Garage refusing sale without purchase of additional warranty

DVardysShadow

wuckfit wrote: »

bingo bango has pointed out where the legalities come into it. It's perfectly simple. If goods or a service are advertised at a price, then no surcharges which apply to all purchasers can be levied. Since the dealer is refusing to sell the car without this surcharge, they are in breach of the law. Whether they're "sick of amatuar lawyers and SOGA claims" has no relevence. it's pure conjecture on your part, and is not based in fact. the fact is that this practice of compulsory add-ons is illegal

For example: Ryanair levy card surcharges on all but one type of payment (a rarely used payment at that) in order to circumvent this law. completely outside the spirit of the law, and only just within the letter of the law.

Exactly. Put another way, the only way they can do this legally is to offer the vehicle at a price inclusive of the warranty. Presumably, this will make it look expensive.

Esqui

wuckfit wrote: »

bingo bango has pointed out where the legalities come into it. It's perfectly simple. If goods or a service are advertised at a price, then no surcharges which apply to all purchasers can be levied. Since the dealer is refusing to sell the car without this surcharge, they are in breach of the law. Whether they're "sick of amatuar lawyers and SOGA claims" has no relevence. it's pure conjecture on your part, and is not based in fact. the fact is that this practice of compulsory add-ons is illegal

If that is the case, how do phone retailers get away with selling phones only with £xx airtime? Or delivery charges?

williham

Esqui wrote: »

If that is the case, how do phone retailers get away with selling phones only with £xx airtime? Or delivery charges?

I'm guessing you can say "this phone is £69.99 when bought with £10 airtime" but you can't say "this phone is £69.99" then try and charge £79.99 at checkout.

Anihilator

williham wrote: »

I'm guessing you can say "this phone is £69.99 when bought with £10 airtime" but you can't say "this phone is £69.99" then try and charge £79.99 at checkout.

How is this any different to the example in the OP

The reason with Ryanair is the charge relates to the actual service hence the service is never £37.99 as there is an unavoidable £5 charge

In this case there is a seperate service (i.e Warranty) hence it is acceptable. It isnt mispricing but a term of purchase.

As is the £29.99 Mobile with £10 top up.

I still contest there is nothing illegal about this or that will interest TS.

vikingaero

Surely retailers of any product can generally impose any terms and conditions they want within the law? If they said the price is £10k but you have to hop up and down on the spot and wear this green hat, then you either comply or walk. I suspect this garage is fed up with people returning cars with faults.

wuckfit

Esqui wrote: »

If that is the case, how do phone retailers get away with selling phones only with £xx airtime? Or delivery charges?

because a phone won't work without registering it to a network and airtime is required to use the product. Delivery charges don't apply if you purchase and collect the goods instore, only if you have them delivered do you have to pay a delivery charge.

It's perfectly feasible to use a car without a warranty, however. It's not required to make the car work.

bingo_bango

vikingaero wrote: »

Surely retailers of any product can generally impose any terms and conditions they want within the law? If they said the price is £10k but you have to hop up and down on the spot and wear this green hat, then you either comply or walk. I suspect this garage is fed up with people returning cars with faults.

Of course they can. That's how competition between traders keeps prices at a mananagable level for consumers.

The issue here is that the advertised price is £11K. When you go to buy the car, they want another £399. So the price of the car is now £11.4K The car isn't available at the advertised price of £11K

That is where they AREN'T within the law.

bingo_bango

Anihilator wrote: »

I still contest there is nothing illegal about this or that will interest TS.

I know I really shouldn't rise to you, but I refer you to the answer I have given above in post 18.

Anihilator

bingo_bango wrote: »

I know I really shouldn't rise to you, but I refer you to the answer I have given above in post 18.

So what are your thoughts on mobile phone retailers who advertise phones at £19.99 that you cant buy without a £10.00 top up i.e £29.99 minimum.

I would contest the car is £11,000 and that the dealer can impose any terms they so wish and if this is a £400 warranty also being purchased then they can so do. If it was an unavoidable charge i.e delivery whether you collected or not then I would see your argument.

For me the dealer isnt misadvertising the car. They are simply adding a term to the contract which is perfectly acceptable in law.

wuckfit

Anihilator wrote: »

So what are your thoughts on mobile phone retailers who advertise phones at £19.99 that you cant buy without a £10.00 top up i.e £29.99 minimum.

I would contest the car is £11,000 and that the dealer can impose any terms they so wish and if this is a £400 warranty also being purchased then they can so do. If it was an unavoidable charge i.e delivery whether you collected or not then I would see your argument.

For me the dealer isnt misadvertising the car. They are simply adding a term to the contract which is perfectly acceptable in law.

quite simply that they also advertise a higher, separate unlocked 'handset only' price elsewhere. The price quoted is usually for a handset locked to a network, which requres airtime credit to enable the purchaser to register it to the network.

the dealer IS misadvertising the car.