There was no order for costs. There was no hearing - it was judged on documents alone. It cost the claimant £50 to bring the case though.

Thank you for help and advice. The claim was dismissed. 'The court prefers the defendant's evidence.'

I couldn't access Moneyclaim and I don't have Adobe on my phone. I have therefore typed out the witness statement. The English is a little strange in places but the claimant is Polish and English is not her first language. I have typed it verbatim.

I don't have hard copy. She submitted her documents to my daughter by email, as photo attachments which my daughter then forwarded to me. I'm not able to save and attach. I could copy verbatim.

Scan_0027.pdfHi I am attaching Witness Statement

Is it allowed to add to what has already been submitted?

Thank you for your replies. Just an update - the hearing is set for the 9th June on paper. The only real documentary evidence that the claimant has submitted are MOT with advisory Oil leak but not excessive 8.4.1 (a)(i). (December 2019) She includes as evidence a screenshot of government description: Other environmental items. 8.4.1 Fluid leaks. 'A leak of fluids such as engine coolant, screen wash, and fluid required for selective catalyst reduction are not reasons for failure.' (after detailing how testing should be done) In her words: 'fault not mentioned when sold - engine oil leak (it was but this is verbal and her boyfriend has also made a witness statement to the effect that it wasn't mentioned. She also saw all documentation prior to sale including MOT) MOT only confirms a fluid leak which is not engine oil (it clearly states that it is) the fault is caused by wear and tear of the housing oil filter seal' The only other documentary evidence is the invoice for repair - £197.07, which she is claiming. (The advertised price was reduced from £2250 to £1900 - it is a 13 year old Mini). My daughter refused her offer to settle for £100. To add insult to injury, she has written on her copy of my daughter's witness statement and submitted a screenshot of it as evidence. (My daughter submitted her documents before she did - they have both submitted MOT evidence in support) Surely it will be thrown out.

Thank you for your replies. Your advice is much appreciated. We are at the stage where the claimant is required to pay the hearing fee by the 12th May - the case is to be heard on paper. She is offering to accept £100 in settlement. The repair to the oil leak (oil filter housing seal) was £197.07 - my daughter had been professionally advised that it would be around £200. There is no evidence of any further repair being required. My daughter has submitted MOT certificate which states as advisory '8.4.1(a)(i). Oil leak not excessive' (MOT dated 28th November 2019) The claimant has also submitted this as evidence claiming that this refers to fluid leaks in general not oil! She includes as evidence the government description of 8.4.1. This does refer to fluid leaks in general but the advisory clearly states that the fluid in question is oil. To say that this was not revealed is nonsense. She appears to be claiming that there is a leak of some other unspecified fluid which has leaked into the oil. This caused it to burn at a higher temperature and that my daughter must have been aware of this and did not reveal it and has therefore sold her faulty goods. (Her words). She had been driving the car daily including that morning with no problems.The only reason that my daughter can think of for the leak to suddenly become as excessive as they describe is that they did not properly tighten the oil cap after inspection - she denies having removed the oil cap which is untrue. The claimant has submitted a witness statement from her boyfriend which naturally corroborates everything she has said. I am sure the judge will be as mystified by all of this as we are but it is so ridiculous that I keep wondering if there is something we have missed. (A minor annoyance is that the claimant has written on my daughter's witness statement and submitted this as evidence). I may be mistaken but I believe that the only pieces of evidence are the MOT certificate and the invoice detailing the repair, both of which support the defence.

Hi. A little time has gone by but the purchaser of the car is taking my daughter to court. She is basing her claim on the fact that the oil leak was not revealed and has submitted as proof the MOT advisory. This states 'Oil leak but not excessive (8.4.1.(a) (i).' She insists that 8.4.1. refers to fluid leaks but not to engine oil! This was discussed at the time of purchase, despite the fact that she claims it wasn't and the reduction in price was not to take account of the cost of repair but was due to haggling the price down. My daughter submitted her witness statement and evidence to the court and to the claimant, as required. Yesterday the purchaser sent an email and has offered to accept £100. Nothing is owed and therefore her offer is ignored. My daughter refuses to engage with her and yesterday posted a copy of her email to the court, MOT evidence and receipted invoice from garage confirming repair of housing oil filter seal (this was within the estimated cost). Copies were also posted to the purchaser. This resulted in a further email today where she repeats her claim: fault not mentioned when sold - engine oil leak MOT only confirms a fluid leak which is not engine oil the fault is caused by wear and tear of the housing oil filter seal. (My daughter knew this, informed them of it and had an estimate of the cost and therefore reduced the price) It is incomprehensible how the court could possibly find in her favour. None of this makes any sense but it is a worry nevertheless.

