Unwittingly bought an ex-rental car and the law on this?
Discussion
Mezzanine said:
Eleven said:
jamoor said:
I've rented cars from ERAC IIRC, it had a sticker on it saying not to let the car exceed 12k?
It means don't exceed 12k revs.
Have another.
Anyway OP .....
1. Did you ask if was an ex rental? Were you told it wasn't? If not then you have ZERO comeback.
2. Next time read the paperwork before you buy.
I don't see why you are worried about this it makes no difference to the used value of the car or the condition.
Its only your perceived value - which frankly is absurd, where do you think most run of the mill cars start their life in the UK? Things like Golfs, Astras, Focus, Vectra, Fiat 500 the chances are it started off as a hire car usually to 12,000 miles but as said above could be upto 36,000 miles.
Its only your perceived value - which frankly is absurd, where do you think most run of the mill cars start their life in the UK? Things like Golfs, Astras, Focus, Vectra, Fiat 500 the chances are it started off as a hire car usually to 12,000 miles but as said above could be upto 36,000 miles.
I think the general negativity towards ex-hire cars is that they are likely to have have been abused. From my experience as a former ERAC employee, I feel that's fair comment. It's certainly not going to be every car, but a significant minority do get abused - new engines redlined from stone cold, scrapes and dings, deliberate and careless abuse. I saw it on a regular basis.
That said, you take the same risk with an ex-lease.
I bought an ex-rental Focus seven years ago at 21k and it's been fairly fault-free over that time and nearly 70k. Luck of the draw I guess, but I saved thousands on a 10 month old car, which would have more than covered any early part replacement resulting from unseen abuse.
That said, you take the same risk with an ex-lease.
I bought an ex-rental Focus seven years ago at 21k and it's been fairly fault-free over that time and nearly 70k. Luck of the draw I guess, but I saved thousands on a 10 month old car, which would have more than covered any early part replacement resulting from unseen abuse.
Eclassy said:
rb5er said:
Surely all Vauxhals are ex hire cars. People dont buy them new out of choice do they?
Of course people do. Missus is seriously considering the Adam. Just wants to see the C1 in the flesh first before committing.TooMany2cvs said:
Are you really suggesting that every used car trader is under a legal obligation of full disclosure for every previous MOT advisory, any collisions, every previous keeper...?
When buying a car from a dealer they usually dont know/wont say anyway. When I asked 'Has it ever been in an accident?' about my S3 they replied. 'Not that I know of'Well It had, pretty badly!
Hey ho, not much I could do about it when I found out a month later. Nowadays I just take a car on face value. Inspect it as much as you want/can and go from there. SH is usually made up anyway.
JulianHJ said:
I think the general negativity towards ex-hire cars is that they are likely to have have been abused. From my experience as a former ERAC employee, I feel that's fair comment. It's certainly not going to be every car, but a significant minority do get abused - new engines redlined from stone cold, scrapes and dings, deliberate and careless abuse. I saw it on a regular basis.
That said, you take the same risk with an ex-lease.
I bought an ex-rental Focus seven years ago at 21k and it's been fairly fault-free over that time and nearly 70k. Luck of the draw I guess, but I saved thousands on a 10 month old car, which would have more than covered any early part replacement resulting from unseen abuse.
You could say that about any used car.That said, you take the same risk with an ex-lease.
I bought an ex-rental Focus seven years ago at 21k and it's been fairly fault-free over that time and nearly 70k. Luck of the draw I guess, but I saved thousands on a 10 month old car, which would have more than covered any early part replacement resulting from unseen abuse.
I can't see how you've suffered any financial loss OP, being an ex-rental/fleet car doesn't affect the value of the car. Go to any main dealer forecourt and you'll find tons of the things all polished up and ready to sell, that and ex-courtesy/demonstrator cars is where a lot of the stock comes from.
Auto Express are just a tabloid rag, I wouldn't rely on anything they printed.
Auto Express are just a tabloid rag, I wouldn't rely on anything they printed.
