Unwittingly bought an ex-rental car and the law on this?
Discussion
I currently drive an ex-ERAC car. I knew it was one when I bought it, the dealer (Evans Halshaw) was completely up front about it.
It's been a fabulous car, and was serviced properly and was very well looked after.
Don't know if it was an actual hire vehicle or just belonged to the company - it's white, which their corporate vehicles are.
Anyhow, I did my research at the time, I even spoke to the ERAC branch that had owned it, they were very forthcoming.
You should have been told about its history, but generally being an ex-ERAC car doesn't in itself mean it's a bad car.
It's been a fabulous car, and was serviced properly and was very well looked after.
Don't know if it was an actual hire vehicle or just belonged to the company - it's white, which their corporate vehicles are.
Anyhow, I did my research at the time, I even spoke to the ERAC branch that had owned it, they were very forthcoming.
You should have been told about its history, but generally being an ex-ERAC car doesn't in itself mean it's a bad car.
Edited by zarjaz1991 on Wednesday 8th October 00:41
baccalad said:
Really I'm quite disappointed in the responses I've had. You're all so quick to defend the car dealer yet it's the customer is the one who's being taken advantage of. There's a reason these laws are in place, to protect the individual, but it seems there isn't even the manpower to enforce these laws.
What I'm seeing is the typical British attitude where people will sit back and keep their mouths shut even though they aren't happy with the way something is. Just because the gearbox was replaced for me so what, what's to say that it wasn't partly a result of the car's ex-hire history. Why shouldn't I speak up and say something about it? As long as people will sit back and do nothing then dealers will and can carry on getting away with stunts like this.
Also, why wouldn't the dealer bring to my attention such an important and crucial part of the car's history? It seems like an absolute no brainer to me. And as some people have argued, if the fact that it is an ex-hire car could possibly even work in the car's favour in terms of the way it's been looked after, why doesn't the dealer say so and put their point across to me and maybe I still would've bought it and I'd have respected them more for it. And hey who knows, maybe I'd have gone back to them again for my next car.
I am disappointed with your responses. End of the day the dealer perhaps should have told you, but the salesman probably doesnt even realise what it is. Also its there on the logbook black and white and you didn't check before purchase, so you don't have a leg to stand on. Let it go and enjoy the car. The ex rental past bares no relevance to the price you paid so you have not lost out financially.What I'm seeing is the typical British attitude where people will sit back and keep their mouths shut even though they aren't happy with the way something is. Just because the gearbox was replaced for me so what, what's to say that it wasn't partly a result of the car's ex-hire history. Why shouldn't I speak up and say something about it? As long as people will sit back and do nothing then dealers will and can carry on getting away with stunts like this.
Also, why wouldn't the dealer bring to my attention such an important and crucial part of the car's history? It seems like an absolute no brainer to me. And as some people have argued, if the fact that it is an ex-hire car could possibly even work in the car's favour in terms of the way it's been looked after, why doesn't the dealer say so and put their point across to me and maybe I still would've bought it and I'd have respected them more for it. And hey who knows, maybe I'd have gone back to them again for my next car.
baccalad said:
Really I'm quite disappointed in the responses I've had. You're all so quick to defend the car dealer yet it's the customer is the one who's being taken advantage of. There's a reason these laws are in place, to protect the individual, but it seems there isn't even the manpower to enforce these laws.
You are absolutely correct the law is there to protect the lowest common denominator.Go for it, reject the car and get all your money back.
ging84 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Can you please point to the passage in the guidance you are referring to? I think that you may be mistakenly referring to a magazine article, which isn't even guidance, let alone the law.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402...
Page 8 examples of misleading omissions
Failing to disclose that a vehicle for sale is
an ex-business use vehicle which may have
had multiple users, for example a vehicle
that has previously been used for rental, as
a taxi or by a driving school – in such
circumstances it is not sufficient to only
inform the consumer of the mileage and
the number of previous owners.
ging84 said:
pork911 said:
Putting aside the world of wrong in your 'case' generally and you having overlooked the scope of the above guidance (see 1.5) you don't even know the car has had multiple users.
Its a quote from the guidance and it was what BV asked for so im not sure why its a world of wrong. If you go back and read my post I have covered both of your points Also, who are you, the OPs alternate user name?
baccalad said:
Really I'm quite disappointed in the responses I've had. You're all so quick to defend the car dealer yet it's the customer is the one who's being taken advantage of. There's a reason these laws are in place, to protect the individual, but it seems there isn't even the manpower to enforce these laws.
What I'm seeing is the typical British attitude where people will sit back and keep their mouths shut even though they aren't happy with the way something is. Just because the gearbox was replaced for me so what, what's to say that it wasn't partly a result of the car's ex-hire history. Why shouldn't I speak up and say something about it? As long as people will sit back and do nothing then dealers will and can carry on getting away with stunts like this.
Also, why wouldn't the dealer bring to my attention such an important and crucial part of the car's history? It seems like an absolute no brainer to me. And as some people have argued, if the fact that it is an ex-hire car could possibly even work in the car's favour in terms of the way it's been looked after, why doesn't the dealer say so and put their point across to me and maybe I still would've bought it and I'd have respected them more for it. And hey who knows, maybe I'd have gone back to them again for my next car.
ahh the old scales of disappointment, you are on to a winner;)What I'm seeing is the typical British attitude where people will sit back and keep their mouths shut even though they aren't happy with the way something is. Just because the gearbox was replaced for me so what, what's to say that it wasn't partly a result of the car's ex-hire history. Why shouldn't I speak up and say something about it? As long as people will sit back and do nothing then dealers will and can carry on getting away with stunts like this.
Also, why wouldn't the dealer bring to my attention such an important and crucial part of the car's history? It seems like an absolute no brainer to me. And as some people have argued, if the fact that it is an ex-hire car could possibly even work in the car's favour in terms of the way it's been looked after, why doesn't the dealer say so and put their point across to me and maybe I still would've bought it and I'd have respected them more for it. And hey who knows, maybe I'd have gone back to them again for my next car.
you've seen your bum as you are sniffy, think it was an abused hire car, that the dealer should have told you and that it somehow makes a difference now some months later etc etc
is there anything wrong with the car (other than it may not be quite the near virgin you thought it was) and what cash difference would it have made if any (i know you will say you wouldn't have bought it but nobody cares princess)
so, given you aren't a brainless buyer with delicate feelings to protect, why exactly has it taken you this long to realise who the previous owner was and do you have a vine of your face when the penny dropped?
I've worked in vehicle rental since 1997, and seen many thousands of vehicles come and go from the fleets that I've operated.
On daily rental, the car is valeted, washed, tyres and fluids checked and inspected numerous times per week. Rental companies have a legal liability to ensure the vehicle is mechanically compliant and safe for the driver, all recalls are actioned, all service schedules are adhered to.
How many privately owned vehicles can this be said for?
On the longer term side of rental, where we supply a car to company where it is allocated to one driver, how is this materially any different to buying a car of the general public? A car where the driver pays for nothing except damage, even screenwash and air in the tyres is supplied FOC.
Granted some rental cars are abused, but the rental industry has a duty of care to ensure that all defleeted vehicles are complaint and safe. The last thing any one of us want is a hugely expensive and publicaly embarassing legal case due to our negligence.
On daily rental, the car is valeted, washed, tyres and fluids checked and inspected numerous times per week. Rental companies have a legal liability to ensure the vehicle is mechanically compliant and safe for the driver, all recalls are actioned, all service schedules are adhered to.
How many privately owned vehicles can this be said for?
On the longer term side of rental, where we supply a car to company where it is allocated to one driver, how is this materially any different to buying a car of the general public? A car where the driver pays for nothing except damage, even screenwash and air in the tyres is supplied FOC.
Granted some rental cars are abused, but the rental industry has a duty of care to ensure that all defleeted vehicles are complaint and safe. The last thing any one of us want is a hugely expensive and publicaly embarassing legal case due to our negligence.
S11Steve said:
I've worked in vehicle rental since 1997, and seen many thousands of vehicles come and go from the fleets that I've operated.
On daily rental, the car is valeted, washed, tyres and fluids checked and inspected numerous times per week. Rental companies have a legal liability to ensure the vehicle is mechanically compliant and safe for the driver, all recalls are actioned, all service schedules are adhered to.
How many privately owned vehicles can this be said for?
On the longer term side of rental, where we supply a car to company where it is allocated to one driver, how is this materially any different to buying a car of the general public? A car where the driver pays for nothing except damage, even screenwash and air in the tyres is supplied FOC.
Granted some rental cars are abused, but the rental industry has a duty of care to ensure that all defleeted vehicles are complaint and safe. The last thing any one of us want is a hugely expensive and publicaly embarassing legal case due to our negligence.
