A bit of help needed, possible contract breach

benham3160

Kilty wrote: »

The former owners thing is definitely clear cut though - 4 is not 2. (:rotfl:)

Owners or keepers? Different things

Regards,
Andy

Kilty_2

benham3160 wrote: »

Owners or keepers? Different things

Regards,
Andy

Definitely not as far as advertising a car for sale goes.

Misleading advertising is also illegal, of course, if you want to be that pedantic about it.

A car with 2 former keepers is worth slightly more than one with 4 - and whether the keepers are owners or not, the advertising would be misleading.

benham3160

Kilty wrote: »

Definitely not as far as advertising a car for sale goes.

Misleading advertising is also illegal, of course, if you want to be that pedantic about it.

An "owner" can be a finance company, if I bought a car on HP from a dealer, it's perfectly likely the car was owned by a finance company, so that must mean that the majority of cars on the road are being sold unlawfully by your analysis.

That's why the V5 document says "Number of former keepers", owners are generally transparent. In theroy if a finance company merges or is bought out, this would then add another former owner.

Regards,
Andy

Kilty_2

Irrelevant - it reduces the value of the car and any advertising using "owners" to mislead a buyer about the number of "keepers" is illegal.

My current car has 2 former keepers - one of them being Arnold Clark Renault because the car was pre-registered. It was sold 5 days after registration to a private buyer with 5 miles on the clock.

If I sell that car as "one previous owner", it'd be misleading.

damsmi2002

I see where your coming from andy, I guess it's me being hopeful that it could swing in
my favour, but it does seem a grey area to advertise it as being hpi clear, when that check could include any number of things.
With regards to the owners, the advert does state two owners, so at least that swings in
my favour. My only doubt with pursuing this route would be that I had an opportunity to check this information on the v5 and failed to do so, so in effect is this then my fault for not picking up on this, or the sellers fault for not pointing it out?
I think I should also point out that the sellers business is a small operation, and I would assume would operate on good reviews etc. If it was me, I wouldn't want to run the risk of a disgruntled customer giving my business a bad name.

Kilty_2

I'd go in and calmly have a word with them about the situation and find out how they propose to resolve it.

benham3160

Kilty wrote: »

Irrelevant - it reduces the value of the car and any advertising using "owners" to mislead a buyer about the number of "keepers" is illegal.

My current car has 2 former keepers - one of them being Arnold Clark Renault because the car was pre-registered. It was sold 5 days after registration to a private buyer with 5 miles on the clock.

If I sell that car as "one previous owner", it'd be misleading.

Nobody had mentioned owners until you bought it up! :rotfl:

My point was, if the car is showing "4" instances of a change, it might not be as clear. I did point out this might not even be the case, but something to consider before going in "all guns blazing."

You bought up owners, I hadn't mentioned it at all...... This is another case of people misunderstanding quite critical automotive terms, applying their own meanings, then blaming others.

Car could be guilty as sin, I don't know from behind my computer, I'm just suggesting that it might not be that clear cut.

Regards,
Andy

benham3160

Kilty wrote: »

I'd go in and calmly have a word with them about the situation and find out how they propose to resolve it.

Definately the way forward, I totally agree.

However, you may find they have "the answers". My suggestion to the OP would be to take a copy of their own vehicle data check, and suggest there is a disparity.

They might argue there is nothing to resolve however.

Regards,
Andy

Kilty_2

I'll emphasise calmly again, having went into a dealer all guns blazing before. Got what I wanted but it took a lot longer than it should've :rotfl:

sarahg1969

benham3160 wrote: »

Catagory "D" is fairly inconsequential anyway, could be something as trival as a scuffed bumper.

Regards,
Andy

I've always assumed that, too, and deal with vehicles checks on a daily basis in my job. However, my husband's little car was involved in an argument with a lorry and two other cars a couple of weeks back. He was directly hit by the lorry at speed, and shunted into the two cars in front. The car was crumpled beyond belief. Nothing left of the rear and front ends, and concertinaed in between. I was surprised when I did a check on the car yesterday, to find it was listed only as a Cat D! I seriously hope no one thinks of putting it back on the road.