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

[baccalad]

Back in February I bought a 61 plate Vauxhall Astra from a Stoneacre dealership. I have now just realised that the previous owner was ERAC UK limited - Enterprise Rent a Car. If I had known I wouldn't have bought the car and definitely not at that price.

From what I have read online, selling the car to me, whilst failing to tell me that it was an ex-rental car was illegal. It seems that it is not the customer's responsibility to ask; the onus is on the dealer, and a dealer is obliged to disclose anything that might materially affect a car's value or the purchase decision of a potential buyer, be it faults, MOT comments and accidents, including previous use as a hire car. Omitting to do so because a buyer didn't ask is considered a failure of disclosure.

"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.

Do you think I have a case to receive some form of a refund, or to be compensated somewhat? Who should I contact? Citizen's Advice? Trading Standards? The dealer?

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-new...

[baccalad]

38,000 when I bought it.

[baccalad]

There are no service stamps in the book. All I have is a piece of paper saying that it had an "oil and filter" change at Kwik-Fit at 21,000 miles in June 2013. I did phone Kwik-Fit and they confirmed this. It was serviced at 38,000 miles by the dealership I bought it from just before I picked it up in February. And most recently I had it serviced last month at 60,000 miles by a garage. Any other history of the car before I bought it, if there is any, I have no knowledge of.

The gearbox has just been replaced by Vauxhall under warranty as it was well and truly knackered. There are no other apparent problems.

[baccalad]

davamer23 said:

So you've put 22k on it in 8months and you have a new gearbox which cost you nothing?

Yeah but the gearbox shouldn't have failed in the first place and on top of that I've had an absolute bloody nightmare with it trying to get Vauxhall to pull their fingers out of their arses. See my other thread.

[baccalad]

Megaflow said:

So, just to clarify, you bought a car that has no service history, you didn't look at the previous owner's details, you went 22000 miles before getting it service again, and your bothered it might have been a hire car?

Good one...

What are you talking about the car has 20,000 mile service intervals? Please explain to me, based on what I have written, how the car has no service history.

[baccalad]

paintman said:

Best re-read your own post.
Next time either check it all out properly or buy a brand new one.

Which post? The book has no stamps in it? If that's what you go by when checking the service history of a car then good luck. I have several invoices and if the service history wasn't at least somewhat "satisfactory" I'm pretty sure Vauxhall wouldn't have replaced the gearbox under warranty.

[baccalad]

I'm not looking for sympathy what I am looking for is for the law to be clarified on this. Service history, the fact that I've covered 22,000 miles in it since I bought it (was I not allowed to?), any faults that may or may not exist (there aren't any, other than the gearbox which has been sorted) are all irrelevant. It's been just over 7 months not years pleas give it a rest. I don't quite understand why you're all trying to get into some sort of argument with me over the service history. As for as I'm concerned the dealer has been quite happy to not tell me that it was an ex hire car, if they had nothing to hide why not? According to the law the ONUS IS ON THE DEALER. Trading Standards have said confirmed this. Please could I have some constructive advice.

Edited by baccalad on Tuesday 7th October 19:51

[baccalad]

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.......?

[baccalad]

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.

The key word here is "may". Ex-business vehicle which MAY have had multiple users. Come on it's Enterprise Rent a Car we're talking about here.

[baccalad]

And you guys wonder why there's no trust in the car industry.

[baccalad]

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.

[baccalad]

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.

[baccalad]

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.

[baccalad]

Cooperman said:

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.

I dunno if you missed my last post? But anywho I can see where you're coming from but then again I suppose there's no way of knowing how a car's been driven/looked after. The best thing to do I suppose is just to take it with a pinch of salt and assume that any used car has been "used and abused" to at least some extent.

[Immortalisation]

Haha yeah I’ve been having sleepless nights for the past 3 and a half years over it!

It is interesting though that this has resurfaced after all this time, (I do still have the car btw), even if the individual salesman didn’t know it was ex-rental, at some higher level the company knew what it was doing and has/had been getting away with it for years up until now it seems.

Even now looking back on it, I am still slightly annoyed about it as I don’t feel the car would’ve worth as much as I paid for it with it being an ex-rental. If I had known I wouldn’t have bought it and in the future I’m going to make sure before buying.

[Immortalisation]

HTP99 said:

Immortalisation said:

Haha yeah I’ve been having sleepless nights for the past 3 and a half years over it!

It is interesting though that this has resurfaced after all this time, (I do still have the car btw), even if the individual salesman didn’t know it was ex-rental, at some higher level the company knew what it was doing and has/had been getting away with it for years up until now it seems.

Even now looking back on it, I am still slightly annoyed about it as I don’t feel the car would’ve worth as much as I paid for it with it being an ex-rental. If I had known I wouldn’t have bought it and in the future I’m going to make sure before buying.

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

I’m gonna honest, you probably know a lot more than me in terms of current actual market prices of ex-rental vs. privately owned, it’s more just down to my personal opinion and preferences.

There’s a lot that goes into it and I know there are some advantages to buying ex-rental but I still feel that generally a person who is more financially invested in a car they own is going to look after it better as opposed to a random guy renting a car for a day for £30.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.