# guy who bought my car wants money back



## wjc (16 Mar 2008)

Sold car privately last week (20k). Has been giving trouble since guy took it away. Has rang me a few times to tell me car broke down on him. Know he is angling to get money back. I do not intend to do this as I sold it in good faith. Would rather if it didn't give guy trouble. Any suggestions what I could to do to appease this guy short of refund. I am not a dealer.


----------



## gebbel (16 Mar 2008)

wjc said:


> Sold car privately last week (20k). Has been giving trouble since guy took it away.



Were you aware of any issues with the car before you sold it to him?


----------



## mercman (16 Mar 2008)

It all depends on what kind of trouble he is having, how many miles he has done since he purchased the car and as to whether he had an engineer/ mechanic inspect the car before purchase. Something wrong however if it started giving him big trouble after a couple of days.


----------



## jhegarty (16 Mar 2008)

mercman said:


> Something wrong however if it started giving him big trouble after a couple of days.




Unless thats why the op sold it...

If the car had a defect that would make it dangerous then the buyer does have rights....


----------



## steph1 (16 Mar 2008)

When he came to look at the car did he bring a mechanic with him or did he just agree to buy it as seen.

Did you have it serviced yourself before you sold it or were you aware that there were any problems or did you have any problems yourself with it before you sold it.

When people are buying privately unless they know a lot about cars themselves they should really get a mechanic to check the vehicle out before they make a purchase.


----------



## almanu (16 Mar 2008)

wjc said:


> Sold car privately last week (20k). Has been giving trouble since guy took it away. Has rang me a few times to tell me car broke down on him. Know he is angling to get money back. I do not intend to do this as I sold it in good faith. Would rather if it didn't give guy trouble. Any suggestions what I could to do to appease this guy short of refund. I am not a dealer.


once you sold this guy your car and wrote as sold as seen on his recipt hae has no come back,if u agreed a warenty you are liable for engine and gear box only,hope this can ease your worrys mate almanu


----------



## Marie (17 Mar 2008)

One of the solicitors/legal people on AAM can advise what the law is on this and people working in dealerships will have a perspective but I am pretty sure that if you sold someone a second-hand car for 20K claiming it is in working order and he contacts you almost immediately reporting breakdowns and asking for help then the vehicle is not 'fit for purpose'.  With a faulty or dangerous car there would be legal and consumer issues under the trades description act........whether the sale is private or not.


----------



## RS2K (18 Mar 2008)

almanu said:


> once you sold this guy your car and wrote as sold as seen on his recipt hae has no come back,if u agreed a warenty you are liable for engine and gear box only,hope this can ease your worrys mate almanu



I don't believe you are correct there.


----------



## Dinny (18 Mar 2008)

Would buying privately not be the same as buying in a public car auction? 

 The old saying is “your eye is your judge and your pocket is your guide” 

If people are happy to pay less buying private as opposed to buying of a dealer for a higher price can they really expect to have it both ways. I wouldn’t give them anything back personally.


----------



## Caveat (18 Mar 2008)

A lot may depend on the type of problem.

If it's something that by it's nature is known to be intermittent, it's possible that the purchaser may feel cheated in some way.

Also, as suggested, if the fault is potentially dangerous there could be further problems/ramifications.

Was the OP aware of the fault in question? is it possible that an independent inspection would strongly suggest that the OP *must* have known?

In general, _caveat emptor, _but this is certainly not always a 'get out clause'.


----------



## efm (18 Mar 2008)

Caveat said:


> Was the OP aware of the fault in question? is it possible that an independent inspection would strongly suggest that the OP *must* have known?


 
But would the problem then not need to be so bad that the buyer should have spotted it themselves?

If, for example, I sell a car privately and the next day the head gasket blows ruining the engine - would the buyer have any comeback?

Or, if I sell a car, the brakes fail and the buyer crashes - would the buyer have any comeback?

In both cases the problems may have been identifiable by a trained mechanic but not be me.....I know nothing about cars - Am I still expected to entertain a claim for refund / expenses from the buyer?


----------



## Caveat (18 Mar 2008)

efm said:


> But would the problem then not need to be so bad that the buyer should have spotted it themselves?


 
Not necessarily - if as mentioned the fault was intermittent. E.g., mechanic or other inspector could conclude that "this was bound to have been happening on and off for months to get to this stage".

Can't think of an example but it's all hypothetical until we know 1) if the OP knew of the problem and 2) what the problem is/was.


----------



## Paulone (18 Mar 2008)

The car has to be fit for purpose - which means that the buyer can expect to get a car that performs for him much like any other similar car with a mileage and condition that merits paying about this much for it. 

The seller must also give as true and accurate a description of the car as possible - meaning that you can't tell porkies about its condition in the hope of ramping up the price

My understanding is that if the car breaks down because of normal wear & tear or a routine 'problem' - such as a failure of some component that A - is problematic on this type of vehicle or B - its not hugely surprising that it wears out at this mileage given the car's overall condition, then this is the buyer's problem - caveat emptor and all that.

What would be the seller's problem is where a major fault on the car was not reported or (worse) covered up - for example, structural rust.

In the event of something fundamental being wrong with the car, even where its a private sale, the buyer can look for money back or recompense of some type if the car falls seriously short of its description or price - even if the seller didn't know about the fault - because its reasonable to expect that something priced like its in good condition actually is in relatively good condition.

In the case of the private sale, I believe its the buyer's job to demonstrate all of this. Not the easiest for them to do, but it is possible.

Sounds too unclear in this case what the issue is. If the buyer continues to complain, then it might be an idea to ask him to conduct all further contact in writing (to keep everyone/thing right & clear), to specify exactly what the problem is and reserve the right to get your own inspection of the car done to verify any claims made about its condition.


----------



## Complainer (18 Mar 2008)

Paulone said:


> The car has to be fit for purpose -


Are you certain that this requirement applies to a private sale?


----------



## Caveat (18 Mar 2008)

Good post Paulone.

This is pretty much my understanding too. Many people seem to be under the impression that "private sale = tough, no comeback" which is the not the case.

(Not prejudging the OP's circumstances BTW)


----------



## Paulone (18 Mar 2008)

My understanding is that 'fit for purpose' does apply to a private sale, but the big difference is that its so much more difficult to prove and its the buyer's responsibility to do all the work.

buying from a garage or retailer means you have comeback cemented into the law - its illegal for them to pull a fast one on you and you have automatic recourse to your rights as a consumer. That doesn't mean that you never pay over the odds or always get good value, but it does mean that there is much easier comeback.

In a private sale, the same logic applies, but its a contract to buy between you and the other person rather than a retailer or garage - usually unwritten, the devil itself to prove because its open to all sorts of 'he said/she said' and if there's a problem, then it's the buyer who must do all the running.

Provided the OP was acting in good faith and given that the car may well be playing up now its been sold, the buyer needs to demonstrate why that's the OP's problem - it was an expensive enough car so it would be worth the buyer's while to do that.


----------



## jhegarty (18 Mar 2008)

Looks like the buyer found the op and did him in... he hasn't been online since the post......


----------



## Staples (18 Mar 2008)

Consumer protection applies only to deals involving commercial entities - not private sellers.

If the buyer here is seeking redress and the seller isn't willing to cooperate, he'll need to take a private action which, given the costs and risks involved, he probably won't.

It would all depend on whether the true condition of the car was disclosed at the time of the sale but even if it was, the conept of caveat emptor applies.


----------



## stir crazy (19 Mar 2008)

jhegarty said:


> Looks like the buyer found the op and did him in... he hasn't been online since the post......



lol If he has been done in, then lets not jump to premature conclusions about who did him in.


----------



## RS2K (19 Mar 2008)

Caveat emptor applies.


----------



## Marie (19 Mar 2008)

...........but 'caveat emptor' is no cooler of rage if you find yourself done out of 20K!!!


----------



## RS2K (20 Mar 2008)

Marie said:


> ...........but 'caveat emptor' is no cooler of rage if you find yourself done out of 20K!!!



True, but anyone buying a car for that money should always go over it thoroughly, check it's history, etc etc....

What was wrong with it OP? Did you hide anything btw?


----------



## wjc (21 Mar 2008)

Hold on a second. I did not do any guy out of 20k. Car was only 2 years old and had high mileage. Purchaser bought car for 3-4k less than he would in garage. Surely that 3-4k is risk premium that you pay to dealer because you get warranty. Sold car because I do a lot of driving and manufacturer's warranty had just run out. Car had a few trips to garage for repairs under warranty. Car was driving fine. Do not want to take car back as ownership has been transferred to new owner and if I take it back I will be 3rd owner instead of first owner which I was. Buyer has been in touch and says he has had it checked out and it is something about injector pump. Car will not start. Not a dangerous problem like bits falling off. I have offered to make contribution towards repairs. How do I know that he will not present huge bill? How do I know mechanic who is looking at it has a clue what he is at? Should I get it repaired at garage of my choice? Money has gone to paying off balance of car loan.


----------



## jhegarty (21 Mar 2008)

wjc said:


> Car was driving fine.





Oh really ?

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=339947


----------



## rmelly (21 Mar 2008)

jhegarty said:


> Oh really ?
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=339947


 

Classic - I love when people do this here - put 2 and 2 together...


----------



## MandaC (21 Mar 2008)

In all fairness, the car was taken back to the garage a number of times and checked out fine according to a VW dealership.  Was the problem now of the car not starting relating to the loss of power suspected by the owner?

I got rid of my Peugeot 307 because I suspected it was using too much petrol.  Garage told me I was imagining it and nothing wrong.  Traded in car.  Got a car with smaller engine.  Problem solved one way or another.


----------



## euro2000 (21 Mar 2008)

Quote from Consumer Connect
But the seller is still required to give you accurate and truthful information to any questions that you ask. There is no obligation on the private seller to offer up any information freely, so the key thing is to know which questions to ask in the first place.


----------



## Blueberry08 (21 Mar 2008)

jhegarty said:


> Oh really ?
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=339947



Tut, tut, not nice. The OP clearly said in that post that he wasn't happy with the performance of the car but it had been checked out by the dealers and they could find no problem. 



wjc said:


> HiHave a 06 2.0L 140bhp VW Passat diesel. Have never been 100% happy with power output especially in lower gears. *Have taken it to dealers a few times and they say they can find no problem with it and everything checks out on the computer.* I am still not happy with it as a friend of mine has the same car and to me there is a noticeable difference.


----------



## gebbel (21 Mar 2008)

Very good detective work Jhegarty.

I must admit that I've taken a keen interest in this thread from the start. To be honest, when the OP said that he had "sold the car in good faith", I was somehow suspicious. Just call it a cyber hunch. The thread from January 2007, in my opinion, strengthens that hunch. To the OP I ask this: did you inform the buyer of your car of the concerns you raised in this forum 1 year ago? Were there any other issues you failed to inform him of? If so, then although the law may not implore you, you have a duty to reach an agreement with the buyer that may include compensation of some sort.



wjc said:


> Have a 06 2.0L 140bhp VW Passat diesel. Have never been 100% happy with power output especially in lower gears.
> 
> I am still not happy with it as a friend of mine has the same car and to me there is a noticeable difference.



I sympathize with the buyer.


----------



## efm (25 Mar 2008)

gebbel said:


> I sympathize with the buyer.


 
I sympathize with the seller and cannot believe he is making a contribution towards the cost of repairing the injectors! If the buyer didn't ask the correct questions and didn't get a qualified professional to look at the car then he took his chances; and on this occasion chance went against him.

I am still not convinced, from any evidence on this post, that the seller is under any obligation in this instance.  I would be interested to know of any case law or legal precedent that would clarify this matter.


----------



## gebbel (25 Mar 2008)

efm said:


> I am still not convinced, from any evidence on this post, that the seller is under any obligation in this instance.  I would be interested to know of any case law or legal precedent that would clarify this matter.



The seller is, as far as I am aware, under no legal obligation. That is why I sympathize with the buyer, who forked out 20K for a car that obviously had a major defect. What worries me is the OP's post in this forum of 1 year ago, where he seeks advice on an issue with the car (assuming of course it's the same car he sold on). I remain dubious that the OP did not inform the seller of this issue. He himself says that the car "had a few trips to be repaired under warranty". I just don't think that the seller was fully informed about all of this.  I agree, however, that it could be bad luck but we are talking about a 2006 Passat here. Not exactly a car that is well known for unreliability especially when so young.


----------



## RS2K (25 Mar 2008)

Seller had no obligation whatsoever. It's a risk of buying privately. The upside being a lower price. 

The op's concern on the car puzzles me however. The engine power is the same in every gear.


----------



## Pique318 (26 Mar 2008)

Eh, calm down on the witch hunt here. 
For one thing, no-one has any idea if the OPs car in question is the same as the one Sherlock 'jhegarty' Holmes found.

Even if it was, the dealer found nothing wrong with it, so it basically got a 'clean bill of health' and thus there is nothing to tell a prospective buyer.

And lastly, to the buyer I say this... "Tough". You thought you saw a bargain, but may not be as much of a one as you wanted. Them's the risks of buying private.

Once bitten, twice shy. Lesson learned. Quit yer whining.


----------



## wjc (26 Mar 2008)

Just for the record the car in question is not the 06 passat I had trouble with. Traded in that a good while ago. Buyer is getting car fixed and I am making contribution towards repairs.


----------