My OH was supplied with a rental car recently while her's was in the dealers with a fault. Turns out the hire car was supplied with a hole in the gearbox and no oil On daily rental, the car is valeted, washed, tyres and fluids checked and inspected numerous times per week. Rental companies have a legal liability to ensure the vehicle is mechanically compliant and safe for the driver, all recalls are actioned, all service schedules are adhered to.
How many privately owned vehicles can this be said for?
On the longer term side of rental, where we supply a car to company where it is allocated to one driver, how is this materially any different to buying a car of the general public? A car where the driver pays for nothing except damage, even screenwash and air in the tyres is supplied FOC.
Granted some rental cars are abused, but the rental industry has a duty of care to ensure that all defleeted vehicles are complaint and safe. The last thing any one of us want is a hugely expensive and publicaly embarassing legal case due to our negligence.
It seized solid at 60MPH on a main road and skidded to a halt with the rear end still in the live lane.hora said:
baccalad said:
Megaflow said:
You didn't say you had an invoice in the original post, you said you had a piece of paper saying the oil and been changed at 38,000 miles. That is not a service history.
Had you said you had an invoice saying the oil had been changed, then that is a partial service history, for what it's worth coming from Kwik Fit...
So is it a partial service history or no history or.......?Had you said you had an invoice saying the oil had been changed, then that is a partial service history, for what it's worth coming from Kwik Fit...
If its just got one receipt in 38,000 why did you go ahead and buy the car anyway? Surely rather than them concealing anything you literally didn't ask the questions or when presented with its history you chose to ignore it?
Please clarify.
Conclusion.
1. Always read the paperwork before you buy a car (duh)
2. You have no comeback. At least two barristers on this thread have now told you so.
The End.
Edited by Soov535 on Wednesday 8th October 13:29
To the OP, I hope the following will be constructive. Can you contact ERAC and establish from them the history and use of the vehicle? It may be it was an ex-rental vehicle or it may have been an ex-lease vehicle or company car. Neither yourself nor the dealer will be in a position to judge that for yourselves.
Even then though, the next question will be that if the car was ex-rental did this result in you suffering a loss? If the vehicle's value would have been the same if you had known this, there will be no basis for damages in a claim. It is not apparent that the previous use of the vehicle resulted in the failure of the gearbox and indeed it was repaired under warranty so there would be no loss.
Regarding any misrepresentation, you would need to show that the dealer knowingly, or ought to have known, failed to disclose the fact that it was an ex-rental vehicle. Omissions are dealt with differently between private sellers and commercial sellers and it is possible that an omission may mean you have a claim under the Sale of Goods Act but the time and mileage that has passed since the purchase will be relevant to any claim and again what would be the remedy?
Beyond the unsettling feeling that you may not have bought the car if you had known the history is as you believe, are you unhappy with the car itself?
Even then though, the next question will be that if the car was ex-rental did this result in you suffering a loss? If the vehicle's value would have been the same if you had known this, there will be no basis for damages in a claim. It is not apparent that the previous use of the vehicle resulted in the failure of the gearbox and indeed it was repaired under warranty so there would be no loss.
Regarding any misrepresentation, you would need to show that the dealer knowingly, or ought to have known, failed to disclose the fact that it was an ex-rental vehicle. Omissions are dealt with differently between private sellers and commercial sellers and it is possible that an omission may mean you have a claim under the Sale of Goods Act but the time and mileage that has passed since the purchase will be relevant to any claim and again what would be the remedy?
Beyond the unsettling feeling that you may not have bought the car if you had known the history is as you believe, are you unhappy with the car itself?
Breadvan72 said:
It is not clear what the OP wants to happen. He cannot reject the car. At most he could try to persuade the seller to give a few quid back from the price.
OP cannot quantify a loses , OP didn't ask about previous keepers or look at the V5 so is relying on convincing that the seller should have disclosed it without it being asked
Breadvan72 said:
It is not clear what the OP wants to happen. He cannot reject the car. At most he could try to persuade the seller to give a few quid back from the price.
Can't see how he would have grounds for getting a refund of any money, or would expect the car to have been cheaper in the first place due to it being ex rental, an ex rental isn't worth any less than a privately owned car of the same age, spec and mileage.Seriously OP the only leg lifting going on here is ours!
You think you can return a car AFTER MONTHS OF USE simply because you perceive that because its been owned by a rental company that its somehow any worse than a privately owned car?
All that’s showing is clearly you’ve done something awful to a rental car yourself or you have a very odd way of looking at things. As has been said a rental car is checked on release to a punter and upon its return. Any damage is sorted asap and its serviced on time. Let’s not forget a broken rental car makes no money! When was the last time you checked the oil/water/tyres and had it valeted?
When you come to sell it the PO to yourself won’t matter, so what loss have you had by it being owned by a rental?
Also look at the flipside. There’s a chap in my street, starts his little Ford every day and before the keys settled back into position he’s off like a mad man revving to the redline every time. I’ve asked him and he just says that’s how he’s always driven, he also doesn’t check the oil between services and has been running with an almost flat tyre for weeks even though I’ve offered to top it up.
So who’s car do you want now, his 1 owner car or the ex-rental?
You think you can return a car AFTER MONTHS OF USE simply because you perceive that because its been owned by a rental company that its somehow any worse than a privately owned car?
All that’s showing is clearly you’ve done something awful to a rental car yourself or you have a very odd way of looking at things. As has been said a rental car is checked on release to a punter and upon its return. Any damage is sorted asap and its serviced on time. Let’s not forget a broken rental car makes no money! When was the last time you checked the oil/water/tyres and had it valeted?
When you come to sell it the PO to yourself won’t matter, so what loss have you had by it being owned by a rental?
Also look at the flipside. There’s a chap in my street, starts his little Ford every day and before the keys settled back into position he’s off like a mad man revving to the redline every time. I’ve asked him and he just says that’s how he’s always driven, he also doesn’t check the oil between services and has been running with an almost flat tyre for weeks even though I’ve offered to top it up.
So who’s car do you want now, his 1 owner car or the ex-rental?
Nope I like the car and I plan on keeping it for now at least. Look I'll take onboard what you've all said and I'm not going to attempt to take this any further regardless of whether if I would get anywhere or not. There is this unsettling feeling in the back of my mind that there's a possibility the car has been thrashed but granted there aren't any problems as of yet. But you all have to concede though that the dealer is just as much if not more in the wrong than me, they should know better, and POSSIBLY, although there's no way of knowing, took advantage of my inexperience in that I didn't make many checks and ask a lot of questions. I only wish I'd noticed sooner, but I'm glad that I have learned from the experience and that I'll know now know better in the future when it next comes to me buying a car.
I bought a ex-rental car from a main dealer and had it for 3 years with no problems except for a few niggly faults that were common to the model of car.
Service history was an A4 letter from Hertz stating when and at what mileage the services were carried out. No stamped booklet, just a letter.
When I traded it in, the dealer checked the history, obviously noted it was an ex-rental and still gave me CAP clean for it. In other words, I got what any other punter would have got - there was no loss of value and I was no worse off for buying an ex Hertz car.
Op, It's clear you dropped a clanger in failing to do due diligence when buying the car but you are in a no worse position for having done so. Chalk it up to experience and enjoy the car. (in as much as you can enjoy an Astra!
)
Service history was an A4 letter from Hertz stating when and at what mileage the services were carried out. No stamped booklet, just a letter.
When I traded it in, the dealer checked the history, obviously noted it was an ex-rental and still gave me CAP clean for it. In other words, I got what any other punter would have got - there was no loss of value and I was no worse off for buying an ex Hertz car.
Op, It's clear you dropped a clanger in failing to do due diligence when buying the car but you are in a no worse position for having done so. Chalk it up to experience and enjoy the car. (in as much as you can enjoy an Astra!
)Am I alone in not understanding what the op is upset about. He has bought a car which he admits he likes driving. It is reliable, except for the 'box which was changed after he had done c.22k miles in it himself at no cost to him.
What does it matter what it was used for prior to him buying it. It could have been a single owner/user driving it and abusing the gearbox, revving it from cold, abusing the clutch or auto box, driving over unmade roads at speed, but presumably he wouldn't have minded as it would have been one owner/driver.
Most people hiring cars drive them no differently from their own cars and hire cars are usually sold off after a very short period and at low mileage.
What does it matter what it was used for prior to him buying it. It could have been a single owner/user driving it and abusing the gearbox, revving it from cold, abusing the clutch or auto box, driving over unmade roads at speed, but presumably he wouldn't have minded as it would have been one owner/driver.
Most people hiring cars drive them no differently from their own cars and hire cars are usually sold off after a very short period and at low mileage.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff