COPART Auction (B2B sale)- Court Action Raised - MISREPENTATION OF A CARAVAN

[Coachman2007]

 

Hello everyone,

I’m currently facing a challenging situation with Copart UK and would appreciate any advice or insights from the group.

 

Background:

I purchased a vehicle (2007 Coach Genius caravan) through Copart’s auction.

Upon collecting the vehicle, I discovered several undisclosed issues: significant structural flaws (including a major crack above the towing hitch), flood damage indicated by the softness of the floor, and a missing refrigerator which was not advertised as such. These conditions rendered the vehicle unfit for the purposes I bought it for. So...I DENIED collection.

In the auction listing, Copart described the 2007 Coach Genius caravan as having primary front end damage and secondary rear end damage, categorizing it as ‘Category U’ which stands for used and unrecorded.

The description highlighted the visible damages but did not mention the significant structural issues such as the major crack above the towing hitch or the internal issues like the dampness and missing refrigerator.

Issue:

I reached out to Copart via email to address the significant misrepresentations, they only offered to sell the Caravan on my behalf. 

I filed a claim against Copart through the Online Civil Money Claims service, arguing that the vehicle was significantly misrepresented. However, Copart responded outside of the claims portal via email, asserting that:

• The vehicle was sold “as is,” which is typical in their terms and conditions.

• They act only as agents, not as sellers, and thus do not hold liability.

• As a trade member, it was my responsibility to inspect the vehicle before purchase.

Copart insists that their terms absolve them of any liability regarding the vehicle’s condition, citing clauses from their terms and conditions that emphasize the vehicle was auctioned in an “as is where is” condition.

Complication:

In addition to rejecting my refund request, Copart has started charging daily storage fees for the vehicle and has initiated an abandonment process, adding further financial burdens.

Request for Advice:

Has anyone here dealt with similar issues with Copart or another auction house?

How did you navigate the dispute resolution process, particularly when dealing with terms and conditions like these?

Any legal insights or suggestions on how to proceed with my claim would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you all in advance for your help and guidance!

[dx100uk]

16 minutes ago, Coachman2007 said:

• As a trade member, it was my responsibility to inspect the vehicle before purchase.

are you a registered trader?

thread title updated.

dx

 

[Coachman2007]

The Copart account is made under a small car rental company, owned by myself and a friend. (only bought 2 cars in 2 years of having the account and every time  we've been ripped off, don't know why I thought it would be different this time) 

However, the payment for the caravan is been made from my misses HSBC account as we were planning on using the caravan over summer and have a good time.

BIG Fail

[dx100uk]

sorry ....

you then have a very very small chance of success.

you would need to have specifically set out your claim under contract law, (as consumer rights won't/can't help here)

dx

 

[Coachman2007]

I understand my options may be limited now, but I would like to explore possible actions. I paid GBP 4,150 for a caravan, expecting it to be in excellent condition based on the description. However, the caravan I received is worth, at most, GBP 100 due to significant undisclosed issues.

 

Additionally, I have been invoiced for storage fees totaling GBP 414. Furthermore, I have been informed that the caravan has been considered abandoned and is no longer my property, with plans for its disposal already in motion.

 

This situation has not only led to a financial loss of GBP 4,564 but also disrupted my plans for the summer, as I am unable to allocate another GBP 4,000-5,000 for a replacement caravan. Have I irretrievably lost all my funds due to this transaction?

[dx100uk]

he Misrepresentation Act

The Misrepresentation Act is perhaps more appropriate when speaking about used cars, mainly where a seller provides false or misleading information about a used car, influencing the buyer’s decision to purchase. The Act provides an additional layer of protection to consumers whom other consumer protection laws or acts might not cover by allowing them to seek remedies when a seller’s statements or representations have misled them. The Act similarly applies to private sellers, trade and auction houses. However, it’s essential to note that pursuing remedies under the Misrepresentation Act might involve legal processes and challenges, so seeking legal advice is recommended to understand the specific circumstances and options available:

• Fraudulent Misrepresentation: If a seller knowingly provides false information about a used car with the intent to deceive a buyer, it is considered fraudulent misrepresentation. In such cases, the buyer may have the right to cancel the contract and potentially claim damages to recover any losses from the deception.
• Negligent Misrepresentation: If a seller carelessly makes a false statement about a used car without taking proper care to ensure its accuracy, it is considered negligent misrepresentation. In this case, the buyer may be able to claim damages to cover any financial losses resulting from relying on the false information.
• Innocent Misrepresentation: If a seller innocently provides false information about a used car, genuinely believing it to be true, it is considered innocent misrepresentation. Even though the seller didn’t act with dishonest intent, the buyer might still have the right to cancel the contract if the misrepresentation influenced their decision to buy