Private car seller lies about his Car for sale

wiltonson · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:13

My mate has just recently seen a car and he likes it very much and put down a deposit of 500 quids. When he got home to do an HPI check he's shocked to see that the car has been written off. He's hoping to get his deposit back as the seller assured him many times that the car has not been in an accident before. HPI revealed that the car was written off and classified it as class C accident.

We think a garage bought the damaged car cheap and got it repaired to top condition. Then the garage managed to get it back on the road by VIC check

VOSA’s Vehicle Identity Check (VIC) Scheme
33. The VIC scheme is a compulsory identity check, carried out by VOSA, of any car or tricycles which has been ‘written off’ as category A, B or C salvage by an insurer following accident damage and which is subsequently repaired for road use. The check also applies to scrapped cars with third party insurance.

The seller then bought the car from the garage but i don't know how cheap he got it for. He tricked my friend into believing that the car has no accident in the past and so my friend put down a deposit for it.

Is there anyway he can still argue with him that he has not been honest about this sale and demand his deposit back? He has written a contract agreement but says the deposit is unrefundable however can he still argue that the seller was lying in the first place so it's not valid? even the car advert that he published on the Autotrader didn't mention about any accident.

My friend is gutted he lost his 500 pounds!

Tican · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:15

If the seller didnt know about it being written off (very hard to prove he did!) then I dont think there is anything you can do im afraid

Dolph · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:23

With private sales, there are very few statutory protections, it's very much a case of buyer beware.

About the only one that applies is that the description be accurate, but for that to hold water, you would have to be able to prove that the seller was not acting in good faith (ie he definitely knew about the cars history and was deliberately hiding it), which is difficult to prove at the best of times. It is entirely possible the seller genuinely doesn't know the car was previously written off, and if that was the case, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on (as the seller has given you all the information to the best of his knowledge)

Hequn · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:23

I can't see why he'd do the HPI check AFTER putting £500 down for it? Seems crazy to me. :eek:

commodore16 · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:24

I'd get all your details together send him a letter stating your facts and if you don't here back within 14 working days (state you are giving him this long to reply in the letter) or if he refuses anything to do with it then take the matter to the small claims court.

Dolph · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:31

commodore16 said:
I'd get all your details together send him a letter stating your facts and if you don't here back within 14 working days (state you are giving him this long to reply in the letter) or if he refuses anything to do with it then take the matter to the small claims court.

On the basis of what? He'd have to prove deception to have any case at all, and for that he'd have to have some evidence to suggest the seller knew the cars history (for example, a writeoff date that was during the time the seller owned the car).

To take someone to court, you actually have to have a reason...

Put the situation into perspective. Say I was selling my car, and that when I bought it, I didn't bother with an HPI check. I bought the car happy with it's condition, and I've owned it for three years, it's had two previous owners before me. There are no obvious signs of any sort of damage to the car.

If someone asks me "has the car been in any accidents", the only answer I can give is either "No" or "not that I'm aware of." It could be that the car has been written off and repaired before I bought it, but I am not aware of that.

Am I liable for giving an honest answer to the best part of my knowledge? No.

wiltonson · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:48

it seems that my mate has no chance of getting his money back. he lied in many occasions

1. Said her mum bought the car and didn't like it so would like to sell it now. However, the car has been registed as disable and doesn't have any tax disc. So there's no way her mum has been using it.

2. Said he bought the car from a private seller. The seller was actually someone from the garage.

3. He's showing a fake service history book. I told my friend to call up the service company where they have the stamp. but the dealer had no clue about that car and the office address on the stamp doesn't exists.

only thing that he did to protect himself was he made a video recording of the buy selling process using his video phone. Does it do any good or is that an intrusion of privacy?

commodore16 · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:49

The reason he can take the matter to a Civil Court is it is based on a balance of probability test rather than a reasonableness test in Criminal law.

Therefore he does not need to prove by such a high margin that the seller may have been aware beforehand, if he is successful by a margin of 51% or more then he will win the judgement.

mad_allan · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:49

It is a garage liability to tell a buyer that the car is HPI'd iirc.

If that's the case, the garage would have advised the buyer, thus he is selling it and aware of the previous damage.

