Son privately sold car, private buyer has raised court claim citing failures under the Consumer Rights Act & that my son received a Fraudulent MOT certificate!!

[lynzmeek]

My 18 Yr old son bought a car to fix up and sell on to make a bit of money. He had a friend from a garage helping to fix it up.

It was then taken for an mot, any advisories that needed to be done were done and then re mot'd. He put the car up for sale and someone came to have a look at it and test drove it. He was happy with the car and paid a deposit  and then cane back a few days later to collect the car and pay the rest of the money.

The buyer contacted my son about 10 days later saying the car had broke down and there was a hole in the engine block so it was leaking oil. My son explained to him he wasn't a mechanic and wasn't aware of any issues with holes in the engine block. So he is now trying to say the mot is fraudulent.

He has made.a claim for £1200 plus daily interest. We have never had to deal with this before so if anyone could advise on how to reply and defend the claim I would appreciate it. He is only 18 and not a mechanic, he assumed the car was fine when it passed the mot.

[whitelist]

Am no mechanic so advisory.

If an oil leak had been spotted during the MOT, it would have either failed or an advisory recorded.

The Consumer Rights Act key parts do not apply to vehicles sold privately. There is no obligation for the vehicle to be fit for purpose, but?

You must describe the car accurately to the buyer and must be roadworthy.

The seller is not under any legal obligation to declare the condition of the car to the buyer  and won't be able to claim for repairs.

The fact you gave the vehicle a new MOT which passed as you are no mechanic is all you need. It is down to the buyer to have the vehicle inspected at their own expense prior to exchanging cash.

Reply to the claim as defending in full as no liability exists.

Am sure other posters will help to draw up a defence for you.

Edited February 25 by whitelist

[jk2054]

Is there garage reports for the buyer’s claim?

[lynzmeek]

Thankyou very much for your help. There was no oil leak when it went for the mot and the buyer said the oil leak was after it broke down so around 10 days after he bought it.

He said it had been taken to a garage who said the car had the hole in the engine block and believed it was a fraudulent mot. But we haven't seen any report.

[dx100uk]

TINY applies here... tough It's Now Yours. 

its a person to person private sale 

it's not covered by any rules/regulations at all.

even if the MOT was fraud a county court claim is not the place to address this issue and most certainly not using the seller as any defendant against such, nor using it as an excuse to try and get out of buying the car and getting a refund.

the claim is a dead duck. simply do AOS and file a defence stating this was a private sale between 2 private individuals, the car was test driven and the buyer found no faults nor were any aware of by the seller.

dx

[lynzmeek]

Hi sorry what is an AOS?

What should I reply with for the defence.

I'm really not sure how to word anything without looking silly

[dx100uk]

AOS Acknowledgement of service.

please complete this:

 

[lynzmeek]

Do I need to answer all the questions or is it easier just to upload the claim papers

Edited February 25 by lynzmeek
Misspelt

[dx100uk]

no we need them here in a post for easy ref please

dx

 

[lynzmeek]

Which Court have you received the claim from ? HM Courts and tribunals service. Online civil money claims

Name of the Claimant ? Harvey Benson

How many defendant's  joint or self ? self

Date of issue – 14th February 2024

Particulars of Claim

 

What is the claim for – 

1. I am seeking a full refund of £1,200 from the defendant for the sale of a vehicle which was found to be faulty immediately after purchase.

2. The vehicle has a significant engine defect, specifically a hole in the engine block, and the tyres are severely cracked, rendering the car unsafe and undriveable.

3. These issues suggest that the vehicle was not as described at the time of sale and that the MOT certificate provided may have been fraudulent.

Reasons Why the Defendant Owes Money:

1. The car was sold with pre-existing conditions that were not disclosed, which constitutes a breach of the Consumer Rights Act of 2015.

2. The vehicle is not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality, and not as described at the point of sale.

3. The immediate breakdown and tire condition indicate that the MOT certificate may not reflect the true state of the vehicle at the time of sale.

4. As per the Consumer Rights Act of 2015, the buyer is entitled to a full refund for a faulty product if a claim is made within 30 days of purchase.

5. The defendant has thus far not provided a refund despite the clear entitlement under consumer protection law, necessitating this claim.

I trust that the above explanation clearly outlines the basis of my claim without delving into a detailed timeline, which can be provided upon request.

Timeline

Timeline summary

Date	What happened
28th January 2024	Placed a deposit of £200 for the car with Liam.
1st February 2024	Paid the remaining £1,000 to complete the purchase of the car.
8th February 2024	The oil warning light on the car activated, indicating a potential issue with the engine. - Upon closer inspection, discovered that the tires were cracking, suggesting age or wear not consistent with a recent MOT pass.
9th February 2024	The car broke down and was leaking oil. A visual inspection did not reveal the source of the leak. - Took the car to a garage at 14:30 for a professional inspection. - The mechanic discovered a hole in the engine and indicated that this issue would have been present for some time, not just over the week I had the car. - The mechanic also confirmed that the tires' condition was such that they would not have passed an MOT, suggesting the certificate may have been fraudulent. Sent Liam a message requesting a full refund and included photos of the hole in the engine. Received no response.
11th February 2024	Sent another message to Liam regarding the refund. After this attempt to communicate, he blocked my number and on social media, preventing further contact.

 

What is the total value of the claim? £1200 PLUS 8% interest rate
 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No
 

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? The court papers were sent to my girlfriends address, it wasn't my home address

[dx100uk]

the consumer rights act does not apply to private joe public<>joe public sales.

claim is a joke.

is there a password on the claimform for the online court site?

usually at the end of the information box

dx

 

[lynzmeek]

Yes there is a password

[dx100uk]

pop up on the MCOL or www.moneyclaim.gov.uk website detailed on the claimform.
[if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time]
.
 register as an individual on the Gov't Gateway Site
Go to HMRC's login page.
Click the GREEN sign in button.
Click “Create sign in details”
Enter your email address where asked.
You will now be emailed a confirmation code. ...
You will now be issued with a User ID for your government gateway account.
 note down your details inc the long gateway number given, you might need it later.
 then log in to the court Website
.
 select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
.
 then using the details required from the claimform
.
 defend all
 leave jurisdiction unticked
 you DO NOT file a defence at this time
[BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ]
click thru to the end
confirm and exit MCOL.
..
i would be inclined to file what i put above in the defence section also and kill the claim dead now.

however, can you please wait for @BankFodder to pop in and x t's and do i's please this is the correct defence to file.......

but do go get AOS done as above now.

dx

 

[lynzmeek]

I have said he is defending the full claim.

It says he has until the 18th March to file his defence

[flexeh]

Quote   8th February 2024 The oil warning light on the car activated, indicating a potential issue with the engine. - Upon closer inspection, discovered that the tires were cracking, suggesting age or wear not consistent with a recent MOT pass.   Wonder what action if any he did, because the next day it says the car broke down. he doesn't say that he checked the oil or anything in the timeline. looks like hes just ignored it to be honest.

[lynzmeek]

I don't think he has checked it either. If an oil light came on I would assume he would check the level and top it up as that's what I would do

[dx100uk]

immaterial. not your problem

1 hour ago, lynzmeek said:

I have said he is defending the full claim.

It says he has until the 18th March to file his defence

is this from the claim history on the moneyclaims website?

dx

[lolerz]

Remember to mention in your defense that the Claimant hasn't followed Paragraph 3 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. It's unlikely to get the claim struck out on its own but it's just yet another reason why this claim is pants.

 

The claimant doesn't have a clue what they're doing. I bet this goes no further than you submitting your defence once he realises you know what you're talking about and he doesn't.

[jk2054]

I don't think he's realised CRA doesn't apply to priv to priv  

[dx100uk]

neither does the pre action protocol .... AFAIK its only for when a business is involved as either claimant or defendant....?

1.1 This Protocol applies to any business (including sole traders and public
bodies) claiming payment of a debt from an individual (including a sole
trader). The business will be referred to as the “creditor” and the individual will
be referred to as the “debtor”. This Protocol does not apply to business-to business debts unless the debtor is a sole trader.

dx

[lolerz]

Yep dx you're correct there, my mistake.

General Practice Directions for Pre-Action Conduct will still apply. Drawing to Paragraph 3 where it expects the claimant and defendant to exchange sufficient information. Also drawing attention to Paragraph 6(a) where in line of no Pre-Action Protocol being in place, the court expects:

 

(a) the claimant writing to the defendant with concise details of the claim. The letter should include the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated;

 

This hasn't happened so I would amend the statement of failing to adhere to the Pre-Action Protocol to failing to comply with Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 6(a) of the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct.

[dx100uk]

1 hour ago, lolerz said:

This hasn't happened so I would amend the statement of failing to adhere to the Pre-Action Protocol to failing to comply with Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 6(a) of the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct.

i think this has been use here before, but PAPLOC compliance is a mute point really, CRA not applying will kill it dead on it's own.

thread title updated

dx

 

[lynzmeek]

This is from the claim history 

I asked for the extra 14 days to file the defence just to make sure I've got everything I need to reply with.

I've never done this before so not sure what I'm doing or how to word it in the defence.

[Tony P]

20 hours ago, lynzmeek said:

My 18 Yr old son bought a car to fix up and sell on to make a bit of money. 

Not wishing to be the party pooper, but does not that intention makes him a trader and not a private seller?

All traders have a first, even if it becomes their last.

[dx100uk]

no of course it doesn't

dx