Unwittingly bought an ex-rental car and the law on this?

[Immortalisation]

TooMany2cvs said:

Immortalisation said:

...it’s more just down to my personal opinion and preferences.

So would you be after a refund of any extra cost incurred (which may well be £0) or a hug?

Why are you being like this? People like you are the reason I stopped posting on PH for the past 3 and a half years. This post in itself is 3 and a half years old, I didn’t bring it back up. What do you want me to say?

[S11Steve]

TooMany2cvs said:

So would you be after a refund of any extra cost incurred (which may well be £0) or a hug?

Without being as blunt as yourself, I'd also like to know what the difference in value is between an ex rental
, an ex private hire vehicle, a vehicle purchased cash and driven by one person and a vehicle on PCP but also driven by one person - assuming all are identical spec and mileage.

Because I know CAP and Glasses make no distinction in price - and if Privately owned vehicles are perceived to be worth more, I can already see what will happen in the future, and it will not be good news for consumers.

[TooMany2cvs]

Immortalisation said:

This post in itself is 3 and a half years old, I didn’t bring it back up.

Yes, the thread is old - but you wrote the bit I quoted less than half an hour ago...

My point is that compensation is for costs incurred, not for hurt feelings. No demonstrable costs have been incurred, unless the value of the car would have been lower had the information been divulged.

[Immortalisation]

TooMany2cvs said:

Immortalisation said:

This post in itself is 3 and a half years old, I didn’t bring it back up.

Yes, the thread is old - but you wrote the bit I quoted less than half an hour ago...

True, I suppose that justifies your troll post then, as there’d be no point trolling on a post that hasn’t had any replied to it in years.

In reality I’m entitled to my opinion and no one can take that away from me or tell me I’m wrong. I’m not trying to say that in the current market ex-rental cars are worth less, I literally don’t have a clue and in reality there probably won’t be a set rule, every sale would have to be judged on a case by case basis. To me they are worth less and I wouldn’t pay the same price for one, simples.

[eccles]

I think most 'normal ' people would not choose to buy an ex rental car if you had the choice of two otherwise identical cars.

How much you would have to lower the price by to get over the stigma of it being a rental car is the question at hand.

[TooMany2cvs]

Immortalisation said:

In reality I’m entitled to my opinion and no one can take that away from me or tell me I’m wrong.

Nobody tried to.

Immortalisation said:

I’m not trying to say that in the current market ex-rental cars are worth less, I literally don’t have a clue and in reality there probably won’t be a set rule, every sale would have to be judged on a case by case basis. To me they are worth less

Such is your prerogative.

Immortalisation said:

and I wouldn’t pay the same price for one, simples.

Such is your prerogative.

But...

Let's say the general market value IS the same - as S11Steve suggests, and he's a man who really should know.
So what are you then owed for not being told? You have no financial loss to make good, which only leaves those hurt feelings and infringed preferences. What are you owed for those? Simply and unequivocally - £0.00.

So would a hug help make it all better? If not, what WOULD you want?

[Immortalisation]

TooMany2cvs said:

Immortalisation said:

In reality I’m entitled to my opinion and no one can take that away from me or tell me I’m wrong.

Nobody tried to.

Immortalisation said:

I’m not trying to say that in the current market ex-rental cars are worth less, I literally don’t have a clue and in reality there probably won’t be a set rule, every sale would have to be judged on a case by case basis. To me they are worth less

Such is your prerogative.

Immortalisation said:

and I wouldn’t pay the same price for one, simples.

Such is your prerogative.

But...

Let's say the general market value IS the same - as S11Steve suggests, and he's a man who really should know.
So what are you then owed for not being told? You have no financial loss to make good, which only leaves those hurt feelings and infringed preferences. What are you owed for those? Simply and unequivocally - £0.00.

So would a hug help make it all better? If not, what WOULD you want?

In my case I’m well past the point of trying to claim any compensation, but let’s say a case does go to court and is successful in the future, what’s to say that any theoretical compensation wouldn’t be worked out based on the value of the car against a privately owned car, but purely based on the fact that the car was missold, or not clearly labelled or identified as an ex-rental so to speak?