Breadvan72 said:
BenWRXSEi said:
Don't see the issue to be honest. My parents bought ex-rentals for years, and aside from finding a condom in the boot of an Avensis none of them caused any issues. At least you know it's well run in 
Was the dead hooker still attached?
TooMany2cvs said:
Are you really suggesting that every used car trader is under a legal obligation of full disclosure for every previous MOT advisory, any collisions, every previous keeper...?
The question is more or less whether the car was misrepresented.As for ex rental/lease, the last four four-seaters I've bought have all been ex-lease cars. The first, a Rover 400 2-litre, didn't have a problem in over 50,000 despite having 70k on the clock when I bought it. I phoned the previous users and they said it had only been used to on runs to Scotland. It was immaculate.
I put 40K on two of the other ones in less than 3 years each without problems. The fourth, a Mondeo, had new front wishbones, new washer bottle, and a new front spring (suspicion being the car his a road hump at speed). I changed both front springs.
Ex-lease has been good for me. I can't see the value being affected. One lady owner is the car to be wary of.
SteBrown91 said:
Not being funny where do you think most of these up to 3 year old cars come from?
They are mostly ex hire cars.
The best ones are usually offered to be sold under manufacturer approval used the not so good ones are put on general auction.
Not sure how you can say it affects the value. A dealer you part ex to will just note it has 2 owners.
it's the cars under three years that are likely to be ex -spot hire or manufacturer / dealer pool cars. They are mostly ex hire cars.
The best ones are usually offered to be sold under manufacturer approval used the not so good ones are put on general auction.
Not sure how you can say it affects the value. A dealer you part ex to will just note it has 2 owners.
at 3 -5 years old it's ex PCP /Lease / motability / white fleet - although ex white fleet is very easy to spot the date of first registration is the date of disposal as the civvie VRNs much of the white fleet wear aren't tied to the vehicle just to white fleet - they all have a MoD UVRN - in the NN XX NN or XX NN XX format as well ( some swap between depending on use e.g. the 'Staff Cars' depending on the use at the time and some of the marked up stuff in the white fleet - pr/recruiting , Military emergency vehicles)
nick s said:
Absolutely baffled as to why anyone would buy a Vauxhall. Maybe it's just me...
just becasue the worshippers at the church of clarkson say so ? it baffles me why anyone would want one of the french makes given their electrics seem worse than the Italians or a underpowered wheezy ford with it;s controls thrown randomly at the dashbaord - at least with a Vauxhall/ Opel of the last 30+ years barrign the frontera mk1 , you instantly know where each primary and secondary control will be - that's consistant design language.
tty stick. baccalad said:
"Under Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008, it’s illegal to withhold any details that could affect a purchase decision about a car at the point of sale. Advertising a car as having one previous owner, which later transpires to be a rental company, is a prime example of this practice, according to Office of Fair Trading guidelines for the regulations." According to Trading Standards dealers can face prosecution for this.
If you didn't ask "who was the previous keeper?" or "was it a rental car?", and they have not chosen to declare it isn't withholding details.In regards to advertising with one previous owner, it would come down to was it actually advertised. If you simply asked "how many previous owners did it have?", technically, the answer is 1 - but they are not advertising it with 1, just not withholding the information you asked.
The fact that you bought it back in February and only bringing this up would make it a very hard case should you wish to pressure it anyway as it could be suggested it is only come to light now because you have caused a problem with the car and trying to find a loophole
Derek Smith said:
The question is more or less whether the car was misrepresented.
Not really. It goes way beyond that.Misrepresentation would be saying "No, it's definitely not been a hire car" - or, even, "Oh, yes, only one previous owner, and he was a vicar who polished it every time he even looked at it".
The question even goes beyond whether misrepresentation-by-omission is illegal, and on to whether the vendor has a legal requirement to make a putative buyer aware of anything they might deem relevant. Since merely claiming ignorance is unlikely to be a sufficient defence...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff