Dealer misrepresentation - advice please
Discussion
KevinOctiScout said:
How many miles on the car? If less than average why worry? If more than average why did you not do more investigative work before purchase?
Car is average mileage.On further investigative work, or other thoughts on checking the v5 or documenting the transaction in writing, I guess it's a lesson learned for me.
I thought that dealing with a major UK dealership with a manufacturer approved scheme and with me asking direct questions and getting direct responses would have been good enough. Turns out that I might have been wrong.
Appreciate it's difficult to speculate on how this might play out because that's up to the dealer and possibly a court.
Time for me to make the phone call to the dealer principal and if he/she doesn't refund or replace it will be time to get some legal advice and/or write a letter restating my position.
This seems like a clear mis-sale but proving may turn out to be impossible or not worth it...
750turbo said:
Who does this? It may not even have been available at the time.
I think the OP has a good case, I would be going mental!
Hopefully someone witha modecum(sp) of the proper knowledge will be along shortly.
Whenever I've bought used cars, me. I think the OP has a good case, I would be going mental!
Hopefully someone witha modecum(sp) of the proper knowledge will be along shortly.
I track down the person using the Internet and phone them for a quick chat. They've never minded before and has saved me buying a couple of cars that would of been problematic shall we say!!
Cars under manufacturers warranty.
So they replace it with an ex " management" car, that will have had a thrapping too.
Do you have a list of all the none descript company names put ex hire cars in?
I agree they should replace, refund, or compensate when you have been lied to, but you will find the vast majority of newish volume cars will be ex hire.
So they replace it with an ex " management" car, that will have had a thrapping too.
Do you have a list of all the none descript company names put ex hire cars in?
I agree they should replace, refund, or compensate when you have been lied to, but you will find the vast majority of newish volume cars will be ex hire.
I don't think replacing or refunding is the answer for you OP due to the reasons POORCARDEALER says - and I think it's probably over kill too.
Personally, a part refund (£500?) or a couple of free services would probably better for you.
Most people in new cars, whether company car, hire, PCP or whatever, if they know it'll be gone in a year are going to be unsympathetic to it.
If you're buying used then this is something you have to live with.
You will never know whether this car was treated badly, or whether you're replacement for it was or wasn't.
Good luck with the DP
Personally, a part refund (£500?) or a couple of free services would probably better for you.
Most people in new cars, whether company car, hire, PCP or whatever, if they know it'll be gone in a year are going to be unsympathetic to it.
If you're buying used then this is something you have to live with.
You will never know whether this car was treated badly, or whether you're replacement for it was or wasn't.
Good luck with the DP
If the salesman did not disclose the fact that this was an ex rental car, and he was aware of its history, he has failed to disclose to you information which would have caused you to make a different purchasing decision.
If you are in England, go to your local Trading Standards, this is I believe potentially a criminal offence under the protection from unfair trading and consumer protection regulations. The OFT has given guidance to car dealers on this very subject.
The law in Scotland is different and intent would need to be proven.
If you are in England, go to your local Trading Standards, this is I believe potentially a criminal offence under the protection from unfair trading and consumer protection regulations. The OFT has given guidance to car dealers on this very subject.
The law in Scotland is different and intent would need to be proven.
Bat21 said:
If the salesman did not disclose the fact that this was an ex rental car, and he was aware of its history, he has failed to disclose to you information which would have caused you to make a different purchasing decision.
If you are in England, go to your local Trading Standards, this is I believe potentially a criminal offence under the protection from unfair trading and consumer protection regulations. The OFT has given guidance to car dealers on this very subject.
The law in Scotland is different and intent would need to be proven.
Prove " he was aware of its history"......prosecution under this very vague law is exremely rare in circumstances such as this.If you are in England, go to your local Trading Standards, this is I believe potentially a criminal offence under the protection from unfair trading and consumer protection regulations. The OFT has given guidance to car dealers on this very subject.
The law in Scotland is different and intent would need to be proven.
In purely legal terms, I think the OP would struggle to persuade a court even if misrepresentaton was proved that it was a ground to reject the car. At best, there would be an award of damages IF it could be shown that the car was worth less than was paid for it because of its hire car past.
The rule is still very much caveat emptor. It's not up to the dealer to volunteer the information. Yes, there is an obligation to answer questions honestly if asked, and yes, the dealer seemingly failed to do so here - but that's unlikely to be taken as a valid basis to reject the car.
For that reason, some sort of goodwill gesture from the dealer is about as good as it's likely to get.
The rule is still very much caveat emptor. It's not up to the dealer to volunteer the information. Yes, there is an obligation to answer questions honestly if asked, and yes, the dealer seemingly failed to do so here - but that's unlikely to be taken as a valid basis to reject the car.
For that reason, some sort of goodwill gesture from the dealer is about as good as it's likely to get.
Lurking Lawyer said:
In purely legal terms, I think the OP would struggle to persuade a court even if misrepresentaton was proved that it was a ground to reject the car. At best, there would be an award of damages IF it could be shown that the car was worth less than was paid for it because of its hire car past.
Absolutely. POORCARDEALER said:
Prove " he was aware of its history"......prosecution under this very vague law is exremely rare in circumstances such as this.
Its a strict liability offence and he has been negligent. He could have checked the book. A quick google search will show numerous examples of prosecutionsAs for the OP you can go down the misrepresentation route or possibly down the SOGA route for not being as described - you can then reject the car outright for breach of condition and get a full refund
the difficulty is in proving the statement
Jasandjules said:
Lurking Lawyer said:
In purely legal terms, I think the OP would struggle to persuade a court even if misrepresentaton was proved that it was a ground to reject the car. At best, there would be an award of damages IF it could be shown that the car was worth less than was paid for it because of its hire car past.
Absolutely. I assume Lurking Lawyer figures that reliance on the statement is the problem.
Though, tbf, this would never get near a court.
Mojooo said:
Its a strict liability offence and he has been negligent. He could have checked the book. A quick google search will show numerous examples of prosecutions
As for the OP you can go down the misrepresentation route or possibly down the SOGA route for not being as described - you can then reject the car outright for breach of condition and get a full refund
the difficulty is in proving the statement
SOGA...which bit? S11?As for the OP you can go down the misrepresentation route or possibly down the SOGA route for not being as described - you can then reject the car outright for breach of condition and get a full refund
the difficulty is in proving the statement
Appreciate responses from all on the practical and legal issues around this.
I think I've been ridden very rough shod over this issue but also understand the practicalities of proof and have thought a bit more about how impartial observers or a court might quantify the impact of this situation.
The truth is, I didn't want to buy a hire car and would not have done the deal if I had thought it was a hire car, plain and simple. In a fair world, as that was something I clearly stated in my conversation with the dealer, I would be refunded or replaced.
Practically, I can totally appreciate poorcardealer's point on where average mileage one year old cars come from, and that will remain a challenge for me trying to do another deal should I be refunded or replaced.
Taking a step away from how I feel about my treatment, what's important is having a reliable car for a fair price, so perhaps best to aim for a reasonable discount (to compensate for the mis-sale and reduced value of a hire car) and a warranty extension to cover the practical need for a reliable car...?
I think I've been ridden very rough shod over this issue but also understand the practicalities of proof and have thought a bit more about how impartial observers or a court might quantify the impact of this situation.
The truth is, I didn't want to buy a hire car and would not have done the deal if I had thought it was a hire car, plain and simple. In a fair world, as that was something I clearly stated in my conversation with the dealer, I would be refunded or replaced.
Practically, I can totally appreciate poorcardealer's point on where average mileage one year old cars come from, and that will remain a challenge for me trying to do another deal should I be refunded or replaced.
Taking a step away from how I feel about my treatment, what's important is having a reliable car for a fair price, so perhaps best to aim for a reasonable discount (to compensate for the mis-sale and reduced value of a hire car) and a warranty extension to cover the practical need for a reliable car...?
So OP, pardon the phrase but what the f
k are you up to? You have found out something about your car that is so bad and so important to you that you are considering the prospects of court action.
Yet, it seems that you have fked about on the internet for 2 days rousing PH speculation about what might be the outcome should you actually do anything about it.
Might I humbly suggest that you act like it's important to you, contact the dealer as the highest priority and tell them about the problem and what you'd like them to do about it.
Then perhaps we'll have an actual situation to advise you on
Bert
k are you up to? You have found out something about your car that is so bad and so important to you that you are considering the prospects of court action.Yet, it seems that you have f
ked about on the internet for 2 days rousing PH speculation about what might be the outcome should you actually do anything about it.Might I humbly suggest that you act like it's important to you, contact the dealer as the highest priority and tell them about the problem and what you'd like them to do about it.
Then perhaps we'll have an actual situation to advise you on
Bert
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff