Facebook marketplace Lexus RX400h SE-L, what could go wrong?
Discussion
LincolnLovin said:
Yup that’s the line that they’ve taken. Regardless of the fact that they were the medium for that fraud.
The bank is investigating, 35 days for a decision. I was supposed to get a call from the brand manager 2 weeks ago. Radio silence.
If it's a big dealer/franchise then I would now be logging a complaint - they are taking the P big time.The bank is investigating, 35 days for a decision. I was supposed to get a call from the brand manager 2 weeks ago. Radio silence.
RE: The bank, give them time to work it through - but take the time to contact them for updates at least once a week in that period, and let them know the dealership are not helping you.
LincolnLovin said:
So interim update, finally after two weeks the dealer called me back. In the short term they’ve agreed to transport the lead back and refund my deposit.
We’re keeping the conversation going regarding the situation and we’ll see where things go.
That's progress at least!We’re keeping the conversation going regarding the situation and we’ll see where things go.
Yup, the fact that I’ve not been full on aggro has helped. We’ll have to see where we go from here but I’ll be glad to have the Leaf back.
I was clear that the experience has been unacceptable (they agreed), and that we will need to reach an amicable arrangement of the bank does not come through.
I was clear that the experience has been unacceptable (they agreed), and that we will need to reach an amicable arrangement of the bank does not come through.
They should have cyber insurance too. Often as part of their public liability. It will specifically cover them for genuine hacks on their systems and any losses incurred.
They probably have a sizeable excess so are hoping the bank come through. Also, the burden of proof is on them to show they weren’t negligent and it was a proper cyber attack and not just one dumb salesman phishing away his details
They probably have a sizeable excess so are hoping the bank come through. Also, the burden of proof is on them to show they weren’t negligent and it was a proper cyber attack and not just one dumb salesman phishing away his details
eltax91 said:
They should have cyber insurance too. Often as part of their public liability.
Cyber Liability is a standalone product and take-up is low. It would cover exactly this situation - unless it has a Funds Transfer exclusion which is becoming more common - but my guess is the dealership doesn't have it. There is a thread in SP&L about a similar situation but with a house deposit. A very clever man-in-the-middle attack led to someone transferring a huge amount of cash directly to a fraudster instead of the solicitor it was intended for. I can't remember the outcome, but might contain some useful info if things don't go well with the bank etc.
The principle about the opt-in for insurance is quite an interesting one.
I now take the view, having read the above, that it is incumbent on a business commonly operating with funds transfer as a means of placing deposits, to have sufficient insurance in place to cover themselves. If not, they had better have robust systems to verify the back details for customers.
Remaining supine throughout this fraud and waiting for the issue to wash over them is a complete dereliction of their duty as the originator of the bacs request.
My starting point would be the directors of the business, to whom I would ask what has been done to minimise the risk of this having taken place; I would them be consulting a solicitor. If they actually haven't taken any steps to protect their customers, as it seems they may well not have done, I would be pursuing them for negligence and they should concede culpability.
I now take the view, having read the above, that it is incumbent on a business commonly operating with funds transfer as a means of placing deposits, to have sufficient insurance in place to cover themselves. If not, they had better have robust systems to verify the back details for customers.
Remaining supine throughout this fraud and waiting for the issue to wash over them is a complete dereliction of their duty as the originator of the bacs request.
My starting point would be the directors of the business, to whom I would ask what has been done to minimise the risk of this having taken place; I would them be consulting a solicitor. If they actually haven't taken any steps to protect their customers, as it seems they may well not have done, I would be pursuing them for negligence and they should concede culpability.
For other question, what made you decide to buy Mitsubishi phev? and not Lexus SUV hybrids? I would totally go for RX to be honest from their approved used selection... I see loads of Mitsubishi PHEV around,but they do look a bit bloated and big comparing to Lexus range, imho of course...
ooid said:
For other question, what made you decide to buy Mitsubishi phev? and not Lexus SUV hybrids? I would totally go for RX to be honest from their approved used selection... I see loads of Mitsubishi PHEV around,but they do look a bit bloated and big comparing to Lexus range, imho of course...
It seemed a good compromise of both our current cars - Nissan Leaf and the Lexus, so that we could toodle round town on battery and then have the petrol engine and storage space for longer road trips. I'd love a Takumi edition of a RX 450h but I don't want a traditional hybrid anymore, Lexus's implementation has not improved enough from our current version and they do not (nor seem to have in the pipeline) a PHEV variant.I am also mindful of the car market in 5 years time and drop in resale value of petrol and traditional hybrid motors.
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff