Hello, I would be interested in opinions (informed even better!) on a situation I find myself in.
Three years ago I bought a VW T5 multivan from a garage locally. I then did some work to make a camper out of it. I put on a pop top roof and made camping/ cooking stove cabinet for the interior. I also put on new suspension -springs, dampers, struts all round. And a new set of tyres. It didn’t get a lot of use with Covid and with a change of circumstances I sold it privately last July. The new owners contacted me yesterday to say it was off the road. They noticed some abnormal tyre wear and went to VW specialist to check it out. Ultimately they say there is previous accident damage to the engine cradle, steering rack and right suspension arm and is unfit to drive. They have sent photos and I don’t doubt the damage. The new owners are understandably aggrieved and they are seeking recompense via vice caché. This van has passed 2 CT’s last one 3 months prior to sale, and prior sale to me. The garage who fitted the new suspension (and new wheel bearings and performed a wheel alignment!) did not notice the damage either. The van has not had an accident in my possession. The new owners I’m sure have not had an accident of that severity either.
Anyway the quote for parts alone is 4K so any suggestions where I should proceed with this will be gratefully received!
Have they sent an official/legal letter to you making the vice caché claim?? Costs are down to the claimant and they might hope to frighten you into giving them their money back… or paying for the “hidden defect”.
Whatever, if you’ve done things by the book, you should have no worries… as far as I’m aware vice caché is just that, something hidden and unknown… and you’ve not known about it, so you’ve not hidden it.
I’d go to my Mairie and ask what I should do/with whom I should speak… but not everyone has such a useful Mairie…
Get your information together about the garage the vehicle came from, the garage which has worked on the car for you… and the CT’s…
best of luck
As Stella says I thought the point about vice caché was that the vendor was aware of the fault - it seems fairly obvious (and provable with the CTs and suspension work by the garage) that you weren’t (even it it was there when you owned the vehicle).
I’m just wondering if there is an aspect of one’s Insurance which covers this sort of thing…
@fabien ???
unfortunately that’s neither my area of expertise nor something insurers can cover as this is a legal issue which will be labeled under “commercial litigation” as it concerns the transaction so unless he has an independent comprehensive legal insurance policy (usually worth around 150e to 250e per annum) that’s not something of the insurance resort.
Vice cache refers to hidden faults. This does not mean that the faults were deliberately hidden, covered up or not known about by the seller, but faults that existed at the time of the sale but by their nature no-one was aware of them, for example, a fracture in a crankshaft which later lets go.
The difficulty of such faults is forensically determining when the fault occurred.
If you provided a CT less than 6 months old as required it should mention any damage particularly if it could affect the use of the vehicle.
Article 1641 of the Civil Code subjects the action for warranty against latent defects to three cumulative conditions.
- The defect must be hidden , that is to say not apparent at the time of purchase. In terms of second-hand vehicles, the courts consider apparent the defects revealed during the technical inspection or during the test and examination of the vehicle without dismantling;
- The defect must be prior to the sale (defect in the design or manufacture of a part, or abnormal or premature wear);
- Finally, the defect must be so serious that it renders the vehicle unfit for use or so impairs its use that you would not have bought it – or not at this price.
A full explanation of Vice Cache is here - Vice caché sur voiture d’occasion : L’expertise est-elle indispensable ?
Thanks for your input everyone. Mark’s link does it explain it very well. Unfortunately that would appear to be the situation I am in. The buyers haven’t gone done the legal route yet but that would seem to be the implication. I am going to reply in a non committal way pointing out the vehicle has passed 2 CT’s and a garage visit without comment and that I may take legal advice. Reading the article it would suggest it is past the 2 year limit for me to go back to the original garage.
I found this extract which states that the buyer has to “prove you must have known” … blah blah blah…
(Seems to me, you can prove you did not know…)
"Furthermore, the presumption leading to the belief that the private seller does not know of the existence of the hidden defect at the time of the sale, it will be up to you not only to prove the existence of this defect by gathering evidence and contacting an automotive expert , but also to demonstrate that the former owner could not ignore the presence of such a defect.
be careful how you word your letter…
best of luck
It would seem that the burden of proof lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of other party and the less you say, the better your case may well be served 
The buyer currently has a mechanics report and photographic evidence of the defect, so has reasonable evidence to work with but I agree, 2 CT’s etc would suggest I wasn’t in a position to know of the defect much less ignore it… Having had experience of responding to complaints in my previous life and with a solicitor sister, my response will be very non committal…Thanks again everyone.
Surely they must be pushing their luck? Are they scammers in league with someone that produced this fake report?
2 CT’s and a garage report would seem hard to challenge.
Sadly not scammers, but a nice family and a legit garage.
sadly, indeed, from what the Buyer says, you’ve sold the vehicle not-knowing it had “presumably” been involved in an accident… what sort of accident causes the “presumed damage” anyway… wouldn’t it have resulted in other defects/damage… with Insurers involved… the whole thing seems very, very strange to me.
EDIT: and it’s got me wondering about the garage which sold you the vehicle… and the previous owner… hmmm.
It would depend how the damage makes it unfit to drive.
Out of interest, did you get the carte grise changed from van to camping car (CTTE to VASP)?
As it stands the buyers garage report that the engine cradle that supports the suspension is 10mm out of alignment with a damaged suspension arm and say that it is unfit to drive. They have sent photos to support this. The carte gris was not changed as the camping furniture was a removable cabinet and the existing VW rear seat folded to make a bed.
No sign of any repair work in the paperwork I received from the garage.(which was pretty minimal, other than service history!) The garage sells older VW vans/campers, this was a 2005 and had been imported from Germany. Only invoices were post import to France. Retrospectoscope setting off alarm bells!
Isn’t there ‘sold as seen’. The seller is not a mechanic or professional in any field of experience relating to the condition of a vehicle, so what sort of argument could the buyer have?
It’s a pity the original garage is off the hook. It seems unfair since neither you nor the family that purchased your van have done anything to deserve a 4K plus labour bill. Have you broached the matter with them?
no longer allowed, even between ordinary folk… which is why the Private Seller is supposed to have a recent CTechnique done… and the Buyer is meant to give the vehicle a good look-over.