[Fastpedeller]

It (value, to yourself or when you re-sell) will depend on multiple factors........... It can depend on knowing the full facts of course! I'd be happier to buy a 3 yr old ex hire car if all looked in order with say 30k GENUINE miles, than I would to buy Mrs Jones, 1 elderly owner car done 6k over 3 years probably not had an oil/filter change (well it's not to the service mileage dear ) and the engines never got even warm as she only drives to Tesco 2 miles away.
Way back when I went to view a used car and the guy said "it's only done 45k, I don't do many miles myself, only 2k a year" alarm bells rang (especially once I'd lifted the bonnet), so I said 'Is it serviced regularly?' to which he said "every 6k"..... so I said "Is that every 3 years then?" Needless to say I didn't go any further. Bought one down the road and guy said "it's done 103k miles, I re-did the head recently." It ran sweet, and we had it for a further 70k until the road was visible through the floor!

[a.lex]

HTP99 said:

Why do you feel that and ex rental is worth less than a privately owned car?

Obviously, because a rental vehicle would have had innumerable butts farting into its seats. (As Tommy Wiseau certainly would have told you.)

[S11Steve]

Immortalisation said:

In my case I’m well past the point of trying to claim any compensation, but let’s say a case does go to court and is successful in the future, what’s to say that any theoretical compensation wouldn’t be worked out based on the value of the car against a privately owned car, but purely based on the fact that the car was missold, or not clearly labelled or identified as an ex-rental so to speak?

The entire second hand industry runs of CAP or Glasses valuations, neither of which distinguish between the number of previous owners, or the type of previous owners, only mileage and condition matter.

And again, define rental?
PCH is rental - one private user rents it for a fixed term from a finance company. Avis/Sixt/Hertz at the airport is also rental. Are they to be classed as one and the same?

[TooMany2cvs]

Immortalisation said:

In my case I’m well past the point of trying to claim any compensation

We're talking generally.

Immortalisation said:

but let’s say a case does go to court and is successful in the future, what’s to say that any theoretical compensation wouldn’t be worked out based on the value of the car against a privately owned car

We're working on the assumption that there's zero difference.

Immortalisation said:

but purely based on the fact that the car was missold, or not clearly labelled or identified as an ex-rental so to speak?

We already know there's zero value difference, so no financial loss.
Is there any tangible difference in the car itself, as far as the usual consumer rights grounds go? None.
So... compensation would be based on...? Hurt feelings and disregarded preferences. We know what compensation is due for those...

Clearly, you feel that inadequate. Such is your prerogative. What compensation would you say should be due for those, and how would you say it should be calculated, fairly and in such a way as to dissuade vexatious or spurious claims?

[Immortalisation]

S11Steve said:

Immortalisation said:

In my case I’m well past the point of trying to claim any compensation, but let’s say a case does go to court and is successful in the future, what’s to say that any theoretical compensation wouldn’t be worked out based on the value of the car against a privately owned car, but purely based on the fact that the car was missold, or not clearly labelled or identified as an ex-rental so to speak?

The entire second hand industry runs of CAP or Glasses valuations, neither of which distinguish between the number of previous owners, or the type of previous owners, only mileage and condition matter.

And again, define rental?
PCH is rental - one private user rents it for a fixed term from a finance company. Avis/Sixt/Hertz at the airport is also rental. Are they to be classed as one and the same?

It’s not easy to define, but nevertheless the term “ex-rental” may be something that comes to be defined by the courts through case law in the next couple of years.

It’d probably be based on the time frame. Maybe something along the lines of cars/vehicles that are leased to individuals for less than 1 month periods at a time.

[Immortalisation]

TooMany2cvs said:

Immortalisation said:

In my case I’m well past the point of trying to claim any compensation

We're talking generally.

Immortalisation said:

but let’s say a case does go to court and is successful in the future, what’s to say that any theoretical compensation wouldn’t be worked out based on the value of the car against a privately owned car

We're working on the assumption that there's zero difference.

