Advice on Cat C cars

[John_Doe]

Ok, im after a bit of advice regarding selling a Cat C damaged car. Basically I bought a car way back in 2008. Paid £5500 got a car with MOT, didnt think anything else of it. Now coming up to 4 years thought its time for a change so listed it and sold it. Person came out, viewed the car offered a price as a buy it now and took the car.

Now they are coming back at me saying thats its a write off and that I shouldnt have sold it because it has Cat C damage. This is the first ive heard of this. I never did a vehicle check when i bought the car, which obviously i should have because now i feel ripped off too. Anyway he has shown me the log book in his name and it says in the notes section that it has been repaired in 2007 (so the year before i got the vehicle), he has told me its a CAT C damage and that I should not have sold the vehicle to him without telling him about this. I did not tell him this because I was unaware of this.

My understanding of Cat C is that its been involved in an accident and the insurance have decided not to pay for the repair so it has been done independently by the owner. I also thought that unless the car had been inspected by VOSA after the work then DVLA would not release the log book. Which means it must have been inspected and passed for me to get the log book when i bought the car?

The bloke is now demanding his money back and threatening to take legal action. I just wanted to know if he has the right to do that? If I would have known about this before I would have said something, but surely he should have done a vehicle check before buying the vehicle just like i should have.

 

[artyman]

You state that you were unaware and thus didn't misrepresent the car, did he ask if it was Cat C, if he did then maybe not so clear. Otherwise he purchased without due diligence and a case of caveat emptor (buyer beware) if so I don't think he has a particularly strong legal case and it sounds like buyers remorse. Whether you feel morally obliged to refund is a different matter. I guess we aren't talking mega money here since you bought it 4 years ago, it also has passed MOT's since then proving roadworthiness, so what does he honestly expect for banger money a Rolls Royce!

 

[Adam230K]

He cannot take legal action against you because you aren't a trader. He bought it as seen. He should've carried out those checks and queried it before he bought it. End of story.

 

[minio]

I think that as long as you don't lie about it (ie If you say it's HPI clear when it's not) you are fine. It is BUYER's responsibility to carry out all the necessary checks!


Greg

 

[John_Doe]

Thank you for the replies. I feel a little better now. I do not have £2500 to give back as I sold the vehicle to pay debts. If I would have known about this then I would have stated it when I sold the car because I do not want come backs like this. It just really isn't worth the hassle. And obviously I wouldn't want this to happen to myself so I do sympathise with the bloke. However if it was the other way round, I would consider it my fault for not checking the vehicle enough before buying and not asking the right questions.

When he first came back to me I explained I was not aware of this and I would check because I felt cheated too. I had considered offering part of the money back as a good will gesture, like a few hundred. But now he has come back demanding all the money back and telling me he will take it further if the matter should arise, I do not feel so generous any more.

As you have said it has been MOT'd atleast three times since I got the. And at different MOT stations. And I got the log book back, and have had no issues with the vehicle in all the years I owned it.

I'm still going to ask citizens advice tomorrow because I would at least like their information if he does decide to go to solicitors.

Thanks again

 

[W4SIM]

Dont worry about this John, if your not a Trader then theres no real case here. As has been said earlier the responsibility of carrying out HPi checks and so forth lie with the buyer, not the seller.

I think it was particularly good of you to offer him a couple of hundred quid back, more so than he might have got back from a trader, but if he wants to play hard ball then let him, he cant do much regardless of his futile legal threats.

 

[d w124]

As ^ only if youy are a trader you must declare if the car has been a write off
He is the one that should have done his homework first

 

[M3 SHAM]

As others have metioned buyers responsability to check if car was sold privately (different story if your a trader though!) No legal case here.

 

[chord]

If it was me I wouldn't be very happy if I knew a car turned out to be a Cat C. But then that's why I always do an HPI check on a car if I am going to buy it, even if the car is only worth what you were asking. As has been said if he asked and you lied then there would be a comeback, but if he didn't ask or do an HPI check then not sure what he can do.

 

[steve333]

Out of interest did you buy the car privately or from a dealer in 2007 John?

 

[steve333]

Ok, im after a bit of advice regarding selling a Cat C damaged car. Basically I bought a car way back in 2008. Paid £5500 got a car with MOT, didnt think anything else of it. Now coming up to 4 years thought its time for a change so listed it and sold it. Person came out, viewed the car offered a price as a buy it now and took the car.

Now they are coming back at me saying thats its a write off and that I shouldnt have sold it because it has Cat C damage. This is the first ive heard of this. I never did a vehicle check when i bought the car, which obviously i should have because now i feel ripped off too. Anyway he has shown me the log book in his name and it says in the notes section that it has been repaired in 2007 (so the year before i got the vehicle), he has told me its a CAT C damage and that I should not have sold the vehicle to him without telling him about this. I did not tell him this because I was unaware of this.

My understanding of Cat C is that its been involved in an accident and the insurance have decided not to pay for the repair so it has been done independently by the owner. I also thought that unless the car had been inspected by VOSA after the work then DVLA would not release the log book. Which means it must have been inspected and passed for me to get the log book when i bought the car?

The bloke is now demanding his money back and threatening to take legal action. I just wanted to know if he has the right to do that? If I would have known about this before I would have said something, but surely he should have done a vehicle check before buying the vehicle just like i should have.

As others have said,a private sale is bought as seen/tested on the day of purchase,the onus is always on the buyer to do hpi/service/mot checks etc.

 

[BillyW124]

When you had your log book for the car John, didnt it say somthing like 'substantially repaired or accident damaged" (or similar) in the notes section?

 

[John_Doe]

We brought the car from a company that basically held cars for private sellers. If tht makes sense. So they charge the private sellers to hold the cars there but are not selling the cars themselves. So technically a private sale.

I do not remember seeing anything on the log book in the notes section. But to be honest as long as my name is correct and it arrived at my address I don't pay too much attention the v5. I did see his v5 and it does state that it has accident damage however this is a new v5 and i was under the assumption that the law changed in 2010 so that dvla had to print this on the v5. And obviously mine was from 2008 so it may not have had this. I usually take copies before I send documents like this off, but on this one bloody occasion I didn't. So I can not be sure if it did or didn't. I have replied to the buyer and stated what I have found and also said that I would not be willing to refund the £2500 back however as a good will gesture I offered £200 cash back as I was also unaware of this and do sympathise with him but do not see this as my fault/problem.

 

[neilz]

I wouldn't have even given £200 - his fault for not checking. You never said it wasn't accident damaged ever did you?

We brought the car from a company that basically held cars for private sellers. If tht makes sense. So they charge the private sellers to hold the cars there but are not selling the cars themselves. So technically a private sale.

I do not remember seeing anything on the log book in the notes section. But to be honest as long as my name is correct and it arrived at my address I don't pay too much attention the v5. I did see his v5 and it does state that it has accident damage however this is a new v5 and i was under the assumption that the law changed in 2010 so that dvla had to print this on the v5. And obviously mine was from 2008 so it may not have had this. I usually take copies before I send documents like this off, but on this one bloody occasion I didn't. So I can not be sure if it did or didn't. I have replied to the buyer and stated what I have found and also said that I would not be willing to refund the £2500 back however as a good will gesture I offered £200 cash back as I was also unaware of this and do sympathise with him but do not see this as my fault/problem.

 

[John_Doe]

No I never said that it wasnt so maybe I shouldn't have offered but at the end of the day I'm not one for unnecessary arguments. I didn't intentionally mislead him as I wasn't aware but I feel if I bought a vehicle and found out later it had been in an accident then I would be more then happy if the seller knocked a bit off the price because of this. Fair all round. So it's up to him now. If he decides he doesn't want the money and wants to take it further then I would rather spend the £2.5k in court then giving him the money now. I've been more then generous now I feel.

 

[neilz]

I think £200 is more than enough so he shouldn't take it any further. I mean, I'm pretty sure my car has been in some sort of collision judging by a strange dent above the grille (a sharp dent) and a poorly resprayed and mended front bumper, and 'missing' history. I'm going to do one of these online checks, but really wouldn't care if it turns out to have been a CAT C. It drives fine, and has been deemed safe and roadworthy (just like the car you sold). If it functions as it should, why should he care.

 

[trainer]

I bought a Cat D car 3 years ago. The seller had advertised it as such and I did and HPI check on it. I tweaked all the dials on the test drive and once paid it was up to me.

I had the advantage that the seller had highlighted and issue but I would have spent the money on an HPI anyway. For the cost of the check he could have made the decision to walk away or offer you less.

 

[PXW]

He would presumably have seen your copy of the vehicle registration document/log book when he bought the car. If it did say there was damage then he was told. If it didn't say there was damage then it's support for you that you didn't know and sold the vehicle in good faith.

Either way, it's his problem. I wouldn't offer him any money, but that's easy for me to say because I am not taking his phone calls. Whatever you do offer, £200 or whatever, i would put in writing that this is an offer without prejudice and just a goodwill gesture out of sympathy for his predicament...so he can't argue that your generosity means you are implicitly agreeing liability.


How is his manner? If he gets remotely threatening, call the police - seriously; you may have a dispute on your hands but it should be handled reasonably, and you should report any threats or harassment. And if he did go that way, a police report should just about kill off any thread of a chance he might have in the small claims court....

 

[chord]

One thing to note is that your lucky you did not have an accident while you had the car, as I'm sure there would have been a premium for insuring a Cat C car. I doubt they would have accepted your claims of ignorance as to it's history either...

 

[Shude]

...as I'm sure there would have been a premium for insuring a Cat C car.

You'd be wrong. Why would there be any extra premium for a cat c car? When it's been repaired and made roadworthy it's no worse than any other car on the road.