Car doesn't match advert

[thenobbler]

I'd appreciate some advice from the learned/qualified please.

I purchased a 2017 SL63 AMG a few days ago. Lovely car, exactly as billed by the dealer except that it does not have the Magic Sky Control (makes the roof opaque or transparent at the push of a button). The Autotrader advert (which I have screen shot) said: "Extra Features: Panoramic Vario Roof with Magic Sky Control". Given that was a major attraction of the car (yeah, call me shallow), and a £2k+ option as new, and a rarity, I'm pretty unhappy to have been sold a car lacking one of the major features I bought it for.

The dealer's response was interesting:

"In fairness to our advertising chap, Autotrader only have an 1 additional extras tick box for Panoramic roof, that description obviously assumes Magic Sky Control as per the wording, there is not a description without it.

In our free text he just wrote Panoramic Roof as per the Mercedes spec sheet, I have attached this for you for your records.

I am very sorry for the confusion with the wording."

This is not an apology for the misleading ad, but for 'confusion'. And a blatant invitation to suck up the consequences of the dealer's misleading ad. I am (somewhat) outraged to be treated in this manner wrt the purchase of a £55k car.

Given I have a 14 day right of return (distance selling regs), I'm comfortable that I can get my money back. However, I do have two questions:

- the dealer is a long way away (I'm in Suffolk, he's in Hampshire) - who's responsible for the car's return. I don't want to drive it and take responsibility for any damage, or incur the 14p a mile charge either;

- I paid £480 to get it delivered to me - am I entitled to a refund of that money?

I believe I can legally expect not to suffer any loss resulting from this misleading ad (and I'm very happy to take that to Small Claims if need be, if only for the sh*ts and giggles), just wondered what the expert opinion on the subject is.

Thanks!

Tony.

[warch]

Couldn't you have clarified with the seller (using a good old email) that the specification was as described, especially if it was an item that you were looking for specifically.

My sympathies are with the OP on this though, those specification tools on Autotrader are useless.

[thenobbler]

Didn't think I needed to clarify it, given it was stated so very clearly in the ad. Obviously given the time again I'd check (and I expect the dealer would be more careful with his ad) but that's a luxury neither of us has.

[Chrishum]

I’d speak to the person in charge at the dealership, explain that you’re planning to exercise your rights to cancel as the car isn’t as described and back this up with an email. See if they give you any other resolution than returning the car.

Sadly WRT returning the car if you’re unhappy with it that will be your responsibility.

[thenobbler]

Chrishum said:

Sadly WRT returning the car if you’re unhappy with it that will be your responsibility.

Is that a legal opinion from a perspective of knowledge (or are you the dealer :-) ?)

[Dashnine]

I think you might come in for some PH grief on this...

Is there an option to retro fit the roof, cost to be negotiable?
What would be the price difference of the car with / without the roof?
Did this car seem a bargain if say, cars with the roof were still £2K more?
Is it that much of a deal breaker when it does seem to be a genuine error on the part of the dealer, and more AutoTrader's fault?

[Bemmer]

What do the T&C's state? You should have been given a " right to cancel " document which usually states it's your responsibility to return the vehicle and a mileage charge etc, is there a disclaimer on there website? I'm sure Autotrader have disclaimers,I think you will find ultimately it will be your responsibility and cost to return the car.

[thenobbler]

Dashnine said:

I think you might come in for some PH grief on this...

I'm utterly untroubled by that. Indeed bring on the trolls.

Dashnine said:

Is there an option to retro fit the roof, cost to be negotiable?

Doubt it. I wouldn't be contributing a bean either. It's for the dealer to satisfy the terms of the ad.

Dashnine said:

What would be the price difference of the car with / without the roof?

No idea - they're as rare as rocking horse sh*t.

Dashnine said:

Did this car seem a bargain if say, cars with the roof were still £2K more?

No, it seemed right at the top end of the book price, as it happens, And due to the rarity, there's no direct comparison.

Dashnine said:

Is it that much of a deal breaker when it does seem to be a genuine error on the part of the dealer, and more AutoTrader's fault?

Of course it's a genuine error by the dealer. Mistakes happen. But his mistake isn't my problem. A simple 'does not include MSC' in the free text would have seen me on my way.

[thenobbler]

Bemmer said:

What do the T&C's state? You should have been given a " right to cancel " document which usually states it's your responsibility to return the vehicle and a mileage charge etc, is there a disclaimer on there website? I'm sure Autotrader have disclaimers,I think you will find ultimately it will be your responsibility and cost to return the car.

I doubt that the 'right to cancel' covers trading standards issues. Might be one for legal advice.

[InitialDave]

Dashnine said:

I think you might come in for some PH grief on this...

Why?

They made an error in their advert, he should be allowed to return the car for a full refund, as he would not have bought it if they described it correctly.

[Wagonwheel555]

In reality it’s not on the car and unless they can retrofit it, there is nothing they can do about it other then offer to refund you under the distance selling regulations.

I can’t see them giving you any money back as it was priced as being without that bit anyway and if it’s going to cost you money to return the car and you might also lose on the delivery cost, I’m not sure it’s worth it but that entirely your decision.

[davek_964]

Might be worth a search. There was a very similar thread a few weeks ago - think that was something like the stereo not having Apple car play or something - and the dealer had a similar excuse (Autotrader filled it in). Don't know what the outcome of that one was, but might help

[Smurfsarepeopletoo]

From your initial post, it seems that they didn't mis describe the vehicle, they described the vehicle correctly, and Autotrader then added an option that wasnt on the vehicle, so it sounds like the description contradicted the Autotrader list.

Not sure if that will make a difference if your looking to return the vehicle, as I would have thought this is something you should have queried if the advert contradicts itself.

This thread is similar to your own of wanting to know who would foot the cost of the return.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[thenobbler]

Smurfsarepeopletoo said:

From your initial post, it seems that they didn't mis describe the vehicle, they described the vehicle correctly, and Autotrader then added an option that wasnt on the vehicle, so it sounds like the description contradicted the Autotrader list.

Not sure if that will make a difference if your looking to return the vehicle, as I would have thought this is something you should have queried if the advert contradicts itself.

This thread is similar to your own of wanting to know who would foot the cost of the return.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

It's more complex than that, in that apparently AT only provide the option to enter 'Vario Roof with MSC'. It's not AT adding the option, it's the ad writer missing the functional issue (well it's probably better termed as a data issue I guess, I'm supposed to know that stuff given what I do) with the site and failing to highlight the issue to the buyer. A simple disclaimer in the free text would have alerted me to the lack. Thanks for the link.

[InitialDave]

Smurfsarepeopletoo said:

From your initial post, it seems that they didn't mis describe the vehicle, they described the vehicle correctly, and Autotrader then added an option that wasnt on the vehicle

The dealer should probably take that up with AT once they have given OP his money back.

[CRA1G]

The Dealer and Autotrader will be legally covered with disclaimers... with the millions of cars advertised there's bound to be mistakes made don't you think they'll cover themselves for this eventually? The OP is entitled to a refund for the purchase price ot the vehicle but the t&c's will determine what other costs the dealer will be liable for and I'm sure it won't be the costs of the vehicles return.

[thenobbler]

I'll discuss the terms of the contract when the dealer bothers to call me for my 'customer satisfaction call' today. If. And then I'll get some legal advice from the Which service. We shall see!

[ClaphamGT3]

Buying a used car unseen, this is the risk you take.

[J1990]

thenobbler said:

I'll discuss the terms of the contract when the dealer bothers to call me for my 'customer satisfaction call' today. If. And then I'll get some legal advice from the Which service. We shall see!

It's worth fishing out the T&C's you were hopefully sent, as of 2014 they should explicitly list who is liable for the return cost of goods - I believe before this point it was optional to include the details, with failure to do so simply landing the seller with the responsibility to fund returns.

As much as it may be a seemingly daft reason to return a car, you've spent £55k of your hard earned money on it and I imagine if there is no retro-fit option then you'll constantly be thinking 'I wish it had the MSC' and it'll take the shine off of your treat to yourself.

[OverSteery]

IANAL and you might get better advice in Speed, Plod & the Law, and most of the answers you seek have been asked and answered in there somewhere too.

I believe that delivery and return costs are not something you can recover under distance selling. You will not return the car in the condition purchased (mileage), so you may be liable for mileage charges.

The dealer has explained why the mistake happened, but it's clearly his issue. It was mis-described by his advert, which he contracted to place and should have checked to be accurate.

Possibly under contract law you can claim - that's well beyond my knowledge.

Edited by OverSteery on Friday 19th March 10:01