Immortalisation said:

but purely based on the fact that the car was missold, or not clearly labelled or identified as an ex-rental so to speak?

We already know there's zero value difference, so no financial loss.
Is there any tangible difference in the car itself, as far as the usual consumer rights grounds go? None.
So... compensation would be based on...? Hurt feelings and disregarded preferences. We know what compensation is due for those...

Clearly, you feel that inadequate. Such is your prerogative. What compensation would you say should be due for those, and how would you say it should be calculated, fairly and in such a way as to dissuade vexatious or spurious claims?

It’s not based on hurt feelings it’s based on the perception that an ex-rental car is generally going to have been abused more than a privately owned car. For example, an ex rental car may well have been regularly driven hard whilst the engine was still cold. A private owner is generally going to be more likely to wait for his/her car to warm up first.

[S11Steve]

Immortalisation said:

It’s not easy to define, but nevertheless the term “ex-rental” may be something that comes to be defined by the courts through case law in the next couple of years.

It’d probably be based on the time frame. Maybe something along the lines of cars/vehicles that are leased to individuals for less than 1 month periods at a time.

What about cars that are own by a finance company, but leased to a business for 12 months, but used by a large number of individuals during that time? Like accident repair courtesy cars for example? Common sense would say this is a rental vehicle, but the V5 would show the same finance company that provides long term contracts to individuals - would every seller then have to disclose who was driving the vehicle?

Or would you prefer to buy an ex-rental, or a transit van that had been previously owned by a family of travellers?

The reason I don't see this progressing much is that the industry is so variable with the usage of vehicles, and the definitions of usage. I genuinely think the ASA have misjudged the bigger picture on this one.

[TooMany2cvs]

S11Steve said:

What about cars that are own by a finance company, but leased to a business for 12 months, but used by a large number of individuals during that time? Like accident repair courtesy cars for example? Common sense would say this is a rental vehicle, but the V5 would show the same finance company that provides long term contracts to individuals - would every seller then have to disclose who was driving the vehicle?

Or XYZ PLC lease two cars. One is allocated to a manager, the other is a pool car.

Who bar the co.car admin for that company would even begin to know that?

[S11Steve]

TooMany2cvs said:

Or XYZ PLC lease two cars. One is allocated to a manager, the other is a pool car.

Who bar the co.car admin for that company would even begin to know that?

Another scenario is that two cars are supplied on lease to a company. One is used by a head office manager, does 3 miles each way to and from work. The other is supplied to a field sales rep, does 2000 miles a month on motorways.

And where does it stop?

This car used to be in the centre of a city, it must have loads of dings and wheel repairs?
This car used to be by the coast, it's going to get rusty earlier than one from the city?

Is a car owned by a Mr Smith going to be worth more or less than car owned by Mr Patel? Because I'm pretty sure there are enough people out there that wouldn't choose the latter.

Perhaps even look at my own cars - some of them have been registered to a rental company, but I've been the only driver from when it rolled off a transporter to when it was picked up by another transporter to go to auction.

I've also seen ERAC and other rental fleets purchase vehicles and park them up for 6 months simply to hit the manufacturer volume rebate levels. So it's ex-rental, 6 months old, but delivery miles. How does that fit into the plan?

Trying to identify previous users is virtually unworkable, and even the previous keeper names is no guidance.. It all boils down to each individual vehicle, the mileage and whether it is in good condition - which is exactly what CAP and Glasses do at the moment.

Edited by S11Steve on Thursday 11th January 18:57

[The Mad Monk]

Immortalisation said:

Why are you being like this? People like you are the reason I stopped posting on PH for the past 3 and a half years. This post in itself is 3 and a half years old, I didn’t bring it back up. What do you want me to say?

Don't worry about it.

Don't read it.

Don't reply to it.

Remove it from 'My Stuff'.

Remove it from 'Bookmarked'.

Don't worry about it.

Ignore it.

Did I mention don't worry about it?