Might be reading your post wrong but I think the seller is aware.

wesley · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:52

wiltonson said:
1. Said her mum bought the car and didn't like it so would like to sell it now. However, the car has been registed as disable and doesn't have any tax disc. So there's no way her mum has been using it.

her mum bought the car, didnt liked it, so wants to sell it, and never used it :confused:

what car is it?

wiltonson · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:57

He can argue that the garage didn't tell him that (i suspected the seller is his friend and they both planned this out to make some money)

I have a feeling they can swindle their way out of trouble. One thing we can hold him for is that he lied about the car service history. He said he got the log book from the dealer which the car was purchased from (sticker on back of windscreen) We think that the service book is fake, because the dealer had not a clue about the car being serviced in any of their garage. And when we called the dealer on the stamped service, the dealer has not a clue about it and the garage address doesn't exists.

wiltonson · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:58

wesley said:
her mum bought the car, didnt liked it, so wants to sell it, and never used it

what car is it?

Not sure if I can say it here as he might be reading this. It's not an european car.

gc123 · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:35

not much use to you now, but for future reference , always look at the first page of the v5. if the car has been a cat c and required a vic it will state under option 3.

substantially repaired and/or accident damaged:identity checked on .....(date)

quoted directly off a v5 here.

if the seller doesnt let you see the complete document . walk away. if you think something is wrong. walk away.

i repair and sell these for a living and all my customers know the score, if its damaged/repaired you buy it cheaper and normally sell it cheaper. works on the basis that should you have an accident, the insurance payout is less.

the one thing i will say is the insurance realise they dont get much in the way of salvage monies when they sell catagory c or d so now the trend is for them to sell them as unclassified.

Dolph · 22 Sep 2006 at 17:15

commodore16 said:
The reason he can take the matter to a Civil Court is it is based on a balance of probability test rather than a reasonableness test in Criminal law.

But this would generally still require something more in the way of evidence than a single person's word (which is basically what this amounts to)

Therefore he does not need to prove by such a high margin that the seller may have been aware beforehand, if he is successful by a margin of 51% or more then he will win the judgement.

Even without a high margin of proof a simple "He must have known because I said so" isn't even convincing in the slightest....

Having said that, some of the other information the OP has posted makes it look a bit more hopeful.

Chocki · 22 Sep 2006 at 17:24

Have you tried having a word with the old bill, and mention about the service book with false details etc. They may not be able to do much but at least youve informed the authorities and they will put a black mark against these dodgy characters.

Too many black marks and something might get done, you never know, they may already be known to the local police as crooks, which may help your claim.

commodore16 · 22 Sep 2006 at 17:27

The person in the OPs message quite clearly asked whether their was any accident damage in the past several times, the seller has replied no.

Therefore the buyer has been mislead by the seller, if he had replied that he did not know or wasn't sure then the onus would be put solely on the buyer to take the burden of risk.

So it's not a simple case of as you stated: "He must have known because I said so"

Obviously the exact wording and terms of the contract for the purposes of the deposit would need to be looked into, though I doubt it would have a clause for cars with undeclared accident damage etc.

Dolph · 22 Sep 2006 at 17:37

commodore16 said:
The person in the OPs message quite clearly asked whether their was any accident damage in the past several times, the seller has replied no.

The seller can only answer a question to the best of their knowledge. You are not in any way liable for unwittingly giving false information in this kind of situation.

Therefore the buyer has been mislead by the seller, if he had replied that he did not know or wasn't sure then the onus would be put solely on the buyer to take the burden of risk.

Private car sales are always caveat Emptor, with the sole exception of deliberate false advertising. In this case, even in a civil court, you're going to have to prove that the other person was being deliberately misleading.

So it's not a simple case of as you stated: "He must have known because I said so"

Actually, it is. As the description comes from the OP, the seller could just claim he was not aware of the cars history, and the only thing the buyer has is his own view that the person must have known (although no reason was given as to why he suspects this, other than it suits him)

silversurfer · 22 Sep 2006 at 17:41

I hope he got everything in writing, sounds really bad :/

Maybe he can negioate to go ahead with the sale at a reduced price, I cant see any other easy way out

commodore16 · 22 Sep 2006 at 17:45

Err no, if the seller was to claim he was not aware of the cars history then he would be contradicting himself having stated that he was aware of the car not having any previous accident damage.

You would not have to prove that he was being deliberately misleading you would merely need to prove that their was a fair chance (ie over 50%) that he was possibly aware of the previous damage, or that he had no idea either way but choose to state that no damage had occured to advance his chance at proceeding the sale.

jpmonkey69 · 22 Sep 2006 at 17:57

also, if the owner before the current one was a dealer, they have to say whether it's been written off, so if that's who he got it off, then he should have known.

So if he's not liable, maybe the garage he bought it from is?