I purchased a vehicle privately which broke down the first time we drove it.
The fault was a starting motor issue which only occurred after the vehicle had been driven long enough for all engine and ancillary components to be warmed up.
It did not show up during the test drive and would not have been made evident through any inspection.
I have evidence in the form of a text from the previous owner stating the same problem had occurred with him before.
I also have a copy of a service invoice which states ‘investigate starting issues’.
The invoice also states no fault could be found but 'customer to monitor' and I have spoken to the garage involved and they have confirmed they did not release the car ‘without fault’.
This invoice is dated a month before we purchased the car.
The case finally went to court last week and the assessor began the proceedings by telling me that caveat emptor applies and that a seller is under no obligation to divulge any problems a vehicle might have.
The only evidence that the previous owner supplied were some invoices one of which states the job to diagnose starting issues. It took him a year to supply these and none of these invoices indicate that he was not aware of the problem, in fact they imply the opposite.
When I asked for permission to obtain a statement from the garage confirming the condition of the car when it was released he told the garage not to talk to me.
I was shocked the decision went against me and the fact that the assessor dismissed the previous owner preventing me obtaining evidence from the garage.
To add insult to injury I was ordered to pay costs.
All the research I’ve done tells me I had a good case and that this sort of behaviour by a seller IS accountable in law.
I want to appeal this decision as I believe the assessor got it wrong but I need to confirm that caveat emptor, when selling a car with known, undeclared issues, is not a valid defence.
The fault was a starting motor issue which only occurred after the vehicle had been driven long enough for all engine and ancillary components to be warmed up.
It did not show up during the test drive and would not have been made evident through any inspection.
I have evidence in the form of a text from the previous owner stating the same problem had occurred with him before.
I also have a copy of a service invoice which states ‘investigate starting issues’.
The invoice also states no fault could be found but 'customer to monitor' and I have spoken to the garage involved and they have confirmed they did not release the car ‘without fault’.
This invoice is dated a month before we purchased the car.
The case finally went to court last week and the assessor began the proceedings by telling me that caveat emptor applies and that a seller is under no obligation to divulge any problems a vehicle might have.
The only evidence that the previous owner supplied were some invoices one of which states the job to diagnose starting issues. It took him a year to supply these and none of these invoices indicate that he was not aware of the problem, in fact they imply the opposite.
When I asked for permission to obtain a statement from the garage confirming the condition of the car when it was released he told the garage not to talk to me.
I was shocked the decision went against me and the fact that the assessor dismissed the previous owner preventing me obtaining evidence from the garage.
To add insult to injury I was ordered to pay costs.
All the research I’ve done tells me I had a good case and that this sort of behaviour by a seller IS accountable in law.
I want to appeal this decision as I believe the assessor got it wrong but I need to confirm that caveat emptor, when selling a car with known, undeclared issues, is not a valid defence.