[hutchst]

eccles said:

I think most 'normal ' people would not choose to buy an ex rental car if you had the choice of two otherwise identical cars.

How much you would have to lower the price by to get over the stigma of it being a rental car is the question at hand.

How many 9 month old low mileage privately owned cars do you think there are out there on the main dealer forecourts hiding among the dozens of ex-fleet vehicles?

In the real world your choice will be between half a dozen similar ex-rentals with similar age and mileage, and you'll choose on the basis of colour and whether you really want an electric sunroof or not.

Then you'll come back on here in a couple of years to find out where to go to collect your compensation based on something you read in the Daily Mail.

[valiant]

S11Steve said:

Immortalisation said:

In my case I’m well past the point of trying to claim any compensation, but let’s say a case does go to court and is successful in the future, what’s to say that any theoretical compensation wouldn’t be worked out based on the value of the car against a privately owned car, but purely based on the fact that the car was missold, or not clearly labelled or identified as an ex-rental so to speak?

The entire second hand industry runs of CAP or Glasses valuations, neither of which distinguish between the number of previous owners, or the type of previous owners, only mileage and condition matter.

Just to give a real world example to underline what the trade (S11Steve) has said,

When I traded in my ex-rental Focus, I was completely upfront on its original owner and the salesman couldn't have cared less. He gave me Cap Clean on it and was more interested in its service history (with Hertz plastered all over it)rather than its origins. Thought they'd just punt it off to auction because of this but a week later it was advertised on their website (with a tasty markup and was sold a week or two later).

I lost no money on it over a privately owned car.

[Red Devil]

S11Steve said:

Rigsbyscat said:

I think the latest ruling by the ASA will may assist in settling this argument as to whether it breaches 2008 Consumer Protection Regs gentlemen. I think you’ll find it does

https://www.whatcar.com/news/car-miss-selling-scan...

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...

Regards

Rigsbyscat

It settles nothing at the moment - it's simply advice, and a lot of the text is vague in that it says people "could" get compo, "may" be entitled etc.

The actual ruling relates to a vehicle that was used by Fiat Chrysler Auto themselves though, and whether it had multiple users or not, and whether this has any bearing on the consumer being able to make an informed decision.

The full text of the ruling is here - https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/glyn-hopkin-ltd-and...

The arguble point that still needs to be tested in court though, is whether a multiple user fleet car is any worse, or even better, than a one user privately owned vehicle.
As discussed on another thread ( https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... ), there is a lot of conjecture around the subject. A business has a duty of care to it's employees and customers, therefore the vehicle should be well serviced, safe and compliant at al times.
Also, what distinguishes a fleet vehicle? My company supplies thousands of vehicles into fleets each year. As far as we are concerned, the vehicle is allocated to one customer, however if that customer lets one person drive that vehicle, or one hundred different people is not known to us.

Similarly, a PCH or PCP vehicle is still technically a rental, but is typically only driven by one person.

But a true "rental" vehicle that you could get at the airport will be checked each and every time the vehicle is hired out - tyres, fluids, service history etc, again it is a duty of care to the customer. Does every private vehicle get checked as often?

Until some cases get in front of a judge this is still all up in the air, but I can imagine that the fleet industry will have rather deep pockets to fund legal bills.

Edited by S11Steve on Thursday 11th January 16:35

Two different issues in play here.

The ASA ruling clearly concludes that the ads were a misleading omission: ergo a breach of CPUTR 2008 Section 6 which in turn is defined as an offence under Section 10.
It would be up to whichever enforcement authority is responsible to decide whether to bring a prosecution.

Compensation for any potentially affected individual is an entirely separate matter and would fall to be determined by a civil not criminal hearing.
The legal wagon train is already forming s circle - https://usedcarscandal.co.uk/

Ex-fleet per se is of very limited usefulness. There is a world of difference between a car driven by a company's PR manager and an ex-hire car driven by God knows who.
I already know what ERAC stands for but a shell company allegedly being used as a front is something else - https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-im...
.