A man paid nearly $12,000 for a van, then had a wheel fall off as he drove it home that same day.

Keaton Taylor has won a refund from the seller after complaining to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal.

According to a recently-released decision from the tribunal, Taylor bought the 2003 Toyota Hiace from Auckland man Daryosh Marjomaki in January after seeing it advertised on Facebook Marketplace.

The van, which cost $11,700, had received a warrant of fitness (WOF) just the month before.

On the day he bought the van, Taylor drove it from Glen Eden back to his home in Tauranga.

'When he arrived in Tauranga he noticed the vehicle was shaking. The shaking then quickly worsened,” the tribunal's decision says.

'He immediately pulled over and found that the vehicle's left rear wheel had fallen off and was lying approximately six metres behind the vehicle.”

Taylor says he contacted Marjomaki, who told him to call the inspector who had issued the WOF.

He also says Marjomaki told him to put the wheel back on using a nut from each of the other wheels, and drive home.

Taylor took the vehicle to Premier Automotive in Tauranga, which found the driver's seat belt latch was faulty and the van had structural corrosion in multiple places.

He then rejected the van and sought a refund.

Marjomaki argues he should not be liable because he operates a ‘park and sell' and sold the van on behalf of a third party.

However, the tribunal says there is no evidence linking that third party to the transaction, meaning Marjomaki is considered the supplier under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

Marjomaki also argues the van had passed a WOF inspection shortly before its sale, and Taylor had signed a document that notified him of its defects.

But the tribunal says it's Marjomaki who had liability for any defects under the Act, and could not pass that liability on to the WOF inspector.

The only document signed by Taylor read: 'SOLD AS Park to SALE condition NO WARRANTY AND EXPLANed TO BUYer. Paid Full Amount. NO REFUND.”

That document did not notify Taylor of any defects, and the statement about the car having no warranty were a 'likely breach” of the Fair Trading Act, as it was a false or misleading statement about buyers' rights, the tribunal says.

The vehicle was not of acceptable quality under the Consumer Guarantees Act because the loose left rear wheel, faulty driver's seatbelt and 'extensive” corrosion added up to 'a failure of a substantial character”, the tribunal says.

It upheld Taylor's rejection of the vehicle and ordered Marjomaki to pay him $12,065. That included a refund for the van and some of the costs Taylor paid to get the vehicle's faults assessed and the wheel repaired.

The tribunal noted Marjomaki would likely feel 'aggrieved” at the decision, and says if he wishes he can pursue court action against the WOF inspector who overlooked the defects.

He can also seek remedies from the owner of the vehicle, the tribunal saysid.

-Stuff/Anna Loren.