NPG said:

I don't think an engine that loses coolant can ever be regarded as being "fine, no problems", irrespective of how it's doing it. The heater matrix may not be an integral part of the engine but the coolant is. So I suggest that if you want to take this up with the seller, you should focus on the coolant loss and not the heater matrix.

Click to expand...

300bhp/ton said:

Take it up how? It is a private sale and the fault only appeared 200 miles after buying it. On a vehicle that is 16 years old and probably 150,000 miles or more. No small claims court is going to give two hoots.

Click to expand...

300bhp/ton said:

meego said:

I get where you are trying to go with this and why. I do sympathise, but feel it’s a stretch to say the matrix is part of the engine cooling system. Yes it is an auxiliary part of that system, but is not essentialy needed to cool the engine. I think that makes sense

Click to expand...

+1^
Also worth noting by the ops own admission. The engine was not leaking or loosing coolant at the time of purchase...... would it have been reasonable for the seller to have known it would later start leaking?

And if it helps you separate the components, if you where performing an engine swap, because you bought an 'engine in good condition' to fit into another vehicle. You would not expect to move the heater matrix and coolant over too. An engine needs a fuel system, but you'd hardly get away saying a fuel tank leak meant there was a problem with the engine. Or if the exhaust silencer was rusty....

Click to expand...

I_Danny said:

True, it can be bypassed. I did this before removing the heater matrix and could have kept it like that

Click to expand...

I_Danny said:

Arguing the case helps to weigh it up.. it was a private purchase, obviously more difficult to resolve except through small claims, which rests on the validity of the claim argument - in this case whether a vehicle with a broken heater core can fairly be described as having an engine with no problems. 'no problems' being the key issue. I'd say it had some problems in that if the problem were known, it would be considered a potential problem in the vehicle and the engine.

Click to expand...

kermit_rr said:

Sold as seen... and inspected
Never heard of that last bit before!
Who is the qualified inspector?

Click to expand...

300bhp/ton said:

Take it up how? It is a private sale and the fault only appeared 200 miles after buying it. On a vehicle that is 16 years old and probably 150,000 miles or more. No small claims court is going to give two hoots.

Click to expand...

NPG said:

My point was that, given these facts, I believe that the seller sold the vehicle under false representation since coolant loss does not support the claim 'Engine and Gearbox fine, no problems'. Being a private sale, the protection for the consumer is somewhat water downed but there are legal points that can still be considered. The following is from the AA site -

View attachment 295833

https://www.theaa.com/car-buying/legal-rights

Click to expand...

NPG said:

I don't think an engine that loses coolant can ever be regarded as being "fine, no problems", irrespective of how it's doing it. The heater matrix may not be an integral part of the engine but the coolant is. So I suggest that if you want to take this up with the seller, you should focus on the coolant loss and not the heater matrix.

Click to expand...

Stanleysteamer said:

Wonder what it says on the receipt.
"sold as seen and inspected." ??
If inspected and it wasn't leaking then he has no case.

In France on any private sale you have 2 weeks in which to get your money back off a private vehicle seller in these circumstances.

Makes you wonder.

Click to expand...

300bhp/ton said:

But the engine is fine, the op has told us that. If you think a water leak on the heater matrix after purchase qualifies as a fault with the engine, then you are just being daft and have lost the plot.

Click to expand...

Stanleysteamer said:

But what kn@ckers any complaint is that OP has done all the work to correct it. This has muddied the waters (or the coolant!) so much that I doubt any complaint could be entertained.

Click to expand...

Ian M in France said:

You talk about 2 weeks in France but had a customer that sold a old Merc, can't remember what it was but a classic, it had a bit of rust which the ct test picked up pass, but the rust noted, he decided to sell it, 2 years later when the car went for next test it failed and the new owner tried to return it for a refund, there is a law here really designed for houses, if you cover up a fault when you sell something then the person has a right to return it, as he had treated and covered the rust, he had some legal advice and was told if it went to court he may lose so he returned some of the money to pay towards the repairs

Click to expand...

NPG said:

Exactly my thought but there seemed to have been some kind of exchange between the OP and the seller once the problem was identified and also during the repairs. Who knows what went on ? To complicate matters further, I came across the same post, from what seemed to be the OP, but which refers instead to a Ducato Campervan ... which probably explains why the vehicle was being referred to as a "van" ! Here's the link -

https://www.motorhomefacts.com/threads/second-hand-van-advert-not-as-described-therefore-applicable-to-a-small-claims-case.246449

Click to expand...

NPG said:

Exactly my thought but there seemed to have been some kind of exchange between the OP and the seller once the problem was identified and also during the repairs. Who knows what went on ? To complicate matters further, I came across the same post, from what seemed to be the OP, but which refers instead to a Ducato Campervan ... which probably explains why the vehicle was being referred to as a "van" ! Here's the link -

https://www.motorhomefacts.com/threads/second-hand-van-advert-not-as-described-therefore-applicable-to-a-small-claims-case.246449

Click to expand...

Ian M in France said:

You talk about 2 weeks in France but had a customer that sold a old Merc, can't remember what it was but a classic, it had a bit of rust which the ct test picked up pass, but the rust noted, he decided to sell it, 2 years later when the car went for next test it failed and the new owner tried to return it for a refund, there is a law here really designed for houses, if you cover up a fault when you sell something then the person has a right to return it, as he had treated and covered the rust, he had some legal advice and was told if it went to court he may lose so he returned some of the money to pay towards the repairs

Click to expand...

Stanleysteamer said:

I take it that by this you mean "vice caché"?

Never heard of it used on a car.

Our house, newly built for us has a terrible vice caché, we bought it on the understanding they would fit it with electrically heated floors and tiled except for one place, the master bedroom. We took the house on back in 2008.
Since then many, many of the floor tiles have developed cracks, but this happened after the garanti décenal was out. So our only redress would be a vice caché case. We have been advised it would take forever and cost us a packet even if we won.

We think the company had never laid an electrically heated floor before and that the grout used by the tilers was basically too hard. The cracks run from tile to tils as if drawn with a pencil.

Mind you the 5 dob way they lay tiles doesn't help at all. I have had to take some up in a bathroom and there are voids all over the place. How the heck is a heated floor supposed to work properly like that?

I'm too old and have too dodgy a back to deal with this! And god knows what it would cost to get decent pros in to do it. Sh!t happens.

Click to expand...