims it wasn't and the reduction in price was not to take account of the cost of repair but was due to haggling the price down. My daughter submitted her witness statement and evidence to the court and to the claimant, as required.

 

Yesterday the purchaser sent an email and has offered to accept £100. Nothing is owed and therefore her offer is ignored. My daughter refuses to engage with her and yesterday posted a copy of her email to the court, MOT evidence and receipted invoice from garage confirming repair of housing oil filter seal (this was within the estimated cost). Copies were also posted to the purchaser. This resulted in a further email today where she repeats her claim:

 

• fault not mentioned when sold - engine oil leak
• MOT only confirms a fluid leak which is not engine oil
• the fault is caused by wear and tear of the housing oil filter seal. (My daughter knew this, informed them of it and had an estimate of the cost and therefore reduced the price)

It is incomprehensible how the court could possibly find in her favour. None of this makes any sense but it is a worry nevertheless.

 

[Alesha]

Thank you for your replies. Your advice is much appreciated. We are at the stage where the claimant is required to pay the hearing fee by the 12th May - the case is to be heard on paper. She is offering to accept £100 in settlement. The repair to the oil leak (oil filter housing seal) was £197.07 - my daughter had been professionally advised that it would be around £200. There is no evidence of any further repair being required.

 

My daughter has submitted MOT certificate which states as advisory '8.4.1(a)(i). Oil leak not excessive' (MOT dated 28th November 2019)

The claimant has also submitted this as evidence claiming that this refers to fluid leaks in general not oil! She includes as evidence the government description of 8.4.1. This does refer to fluid leaks in general but the advisory clearly states that the fluid in question is oil. To say that this was not revealed is nonsense.

 

She appears to be claiming that there is a leak of some other unspecified fluid which has leaked into the oil. This caused it to burn at a higher temperature and that my daughter must have been aware of this  and did not reveal it and has therefore sold her faulty goods. (Her words). She had been driving the car daily including that morning with no problems.The only reason that my daughter can think of for the leak to suddenly become as excessive as they describe is that they did not properly tighten the oil cap after inspection - she denies having removed the oil cap which is untrue. The claimant has submitted a witness statement from her boyfriend which naturally corroborates everything she has said.

 

I am sure the judge will be as mystified by all of this as we are but it is so ridiculous that I keep wondering if there is something we have missed. (A minor annoyance is that the claimant has written on my daughter's witness statement and submitted this as evidence). I may be mistaken but I believe that the only pieces of evidence are the MOT certificate and the invoice detailing the repair, both  of which support the defence.

 

 

[Alesha]

Thank you for your replies. Just an update - the hearing is set for the 9th June on paper.

  The only real documentary evidence that the claimant has submitted are MOT with advisory Oil leak but not excessive 8.4.1 (a)(i). (December 2019)

She includes as evidence a screenshot of government description:

 Other environmental items. 8.4.1 Fluid leaks.  'A leak of fluids such as engine coolant, screen wash, and fluid required for selective catalyst reduction are not reasons for failure.' (after detailing how testing should be done)

 

In her words:

'fault not mentioned when sold - engine oil leak (it was but this is verbal and her boyfriend has also made a witness statement to the effect that it wasn't mentioned. She also saw all documentation prior to sale including MOT)

MOT only confirms a fluid leak which is not engine oil (it clearly states that it is)

the fault is caused by wear and tear of the housing oil filter seal'

 

The only other documentary evidence is the invoice for repair - £197.07, which she is claiming. (The advertised price was reduced from £2250 to £1900 - it is a 13 year old Mini). My daughter refused her offer to settle for £100.

 

To add insult to injury, she has written on her copy of my daughter's witness statement and submitted a screenshot of it as evidence. (My daughter submitted her documents before she did - they have both submitted MOT evidence in support)

 

Surely it will be thrown out.

 

[Alesha]

Is it allowed to add to what has already been submitted?

[Alesha]

Scan_0027.pdfHi

I am attaching Witness Statement

[Alesha]

I don't have hard copy. She submitted her documents to my daughter by email, as photo attachments which my daughter then forwarded to me. I'm not able to save and attach. I could copy verbatim.

[Alesha]

I couldn't access Moneyclaim and I don't have Adobe on my phone. I have therefore typed out the witness statement. The English is a little strange in places but the claimant is Polish and English is not her first language. I have typed it verbatim.

 

 

Quote

 

CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT

 

1. I have contacted the defendant via email and a recorded delivery sign for letter prior to the application for small claim with the court to work a solution out. The letter is at Royal Mail depot as not picked up and the email is unanswered. Before logging a claim I have left her 14 days to respond. Proof A (Post office proof of posting)

(The letter was successfully delivered at the second attempt. As stated in earlier post there was no address, there was no mention of 14 days to respond and the only reference to taking action was that she was thinking to take it further)

 

2. The car was originally advertised for £2500 prior to my contact to Ruth in the first place. I have seen her add when it was already £2250. When contacting her on Monday 20^th January after taking the car to the garage and recovering the issue of the engine oil leak, she admitted she was conscious of the fault but this has never been mentioned before. She has also told me about the £350 reduction in price for the allowance of the repair, however this was from £2500 to £2250. Therefore in her statement point 2 and 7 the reduction for £350 is not for the repair allowance. Proof B Page 3. Proof E (The price was reduced from £2500 to £2250 initially as she felt it was a little high. The claimant responded to the advertisement at the price of £2250 therefore the original reduction was irrelevant. She was advised by the MOT tester that the cost of the repair would be around £200 which was the case)

 

3. After the test drive of the car, I have asked for the lowest price she would take, and it was £2000 as she have said. I have offered £1900 and she agreed to it, due to wanting quick and hassle-free sale. She has not mentioned the reason for the acceptance and neither the allowance of repairs. She has already included that in the reduction of £2500 to £2250. Proof C. Proof B Page 2

 

4. The engine oil leak was never discussed or enclosed in any forms. MOT certificate declares an oil leak , however on gov.uk/MOT web page the advisory for 8.4.1 is categorised under other environmental items (8.4), fluid leaks (8.4.1) which are engine coolant, screen wash and fluid required for catalyst. Proof D. Proof D. (She has clearly misunderstood this if she thinks oil is not a fluid. This could have been explained at mediation – the gov.uk statement is that leaks of these particular fluids are not reasons for MOT failures)

 

5. Garage receipt to prove the fault and the amount owed, Proof F

 

 

 

 

 

[Alesha]

Thank you for help and advice. The claim was dismissed. 'The court prefers the defendant's evidence.'

[Alesha]

There was no order for costs. There was no hearing - it was judged on documents alone. It cost the claimant £50 to bring the case though.