That seems to be all that can be done at the moment and there is no option but to ignore. It's very likely that there will be further communication, maybe with an address. I am suspicious about the apparent reticence to supply an address but maybe I am overthinking. I will suggest to my daughter that she drafts a letter. Thank you for your help.

Thank you for that. No, there is no address on the letter so unless there is a further communication it is impossible to respond. We seem to be dealing with a very strange mentality here, so they might be prepared to take this to court for the £197.07 it has cost to repair when this was allowed for in the price - pretty close to the estimate of £200 given by my daughter's garage.

The letter was delivered today. I have tried to scan but my scanner isn't working very well. I have copied the points she makes So the whole issue has arisen over the question of the oil leak. It was on the MOT, which she saw, as an advisory and she was told about this on the day, together with the fact that it had been checked and the repair would be about £200. The car was advertised at £2250 (after research into prices for minis of a similar age and condition) and the buyer was informed that this was subsequently reduced to £2000 to take into account the cost of the repair. T hey offered £1900 which was accepted. To say that it was not mentioned on the day, only afterwards is nonsense. There was therefore in total an allowance of £350 in total, made to cover the cost of repairing the fault, which actually cost £197.07. They were definitely aware of the oil leak when they agreed to buy. It's difficult to understand where she is coming from. She also talks, in the Facebook conversation about an unspecified leak '..also the garage said it is fluid leaks not the oil so it's a separate thing. Also this leak wasn't mentioned to me not even when I asked if you smelt burnt oil it is all covered in oil.' We have no idea what she means. Also if it was covered with oil, why buy. The car had been driven on a daily basis, including that morning with no smell of burning oil. They examined the car, including the engine and test drove it and were happy with the car and the price. They were very eager to buy and in fact the whole transaction, including test driving and examination took about an hour and a half. My daughter did suggest that they might like to think about it but they declined.

Thank you for your replies. She will pick up the letter but maybe not for a day or two due to work commitments. I will let you know the contents. At the moment she has no intention of accepting return of the car, nor of reducing the price further as it already reflects the cost of repair. The purchasers were aware that the price had been reduced to take account of this. I understand that the conditions for selling a car privately are: The seller should own the car It should be in a safe and roadworthy condition It should not be the subject of a finance agreement, All of these conditions were fulfilled, together with disclosure of known problem.

Hi Following letter to DVLA, they have confirmed that they have updated their records and she is no longer registered keeper. They have just sent a letter recorded delivery to be signed for. There was no one in to sign for it and the buyers have emailed copy of track and trace and it is at the sorting office awaiting collection - the postman also left a card to this effect. My daughter has neither the time nor the inclination to collect it - she suffers from panic attacks, although I feel, rightly or wrongly that it needs to be dealt with. As well as advising them verbally about the oil leak, it was an advisory on MOT (28 Nov) as oil leak but not excessive. It was serviced in December with nothing untoward reported. I really don't see how they can have an issue. They examined it, drove it and were happy with the price. She checked with the garage only the day before sale, where it was described as 'slightly damp' and was given a cost of £200. They had it checked after buying and were quoted £250. How they can complain that she misled them is beyond me but they seem determined. Might they take legal action?

We don't know this - just suspected as they took the V5 to save her the trouble. I think the same thought had occurred to you. We know the name as it was on bank transfer together with reg no of car as reference. Despite being asked for their address, they did not give it. (The car has been seen on the road in a very clean and shiny condition.) We just wonder if they are trying bullying tactics to get her to refund some of the money to sell on at a better profit. All conjecture but nothing seems to add up. They were quite happy to buy at the price with the disclosed fault. There were no other problems that she was aware of.